Individual differences in Time Insensitivity: Examining links to emotions and cognitive performance on time pressure tasks

The aim of the present study was to examine whether individual differences in Time Insensitivity are related to subjective experiences of emotion and cognitive performance. Sixty-five undergraduates (52% female) completed self-report measures of cognitive flexibility and provided subjective self-reports of emotions following two time pressured cognitive tasks. As predicted, Time Insensitivity was related to self-reported cognitive flexibility, better cognitive performance during a time pressured task, as well as less negative subjective experience in response to these tasks. The results of the present study suggest that Time Insensitivity may have some beneficial outcomes. Limitations and implications for future directions are discussed. Time Insensitivity 3 Individual Differences in Time Insensitivity: Examining Links to Emotions and Cognitive Performance on Time Pressure Tasks “In this world, there are two times. There is mechanical time and there is body time. The first is as rigid and metallic as a massive pendulum of iron that swings back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. The second squirms and wriggles like a bluefish in a bay. The first is unyielding, predetermined. The second makes up its mind as it goes along. ” –Alan Lightman (1993) The way in which people conceptualize time seems to be a crucial yet subtle aspect of everyday life. The feeling of being controlled or pressured by time influences the decisions we make, the actions we choose, and how we feel. Cultures vary greatly in their conceptualization of time. Some cultures highly value appointments, deadlines, punctuality, and effective time management skills. Other cultures seem to be characterized as being less aware of time, being unconcerned with punctuality, and rarely seem rushed or pressured by time (Levine & Bartlett, 1984; Levine, 1988; Levine, West, & Reis, 1980), suggesting an overall insensitivity to time constraints. The goal of this paper is to explore whether individual differences in Time Insensitivity are related to other aspects of psychological processes. Time Insensitivity Much theory has been generated by philosophers, anthropologists, and psychologists regarding difference in time perspective across cultures. Edward Hall coined the term Micro time to describe “the system of time that is congruent with and a product of primary level culture” (1983). Research suggests that people living in slow Time Insensitivity 4 paced cultures conceptualize time in a way that is more insensitive than individuals in fast paced societies. Although many different terminologies and labels are used, the distinction has been made between what Hall describes as Monochronic (M-time) and Polychronic (Ptime). M-time is characterized as experiencing and using time in a linear fashion, doing things one at a time, imposing compartmentalization and structure. This perspective treats time as a tangible object, and something that can be wasted, lost, or killed. “In a Monochronic system, the schedule may take priority above all else and be treated as sacred and unalterable” (Hall & Hall, 1990). For example, an individual characterized by a Monochronic orientation is likely to make lists of things to do, adhere strictly to a detailed schedule, check the time often, and be extremely concerned with punctuality. Polychronic time, on the other hand, is characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of many things as they come. This perspective does not treat time as a tangible object, but instead places more emphasis on human interaction than keeping schedules. For example, two individuals with a Polychronic orientation who are deep in conversation would prefer to be late for an approaching appointment than terminate the conversation before its natural conclusion (Hall, 1983; Hall & Hall, 1990). Individuals characterized by a Polychronic time orientation are less concerned with planning the way in which time is spent, adhering to schedules, and being punctual. Support for this distinction in the psychological meaning of time can be found by examining the literature conducted by psychologists on the pace of life in different cultures. These studies suggest that time and schedules are valued more in the Monochronic American and Northern European cultures than the Polychronic cultures of Time Insensitivity 5 the Mediterranean and Southern European countries. America and most Northern European cultures are considered to be fast-paced, while Mediterranean, South American, and developing countries are described as slow-paced cultures. One study found that slower paced cultures (Taiwan, Indonesia, and Italy) had less accurate clocks (Levine, 1984). People responded with greater deviation from the actual time when asked “Do you have the time”, and exhibited slower walking speeds when compared with the fast paced cultures of Japan, England, and the U.S. (Levine, 1984). Similarly, cultures vary in how punctuality is defined. When asked what they would consider early or late in various hypothetical situations, Brazilian students (members of a slow-paced culture) gave larger ranges than American students (members of a fast-paced culture) (Levine, West, & Reis, 1980). Another way that time orientation has been conceptualized by psychologists is an individual’s preference towards focusing on the past, present, or future. It is described as the nonconscious process whereby experiences are assigned to one of these time frames, helping to give order and meaning to those events (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). A general future orientation is characterized by behavior that is dominated by striving for future goals and rewards, and is related to conscientiousness and preference for consistency, suggesting that individuals high in future time orientation prefer structure and order. Participants with high scores on the future orientation subfactor were more likely to report stress and the pressure to use time efficiently (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), mirroring the characteristics of low Time Insensitivity. A Present-Hedonistic orientation reflects a hedonistic, risk-taking attitude toward time and life (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). It suggests an orientation towards present Time Insensitivity 6 pleasure with little concern for future consequences. This factor was positively related to ego undercontrol, novelty seeking, sensation seeking, and negatively related to preference for consistency. Those with high scores on the Present-Hedonistic factor are more likely to report not wearing a wristwatch, communicating with family more, and having less clearly defined future goals (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). A Future orientation can be likened to low Time Insensitivity (Monochronic time perspective), while individuals scoring highly on the Present-Hedonistic subfactor can be described as Time Insensitive (Polychronic time perspective). As might be expected, there are cultural differences in these time orientations. Interestingly, compared with an American sample, young Italian participants (16 – 27 years old) reported being less future oriented (D’Alessio, Guarino, De Pascalis, & Zimbardo, 2003). The Monochronic nature of American culture trains individuals to be more aware of time schedules and structures, while the Polychronic Italian culture has the opposite effect, leading individuals to be less aware of schedules and more likely to enjoy the moment (Hall, 1983; Hall & Hall, 1990). Taken together, this research suggests a link between culture and Time Insensitivity. While most of this literature compares cultures, it is likely that individuals also differ in Time Insensitivity within cultures. The purpose of the present research is to examine such differences. Individual Differences in Time Insensitivity Individuals characterized by Time Insensitivity do not feel strong pressure to adhere to schedules, use time efficiently, wear wristwatches, or check the time often. It seems that Time Insensitive individuals do not experience as much stress under time Time Insensitivity 7 constraints as individuals characterized by low Time Insensitivity. If this is the case, Time Insensitivity may have implications for a host of psychological outcomes. This conception of Time Insensitivity may be related to several measures of cognitive flexibility. It is reasonable to assume that if one is structured and strictly adheres to time schedules, that this individual would be characterized by overall trait rigidity. Rigidity is described as a preference for a steady pace, and well-organized, predictable situations (Gough, 2000). Another relevant measure of cognitive flexibility is Need for Cognitive Closure. Need for Closure is described as the “desire for a definite answer on some topic, any answer as opposed to confusion and ambiguity” (Kruglanski, 1989). It reflects a need for clear rules and structure, along with a strong desire to avoid ambiguity. Both Rigidity and Need for Closure seem that they would be related to the Monochronic, fast paced, low Time Insensitive individual. Similarly, a preference for either Analytical or Dialectical thought (Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001) may be related to Time Insensitivity. Analytic thought, characteristic of Western cultures, is described as a preference for using rules to explain an object’s behavior, a tendency to assign objects to categories, and detaching an object from its context. East Asian cultures have been described as using Dialectic thought, an orientation to the whole context, emphasizing attention to relationships. Dialectic thought is also characterized by a reliance on experience-based knowledge rather than formal logic. Americans favor analytic thought, as suggested by a series of studies requiring American and Chinese participants to rate the likeability of proverbs that were either inherently Analytic or Dialectic (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). This preference can be compared to Hall’s theory of Mono and Time Insensitivity 8 Polychron