Polychronic tendency models a gender contrast study
Download
1 / 20

Polychronic Tendency Models: A Gender Contrast Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 91 Views
  • Uploaded on

Polychronic Tendency Models: A Gender Contrast Study. by Jay D. Lindquist Western Michigan University and Carol F. Kaufman-Scarborough Rutgers University. Introduction. Polychronic and monochronic behavior (time use) Studies from the 1950’s on Hall (1959)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Polychronic Tendency Models: A Gender Contrast Study' - ulysses-watkins


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Polychronic tendency models a gender contrast study

Polychronic Tendency Models: A Gender Contrast Study

by

Jay D. Lindquist

Western Michigan University

and

Carol F. Kaufman-Scarborough

Rutgers University


Introduction
Introduction

  • Polychronic and monochronic behavior (time use)

  • Studies from the 1950’s on

    • Hall (1959)

    • Economic resource (1970’s – early 1990’s)

    • Working women juggling work, social, marketplace, and family demands (1980’s on)

    • Polychronic scale development begins (late 1980’s)

  • The Polychronic Attitude Index (PAI) (1991)


Polychronic monochronic chronological background
Polychronic – MonochronicChronological Background

  • Hall’s conceptualization

  • Economic resource and fixed time budget approach

  • Time pressure and convenience impact


Polychronic monochronic chronological background1
Polychronic – MonochronicChronological Background

  • Direct and indirect measures

    • F-A-S-T Scale

    • Time Dimension Scales

    • Time Structure Questionnaire

    • Time Management Behavior Scale

    • Polychronic Attitude Index


Polychronic monochronic chronological background2
Polychronic – MonochronicChronological Background

  • Multidisciplinary Constructs

    • Modified PAI (PAI3)

    • Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV)


Research directions
Research Directions

  • Simultaneous Multiple Activity

  • Activity changing behavior

  • What are “activities”

  • Need for new models


The study
The Study

  • Objectives – develop and compare gender-specific models of polychronic tendency

  • Hypothesis 1 – models will consist of both SMA and AC items


The study1
The Study

  • Hypothesis 2 – the two gender-specific models will differ from one another


Methodology
Methodology

  • Phase I

    • N = 257 adults (f = 118, m = 139)

    • Develop pool of potential SMA and AC items

    • Assure respondents have same “activities” understanding (physically active, mentally active, monitoring, and eye/ear attention)


Item pool
Item Pool

  • SMA items

    • JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO, COMFTWO, TRYTWO, DOTWO, ENJOYTWO, ENERGTWO, EFFICTWO, EFFECTWO, APROVTWO

  • AC items

    • CHGMORE, COMFCHG, ENJOYCHG, ENERGCHG, EFFICCHG, EFFECCHG, APROVCHG


Methodology1
Methodology

  • Phase II

    • N = 386 adults (f = 219, m = 167)

    • Develop best fit, parsimonious gender-specific models

    • Compare models


Items in best fit models
Items in “Best Fit” Models

  • SMA – Women

    • JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO, COMFTWO, ENJOYTWO and EFFICTWO

  • SMA – Men

    • JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO, COMFTWO, and DOTWO


Items in best fit models1
Items in “Best Fit” Models

  • AC – Women

    • CHGMORE and COMFCHG

  • AC – Men

    • ENERGCHG, EFFECCHG and APROVCHG




Conclusions
Conclusions

  • Hypothesis 1 – Accepted

    • “Best fit” gender-specific models of polychronic tendency include both SMA and AC items

  • Hypothesis 2 – Accepted

    • Gender-specific models of polychronic tendency are different


Discussion
Discussion

  • SMA items JUGLTWO and COMFTWO part of PAI scale

  • SMA items JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO and COMFTWO part of both models

  • No AC items in common across two models


Discussion1
Discussion

  • Ratio of SMA to AC items: women (4 to 3), men (5 to 2)

  • Affective items (JUGLTWO, COMFTWO, ENJOYTWO, COMFCHG) ratio women to men is 4 to 2

  • CHGMORE only shows in women’s model


Discussion2
Discussion

  • Perceived outcome items (EFFICTWO, ENERGTWO, EFFECCHG, APROVCHG) ratio women to men is 1 to 3

  • Scale ranges and means: women (12 to 49, 36.4); men (7 to 49, 34.8); n = 198 (women); n = 150 (men); midpoints 30.5/28 (w/m)


Implications
Implications

  • Limitations

    • No social desirability check

    • No discriminant, convergent or nomological validity checks

    • General, not situation-specific models

    • Tests needed to show practical marketplace applications


ad