1 / 20

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. Polychronic and monochronic behavior (time use) Studies from the 1950’s on Hall (1959)

ulysses-watkins
Download Presentation

Polychronic Tendency Models: A Gender Contrast Study

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Polychronic Tendency Models: A Gender Contrast Study by Jay D. Lindquist Western Michigan University and Carol F. Kaufman-Scarborough Rutgers University

  2. 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)

  3. Polychronic – MonochronicChronological Background • Hall’s conceptualization • Economic resource and fixed time budget approach • Time pressure and convenience impact

  4. 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

  5. Polychronic – MonochronicChronological Background • Multidisciplinary Constructs • Modified PAI (PAI3) • Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV)

  6. Research Directions • Simultaneous Multiple Activity • Activity changing behavior • What are “activities” • Need for new models

  7. The Study • Objectives – develop and compare gender-specific models of polychronic tendency • Hypothesis 1 – models will consist of both SMA and AC items

  8. The Study • Hypothesis 2 – the two gender-specific models will differ from one another

  9. 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)

  10. Item Pool • SMA items • JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO, COMFTWO, TRYTWO, DOTWO, ENJOYTWO, ENERGTWO, EFFICTWO, EFFECTWO, APROVTWO • AC items • CHGMORE, COMFCHG, ENJOYCHG, ENERGCHG, EFFICCHG, EFFECCHG, APROVCHG

  11. Methodology • Phase II • N = 386 adults (f = 219, m = 167) • Develop best fit, parsimonious gender-specific models • Compare models

  12. Items in “Best Fit” Models • SMA – Women • JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO, COMFTWO, ENJOYTWO and EFFICTWO • SMA – Men • JUGLTWO, SHTRYTWO, COMFTWO, and DOTWO

  13. Items in “Best Fit” Models • AC – Women • CHGMORE and COMFCHG • AC – Men • ENERGCHG, EFFECCHG and APROVCHG

  14. First Order CFA Results

  15. First Order CFA Results

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  20. 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

More Related