# Introduction here are various aspects of time that characterize human life. Every individual values time from a different perspective. Broadly, there may be two approaches of time-use a) Objective approach and b) subjective approach. Time is considered as a uniform commodity in the objective approach. Past studies have considered time in terms of amounts available, assessing "deficits" or pressures which result from having too little time (Arndt et al., 1981;Becker, 1965;Gronau, 1977;Hill, 1985). Objective time is characterized by concrete or measurable quantities of time which people actually have to work with, whereas Subjective time is based on people's perceptions of the amounts of time available, relative to the things they have to do . With this time-use perspective in background, individuals may be categorized into two types, polychronic and monochronic individuals. The perception of time for monochronic and polychronic people differs in context of their preference of time-use. Polychronicity may be defined as "a non-cognitive variable reflecting an individual's preference for shifting attention among ongoing tasks, rather than focusing on one task until completion and then switching to another task" (Poposki et. al., 2009). Task was defined as a discrete set of activities engaged in for the purposes of attaining a goal, and can be considered and measured from relatively subjective and/or objective points of view (Poposki et. al., 2009). On the other hand Monochronic individuals are those who prefer to handle each task at a time rather than multitasking. Although the role of polychronicity in work place has been empirically studied and established as a crucial factor for many organizations, the studies have been focused on different dimensions. Several researches have been conducted to find its relationship with cultural variations, work environment, cognitive capabilities or with other individual difference variables. As several researches provide views regarding the antecedents of polychronicity, there remains much ambiguity. Due to the fact that polychronicity was initially conceptualized as a cultural variable, existing literature for the role of culture as a predictor of polychronicity is elusive. A summary of these studies by König and Waller (2010) revealed contradictory results. No significant differences in polychronicty was found among Bulgarian, Chinese, Hungarian, Mexican, Polish, Ukranian and US small business owners (Carraher et al., 2004), French and US students (Conte et al., 1999), Anglo Americans and recent Latin American immigrants (Cotte & Ratneshwar, 1999), India, U.S., and Venezuelan managers and white collar workers in hospitals (Moustafa et al., 2005).On the other hand significant differences were found among Japanese students studying in the U.S. and U.S. students (Lindquist et al., 2001), Chinese and U.S. Americans (Zhang et al. 2003). The opposing findings in several studies may be due to the reason that the questionnaires used to measure polychronicity varied across cultures, although such measurement invariance in testing has been argued to be a prerequisite to testing mean differences between cultures (Vandenberg,2002;Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Different interpretation of task and time may also have resulted in variation among different cultures. Many a times, to reach to sufficient performance level and attain several goals, individuals may be required to multitask. Those successful individuals who tend to follow this activity may be likely to develop a preference for multitasking, thus increasing their levels of polychronicity. Researchers have stated two assumptions behind the role of work environment as predictor of polychronicity. First, the work environments differ in the required amount of multitasking, and the second is that being driven or required to work in multitasking way leads to developing a preference for multitasking (i.e. polychronicity). The first assumption can be supported by studies of interruptions as triggers of multitasking (Carlson, 1951;González & Mark, 2005;Kurke & Aldrich, 1983, Oshagbemi, 1995). The second assumption comes from cognitive dissonance theory by Festinger (1957), which predicts that people experience discomfort when they engage in behaviours that conflict with one's beliefs or preferences. This discomfort can be reduced by modifying the preferences. It means that an individual who is forced to multitask, who would not prefer to do so, may change one's preference by becoming more polychronic (Conte et al. 1999). Although, this view lies on the assumption that polychronicity can change, which all polychronicity researchers may not believe. As Slocombe and Bluedorn (1999) stated that "preferences for monochronic or polychronic behaviour seem more likely to be fundamental personality traits than ephemeral states." The study by Hecht and Allen (2005) empirically supports the view that environment plays an important role in influencing polychronicity. Significant correlation was found between polychronicity and "polychronicity supplies". The general mental ability of an individual might play a role in developing one's polychronic tendency, but researches have not yet found very significant relation between these two dimensions. König et al. (2005) argued that polychronic people might have a preference for working on several things at once because they have found themselves to be adept at multitasking. However, empirical evidence for this hypothesis is weak. Polychronic people may have a preference for multitasking because they find it relatively easy due to their high general mental abilities. Conte and Jacobs (2003) found a positive relationship between polychronicity and mental abilities among train operators, but they also report slightly lower correlations between polychronicity and mental abilities among student sample that was not significant. Several researchers have stated polychronicity to have significant relation with the Big Five personality traits. Konig and Waller (2010) summarized the studies and found that polychronicity seems to be unrelated to neuroticism, openness and agreeableness and the evidence regarding conscientiousness is inconclusive. But there is a weak but consistent positive relationship between extraversion and polychronicity across five different studies (Conte & Jacobs, 2003 1987). An important element of the ability to successfully multitask is the ability to remain calm and control anxiety that is produced by the need to switch tasks (Oswald et al., 2007). Because multitasking requires an individual to switch attention between tasks, often unexpectedly and in the presence of time pressures (Delbridge, 2000), it is expected that anxious individuals will perform less effectively in such an environment as consistent with previous research (Oswald et al., 2007). The existing literature reports weak negative correlations between neuroticism and polychronicity, although some not reaching the level of significance (Conte & Gintoft, 2005;Conte & Jacobs, 2003;Oswald et al., 2007;Poposki et al., 2009a) but one study reports positive correlations using multiple measures of polychronicity (Stachowski, 2011). If individuals high in neuroticism are not successful multitaskers, it is expected that they will prefer to work on only one task at a time. Polychronic individuals may find it difficult to work effectively in highly organized settings (Arndt et al., 2006). It is likely that individuals high in conscientiousness will prefer to work on one task at a time through to completion,according to their preferred schedule. The polychronic nature of work does not seem toalign with the methodical nature of conscientious workers. It is expected that individuals high in levels of conscientiousness prefer to complete one task at a time. Therefore, it is likely that conscientiousness individuals will not be polychronic (Sanderson, 2012). Agreeableness is a personality trait marked by flexibility, trusting, tolerance, and cooperativeness (Barrick & Mount, 1991).It is likely that flexibility will be associated with a willingness to shift attention between tasks when interrupted. Polychronicity is related to tolerance for ambiguity and unstructured work Volume XV Issue II Version I 44 ( ) environments (Haase, Lee & Banks, 1979). Furthermore, previous meta-analytic research has found agreeableness to be related to job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002), another attitudinal construct positively related to polychronicity (Arndt et al., 2006). Therefore it is likely that agreeableness is positively related to polychronicity. Openness to experience is characterized as artistic, intelligent, open minded,cultured, and exhibiting broad interests (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Most of the existing research reports weak non-significant positive relationships (e.g., Conte & Jacobs, 2003;Conte & Gintoft, 2005) between polychronicity and openness to experience. In 1999, Conte et al. argued that having a Type A behaviour pattern (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974) leads to Polychronicity. People who exhibit Type A behaviour pattern are characterized by traits such as impatience, aggressiveness, a sense of time urgency, and the desire to achieve recognition and advancement. Empirically, correlation between Type A behaviour pattern (and/or its sub-dimensions) and polychronicity have been identified (Conte et. al, 1999;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001). Polychronicity is likely to be related to both achievement striving and impatience or irritability which are classic Type A behaviour. Conte et al. (1999) stated that "achievement-oriented individuals may attempt to multi-task in order to accomplish more goals in the same time." Although there are several studies with contradicting results regarding personality and polychronicity, the relationship between temperament and polychronicity has not been much explored. According to Allport (1937,1961, cited in Strelau, 1998) temperament refers to the characteristic phenomena of individual's emotional nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulations, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all peculiarities of fluctuation and intensity in mood; these phenomena being regarded as dependent upon constitutional make-up, and therefore largely hereditary in origin. Newberry, Clark, Strelau, Angleitner, Hollinger-Jones & Eliasz (1997) stated that temperament is at least partly distinct from personality and that temperament variables appear to concern the "how" of behavior, whereas personality describes the "what" of behavior. It may be considered that personality is the result of temperament and the influence of experience. In this study, it is also intended to explore whether polychronicity has any link with temperament. As temperament includes formal behavioral traits only, manifested in all kinds of reactions and actions independent of content, it might be linked to an individual's approach towards time stimulus. One of the dimensions of temperament is Sensory Sensitivity, which is related to sensory thresholds. Eysenck (1967) used sensory sensitivity in his description of the extraversion-introversion dimension. Although Strelau and Zawadzki (1995), and Fruehstorfer (2005) found that introversionextraversion was not related to Sensory Sensitivity. Strelau (1993) suggested that sensory sensitivity is primarily noticed in reactions to tactile, olfactory and visual stimuli, although thresholds obtained in the laboratory are only weakly related to questionnaire measures of Sensory Sensitivity (Strelau & Zawadzki, 1995). Strelau and Zawadzki (1995) indicated that sensory has a relationship with openness-this may be representative of experience seeking. It is feasible that sensory sensitivity may be more characteristic of one's openness to experience-one who is keenly aware of self, surroundings and relationship among stimuli. Polychronic individuals are more likely to react to surrounding stimuli while continuing a task or shifting attention among ongoing tasks. Therefore, Polychronicity may have a significant relationship with temperament of an individual. Thus, as a biological predisposition of personality Sensory sensitivity has been included in the predictor battery of the study. The aim of this study is to study the relationship among Personality, Sensory sensitivity and Polychronicity in young adults and to explore the personality predictors of polychronicity. # II. # Research Design For this study a cross sectional, descriptive design was used. Objectives # ? To study the relationship among Personality, Sensory Sensitivity and Polychronicity in young adults ? To explore the personality predictors of Polychronicity among young adults III. # Method a) Participants The sample for the present study consisted of 902 young adults. The mean age of the participants was 21.3 years (SD=2.34), out of which 690 (76%) were male and 212 (24%) were female. The candidates belonged to different streams of education. # b) Measures The predictor battery included measures of personality, Sensory Sensitivity Scale and demographic details. Criterion included measure of Polychronicity. Personality: The 60 item HEXACO-Personality Inventory-Revised developed by Ashton & Lee (2009) was used to measure the six major dimensions of personality including Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement on a series of items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each of the six HEXACO scales had acceptable internal reliability (H: ?=.82; E ?=.75; X ?=.78; A ?=.78; C ?=.80; O ?=.66). Sensory Sensitivity: 23 items measuring sensory sensitivity was used to measure the ability to react to low-intensity physical stimuli. These items were taken from the Formal Characteristics of Behavior-Temperament Inventory (FCB-TI), adapted from the original Polish FCB-TI (Strelau & Zawadzki, 1995b;Strelau & Zawadzki, 1993;1995a).The scale was found to be internally consistent with Cronbach's alpha .72. Polychronicity: The 14-item Multitasking Preference Inventory (MPI) was developed by Poposki and Oswald (2010) to measure an individual's preference to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously. The scale was developed and validated on multiple samples, in which the scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with the Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates ranging from .88 to .91. Items were scored on a five point Likert scale with the response options ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). # c) Procedure All the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of three scales, namely the HEXACO-60, the Sensory Sensitivity Scale and the Multitasking Preference Inventory. The HEXACO-60 and the Temperament Inventory was used to find whether personality and sensory sensitivity of an individual predicts one's preference for multitasking. Data was collected from 902 participants in Mysore, Varanasi and Dehradun. Individuals were explained the nature of the measures and proper instructions were given before administering the tests. # IV. # Results Descriptive statistics for all the predictor variables and the criterion variable was calculated. Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between personality variables, temperament variable and polychronicity. The values in parentheses are coefficient alphas. An independent sample t-test was performed to determine if there were significant mean differences between the two genders. Results of the t-test are summarized in Table 2. and it shows that there were no significant difference in polychronicity among males and females, t (900) =.263, p>.05. There was significant difference among males and females on Honesty-Humility, t (900) =-4.39, p<.01, Emotionality, t (900) =-4.18, p<.01, Extraversion, t (900) =-2.58, p<.05, Agreeableness, t (900) =-1.55, p<.05, Conscientiousness, t (900) =-3.89, p<.05, Openness to Experience, t (900) =-2.82, p<.05 and Sensory Sensitivity, t (900) =-7.5, p<.05. Thus, there was no significant difference in Polychronicity among male and female participants. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine whether the six dimensions of personality and sensory sensitivity provided incremental validity above the contribution of demographic variables. Before entering the predictor variables into the model, multicollinearity of the predictor variables were checked from Table 1. Although all the predictor variables were inter-correlated, there were no perfect collinearity between the variables. Low levels of collinearity did not pose much threat to the model estimates. Gender and Age were entered in step 1 and the personality variables along with sensory sensitivity were entered in step 2. The predictor variable (Personality variable) that has the highest correlation with Criterion Variable (Polychronicity) is entered first into the regression analysis. With reference to the correlational coefficients from Table1, Sensory Sensitivity was entered first into the model, followed by Extraversion, Agreeableness, Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Openness to experience and Conscientiousness respectively. All the personality variables were entered into the model as all the variables were significantly correlated to polychronicity. The relative contributions of these variables were examined by inspecting their standardized regression coefficients (?). The significance of the change in variance accounted for in step 2 were examined for evidence of incremental validity of the personality and temperamental variable. Table 3 represents the results of hierarchical regression analysis. In step 1, the value of change in R² of control variables was -.002 (p>.05) which indicated that gender and age did not account for any variance in the criterion variable. The result showed that when personality variables were entered into the model in step 2, only three variables predicted polychronicity. These predictor variables were Sensory Sensitivity (?=.43, p<.01), Conscientiousness (?=-.16, P<.01) and Extraversion (?=.17, p<.01) and these variables accounted for 20% of the variance in polychronicity. Sensory Sensitivity accounted for 17% variance in polychronicity (Î?"R²=.17). The addition of Conscientiousness as predictor variable along with Sensory Sensitivity accounted for 19% of variance in polychronicity (Î?"R²=. 19). With addition of Extraversion along with Sensory Sensitivity and Conscientiousness, the predictor variables accounted for 20% of variance in Polychronicity (Î?"R²=.20). Thus, Sensory Sensitivity, Conscientiousness and Extraversion accounted for variance in polychronicity. V. # Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personality dimensions and polychronicity and to explore the personality predictors of polychronicity. Polychronicity was found to significantly correlate with all the six dimension of personality. As polychronicity is one's preference for time use, it is related to the personality dimensions. Research shows an inconsistent result regarding its relation to individual difference variables. Extraversion is marked by sociability, and extraverts tend to be active, talkative and friendly (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The activity level of extraverts are high and polychronic individuals tend to be distracted more easily by other tasks in the workplace (Sanderson, 2012). Individuals high in polychronicity tend to be more concerned with social interactions than schedules and deadlines (Arndt et al., 2006) ). In the present study, polychronicity is positively related to emotionality, although the correlation is very small. In 2011, Stachowski found positive correlation between polychronicity and neurotism using multiple measures of polychronicity. An individual high in emotional stability may prefer to complete one task and then switch to another. Individuals low on emotional stability may prefer to jump from one task to another. Thus, polychronicity and emotionality may have a positive, yet small correlation. Conscientiousness is characterized by reliability, striving for achievement, concern for detail and organization (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Polychronic individuals may find it difficult to work effectively in highly organized settings (Arndt et al., 2006). It is likely that individuals high in conscientiousness will prefer to work on one task at a time through to completion, according to their preferred schedule. The polychronic nature of work does not seem to align with the methodical nature of conscientious workers. It is expected that individuals high in levels of conscientiousness prefer to complete one task at a time. Therefore, it is likely that conscientiousness individuals will not be polychronic. Openness to experience is characterized as being creative, inquisitive, intelligent, and cultured (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Openness to experience also includes flexibility in approach towards tasks which links it to ploychronicity. Openness to Experience was significantly related to four measures of Polychronicity in a study by Sanderson (2012). Agreeableness is a personality trait marked by flexibility, trusting, tolerance, and cooperativeness (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In the present study, polychronicity was significantly related to agreeableness. It is likely that flexibility will be associated with a willingness to shift attention between tasks when interrupted (Stachowski, 2011). Polychronicity is related to tolerance for ambiguity and unstructured work environments (Haase, Lee & Banks, 1979). Another dimension used in this study is sensory sensitivity, which is the ability to react to sensory stimuli of low stimulative value. Sensory sensitivity may be more characteristic of one's openness to experience and extraversion, one who is keenly aware of self, surroundings and relationships among stimuli. Thus, it is likely that sensory sensitivity will be related to polychronicity as polychronic individuals are likely to react to low stimulus values in the environment. Extraversion and conscientiousness were significant unique predictors of polychronicity in a study by Sanderson (2012). Although there is not much evidence of the relationship between sensory sensitivity and polychronicity to support the findings of this study, it leads to a new concept to explore further. The above findings supported the present study, in which sensory sensitivity, extraversion and conscientiousness were significant predictors of polychronicity. There are some limitations of the present study. The measures of this study were administered to mostly students as opposed to a working population. There may be a difference in time use preferences among students and employees. The numbers of male subjects were much more compared to female subjects in the study. This variation in number of data may have influenced the analysis. Apart from these limitations, self report measures used for the study have its own disadvantages which can not be overlooked. Socially desirable responses may have distorted the data to certain extent. Based on the limitations described above, a number of recommendations for future research can be made. A similar study may be carried out with a working population. It is possible that the results from this study with young adults might not be generalized to the greater population of people in the workplace. Data may be collected from a sample more diverse in age. To study the gender differences a comparable number of samples of both gender may be considered. Future studies may also explore the measurement of polychronicity and personality and test the fakability of the measures of these constructs in diverse samples. Finally, the link between sensory sensitivity and Volume XV Issue II Version I 48 ( ) polychronicity may be explored in a diverse sample to strengthen the evidence. In today's working environment, time orientation is an important consideration for all organizations. With increasing demand of multitasking, polychronic individuals are potential employees in several organizations. Information about personality predictors of polychronicity may provide selection practitioners with meaningful facts regarding the potential utility of polychronicity assessments during recruitment and job allocation. Results of this study showed that polychronicity was significantly related to all the dimensions of personality. It also revealed that sensory sensitivity, extraversion and conscientiousness predicted polychronicity in this study. Volume XV Issue II Version I 50 ( ) 1VariablesMeanSD12345678Honesty-Humility35.476.861.00(.76)Emotionality26.576.23.203**1.00(.74)Extraversion35.756.82.656**.199**1.00(.81)Agreeableness33.366.24.678**.270**.629**1.00(.78)Conscientiousness35.306.70.707**.186**.735**.632**1.00(.83)Openness to34.226.80.607**.289**.660**.585**.672**1.00(.77)ExperienceSensory Sensitivity80.028.18.523**.282**.558**.559**.484**.519**1.00(.82)Polychronicity36.1010.48.182**.162**.235**.195**-.120**.155**.412**1.00(.89)Note. ** p<.011= Honesty-Humility, 2= Emotionality, 3= Extraversion, 4= Agreeableness, 5= Conscientiousness, 6= Opennessto Experience, 7= Sensory sensitivity, 8= Polychronicity 2DimensionsMalesSDFemalesSDt(N=690)(N=212)Honesty-Humility34.927.0937.265.75-4.39**Emotionality26.096.2828.125.82-4.18**Extraversion35.437.0836.815.78-2.58**Agreeableness33.946.4534.825.43-1.55**Conscientiousness36.856.9733.865.46-3.89**Openness to33.857.0735.375.70-2.82**ExperienceSensory Sensitivity78.269.0585.7711.27-7.00**Polychronicity36.1511.3335.937.05.263 3ExtraversionPredictorÎ?"R²?Step 1Control Variable-.002Gender-.012Age.010Step 2Predictor VariableSensory Sensitivity.17.43**Conscientiousness.19-.16**Extraversion.20.17**N=902Dependent Variable: Polychronicity**p<.01 © 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US) Volume XV Issue II Version I 45 ( ) Personality Predictors of Polychronicity among Young Adults Year 2015 A * The effects of polychromic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover AArndt TJArnold TDLandry Journal of Retailing 82 2006 * The Use of Time as an Expression of Life-style: A Crossnational Study JArndt SGronmo DHawes J. Sheth 1981 JAI Press Greenwich, CT Research in Marketing * The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality MCAshton KLee Journal of Personality Assessment 91 2009 * The big five personality dimensions and jobperformance: A meta-analysis MRBarrick MKMount Personnel Psychology 44 1991 * A Theory of the Allocation of Time GWBecker The Economic Journal 7 1965 * Polychronicity and temporal dimensions of work in learning organizations CBenabou Journal of Managerial Psychology 14 1999 * An interview with anthropologist Edward T. Hall ACBluedorn Journal of Management Inquiry 7 1998 * Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument tomeasure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture ACBluedorn TJKalliath MJStrube GDMartin Journal of Managerial Psychology 205 230 1999 * How many things do you like todo at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time ACBluedorn CFKaufman PMLane The Executive 6 1992 * Time and organizations ACBluedorn RBDenhardt Journal of Management 14 2 1988 * Working memory dimensions as differential predictors of the speed and error aspect of multitasking performance MBühner CKönig MPick SKrumm Human Performance 19 2006 * Executive behavior: A study of the workload and working methods of managing directors SCarlson 1951 Strömbergs Stockholm * A comparison of polychronicity levelsamong small business owners and non business owners in the SCarraher CScott Iii SCCarraher International Journal of Family Business 1 1 2004 * Polychronicity, Big Five Personality Dimensions, and Sales Performance. Human Performance JMConte JNGintoft 2005 18 * Validity Evidence Linking Polychronicity and Big Five Personality Dimensions to Absence, Lateness, and Supervisory Performance Ratings. Human Performance JMConte RRJacobs 2003 16 * A construct-oriented analysis of individual-level polychronicity JMConte TERizzuto DDSteiner Journal of Managerial Psychology 14 1999 * Juggling and hopping: What does it mean to workpolychronically JCotte SRatneshwar 18. cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology 14 1999 Journal of Managerial Psychology * The biological basis of personality HJEysenck 1967 Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas * A theory of cognitive dissonance LFestinger 1957 Stanford University Press Stanford, CA * Type A behavior and your heart MFriedman RHRosenman 1974 Knopf New York * Predicting health-related outcomes with The Formal Characteristics of Behavior -Temperament Inventory (FCB-TI): Exploring Interactions of FCB-TI Traits. Doctoral dissertation DBFruehstorfer 2010 Kent State University * The formal characteristics of behavior temperament inventory (FCB-TI): American English version validity and use in predicting stress and health outcomes. (Unpublished master's thesis) DFFruehstorfer 2005 Kent, OH .Department of Psychology, Kent State University * Managing currents of work: Multi-tasking among multiple collaborators VMGonzález GMark ECSCW 2005: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work HGellersen KSchmidt MBeaudouin-Lafon &WMackay Dordrecht, The Netherlands Springer 2005 * The Role of Perception of Time in Consumer Research RJGraham Journal of Consumer Research 7 4 1981 * The role of perception of time in consumer research RJGraham Journal of Consumer Research 7 1981. March * Leisure, Home Production, and Work: The Theory of the Allocationof Time Revisited RGronau Journal of Political Economy 85 1977 * RFHaase DYLee DLBanks 1979 * Cognitive correlates of polychronicity Perceptual and Motor Skills 49 * The silent language ETHall 1959 Doubleday; Garden City, NY * Understanding cultural differences ETHall MRHall 1990 International Press Yarmouth, ME * Exploring links between polychronicity and wellbeing from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? TDHecht NJAllen Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 98 2005 * Patterns of Time Use MSHill Time, Goods, and Well-being TFJuster FPStafford Ann Arbor, MI 1985 The University of Michigan * Theoretical perspectives of time use: implications for consumer behavior research EHirschman Consumer Behavior JAI Press 1987 2 * Objective Time Measures: A Note on the Perception of Time in Consumer Behavior JHornik Journal of Consumer Research 11 1984 Subjective vs * Subjective vs objective time measures: a note on the perception of time in consumer behavior JHornik Journal of Consumer Research 11 1984 * Individual differences in attentionalstrategies in multitasking situations KIshizaka SPMarshall JMConte Human Performance 14 2001 * Time and consumer behavior: aninterdisciplinary overview JJacoby GJSzybillo CKBerning Journal of Consumer Research 2 1976. March * Time is Money: Polychronicity as a predictor of performance across job levels TMKantrowitz DMGrelle JCBeaty MBWolf Human Performance 25 2012 * Exploring more than 24 hours aday: A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use CFKaufman PMLane JDLindquist Journal of Consumer Research 18 1991 * The use of time as an expression of life-style: crossnational study CJKönig MJ ; JWaller SGronmo DHawes Human Performance 23 2010. 1981 Time for reflection: A critical examination of Polychronicity. Research in Marketing * Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not. Human Performance CJKönig MBühner GMürling 2005 18 * Mintzberg was right!: A replication and extension of thenature of managerial work LBKurke HEAldrich Management Science 29 1983 * Polychronicity and consumer behavior outcomes among Japanese and U.S. students: A study of response toculture in a U.S. university setting. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial World Marketing Congress JDLindquist JKnieling CKaufman-Scarborough 2001. June/July Cardiff, Wales * Arousal, extraversion, and individual differences in resource availability GMatthews DRDavies JLLees Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 1990 * Interactive effects of extraversion and arousal on attentional task performance: Multiple resources or encoding processes? GMatthews DMJones AGChamberlain Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 1989 * Selbstunterbrechungen am Arbeitsplatz: Einflüsse von Eigenschaften derrbeitstätigkeit, des Arbeitsprozesses und der arbeitenden Person [Self-interruptions atwork: Influences of work aspects NMerkulova 2007 of process aspects, and of the working individual * A cross-cultural investigation ofpolychronicity: A study of organizations in three countries KSMoustafa RSBhagat EBabakus 2005 Chicago, IL Paper presented at the 48 th Midwest Academy of Management annual conference * BHNewberry JEJaikins-Madden TJGerstenberger 1991 * A holistic conceptualization of stress and disease AMS Press New York, NY, US * An American English version of the Pavlovian temperament survey BHNewberry WBClark RLCrawford JStrelau AAngleitner JHollinger Jones AEliasz Personality and Individual Differences 22 1 1997 * Temporal elements of organizational culture and impact on firm performance MHOnken Journal of Managerial Psychology 14 1999 * Management development and managers' use of their time TOshagbemi Journal of Management Development 14 8 1995 * Keeping all the plates spinning FLOswald DZHambrick LAJones Learning to solve complex scientific problems DHJonassen 2007 * Unpacking the multiple aspects of time in polychronicity DKPalmer FDSchoorman Journal of Managerial Psychology 14 1999 * Identifying those who prefer to do more with less. Paper presented at the 17th annual convention of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology SCPayne JPhilo 2002. April Toronto, Canada * Managing in polychronic times: Exploring individual creativity and performance in intellectually intensive venues DLPersing Journal of Managerial Psychology 14 1999 * The Multitasking Preference Inventory: Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity EMPoposki FLOswald Human Performance 23 2010 * Development of a new measure ofpolychronicity EMPoposki FLOswald RJBrou No. NPRST-TN-09-5 Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology 2009 Report * Time orientation in organizations: Polychronicity and multitasking. Doctoral Dissertation KRSanderson 2012 Florida International University * Individual time orientation and consumer lifestyle RBSettle PLAlreck JWGlasheen Advances in Consumer Research 1 1972 * Applying the theory of reasoned action to the analysis of anindividual's polychronicity TESlocombe Journal of Managerial Psychology 14 1999 * Organizational behavior implications of the congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unitpolychronicity TESlocombe ACBluedorn Journal of Organizational Behavior 20 1999 * A model of time use at work: Individual differences, time use, and performance AAStachowski Journal 76 2011 George Mason University * The location of the regulative theory of temperament (RTT) among other temperament theories JStrelau Foundations of Personality JHettama &I JDeary Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993 * Temperament: A psychological perspective JStrelau 1998 Plenum Press New York * The formal characteristics of behaviour-temperament inventory (FCB--TI): Validity studies JStrelau BZawadzki European Journal of Personality 9 3 1995a * Personal Communication via email to William B. Clark. Procedure on construction of the FCB-TI JStrelau BZawadzki 1995b American version * Models of conflict resolution in Japanese CHTinsley 1998 German, and American * How negotiators get to yes: Predicting the constellation of strategies used across cultures to negotiate conflict CHTinsley Journal of Applied Psychology 86 2001 * Toward a further understanding of an improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures RJVandenberg Organizational Research Methods 5 2002 * A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research RJVandenberg CELance Organizational Research Methods 3 2000 * A new look at time, speed, and the manager DEVinton The Academy of Management Executive 4 1992. November * Should we worryabout the time orientation of cultures when designing systems? Paper presented at the IEA YZhang RSGoonetilleke TPlocher S.-FMLiang 2003. August. 2003 XVth Triennial Congress Seoul, Korea * Validation of the Five Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers RRMccrae PTCostaJr Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 1987 * Individual differences in multi-tasking ability: Exploring a nomological network KADelbridge 2000 Unpublished Dissertation: Michigan State University * Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis TAJudge DHeller MKMount Journal of Applied Psychology 87 2002