PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KthrojIAcca-PrelelRC/Dateoue,indd

 

UNDERSTANDING AND PREDICTING MULTITASKING PERFORMANCE USING
NON-COGNITIVE VARIABLES: ADDRESSING ISSUES IN PAST RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPING A NEW MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL POLYCHRONICITY

By

Elizabeth M. Oberlander

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2008

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING AND PREDICTING MULTITASKING PERFORMANCE USING

NON-COGNITIVE VARIABLES: ADDRESSING ISSUES IN PAST RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPING A NEW MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL POLYCHRONICITY

By
Elizabeth M. Oberlander
The purpose of the current study is to improve the understanding and prediction

of multitasking performance using non-cognitive predictors. The paper has two main
goals. The first goal is to improve upon the models and methodology used to explore the
relationships between non-cognitive variables and multitasking performance. To this
end, I review non-cognitive predictors of multitasking performance and highlight a major
methodological issue. The second goal is to develop a new measure of polychronicity, a
non-cognitive variable that shows promise as a predictor of multitasking performance
because it reflects an individual’s preference for engaging in multitasking. Following a
discussion of issues with current definitions and measurement of polychronicity, I present
the details of the development and evaluation of a new measure of polychronicity. I then
present a study that tests pieces of a theoretical model that contain relationships between
polychronicity, other non-cognitive predictors and multitasking performance. Though
the new measure of polychronicity is not found to be a significant predictor of
multitasking performance, the measure shows acceptable reliability and validity and does
predict outcomes such as enjoyment of the multitasking simulation and the choice to
multitask again. In addition, the study shows evidence of having addressed the

methodological issue present in previous research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. V
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Organization .................................................................................................. 1
Multitasking Overview ....................................................................................................... 2
Multitasking at Work .......................................................................................................... 3
Non-cognitive Predictors of Multitasking .......................................................................... 5
Extraversion and Neuroticism ................................................................................ 5

Type A behavior Pattern ........................................................................................ 8
Polychronicity ...................................................................................................... 10
Summary of Past Research on Non-cognitive Predictors of Multitasking .......... 12
Polychronicity .................................................................................................................. 15
Definitional Issues with Polychronicity ............................................................... 16
Cultural- or Organizational-level Definitions ...................................................... l6
Individual-level Definitions ................................................................................. 19
Behavior-based Definitions ..................................................................... l9
Preference-based Definitions ................................................................... 20

Resolving Definitional Issues .............................................................................. 21
Existing Measures of Polychronicity ................................................................... 22

The PAI ................................................................................................... 22

The IPV ................................................................................................... 23

Modifications of the IPV ......................................................................... 24

Summary of Issues with Current Measurement ................................................... 25
Development of a New Measure of Polychronicity ............................................. 26
Hypotheses ....................................................................................................................... 27
Measure Development Hypotheses ...................................................................... 27
Predictive Hypotheses .......................................................................................... 29
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 30
Phase 1: Measure Development ....................................................................................... 30
Item Generation ................................................................................................... 30

Item Selection ...................................................................................................... 31

Pilot Testing ......................................................................................................... 32

Phase 2: Data Collection .................................................................................................. 37
Sample .................................................................................................................. 37
Procedure ............................................................................................................. 38
Section 1: Measures ............................................................................................. 38
Section 2: Multitasking Simulation ..................................................................... 39

iii

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 41

Phase 1: Measure Evaluation ........................................................................................... 41
Reliability ............................................................................................................. 41
Validity ................................................................................................................ 42

Face and content validity ......................................................................... 42
Convergent and discriminant validity ..................................................... 43
Criterion-related validity ......................................................................... 44

Phase 2: Non-Cognitive Predictors of Multitasking Performance ................................... 44
Mediation tests ..................................................................................................... 44
Incremental validity test ....................................................................................... 46

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 46

Measure Development ...................................................................................................... 47

Predicting Multitasking Performance ............................................................................... 50

Limitations and Future Directlons ..... 51

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 56

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix A: Item Generation Instructions for SMEs ...................................................... 58

Appendix B: 137 Non-identical Items .............................................................................. 61

Appendix C: Pilot POLY Measure ................................................................................... 67

Appendix D: POLY Measure Editing and Item Deletion ................................................ 80

Appendix E: Informed Consent Form .............................................................................. 82

Appendix F: POLY Pretest ............................................................................................... 83

Appendix G: Test of Cognitive Ability: Raven's Progressive Matrices ........................... 88

Appendix H: Online Measures ......................................................................................... 89

Appendix 1: Online Posttests .......................................................................................... 110

Appendix J: Content Validity Measure .......................................................................... 119

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 120

iv

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

LIST OF TABLES

Inter-Item and Item-Total Correlations for Pilot POLY .................................... 72
Eigenvalues for EFA on Full POLY Pilot Measure ........................................... 75
Factor Loadings for EF A on Full POLY Pilot Measure .................................... 76
Eigenvalues for EFA on Edited POLY Pilot Measure ....................................... 78
Factor Loadings for EFA on Edited POLY Pilot Measure .......... . ..................... 79
Scale Means, SDs, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations for Main Study ........... 115
Item-Total Statistics ......................................................................................... 1 17
Item-Total Statistics for TABP Measure .......................................................... 118

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Hypothesized Mediation of the Relationship between Non-Cognitive Variables

and Multitasking Performance ........................................................................................ 57
Figure 2: Histogram of Item Level Ratings by SMEs ...................................................... 66
Figure 3: Scree Plot for EFA on Full POLY Pilot Measure ............................................. 74
Figure 4: Scree Plot for EFA on Edited POLY Pilot Measure ......................................... 77
Figure 5: Histogram of Item Level Means for 17-item POLY ......................................... 81
Figure 6: Sanin Screen Shot ....................................................................................... 108
Figure 7: Histogram of Average Anxiety Ratings ......................................................... 109

vi

INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Organization

Multitasking has become an important component of work performance for many
types of jobs (e.g., Bfihner, Konig, Pick, & Krumm, 2006). Although a large body of
research has established that general cognitive ability predicts complex task performance
such as multitasking performance, research investigating non-cognitive predictors of
multitasking performance has been sparse and inconclusive. The purpose of the present
paper is to address two of the most prominent limitations in this area. The first is the fact
that many studies in the area allude to, but do not explicitly examine, arousal or anxiety
as proximal mediators of the relationship between non-cognitive traits such as personalin
and multitasking performance. The second is that polychronicity, a non-cognitive
variable reflecting individuals’ preference for multitasking, has not been well defined and
measured. Conceptually, polychronicity shows promise as a predictor of multitasking
performance, and thus I think that developing an improved measure of polychronicity is a
key area for improvement. In order to address these limitations, the-current paper
describes the development of a new measure of polychronicity, based on a more careful
definition, and then tests the relationships between polychronicity and other non-
cognitive predictors and multitasking performance, using anxiety as a mediator.

The organization of the paper is as follows: First, I will introduce the concept of
multitasking and review the key pieces of literature on non-cognitive predictors of
multitasking performance. The review will clarify the need for methodological
improvement, and I will discuss specific ways through which this improvement can be

made. Next, I will focus on polychronicity as a non-cognitive variable that I have

identified as having particular promise as a predictor of multitasking performance. The
construct of polychronicity will be examined with respect to its historical definition and
measurement, and I will put forth a more precise definition and develop an improved
measure. Finally, building off of this improved definition and measure of polychronicity,
I will present a study that tests theoretical relationships between multitasking
performance and non-cognitive predictors, including polychronicity. Multitasking will
be operationalized via computer simulation in an experimental setting that allows for
controlled measurement and manipulation of the relevant variables in the study.
Multitasking Overview

“We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present
only when it is already disappearing.” R. D. Laing (1983)

In today’s world of instant communication, technological innovation, and
information overload, the pace of life is rapidly increasing. The pressure to do more in
less time, often with frequent interruptions, is greater than ever. As a result, multitasking
has become a necessity in both home and work life for many individuals (e.g., Biihner,
Konig, Pick, & Krumm, 2006). Though the term multitasking is heavily used in popular
culture and is relatively well understood colloquially, it is also a subject of research
whose development is still in its youth within the organizational literature. Definitions of
multitasking have varied, particularly with respect to their specificity. Many studies lack
a definition of multitasking altogether or refer to multitasking by another name, such as
“attentional performance” (e. g., Szymura & Necka, 1998). Oswald, Hambrick, and Jones
(2007) offer a useful definition of multitasking. Thus, I will utilize their definition of

multitasking as “performance on multiple tasks, with shifts in attention. . .over a short

time span, (p. 80-81)” where both tasks and time span can be measured subjectively and
objectively.
Multitasking at Work

Multitasking has become an important component of job performance for many
workers (Delbridge, 2000). In fact, some authors have recently suggested that almost
every job requires at least some degree of multitasking (Btihner, Konig, Pick, & Krumm,
2006). The necessity for multitasking at work has resulted from a number of factors,
including increases in technology. Technology has not only increased the speed of
information transfer in the workplace, but also the frequency of task interruption. For
example, an interoffice memo no longer takes days to circulate to everyone in an office
and back to the sender; emails are now sent and received almost instantaneously and
responses are often expected within hours, if not minutes. The phenomena of downsizing
and job enrichment have also contributed to the increased demands placed on many of
today’s workers; one employee may be expected to perform the same amount of work
that would have been previously expected of two or more employees. In fact, the nature
of work has changed so much that some have suggested that traditional notions of job
performance are now outdated for many jobs (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). In many cases,
successful workers must not only be good at performing each of the tasks they are
responsible for; they must now also be good at weaving those tasks together in an
environment of interruption and uncertainty (Delbridge, 2000; Persing, 1999). Therefore,
predicting multitasking ability in job applicants Should contribute to prediction of their
overall performance on the job for a wide variety of occupations (e. g., Damos, 1993;

Stankov, Fogarty, & Watt, 1989).

Multitasking performance may be distinct from task or overall performance
because of the unique pressures placed on an individual in a multitasking situation.
Multiple tasks place interrelated and distinct demands on an individual’s knowledge,
skills, and cognitive resources. The activity of interleaving or coordinating these tasks
places additional c0gnitive demands on the performer (e.g., Ackerrnan, Schneider, &
Wickens, 1989). Thus, the coordination and time management strategies required in the
multitasking environment place demands on the performer that go beyond the additive
demands required by the tasks taken individually. These task coordination efforts require
executive processes such as goal shifting and rule activation (Rubinstein, Meyer, &
Evans, 2001). As a result, it is perhaps unsurprising that cognitive ability has been shown
to predict performance at multitasking (Salthouse, Hambrick, Lukas, & Dell, 1996).

In addition to cognitive demands, the ‘balancing act’ of managing task switches
and interruptions — or even the anticipation of having to do so — may lead a multitasker to
have a wide range of affective reactions such as stress, anxiety, excitement, or some
combination of these (Delbridge, 2001 ). Although some people may find the relative
chaos of a multitasking situation to be stimulating and motivating, others may find it
overwhelming and stressful (Oswald, Hambrick, & Jones, 2007). As a result, there is
reason to believe that some non-cognitive variables may take on an important role in the
prediction of multitasking performance as well. The notion that cognitive factors are
necessary but not sufficient when predicting complex task performance is not new. In
1965, Guion and Gottier noted that information on both “can-do” factors (intelligence)
and “will-do” factors (motivational or personality characteristics) is essential in order to

gain a more complete understanding of work performance. More recently, Murphy

(1996) reiterated this point, stating that although cognitive ability may be the most

parsimonious way to predict performance, to understand performance fully we must

consider other factors such as personality and motivational influences.
Non-cognitive Predictors of Multitasking

Past research on non-cognitive predictors of multitasking has typically examined
those characteristics with the potential to predict an individual’s reactions to the arousal
or stress often experienced during multitasking. Though research to-date in the area has
been relatively limited, the most commonly researched non-cognitive predictors of
multitasking have been extraversion, neuroticism, Type A Behavior Pattern, and
polychronicity.

Extraversion and Neuroticism

Extraverts, due to their lower baseline level of arousal and higher need for
stimulation, tend to perform better in situations where they are highly stimulated (Koni g,
Biihner, & Milrling, 2005). Conversely, introverts, having a relatively high level of
baseline arousal, prefer less stimulation and perform better on tasks that are less
stimulating. Therefore, due to the highly stimulating nature of multitasking, extraverts
are generally predicted to perform better than introverts (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001;
Szymura & Necka, 1998).

Konig, Bfihner, and Miirling (2005) examined extraversion as a predictor of
multitasking ability. The multitasking scenario used was the Simultaneous
Capacity/Multi-T asking (SIMKAP) program. Following a training session, participants
performed the simulation which consisted of three main tasks that were performed

together, along with a fourth task that periodically interrupted the other three. The three

main tasks consisted of simple operations such as crossing off numbers or doing word
puzzles, and the fourth was made to resemble interruptions that might occur via such
technology as email (e.g., a message stating “You are invited to a party on Friday — can
you attend?” would pop up along with a date book containing the answer). The
researchers performed hierarchical regression analyses to test the predictive and
incremental validity of the cognitive and non-cognitive measures used, respectively,
finding that though cognitive variables predicted multitasking performance, personality
variables (extraversion and polychronicity) did not provide additional prediction over and
above cognitive variables.

Lieberman and Rosenthal (2001) focused on introversion in the context of
interpersonal communication, which is viewed as a type of multitasking. Their prediction
was that introverts would have less capacity for multitasking as a result of their already
high arousal levels, and they would therefore be less successful at decoding nonverbal
cues during interpersonal interaction. The authors conducted three studies in which they
assessed nonverbal decoding skill using various interpersonal situations. Overall, the
authors concluded that introversion was related to poorer nonverbal decoding due to
deficits in multitasking ability, but only when the nonverbal decoding task was secondary
to other tasks (i.e., there was no difference when the decoding task was primary). The
authors posited that this was due to the fact that introverts were focusing on only the
primary task and ignoring the secondary task in order to lower their levels of arousal.
Despite some inconsistency in the results, these studies support the notion that

extraversion may be a valid predictor of multitasking ability.

Szymura and Necka (1998) and Szymura and Wodnieka (2003) examined both
extraversion and neuroticism in relation to multitasking performance. They discuss the
relationship between these constructs and multitasking performance in relation to Gray’s
(1981) Behavioral Inhibition and Behavioral Activation Systems (BIS and BAS,
respectively). Briefly, the BAS is responsible for approach types of behaviors (e.g.,
increased attention to the task), whereas the BIS is responsible for avoidance types of
behaviors (e.g., decreased attention to the task). Specifically, the authors hypothesize
that the behavior of highly neurotic or highly introverted individuals is controlled more
by the BIS. The high level of stimulation in the multitasking environment, the authors
contend, will activate the BIS in these people as a result of their hypersensitivity to
incoming stimuli, resulting in avoidance or withdrawal behaviors and performance
decrements. The multitasking simulation used in this research involved a signal detection
task in which participants had to identify a probe letter from a field of distractors. In the
first group of studies, the authors found support for the arousal model of selective
attention; that is, they found evidence that extraverts tend to perform better at
multitasking due to low baseline arousal and a desire for highly stimulating activity. In
addition, they found that high levels of neuroticism generally resulted in performance
deficits. In the second group of experiments, the authors were able to replicate some of
the relationships found in the first group of experiments; however results were much
more mixed.

In a dissertation, Delbridge (2000) also measured extraversion and neuroticism in
an attempt to predict multitasking performance. Her hypotheses were based on a model

of multitasking that focused on the stressful nature of a multitasking situation and the

likelihood that personality variables would predict multitasking performance through the
use of coping behaviors. Specifically, characteristics such as neuroticism were predicted
to increase perceptions of stress and, as a result, increase coping behaviors. Delbridge
hypothesized that increased coping would result in withdrawal and lowered performance.
Significant effects were not found for either extraversion or neuroticism. However, the
author implicated a methodological issue in this study that will be addressed later for the
lack of significant findings.

Type A Behavior Pattern

Type A behavior pattern (TABP) is a multidimensional construct consisting of
time urgency, achievement strivings, and impatience/irritability (Conte, Schwenneker,
Dew, & Romano, 2001; Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001). The theoretical relationship
between TABP and multitasking performance is somewhat similar to that of extraversion
and neuroticism; that is, they both have been examined with respect to arousal hypotheses
(Dela Casa, Gordillo, Mejias, Rengel, & Romero, 1998; Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte,
2001) and stress perception hypotheses (Conte, Schwenneker, Dew, & Romano, 2001;
Delbridge, 2000; Kirmeyer, 1988).

Studies examining TABP and its resulting attentional strategies in relation to
multitasking performance have been somewhat successful in finding the hypothesized
relationships. De la Casa, Gordillo, Mejias, Rengel, and Romero (1998) examined the
attentional strategies of Type A individuals in two types of situations. In the first
situation, one task was labeled as “important” and one as “unimportant”, supposedly
making the prioritization of tasks clear. In the second situation, one task was labeled as

“important” and the second was presented without an importance label, making

prioritization unclear. The primary task was to cross off probe symbols on a screen, and
the secondary task was to remember words that would periodically appear on the screen.
Their first experiment found support for the idea that Type As relied on a hypervigilance
strategy (i.e., to focus intensely on all stimuli presented, even irrelevant ones) and thereby
performed better than Type Bs on the secondary tasks. In their second experiment they
found that Type As selected a hypervigilance strategy only in the ambiguous condition.
In the dual-task condition, Type As focused intensely on only the main task. In both
situations in the second experiment (ambiguous versus dual-task), the attentional
strategies selected by Type A individuals resulted in decrements in overall performance
as compared with Type Bs.

Ishizaka, Marshall, and Conte (2001) did not find a significant relationship
between an overall measure of TABP and multitasking performance. In this study,
multitasking performance was operationalized as performance at three simultaneous
tasks, two of which were visual (a gauge monitoring and an arithmetic task) and one of
which was auditory (listening to and remembering spoken words). However, they did
find some support for a relationship between facets of TABP and performance on certain
tasks in specific situations. The significant relationships, however, were extremely
variable and taken together would indicate that overall, TABP and its subcomponents
were not predictive of multitasking performance. The authors noted that a major
weakness of their design was the relative ease with which participants completed the
tasks. The low difficulty of the tasks probably reduced both the stressful nature of the

task and the variability of the data.

Though Kirmeyer (198 8) did not focus directly on the effect of TABP on
performance in a multitasking situation, she did examine the relationship between TABP
and perceptions of stress in a multitasking environment (police dispatchers). She found
that Type A individuals perceived both high workload and interruption as more stressful
than their Type B counterparts. Although there was no measure of actual performance in
this study, the results coincide nicely with the majority of research in this area. Taken
together, results for Type A Behavior pattern have been somewhat supportive of the
notion that it has potential as a predictor of multitasking performance.

Polychronicity

Polychronicity is an individual’s preference for performing multiple tasks at once
(Slocombe & Bluedom, 1999). Though interest in polychronicity has increased in recent
years (a 1999 issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology was dedicated entirely to
polychronicity), empirical studies testing the relationship between polychronicity and
multitasking performance have been somewhat rare and have achieved less than
promising results. For instance, both Konig, Bfihner, and Mfirling (2005) and Delbridge
(2000) both included polychronicity in their explorations of non-cognitive predictors of
multitasking, but as with the other predictors, they failed to find a significant relationship
between polychronicity and multitasking performance. The limitations of these studies, to
be discussed later, point the way toward improvements built into the present study.

Though Conte and Jacobs (2003) did not examine the relationship between
polychronicity and multitasking performance, they did examine polychronicity in relation
to other work outcomes: absence, lateness, and overall performance. Their hypotheses,

based mainly on the idea that polychronic individuals tend to be less time aware than

10

their monochronic counterparts, were that polychronicity would be positively correlated
with absence and lateness and negatively correlated with performance ratings. Though
the authors found that polychronicity did in fact correlate positively with absence and
lateness and negatively with overall performance ratings, this finding is not necessarily in
conflict with the contention that polychronicity will relate positively to multitasking
performance. Importantly, the employees studied by Conte and Jacobs (2003) were train
operators, an occupation whose level of multitasking was not assessed, making it difficult
to tell how large a role it plays. Even if multitasking were a large portion of this job, the
performance ratings used in the study were based solely on aspects of timeliness (e. g.,
schedule adherence and dependability). For these reasons, the negative relationship
between polychronicity and performance found in this study is not necessarily
contradictory to the positive relationship between polychronicity and multitasking
performance that has been proposed.

Slocombe and Bluedorn (1999), instead of testing relationships between
individual polychronicity and performance, analyzed the congruence between
individuals’ preferred level of polychronicity and the level of polychronicity individuals
experienced in their workgroup. They found that when individuals both preferred and
experienced a high level of polychronicity, they were more willing to exert effort on
behalf of the organization as compared with situations in which there was a large
difference between preferred and experienced polychronicity. In addition, when
preferred polychronicity was equal to or higher than experienced polychronicity,
organizational commitment was high. Conversely, when preferred polychronicity was

less than experienced polychronicity, commitment was lower. When preferred and

11

experienced polychronicity were equal, belief in and acceptance of organizational goals
and fairness of performance evaluation were highest. When the two diverged in either
direction, both acceptance and fairness evaluations decreased. The researchers also
attempted to examine whether congruence between preferred and experienced
polychronicity affected performance. Results for this outcome were mixed and difficult
to interpret; however overall, the findings show that polychronicity can have an effect on
important organizational outcomes such as effort and committment.
Summary of Past Research on Non-cognitive Predictors of Multitasking

As can be seen, empirical research exploring the relationships between non-
cognitive predictors and multitasking performance has been largely unsuccessfiil in
finding the hypothesized relationships. Though many methodological limitations could
be detailed with respect to most of the studies just reviewed, two major areas have been
particularly problematic and must be addressed before concluding a lack of relationship.
Conceptually, the hypothesized relationships between non-cognitive variables and
multitasking depend on arousal or anxiety, yet most research has been flawed in this
respect in three ways. First, the multitasking operationalizations used by researchers
have either not been evaluated with respect to how arousing they are, or they have
actually been found to be much less arousing than the researchers had expected, often due
to their simplicity or lack of realism (e.g., Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001). Second,
anxiety and arousal are not formally hypothesized or tested as mediators of the
relationship between non-cognitive predictors and multitasking performance. Third, no
distinction is made between the two concepts of anxiety and arousal, although there is

reason to believe that differences may exist between the two concepts (Lundqvist, 2006).

12

In addition to the problems associated with the role of anxiety or arousal, significant
issues also exist with respect to polychronicity. I will now address each of these issues in
turn.

First, studies not evaluating how arousing their multitasking situations are leave
open the possibility that participants simply are not experiencing the higher levels of
arousal or anxiety that are necessary for the relationship between non-cognitive variables
and multitasking to become evident. For example, Konig, Btihner, and Mtirling (2005)
used a task with relatively high fidelity but did not provide any evidence from past
research or from their own research that the task was arousing to participants (e. g., by
way of a manipulation check and/or comparison to some sort of baseline or control
group). Because there is no way of knowing whether the participants were experiencing
the arousal that was hypothesized, conclusions about the relationship between non-
cognitive predictors and multitasking performance are tentative at best.

When researchers have evaluated how arousing or anxiety producing the tasks
they have used are, they have found disappointing results. Delbridge (2000) evaluated
how arousing the multitasking paradigm used in her study was and found that although
participants did engage in multitasking, the design included frequent breaks that greatly
reduced stress levels and thereby potentially attenuated the relationships between the
personality variables, stress perceptions, and multitasking performance. Ishizaka,
Marshall, and Conte (2001) also pointed out that a major weakness of their design was
the relative ease with which participants completed the tasks. The low difficulty of the
tasks and/or the ease of coordinating these tasks, probably reduced both the stressful

nature of the task and the variability of the data due to ceiling effects.

13

The present study addresses this first issue by utilizing a multitasking simulation
that possesses a number of variable task characteristics that allow the experimenter to
tailor the simulation to produce arousal in participants. As was discussed, past
researchers seemingly did not choose a multitasking Simulation with its capacity for
inducing arousal in mind. In addition to utilizing the multitasking simulation described
above, the present study also measures state arousal during the multitasking simulation in
order to verify that heightened arousal was in fact experienced by participants.

Second, past researchers have used the terms arousal and anxiety almost
interchangeably. Although the two are closely related and it is quite plausible to suggest
that a person engaging in multitasking might be experiencing both, there is a meaningful
difference between the two in the performance context. Whereas arousal reflects a
generalized state of “activation” or “readiness”, anxiety reflects a type of unpleasant
arousal experienced as a reaction to actual or imagined stressors (Lundqvist, 2006). As
such I will characterize arousal during multitasking as consisting of two components:
anxiety (bad or unpleasant arousal) and excitement (good or “activated” arousal). It is
my view that the two will have different implications for multitasking performance.
Excitement, though it may be related to one’s general enjoyment of the multitasking
experience, is not expected to be related to performance. Anxiety, however, as one of the
most commonly accepted causes of performance deficits (Humphreys & Revelle, 1984) is
expected to mediate the relationship between non-cognitive predictors and multitasking
performance.

Third, although often mentioned in previous research, the intervening cauSal

variables (whether dubbed arousal or anxiety) were not measured or included in the

14

analysis as mediators. The present study remediates this by both measuring and formally
testing anxiety as a mediator of the relationships between non-cognitive variables and
multitasking performance.

Finally, though a number of different non-cognitive variables have been examined
thus far due to their potential relationships with multitasking, research involving
polychronicity has been particularly problematic with respect to its definition and
measurement. Because conceptually, this variable shows promise as a predictor of
multitasking, a great deal might be gained by focusing on and improving research
involving polychronicity. In order to address this issue, the current study will review past
definitions and measures of polychronicity and suggest improvements both conceptually
and methodologically.

Polychronicity

As was discussed earlier, polychronicity indicates the preference or tendency to
prefer multitasking as opposed to performing only one task at a time (e.g., Bluedorn et
al., 1999). Because polychronicity likely reflects both past experience with multitasking,
and also perhaps a more stable tendency to perceive multitasking as enjoyable and
rewarding rather than stressful, polychronicity should be a particularly useful predictor of
multitasking. As compared with such broader and more stable traits as extraversion,
neuroticism, and Type A behavior pattern, polychronicity is perhaps also more
appropriate in scope when one is attempting to predict multitasking performance versus
job performance in general. For these reasons, pursuing polychronicity as a predictor of
multitasking performance should be of value. However, a number of serious problems

currently exist with both the definition and measurement of polychronicity that must be

15

addressed in order for research examining polychronicity and multitasking performance
to be productive. I will review those next.
Definitional Issues with Polychronicity

In current organizational research, polychronicity is mainly used as an individual
difference variable, yet the origins of polychronicity lie in the study of human cultures.
When Hall (1959) first defined polychronicity, his goal was to describe the extent to
which a culture values performing multiple tasks at once. His research was very
qualitative in nature, his descriptions of “polychronic” or “monochrome” cultures were
rich and detailed, and his definition of polychronicity was multifaceted. Researchers
have since become interested in applying the construct of polychronicity to more micro
levels such as the organization, the group, and the individual and have and attempted to
adopt Hall’s definition for these studies as well. For the most part, researchers have
ignored the potential dangers of applying the same definition of polychronicity from the
cultural level of analysis to the individual level, and have simply imposed the cultural
level definition onto the organizational and individual levels wholesale.

C ultural- or Organizational-level Definitions

Hall and Hall (1990) defined polychronicity in the following way:

...a polychronic culture is a culture in which people value, and hence practice,

engaging in several activities and events at the same time. Monochronic cultures

are more linear in that people prefer to be engaged in one thing at a time (p. 13).
In addition to this definition, their descriptions of polychronicity not only captured the
preference for engaging in multiple tasks at once, but also the belief that this cultural
preference is the “right way” to do things. They also included many qualitative

descriptions of the characteristics of “polychronic” and “monochronic” cultures that have

16

very little to do with the performance of tasks. Following in Hall and Hall’s footsteps
were Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, and Martin (1999), who define polychronicity at the
cultural level as “the extent to which people in a culture prefer to be engaged in two or
more tasks or events simultaneously and believe their preference is the best way to do
things” (p. 207), a definition that also confounds preference with correctness.

A final definition at the cultural level is one by Onken (1999), who defines
polychronicity as “. . .a fundamental and deeply imbedded cultural dimension,
polychronicity is a dimension of human time that involves the extent to which activities
are organized by scheduling two or more events at one time” (p. 231). Definitions very
similar to the three listed above have been used by others (e. g., Persing, 1999; Slocombe,
1999; Slocombe & Bluedom, 1999) as well.

Polychronicity at the organizational level has been defined in much the same way
as polychronicity at the cultural level by most researchers. Benabou (1999), however,
gives a somewhat different definition of polychronicity at the organizational level. He
uses the term P-time to refer to polychronicity and the term M-time to refer to
monochronicity, and states that:

In P-time, nothing is truly stable: everything is in flux and changing. Here we

enter into a system that is abstract, intangible, regulated more by events and tacit

communication than by time on the clock. Anything and everything can occur

unpredictably and interchangeably (p. 259).

Palmer and Schoorman (1999) attempted to make clearer the definition of
polychronicity at the organizational level by defining characteristics they thought were
implied, but not stated directly in the definitions of other researchers. The three

characteristics of polychronicity that Palmer and Schoorman describe were contained

within the writings of Hall (1959) and Hall and Hall (1990), but were often ignored by

17

other researchers. Palmer and Schoorman’s definition of polychronicity consists of three
components: time use preference, time tangibility, and context. Time use preference is
the extent to which people within a culture prefer to do things one at a time or in
coordination and is the part of their definition that is clearly most similar to previous
definitions. Time tangibility is the extent to which time is perceived within a culture as
being quantifiable (i.e., is time segmented or does it “flow”). In polychronic cultures,
time “flows” and is not kept strictly by observance of the clock or of strict schedules.

The context portion of Palmer and Schoorman’s definition of polychronicity is
somewhat more complex than the previous two, and the largest divergence from previous
definitions. Communication within polychronic cultures is characterized as being “high
context”, meaning that information and meaning essential to a message are embedded in
the context surrounding the message rather than simply within the message itself (Palmer
& Schoorman, 1999). This somewhat confusing description was clarified by Hall, who
gave the example of attempting to tell a humorous story to a friend, and eventually
relenting “I guess you just had to be there” (Hall, as interviewed by Bluedorn, 1998, p.
112). Monochronic cultures are seen as being “low context”, which means that most of
the information conveyed by a message is found within the message itself, and the
surrounding context is unnecessary.

Taken together, both the cultural and organizational level definitions of
polychronicity are often complex and multifaceted, which is probably appropriate when
attempting to describe the phenomenon at this level. The direct application of many of

these characteristics to the individual level definition, however, needs to be done with

18

caution. In addition, there may be unique issues to address with respect to polychronicity
as it applies to individuals.
Individual-level Definitions

Definitions of polychronicity at the individual level have been highly varied and
often quite complex as a result of researchers adopting some of the cultural level
dimensions and leaving others out. It is also important to note that it is frequently
difficult to even pick out the definition in articles researching individual-level
polychronicity, as the descriptions are often so broad. Perhaps the most useful way to
distinguish the research on individual-level polychronicity is to describe studies defining
polychronicity in terms of behavior and those defining it in terms of preference.
Behavior-based Definitions

Perhaps the fundamental individual-level definition is given in an article by
Bluedorn, Kaufinan, and Lane (1992). Here, polychronicity is defined as:

...focusing entirely on one task, is the monochronic approach to life: do one thing

at a time. . .simultaneously being actively involved in two or more activities, [is]

termed [a] polychronic approach. And as implied by the word ‘approaches’, there

are degrees of polychronicity, ranging from people who tend to be very

monochronic to those who are extremely polychronic Q). 17).

Benabou (1999) gives a definition of polychronicity that includes theoretical
reasons for the behavior of polychronic or monochronic individuals.

Polychronic individuals do several things at a time (for example, having two or

three projects in hand); they are more strongly oriented toward the present and

feel themselves less bound to a timetable or a procedure than monochronic

individuals. They view time as an inexhaustible resource and interpersonal

relations are at least as important for them as the work to be performed, which is

not the case for monochronic individuals, whose extreme concentration or

dedication to one particular task relegates interpersonal communication to a

position of secondary importance, either temporarily or more

permanently. . .monochronicity and polychronicity are not two distinct concepts,
but the opposite poles of a single concept (p. 261).

19

Cotte and Ratneshwar (1999) assert that “We know how to describe
polychronicity; it is when a person does more than one activity, apparently at the same
time, or even when one treats unplanned interruptions as equal to planned activities” (p.
184). Kaufman, Lane, and Lindquist (1991) define polychronicity as being when “two or
more activities are performed within the same time block, apparently at the same time”
(p. 393).

Preference-based Definitions

Conte, Rizzuto, and Steiner (1999) define polychronicity as “the extent to which
an individual prefers working on several tasks at once as opposed to working on only one
task at a time” (p. 269) and Konig, Bfihner, and Mt’rrling (1999) describe it as “. . .the
preference for multitasking and the belief that one’s preference is the best way to handle
things” (p. 243).

Persing (1999), in an attempt to clarify the definition of polychronicity, instead
provided a particularly confusing set of definitions. Her definition of polychronicity at
first involves behavior. “At its most basic, polychronicity is the doing of two or more
things simultaneously” (p. 358). She then makes a point that:

In individual polychronicity, the individual prefers to do several things more or

less at once, including not only visible activities, but the tasks of thought.

Individual polychronicity is not a single behavior but a relatively enduring

preference. In individual monochronicity, the individual prefers to do things one

at a time, including not only visible activities, but tasks of thought. Likewise,
individual monochronicity is not a single behavior but a relatively enduring

preference (p. 365).

It seems clear here that polychronicity is a preference and not a behavior, but later on the

same page, Persing states that “At the level of the individual, polychronicity focuses on

the number of related and unrelated tasks, activities, and stimuli an individual attends to,

20

participates in, and is involved in literally at one time...” (p. 360). Persing also states
that “. . .although the definition of polychronicity has remained consistent on this point, it
must be emphasized again that individual polychronicity is the preference to engage in
several activities more or less at once, not the behavior of doing several things at once”
(p. 360).

Resolving Definitional Issues

As has been shown, the definition of polychronicity has been relatively unclear
and inconsistent in the literature thus far. In addition to the application of different
aspects of the cultural-level definition at the individual level, polychronicity has been
conceptualized by researchers as both a behavior and a preference. This is an important
distinction worth making because a person may prefer to behave in a certain way (e. g.,
monochronic) yet may be forced or feel compelled to behave in a different manner (e. g.,
polychronic), either by the requirements of his or her job or by the norms of the
organization. Because a behavior-based definition of polychronicity is essentially
nothing more than a repetition of the definition of multitasking performance, it is
essential for a definition of polychronicity to focus on preference.

A more precise definition of polychronicity is predicated on a clearer
conceptualization of multitasking. Regarding the latter, the vagueness associated with
statements such as “performing multiple tasks at one time” leave open a myriad of
difficult questions such as what “tasks” are and what “time” means. Researchers have
recently suggested, however, that a key element of multitasking is the shifting of
attention among tasks, both objectively and through an individual’s subjective

perceptions (Oswald, Hambrick, & Jones, 2007). Thus, the definition that I offer is that

21

individual polychronicity is a non-cognitive variable reflecting an individual ’s mgr—cage
for shifiing attention among ongoing tasks, rather than focusing on one task until
completion and then switching to another task. “Task” here is defined as a discrete set of
activities engaged in for the purposes of attaining a goal.

Given the problems present in the literature with respect to the definition of
polychronicity, it is of little surprise to note that the measurement of polychronicity has
also been flawed in a number of ways. In order to better understand problems with the
current measurement of polychronicity, a review of current measures is next.

Existing Measures of Polychronicity
The PAI

The first and less frequently used of the two major measures of polychronicity in
use is the Polychronic Attitudes Inventory developed by Kaufman, Lane, and Lindquist
(1991). To develop this instrument, the authors first generated 15 items they thought best
addressed polychronic behavior. Due to low item-total correlations, however, the authors
eliminated 11 items (i.e., almost 75% of the original items). The 4-item measure was
found to have an internal consistency reliability of a = .68, judged to be acceptable due to
the fact that it would be used in the “early stages of research” (p. 395). Items from the
PAI are as follows (1-3 are reverse-scored):

1. I do not like to juggle several activities at the same time.
2. People should not try to do many things at once.
3. When I sit down at my desk, I work on one project at a time.
4. I am comfortable doing several things at the same time.
First, it is important to note a few key methodological issues apparent in the

development of this measure. The elimination of 11 out of the original 15 items means

that the 4-item measure may be content and construct deficient in important ways.

22

Because the 15 original items were not provided, however, it is difficult to evaluate
whether or not this has occurred. In addition, the relatively low alpha means that a great
deal of the variance in scores on the PAI is likely due to measurement error, which has
the potential to attenuate its relationships with other measured variables. Second, the
measure includes items measuring behavior and items measuring preference. As was
noted earlier, it is clear that behavior and preference are two distinct concepts, and thus
including them in a supposedly unidimensional measure is inappropriate due to construct
confounding.

The IPV

By far the most commonly used measure of polychronicity is the Inventory of
Polychronic Values, developed by Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, and Martin (1999). This
measure, in its original and in many altered forms, has been used in the majority of the
research on polychronicity. An important caveat here is that the IPV was designed to
measure polychronicity at the cultural level, but in practice, it is used almost exclusively
at the individual level. Bluedorn et a1. assert in a footnote that “a sizeable amount of
unpublished data. . .indicates that the IPV can be easily modified to provide an equally
valid and reliable measure of individual-level polychronicity” (p. 227). In order to do so,
one must simply replace the word we with the word 1 whenever necessary.

The IPV was constructed as an attempt to improve upon Kaufman et al.’s PAI
measure, mainly with respect to internal consistency reliability. Bluedorn et al. (1999)
began with Kaufman’s items, which they edited and expanded upon, resulting in a 10-
item scale. Alpha for the 10 item scale was a = .86, which the authors judged to be

significantly higher than the previous measure and thus satisfactory.

23

The authors then assessed test-retest reliability, content validity, discriminant,
convergent, and nomological validity (i.e, nomological network of related constructs),
and found the IPV acceptable in all areas. Responses to the final measure were collected
on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Items are as
follows (R = reverse scored):

We like to juggle several activities at the same time

We would rather complete an entire project every day than complete parts of

several projects (R)

We believe that people should try to do many things at once

When we work by ourselves, we usually work on one project at a time (R)

We prefer to do one thing at a time (R)

We believe people do their best work when they have many tasks to complete

We believe it is best to complete one task before beginning another (R)

We believe that it is best for people to be given several tasks and assignments to

perform

9. We seldom like to work on more than a single task or assignment at the same time
(R)

10. We would rather complete parts of several projects every day than complete an

entire project

NF“

”>19???”

Modifications of the IPV

Though the full IPV showed satisfactory reliability and validity in many ways,
most researchers who use the scale use a modified or shortened version. Typically no
reasons are given for which items are dropped, why they are dropped, or how and why
the response scale is altered, however. An important note is that researchers should use
measures that operationalize the definition of their respective constructs as faithfirlly as
possible. By contrast, many polychronicity researchers operate from a definition of
polychronicity that includes only the preference for performing multiple tasks, but
measure polychronicity using the IPV. Because the IPV contains items which assess the

belief that others ought to share this preference as Well (see items 3, 6, and 8 above),

24

researchers are often measuring polychronicity with a measure that contains extra content
that contaminates the construct they are seeking to measure.
Summary of Issues with Current Measurement

Measures of polychronicity currently in use suffer from three major flaws. First
are the methodological issues involved in the development or adaptation of the measure
used. As was discussed, modifications of the IPV are all too often used without a
thorough evaluation as to the quality of the revised measure (e. g., on an independent
sample). Most past researchers have computed alpha, but do not go beyond that to
investigate the validity of the measure or any type of reliability beyond internal
consistency. Second, as was discussed with respect to the IPV, the definition of
polychronicity that has been used by researchers often has not matched the measure of
polychronicity they have used. Third, the items themselves have thus far been
problematic.

Because the IPV was based largely on the PAI, the format of the questions
remained very similar. The items themselves are either very broad (e. g., “we like to
juggle several activities at the same time,” “we prefer to do one thing at a time”) or very
specific, referring to a person who has ‘projects’ or ‘assignments’ to complete rather than
different types of tasks or tasks in general (e. g., “we would rather complete an entire
project every day than complete parts of several projects,” “we seldom like to work on
more than a single task or assignment at the same time”). In addition, every preference
item is perhaps most appropriate for measuring someone at a medium level of
polychronicity. There are no items representing the more extreme ends of the potential

spectrum of polychronicity (e.g., I am bored unless I have a ton of things going on at

25

once; I become overwhelmed when I try to do more than one task at a time). Because
there is no a priori basis for estimating how varied individuals are likely to be with
respect to polychronicity (e. g., Ferguson, 1949), I believe it would be better to attempt to
include items representing a greater amount of the potential distribution.

Finally and most importantly, past measures of polychronicity have been limited
by the lack of a clearly stated definition of polychronicity. The present paper has
proposed just such a definition, and as a result of the various issues with previous
measures of polychronicity and the need to develop a measure fitting this definition, I
will now propose and describe the development of a new measure of polychronicity.

Development of a New Measure of Polychronicity

Because of the past issues with the definition and measurement of polychronicity,
the relationship between polychronicity and multitasking performance outcomes remains
unclear. The review of definitional and measurement issues included here makes
apparent that research improvement in these areas is needed, and in fact there are clear
avenues for improvement. A clarified definition of polychronicity included here should
allow for not only a more focused explication of the construct itself and thus its
hypothesized relationships with other variables; it will also serve as a solid foundation for
the development and validation of a new measure of polychronicity. To reiterate, the
definition of polychronicity used herein is an individual ’s preterence for shifting
attention among ongoing tasks, rather than focusing on one task until completion and
then switching to another task

The present study will first develop a new measure of polychronicity, then test a

model of non-cognitive predictors of multitasking that includes anxiety as a mediator.

26

Hypotheses

As has been discussed, the present study addresses two main issues. The first is a
consistent methodological issue in the literature on non-cognitive predictors of
multitasking performance. The second is the development of an improved definition and
measure of polychronicity, a variable with potential for predicting multitasking
performance. To this end, the present study will first outline the development a new
measure of polychronicity (hereafter referred to as POLY), and will then test a number of
hypotheses regarding the predictive validity of polychronicity and other non-cognitive
variables.

Measure Development Hypotheses

An essential part of measure development is establishing conceptual and
empirical distinctiveness, namely that a measure is conceptually and empirically distinct
from measures of similar constructs, as well as from previous measures of the same
construct.

The Big Five factors of personality are routinely measured and used as non-
cognitive variables predicting job performance outcomes. Two of the Big Five factors
were thought to be particularly relevant to polychronicity. First, extraversion was
expected to be positively related to polychronicity due to the fact that individuals at
higher levels of each of these constructs would tend to be drawn toward activities
providing a high level of stimulation. Conversely, neuroticism was expected to be
negatively related to polychronicity because people at higher levels of neuroticism tend to
avoid highly stimulating activities such as multitasking, and as such would be more likely

to prefer activities not involving multitasking. Thus, I hypothesized that

27

Hla: IPIP Extraversion will be positively correlated with POLY.

Hlb: IPIP NeuroticiSm will be negatively correlated with POLY.

Need for cognition is a construct reflecting one’s preference for engaging in
activities requiring thought (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Though polychronicity and need
for cognition seem to be similar due to the fact that they are both preferences that would
potentially lead a person toward more complex tasks, it is argued here that they are
conceptually distinct because they refer to different types of complexity. Polychronicity
refers to complexity in terms of the number of tasks, and need for cognition refers to
complexity in terms of cognitive processing. It should be clear that one must not prefer
to engage in multiple tasks in order to prefer engaging in high levels of cognition, and
vice versa. For example, the combination of a number of simple, thoughtless tasks would
be much less cognitively engaging than the performance of only one highly complex task.
Thus,

H2: A measure of need for cognition will Show a low correlation (less than .3)

with POLY.

Finally, though the IPV and PAI both purport to measure polychronicity, the new
definition and measure of polychronicity proposed here are more specific than past
definitions and thus the measure will have Content that is tailored more closely to this
specific definition. Thus,

H3a: The IPV and the PAI will be positively correlated with the POLY.

H3b: The POLY will be more highly correlated with multitasking performance

than either the PAI or the IPV.

28

In order to provide support for the theoretical underpinnings and practical uses of
a measure of polychronicity, it is important to establish that it predicts such outcomes as
enjoyment of multitasking, excitement (good arousal) during multitasking, and the choice
to multitask in the future. Thus,

H4a: POLY will be positively correlated with enjoyment of the multitasking

simulation.

H4b: POLY will be positively correlated with excitement (good arousal) during

the multitasking simulation.

H4c: POLY will be positively correlated with the number of tasks participants

wish to. perform at once, given a choice.

Predictive Hypotheses

To address issues with previous research, the current study manipulates,
measures, and tests anxiety (bad arousal) as a mediator of the relationship between the
non-cognitive variables extraversion, neuroticism, Type A Behavior Pattern,
polychronicity, and multitasking performance.
Thus, it is expected that:

H5a: Scores on measures of all non-cognitive predictors will be related to

multitasking performance.

H5b: Scores on measures of all non-cognitive predictors will be related to ratings

of anxiety during the multitasking simulation.

H5c: Ratings of anxiety during the multitasking simulation will be negatively

related to multitasking performance.

29

H5d: The relationship between scores on measures of all non-cognitive predictors
and multitasking performance will be reduced by controlling for anxiety. In other
words, anxiety will mediate these relationships (see Figure 1 for an illustration of
the proposed mediated relationships).

Finally, because the practical importance of POLY is dependent upon its unique
contribution to the prediction of multitasking performance over and above other
constructs and because POLY is more specific to multitasking, it was expected that
polychronicity would predict multitasking performance over and above cognitive ability
and other non-cognitive variables. Thus,

H6: Scores on the POLY will predict performance at multitasking over and above
cognitive ability, extraversion, neuroticism, and Type A Behavior Pattern.
METHOD

This study consisted of 2 phases. The first was the measure development of
POLY, including pilot testing. The second was data collection for measure evaluation
and hypothesis testing purposes, involving all non-cognitive measures and the
multitasking simulation.

Phase 1: Measure Development
Item Generation

The first step in the development of POLY was to have subject matter experts
(SMES) generate potential items. Two SMES were selected from the Skilled Performance
Laboratory (SPL) at Michigan State University and two SMES were selected from Navy
Personnel Research Studies and Technology (NPRST). These four SMES were selected

due to their familiarity with the construct of multitasking. As a result, they were thought

30

to have been better able to distinguish the concepts included in the new definition of
polychronicity (shifting attention) from related, but distinct concepts (attention Sharing).
Unfortunately, the SMES from NPRST expressed their inability to perform the item
generation task. As such, two additional SMES were recruited from the SPL and one
additional SME was recruited from among colleagues familiar with the concepts of
multitasking and polychronicity. Though some of the SMES who actually completed the
task were different from those which had originally been intended, each member of the
final group of 5 SMES was well-versed in the constructs of interest, and thus their
qualifications as SMES were not in doubt.

SMES were provided with thorough item-generation instructions including the
new definition of polychronicity and an explanation of how it could be differentiated
from past definitions or similar constructs. The instructions, which are included in
Appendix A, also included item writing guidelines. SMES were asked to create items that
reflected the entire potential continuum of polychronicity, from very low to very high.
An attempt was made to create a large amount of potential items, in order to sample
adequately from the possible domain (Clark & Watson, 1995). In the end, SMES created
a total of 149 potential items.

Item selection

After compiling the list of potential items, those with nearly identical content
were trimmed. A total of 12 items were found to be nearly identical to other items, and
were deleted or combined (see Appendix B for the 137 non-identical items). I and an
additional SME who had not been a member of the original set of SMES then rated the

remaining items on clarity (1 = very unclear, 5 = very clear), construct relevance (1 =

31

very irrelevant, 5 = very relevant), and level of polychronicity (1 = very low or
monochronic, 5 = very high or polychronic). Items that were found to be unclear or
irrelevant (i.e., a rating by either rater of less than 3 on a 1-5 scale for clarity or
relevance) were discarded. This process resulted in the deletion of 111 items. It should
be noted that due to the desire for a measure of reasonable length, the criteria for deletion
of items were quite stringent resulting in the desired outcome of the deletion of a large
number of items. Throughout the process, I maintained an awareness of the item content
for items that were deleted and items that were kept, and ensured that the deletion of
items was not resulting in a deficient measure. Had this occurred, I would have chosen to
reword items instead of deleting them. To ensure that items were still representative of
the entire continuum of polychronicity, ratings regarding the level of polychronicity each
item reflected were examined. The mean rating for all items was exactly at the midpoint
of the scale (M = 3.0) and the items were spread out rather broadly (SD = 1.46),
supporting the notion that the underlying continuum was well-represented. (see Figure 2
for a histogram). The pilot POLY measure thus consisted of 26 items (see Appendix C).
Pilot Testing

The POLY was pilot tested using a sample of 130 undergraduate students at
Michigan State University. Due to technical difficulties or nonresponse, data from 19
participants was discarded resulting in a final sample size of 111. Because the POLY
will primarily be used on college-age participants due to its likely future use in laboratory
research on multitasking, this is an appropriate group to use for pilot testing (Dawis,

1987). It is important to note, however, that in order to establish the psychometric

32

properties of POLY in various groups, in the future a more diverse sample will be
required.

Participants signed up for the experiment through the psychology department’s
subject pool, and participation was entirely online. Pilot testing served three purposes.
The first was to ensure the readability of the measure and to clear up any confirsing items
or directions, the second was to eliminate items that psychometrically were not
functioning properly, and the third was to examine the factor structure of the measure.
Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each of
the 26 statements (items) in the measure. The scale was a 1-5 Likert-type scale ranging
from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

In addition to the POLY, participants were given one item asking whether any
items in the measure were repetitive and one item asking whether any items were unclear.
They were asked to indicate “yes” or “no” and to give examples if their answer was
“yes”. Participants were also asked a third open-ended question allowing them to provide
comments or input into the development of the measure. To address the first purpose of
pilot testing, an analysis of the qualitative responses participants provided was
performed. Of the 108 participants who provided responses for the clarity question
(rather than leaving it blank), 105 respondents indicated that none of the questions were
unclear. Among the three participants who indicated that there were unclear items, each
participant indicated only one item and there was no agreement as to which items were
unclear (i.e., each participant indicated that a different item was unclear). As a result, I
reviewed each of the three items that had been mentioned. Because the lack of agreement

among the participants did not serve asstrong evidence that the items were unclear and

33

because upon looking at the items they did not appear unclear to me, I chose to keep the
items in the measure.

Of the 117 respondents who provided an answer to the repetitiveness question, 86
(74%) indicated that at least some of the items were repetitive. Of these, seven
participants provided specific item numbers, while the remaining 79 simply indicated that
the survey contained repetitive items. Though the question was intended to produce
answers that contained pairs of items participants found to be redundant (e. g., items 1 and
3), the instructions do not appear to have been clear enough because participants who
provided item numbers simply listed items. Because this provided little evidence as to
which item pairs were actually redundant, I chose to look simply at which items were
mentioned most often as being repetitive. The most often-mentioned items (items 1 and
4) were mentioned by a total of 5 participants. Again, the consensus did not appear
overwhelming and my examination of the items did not provide conclusive evidence that
they were redundant, so I chose not to delete them. Though many participants did
indicate that items in the measure were repetitive, I expected this to occur because the
measure was in fact designed to tap a narrow construct.

Of those participants who provided a response to the open-ended “comments”
question, 11 indicated that a less repetitive measure would be an improvement. Six
participants mentioned that they had difficulty answering some of the questions because
their preference for multitasking differed in different contexts (e. g., at school and at
home). This is an interesting perspective, and one that I may pursue in future research,
but is beyond the scope of this project for creating a general measure. Finally, three

mentioned that asking questions about specific rather than general tasks (e.g., “checking

34

email” versus “performing tasks”) made the questions easier to answer. All open-ended
qualitative responses fell into one of these three categories. Because I was already aware
of each of these issues, I took the comments into consideration but took no action as a
result of them.

To address the second purpose of pilot testing, item-total correlations were
computed for all items (see Table 1 for correlations, means, and SDs). Based on a
predetermined cutoff value, items with a corrected item-total correlation less than .40
(items 5(r), 14(r), 17(r), 20, 22, 24, and 25) were flagged as potential items to delete.
Alpha was computed, and was quite high a = .88. Alpha if item deleted statistics showed
that the deletion of the following items would increase alpha: 5(r), 14(r), 17(r), 20, 25.
As a result of these analyses, I decided to consider deleting items 5, 14, 17, 20, and 25
from the measure. An examination of the items indicated that all of these items were
either worded rather extremely (e. g., “While I am driving, I prefer to have the radio off
and everyone quiet so I can concentrate solely on driving”) or reflected such common
behaviors for college students that NOT agreeing with an item would be rather extreme
(e.g., I like to talk on my cell phone while driving). The average means of the items in
these groups supported this conclusion; being 3.94 for the high extreme items and 2.24
for the low extreme items (mean for all other items excluding these items was 3.02).
Because they were in fact so extreme, I decided to delete these items because I felt that
they potentially reflected some other construct rather than a normal preference for task
switching. Alpha was recomputed, and was higher a = .90 which was acceptable given
the previously established .80 goal for alpha (see Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006, for an

examination of the typically accepted .7 cutoff “myth” for reliability).

35

To address the second purpose of pilot testing, I conducted a principal axis
exploratory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of the POLY. The items
formed a single factor, as indicated by the scree plot indicating a clear break after the first
factor (see Figure 3) and one large eigenvalue explaining 35.52% of the variance (see
Table 2). Though item loadings for items 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, 22, 24, and 26 were below
Nunnally’s (1978) recommended cutoff of .45, after examining the content of these items
I chose to keep items 8, 9, 10, and 26 because I felt that deleting these items would result
in a measure that was construct deficient. Without those items, the measure would have
too few items asking about specific tasks (e.g., using a computer). In addition, the item
loadings for those items were very close to the cutoff (see Table 3). Thus, only items 6,
18, 22, and 24 were deleted. Another exploratory principal axis factor analysis was
performed excluding these items, and again a one factor solution appeared suitable, as
evidenced by the scree plot and one large eigenvalue explaining 40.88% of the variance
(see Figure 4 and Tables 4 and 5).

During the measure editing process, I noticed that four of the items appeared to
need re-wording. These items contained the phrase “at the same time,” which was not
intended to be the focus of the measure because it reflects attention sharing rather than
switching. Thus, these items were reworded to reflect switching or shifting among tasks.
Apart from the editing of those four items, the measure content appeared satisfactory
after the deletion of the items. See Appendix D for all pilot POLY items and the
editing/deletion that was performed as a result of pilot testing.

Finally, because it was an important goal‘to maintain representativeness of the

entire continuum of polychronicity, an examination of item means for the items

36

remaining after measure editing was performed to ensure that they were spread out across
the continuum. To examine this, I computed the mean and standard deviation of the item
means for those items remaining in the edited 17-item measure. The mean was very
close to the midpoint of the scale (3.02) and the standard deviation (.36) supported the
contention that the items were still representing the entire underlying continuum (see
Figure 5 for a histogram of item means). Thus, the l7-item version of the measure was
used for the main study.
Phase 2: Data Collection
Sample

Participants were undergraduates at Michigan State University who received
course credit in their psychology courses in exchange for participation. The total sample
size was 159, though some participants were missing data from certain parts of the
experiment (e.g., the pretest) and were thus excluded from analyses including those
variables. The sample size for analyses performed ranged from 127 to 152, which is
acceptable given the a priori power analysis. Regarding the power analysis, the effect
size that can be detected at a power of .80 with a given sample size was performed using
the G*Power program (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, in press). More specifically, I
focused on the statistical analysis that is least sensitive to sample size, which is the test of
R2 change for the incremental validity of POLY. The power analysis revealed that an
effect of .053 could be detected at a power of .80 with a sample size of 150. This .053
effect is considered small-to-medium in magnitude (.02 being small and .15 being
medium by Cohen’s standards), which was judged to be an acceptable level of sensitivity

for this analysis.

37

Procedure

Participants signed up for the experiment online, at which time they took the
POLY online as a “pretest”. All participants completed a consent form (see Appendix E)
before participating in the experiment. Following the POLY measure, participants took a
5-item version of a measure of face validity (Smither et al., 1993; see. Appendix F). The
measure included the definition of polychronicity proposed in this paper, followed by
statements such as “The actual content of the survey was clearly related to
polychronicity”. Ratings were made on a 5-point, Likert-type scale (strongly disagree-
strongly agree). In addition, participants were asked to indicate whether the items were
unclear or repetitive, also on a 5-point, Likert-type scale. Approximately one week later,
participants completed the remainder of the experiment in a laboratory setting in groups
of 5-8. The experiment occurred in two main sections. During the first section,
participants completed measures of all cognitive and non-cognitive variables involved in
the study. During the second section, participants learned and performed a multitasking
simulation.

Section 1: Measures

Participants first completed a matrix reasoning measure of cognitive ability (see
Appendix G for an example item) on paper. The matrix reasoning measure was chosen
because of its brevity and its use in previous multitasking research, and its demonstrated
relationship with multitasking performance (e. g., Oswald, Hambrick, and Jones, 2007).
In this measure, items consist of 3 X 3 matrices in which each cell contains a pattern

except the one in the lower right-hand comer. Participants must choose from eight

38

potential alternatives a pattern that makes the most sense in the missing ninth cell. Eight
minutes were allowed for 14 items.

Next participants completed a number of measures online, beginning with a
measure of demographic characteristics (see Appendix H for all online measures). Next,
participants completed the 17-item version of the POLY. Participants then completed
two 10-item measures from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) to measure
Neuroticism and Extraversion. Each item contained a statement such as “I am the life of
the party” or “I often feel blue.” Participants rated how well each item describes them,
using a 5-point scale. Participants then took the 18-item short form of the Need for
Cognition scale (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984). The measure consisted of a series of
statements, such as “I would prefer complex to simple problems.” Participants rated how
well each item describes them using the same scale as above. Next participants
completed both past measures of polychronicity, the PAI and the IPV. Finally,
participants completed a measure of Type A Behavior Pattern used in previous
multitasking research. The 21-item version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (student
version; Glass, 1977, Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1971) was used. This measure
consisted of a number of questions such as “How often are you late for appointments,” to
which the participant indicated his or her answer from a list of potential choices.

Section 2: Multitasking Simulation

Following the administration of the measures, participants began the multitasking
simulation. The multitasking simulation used was Sanin, a “synthetic” work task
which contains four component tasks that are presented simultaneously (see Figure 6).

The tasks are memory search, arithmetic, visual monitoring, and auditory monitoring. In

39

the memory search task, a set of letters is presented for a short time and then covered.
Subsequently a letter is presented and participants identify whether the letter was a part of
the previously shown set. Participants may click the area where the list appeared to
reveal the letter set again, but doing so carries a point penalty. In the arithmetic task,
participants add 2-digit or 3-digit numbers. This task is performed at the participant’s
own pace. In the visual monitoring task, a needle moves from right to left across a fuel-
like gauge. Participants must click on the gauge to reset the needle before it reaches zero.
More points are given for the needle being as cloSe to zero as possible and points are lost
proportional to the length of time the needle stays at zero. In the auditory monitoring
task, participants must respond to a higher-pitch target tone and to ignore a lower-pitch
distracter tone. Participants performed the multitasking simulation for two 10-minute
blocks.

Importantly, after completing the multitasking simulation participants were given
measures of both positive (excitement) and negative (anxiety) arousal during the
simulation, as well as their enjoyment of the multitasking simulation (see Appendix I for
all online posttests). AS an important manipulation check, anxiety experienced during the
simulation was examined. As can be seen in Figure 7, the simulation was anxiety-
producing enough to result in an approximately normal distribution of anxiety scores,
which is an improvement over past studies because the anxiety scores do not show the
previously common floor effects. After completing these measures, participants were
asked to imagine that the researchers needed four more minutes of performance data from
them, but they were free to choose how many tasks of Sanin they would perform at

once. Participants were asked to indicate whether they would like to perform one, two,

40

three, or all four tasks at a time. They were then asked an open-ended question regarding
why they chose the number of tasks they chose. Participants did not actually have to
perform these tasks, and were then thanked for their participation and excused.
RESULTS

The analyses also consisted of two phases. The first was measure evaluation, and
the second was the testing of the relationships between non-cognitive predictors and
multitasking performance.

Phase 1: Measure Evaluation
Reliability

Internal consistency (alpha) reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and
intercorrelations for all measures can be seen in Table 6. Of special interest is alpha for
the 17-item POLY, which was a = .90. Given the .80 cutoff established in the proposal,
this was considered satisfactory. In order to establish that items were still functioning as
expected, item-remainder correlations were also examined (see Table 7). Items 6, 7, and
8 had quite low item-remainder correlations (all under .35). After once again examining
the content of the items in the measure, I concluded that the removal of these items would
not aversely affect content validity because similar content was reflected in other items.
Thus, they were excluded from the measure for further analyses. By contrast, items 2 and
18 also had low item-remainder correlations (.38 and .39, respectively) but were kept
because I concluded that deleting them would have resulted in construct deficiency.
After deleting items 6, 7, and 8, alpha for the 14-item measure was slightly higher at a =
.91. Test-retest reliability, as estimated by the correlation between scores on the POLY at

Time 1 (online sign-up) and scores on the POLY at Time 2 (lab session) was r = .83.

41

Because a cutoff of .70 or higher was established in the proposal,this was considered
satisfactory. One other measure deserves mention at this point due to its failure to
function as expected. Contrary to the satisfactory reliabilities found for the Type A
Behavior Pattern measure, this study found a very low alpha reliability (a = .57) and
extremely low or negative item-total correlations (see Table 8). A variety of scoring
methods (e.g., continuous, dichotomous) and the dropping of many combinations of
items were attempted in an exploratory fashion order to improve the psychometric
qualities of the measure, but none of these efforts resulted in substantial improvements.
Thus, the measure was dropped from further analyses.
Validity

Face and Content Validity

Ratings of face validity were averaged. Though a cutoff of 4.0 (corresponding to
“agree”) was determined to be the cutoff for acceptability, the mean face validity rating
across items Was only 3.5. Despite the fact that this was slightly lower than the
established cutoff, it is still higher than the “neutral” point on the scale, indicating some
support for the face validity of the scale. Content validity was assessed by having five
SMES rate the extent to which the POLY reflects the construct of polychronicity in its
entirety (see Appendix N). The mean content validity rating was 4.53, which exceeded
the predetermined cutoff of 4.0. As an index of interrater agreement, I computed ICC(1),
which indicates the amount of variance in ratings that can be attributed to the fact that
ratings were made by different raters (McGraw & Wong, 1996). The ICC(1) for content
validity ratings was .85 . Because ICC values are comparable to reliability coefficients,

an ICC(1) of .7 or greater was set as the cutoff. Thus, there was substantial enough

42

agreement to merit combining the ratings (LeBreton, Burgess, Kaiser, Atchley, & James,
2003).
Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To test Hla, the bivariate correlation between the measure of extraversion and the
POLY was calculated (see Table 6). Before the study, it was determined that a positive
correlation would provide support for H1 a. The correlation of r = .14, p = .09 between
the two measures failed to support this hypothesis. To test Hlb, the bivariate correlation
between neuroticism and the POLY was calculated. The correlation of r = -.11, p = .19
also failed to support this hypothesis. Both correlations were in the correct direction,
however, and had the sample size been larger these correlations may have become
significant. To test H2, the bivariate correlation between need for cognition and the
POLY was calculated. The correlation of r = .04, p = .64 provided support for this
hypothesis because it was not in the range of practical significance, set at I r I = .30. To
test H3a and H3b, the bivariate correlations among the PAI, the IPV, the POLY, and
multitasking performance were calculated. A moderate, positive correlation between the
POLY and both the IPV and PAI would have provided support for H3a. However, the.
correlations among the polychronicity measures were higher than expected, r = .73, p <
.05 for the PAI and r = .85, p < .05 for the IPV. This result casts some doubt on the
uniqueness of the POLY from previous measures, however measures can correlate highly
and still maintain different relationships with criteria.

A higher correlation between the POLY and multitasking performance than
between either the IPV or the PAI and multitasking performance would have provided

support for H3b. Contrary to the hypothesis, the PAI was significantly correlated with

43

both blocks of multitasking performance, r = .21 and r = .22, both p < .05 but neither the
IPV nor the POLY was significantly correlated with multitasking performance in either
block, r = .08 and r = .04 for the IPV and r = .11 and r = .09 for the POLY, p > .05 for
all. Because the correlations between the IPV and multitasking performance and the
POLY and multitasking performance were not significant, it is not possible to compare
their relative size. However, the fact that the PAI did Show a significant correlation with
multitasking performance at least partially contradicts H3b.
Criterion-related validity
To test H4a, enjoyment of the multitasking simulation was included as the
criterion in a simple linear regression with POLY as the predictor. In support of H43, the
POLY was a significant predictor of enjoyment, standardized ,6 = .28, F (1,147) = 12.24, p
< .05, R2 = .08. To test H4b, a simple linear regression was performed with excitement
during the multitasking simulation as the criterion and POLY as the predictor. The
analysis failed to provide evidence that the POLY was a significant predictor,
standardized ,B = .04, F (1 ,146) = .24, p = .64, R2 = .00 and thus H4b was not supported.
To test H4c, the number of tasks participants choose to perform during the “extra” 4-
minute performance session was included as the criterion in a simple linear regression
with POLY as the predictor. In support of the hypothesis, the POLY was a significant
predictor of the number of tasks chosen, standardized ,6 = .17, F (1 ,148) = 4.40, p < .05,
R2 = .03.
Phase 2: Non-cognitive Predictors and Multitasking Performance

Mediation Tests

44

The first step in testing the mediational hypotheses is to establish that each of the
non-cognitive measures is associated with multitasking performance. However, as was
discussed earlier, the POLY was not found to be significantly related to multitasking
performance in either performance block. In addition, extraversion was not found to
relate to multitasking performance, r = .08 and r = .05, p > .05 for both. The only non-
cognitive measure found to relate significantly to multitasking performance was
neuroticism. As such, neuroticism was the only measure for which the mediational
analyses were performed. Due to the relative simplicity of this analysis as compared to
the analysis that had been proposed when all non-cognitive variables were to be tested, I
chose to do the mediational analysis in regression rather than in SEM, as SEM provided
no additional benefit in this case.

As such, three simple linear regressions were performed to test whether
neuroticism predicted multitasking performance, and whether this relationship was
mediated by anxiety experienced during the multitasking simulation. As expected,
neuroticism was found to be a significant predictor of multitasking performance,
standardized [3 = -.23, F(1,149) = 8.18, p = .01, R2 = .05 and of state anxiety,
standardized B = -.24, F (1,146) = 9.11, p = .00, R2 = .06. In support of ch, anxiety was
found to be a significant predictor of multitasking performance, standardized B = -.27, F
(1,148) = 11.68, p = .00, R2 = .07. All relationships were in the expected directions. To
test whether the mediation was partial or complete, a hierarchical regression was
performed with multitasking performance as the criterion, anxiety entered in Step 1, and
neuroticism in Step 2. After controlling for state anxiety, neuroticism was a reduced but

still significant predictor of multitasking performance, indicating partial mediation,

45

standardized a = -.13, F (2,146) = 8.57, p = .00, R2 = .11 for the full model, R2 change =
.03 for Step 2, p = .03.
Incremental Validity Test

Finally, a three-step hierarchical regression analysis was proposed to evaluate the
incremental validity of POLY over and above other variables. Because POLY was not
significantly related to multitasking performance, however, this hypothesis cannot be
supported and the performance of these analyses is unnecessary.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was twofold. The first goal was to improve
upon the methodology used to explore the relationships between non-cognitive variables
and multitasking performance. To this end, the paper reviewed past research on non-
cognitive predictors of multitasking performance and highlighted key issues relevant to
anxiety. To address these issues, anxiety was separated conceptually from arousal and
was induced, measured, and tested as a mediator of the relationship between non-
cognitive variables and multitasking performance. The second goal was to develop a new
measure of polychronicity, a non-cognitive variable that shows promise as a predictor of
multitasking. As such, I reviewed past research on polychronicity and highlighted
definitional and measurement issues. To address these issues, I put forth a new definition
of polychronicity and developed a new measure of polychronicity (the POLY). The new
measure was then evaluated with respect to many aspects of reliability and validity.

I will first review the results of the study related to the development of the POLY,
and will then move to a discussion of the study’s value in the area of predicting

multitasking performance. This will be followed by a section describing the limitations

46

of the present study and directions for future research, and I will conclude by
summarizing the contributions of the present paper.
Measure Development

The present study described the construction of a measure of polychronicity that
is based on a new definition of polychronicity and that shows evidence of reliability and
validity. With respect to reliability, the POLY was found to exhibit high test-retest and
internal consistency reliability. Because it was designed to tap a very narrow construct,
high levels of reliability (e.g., .90) are appropriate, and in fact are essential because they
provide evidence that the measure is operating without a great deal of random error
variance. In addition, the high test-retest reliability provides some evidence that the
POLY measures a stable characteristic. With respect to validity, the POLY was tested in
a number of ways. First, the content validity of the POLY was rated by experts and
found to be satisfactory. The high ratings received by the POLY with respect to content
validity reflect the fact that the items within the measure each tap the construct of
polychronicity (and nothing else), and that as a set, the items reflect the entire content
domain of polychronicity. This is particularly important with respect to the POLY
because past measures of polychronicity appeared to be construct contaminated due to the
inclusion of items tapping behavior and preference.

Though face validity was slightly lower than expected, the mean face validity
rating was still above the midpoint of the scale, indicating better than neutral support for
the face validity of the measure. With respect to convergent and discriminant validity,
the POLY showed mixed but promising evidence of its uniqueness from related

constructs. POLY was unrelated to a measure of Need for Cognition, a measure it was

47

expected not to relate to. In addition, though the correlations between the POLY and
measures of extraversion and neuroticism did not reach the level of significance in the
present study, the relationships were in the correct directions. Though it is impossible to
make conclusions on the basis of non significant relationships, the trends lead to the
possibility that in a study with a greater sample size, these relationships might in fact
become significant.

Next, the POLY showed high correlations with past measures of polychronicity,
the PAI and IPV. Because the correlations were slightly higher than was anticipated, this
raises some doubt as to whether the POLY is independent enough from these past
measures to provide better prediction of outcomes. Because the three measures were
filled out in the same survey administration in the same survey format, however, it is
possible that the correlations among the measures were artificially slightly inflated. In
fact, the POLY participants filled out during the pretest showed somewhat lower
correlations with the PAI, r = .62, p < .05 and the IPV, r = .76, p < .05. This evidence
lends support to the previous explanation and to the discriminability of POLY from past
measures. In addition, although the POLY is highly related to past measures, it was
specifically designed to measure polychronicity as defined in this paper, which supports
its use over the other two measures in future research if the currently proposed definition
is used.

With respect to criterion-related validity, this study did not find support for the
hypothesis that POLY would predict multitasking performance. There are many reasons
why this might have occurred, and these will be discussed in detail in the limitations

section to follow. Though the POLY did not predict performance or excitement during

48

the multitasking simulation, it did significantly predict both enjoyment of the simulation
and the number of tasks participants would have chosen to perform, had they been given
the chance. After they chose how many tasks they would like to perform if the
experimenters had asked them to perform one more Sanin block, participants were
asked why they chose the amount of tasks they chose. A purely explorative investigation
into these responses provides some interesting information. For participants who
indicated that they would like to perform four tasks (the maximum number of tasks, n =
69), the most frequently reported answers were that doing so would be challenging (n =
12), that they were simply comfortable (n = 11) doing four tasks at once, or that any
fewer would be boring (n = 10). This data suggests that perhaps highly polychronic
people might derive more personal fulfillment out of jobs requiring higher levels of
multitasking, would be more satiSfied with them, and would be left unsatisfied with jobs
that did not allow them to multitask.

This finding has potential practical significance with respect to the POLY because
it speaks to the potential usefulness of POLY as a placement tool for jobs requiring high
levels of multitasking, such as air traffic controller. An individual high in polychronicity,
because he or she might enjoy the multitasking component more than an individual low
in polychronicity, might find these jobs more rewarding on the whole. Though it is
purely speculative, one might infer that these individuals would also be less likely to burn
out or turn over from these jobs due to their general enjoyment of them. Of course the
findings in this study with respect to such satisfaction-related outcomes are only
preliminary, however the knowledge that such relationships are possible should prove

useful in future research, which will be discussed later. Taken together, the measure

49

evaluation findings indicate that the POLY shows clear evidence of reliability, some
evidence of various types of validity, and promise as a predictor of multitasking-related
outcomes.

Predicting Multitasking Performance

Though the POLY and other non-cognitive measures were not found to relate to
multitasking performance, this study does provide two relevant findings with respect to
the prediction of multitasking performance. First and foremost, the simulation produced
anxiety in participants, and the anxiety they experienced during the multitasking
simulation was a significant predictor of multitasking performance. This is an important
finding because past researchers have often discussed the potential role of anxiety in
reducing performance, but have not directly measured anxiety. Second is the finding that
neuroticism is a significant predictor of multitasking performance (mediated by anxiety).
Though past researchers (Szymura & Necka, 1998; Szymura & Wodnieka, 2003) found
some preliminary evidence that neuroticism predicted multitasking performance, their
results were mixed and somewhat inconclusive. Thus, the present study is the first to
find a clear relationship between neuroticism and multitasking performance.

The significance of these findings extends beyond the variables themselves. The
finding that anxiety and neuroticism significantly predict multitasking performance
provides evidence to suggest that researchers should continue to investigate non-
cognitive predictors of multitasking performance. Because of the relative failure of
researchers to link non-cognitive predictors with multitasking performance, some

researchers (e. g., Biihner, Konig, Pick, & Krumm, .2006) have suggested that perhaps

50

multitasking researchers should abandon non-cognitive predictors. The present results,
however, would suggest that doing so might be premature.
Limitations and Future Directions

The present study possessed some important limitations that should be addressed
by future research. First, the sample used in the present study was restricted to college
undergraduates, a sample whose generalizability to the population at large is
questionable. With respect to the generalizability of the sample, the present sample of
college undergraduates possesses two main important differences from other samples.
First is the likely motivation of the participants. Though motivation was not measured, it
is probably safe to assume that participants on the whole were not highly motivated to
perform the task to the best of their ability because it had no bearing on any future
outcome for them. Study participants were aware that their performance on the Sanin
task would have no impact on the amount of credit they would receive, and therefore
their motivation to perform might have been low despite encouragement from the
eXperimenters to try hard and get the highest score possible. Low motivation may have
resulted in lowered performance scores overall and as such, reduced variance. This may
have attenuated the correlations between multitasking performance and other variables in
the study.

The second limitation of the present sample is the age of the participants.
Research has shown that multitasking ability decreases with age (e. g., Salthouse,
Hambrick, Lukas, & Dell, 1996), and as such the results of multitasking studies
performed with participants of college age are likely not to generalize well to older

populations. In fact, polychronicity scores may fall with age due to the fact that

51

multitasking becomes more difficult with age. Though the present sample was
reasonable for this study due to the basic nature of the research questions and the
availability of the sample, future studies should attempt to replicate the reliability and
validity findings of this study and to address its weaknesses by using a more diverse
sample, particularly in terms of age, motivation, and work experience.

The final limitation with respect to the sample is its size. Though an a priori
power analysis guided the sample size used in this research, it appears that the study
possessed insufficient power to detect the relatively small relationships in the
convergent/discriminant analyses. As a result, future researchers should gather larger
samples in order to have sufficient power for these tests.

In addition to sampling limitations, the present study also possessed limitations
with respect to the multitasking simulation utilized. Though the simulation does provide
many benefits that were discussed earlier in the paper (e. g., the manipulability of task
characteristics), the taSk possesses limitations relevant to both the external and internal
validity of the study. First, the simulation possesses limited generalizability to real-world
multitasking situations. The tasks within the multitasking simulation are designed so that
they require no previous knowledge (e.g., reading ability) and so that they are very easily
learned. By contrast, many tasks that are performed in real workplaces require both
general and task-specific knowledge. Having to access such knowledge while
multitasking might alter the processes used or the level of challenge, and thus limit the
applicability of these results to real multitasking situations.

The simulation also possesses limited external validity as a result of its general

appearance. Though memorizing, performing arithmetic, and monitoring are perhaps

52

similar to the types of tasks a person might perform in some roles (e. g., receptionist), the
tasks all appear on the same computer screen, and the tasks appear more like a game than
a workplace situation. Other multitasking simulations (e.g., SIMKAP, discussed earlier)
appear much more similar to real-world tasks, and thus may be more generalizable than
the Sanin simulation.

In addition to concerns about generalizability, the multitasking simulation also
possesses limitations with respect to the internal validity of this study. As was alluded to
in the introduction to this paper, multitasking researchers lack an organizing framework
in which to place their multitasking simulations, and thus it is difficult to even determine
which characteristics one’s multitasking simulation possesses relevant to the predictors
used or to other simulations. For example, one’s level of polychronicity may be
important for multitasking performance, but only for those multitasking situations in
which personal volition is a large determinant of performance. In Sanin, three out of
four of the tasks inthe multitasking simulation are paced by the program rather than the
individual. As such, the individual performing the simulation simply has to respond to
the switches in task priority (e.g., a new set of letters shows up, the auditory task beeps)
rather than driving the task switches him or herself. If task switches were more greatly
influenced by the individual, his or her preference might play a larger role in overall
performance. Another factor that may play a role in whether a person prefers to multitask
may be characteristics of the tasks themselves (e.g., complexity or modality). Someone
who prefers to multitask when performing Simple tasks may not prefer to multitask when
performing complex tasks, and tasks that are of the same modality (e. g., auditory) (may

make multitasking more difficult or impossible.

53

Because there is no organizing framework for multitasking situations, however,
there is no way to systematically assess the degree to which one’s multitasking
simulation possesses such characteristics. Thus, it is difficult to know whether the
relationships (or lack thereof) one finds are due to certain task characteristics that would
be different in other multitasking situations. Additionally, the lack of an organizing
framework makes it impossible to systematically compare results across multitasking
studies.

In the future, researchers should focus on the development of an organizing
framework for multitasking situations. Such a framework would prove useful both with
respect to real-world multitasking and laboratory simulations. Being able to differentiate
different multitasking situations with respect to their important characteristics (e.g.,
degree of switching, type of tasks) is essential in order for researchers to make plausible
propositions about the relationships between multitasking and other variables, and for
researchers to cumulate their results.

A final limitation of this study is its use of self-report measures for all variables
except multitasking performance. This is a limitation for two main reasons. First, the
relationships in the study may have been inflated due to common method variance.
Participants filled out all the measures in the same format (an online survey) with very
similar response scales for all measures. This problem is compounded by the fact that the
relationships of interest are likely to be small in magnitude, and as such even a small
degree of common method variance might result in conclusions that are not merited. -
Second is the fact that a key measure, anXiety, may not be most appropriately measured

using a self-report, perceptual measure as it was in this study. Participants may not be

54

aware of their actual level of anxiety, or may misattribute excitement or other types of
arousal to anxiety because they are in a performance context. To address this issue,
firture research may benefit from the use of physiological measures of anxiety or arousal
(e. g., cortisol levels or heart rate) during multitasking. Researchers might also consider
using behavioral, rather than perceptual, measures. For example, to measure choice one
might provide participants with a number of choices of tasks to perform while they wait
for the experimental session to start. By varying the task choices and collecting data on
which participants choose which activities, researchers could assess actual choice
behavior rather than choice intentions in a hypothetical situation. Another possibility is
measuring career choices with respect to their level of multitasking and determining
whether factors like polychronicity predict the choice of a career track high in
multitasking (e. g., air traffic controller).

In addition to future directions suggested by limitations in the present study, a
final direction for future research is suggested by the results of this study. Instead of
focusing on performance at multitasking, polychronicity researchers might benefit instead
from a focus on satisfaction- or fulfillment-related outcomes. As discussed earlier, one of
the only Significant results with respect to polychronicity thus far has been in relation to
motivation and commitment rather than performance (Slocombe and Bluedorn, 1999).
These outcomes are important because workers who are more satisfied or fulfilled by
their jobs, or who experience greater levels of fit, may be more motivated and less likely
to burn out or leave the organization. An important consideration here is that ability or
intelligence may play a role in the type or degree of multitasking an individual finds

rewarding or challenging as well. Future research should integrate polychronicity into

55

models of person—job and person-organization fit, and examine these results in a
satisfaction framework as well as considering the role of ability and its influence on
preference.
Conclusion

In sum, the present study made advances toward achieving both the goals set out
at the beginning, and it contributes to the literature in four main ways. First, it develops a
new definition and measure of a promising construct, polychronicity. Second, it provides
examples for how future multitasking researchers might improve their methodology with
respect to multitasking simulations and with respect to anxiety. Third, it provides
evidence for the utility of neuroticism as a predictor of multitasking performance.
Finally, it suggests that polychronicity might be useful as a predictor of non-performance,
multitasking-related outcomes. As the need for multitasking at work increases, it is

hoped that these contributions will prove valuable to the field of multitasking research.

56

Figure 1
Hypothesized Mediation ,of the Relationship between Non-Cognitive Variables and

Multitasking Performance

 

 

 

Non-Cognitive State Anxiety Multitasking
Variables Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘

\ /

 

 

 

 

Note. The direction of the relationships is not shown because some are positive and some
are negative. The figure is meant to show a generalized representation of the expected
relationships.

57

Appendix A
Item Generation Instructions for SMES

Introduction

Hello! Thank you for agreeing to serve as an item writer for the key measure in my
Masters’ thesis project. Your knowledge and expertise in the areas of multitasking and
personality and your careful attention to this task are essential to the success of this
measure and to my project as a whole.

Purpose of the Project

My Masters’ thesis consists of two main parts. The first is the development and
validation of a measure of polychronicity, a non-cognitive variable important in the
prediction of multitasking. The second is the exploration of the relationships among
polychronicity, other cognitive and non-cognitive constructs, and multitasking
performance.

You are probably already familiar with polychronicity as it has been previously defined
as an individual’s preference for multitasking. Though previous definitions and measures
of polychronicity exist, a review of the literature suggests that improvements in the
definition and measurement of polychronicity are essential in order to make meaningfirl
progress in its exploration. It is my opinion (and the opinion of others, given recent SIOP
- presentations and discussions with fellow researchers) that polychronicity will become an
even more successful predictor of multitasking performance once the definition and
measure have been refined.

This step, item generation, is the first of many steps that will be taken toward the
development and validation of the measure. After you help us generate a large set of
items related to polychronicity, they will be revised and combined to create a pilot
measure. The pilot measure will then be tested on an initial sample, and based on data
from this sample items will then be edited to create a final version of the measure. Next,
data will be collected on this new measure of polychronicity, along with a number of
other cognitive and non-cognitive predictors, and a multitasking performance criterion.
Analyses on this data set will examine the extent to which polychronicity and other
constructs are valid predictors of multitasking performance.

Your task

You are being asked to create items for the new measure based on the revised definition
of polychronicity and the item writing guidelines herein.

58

Appendix A cont’d

 

 

Definition:
The revised definition of polychronicity is as follows: polychronicity is an
individual ’s preference for shitting attention among ongoing tasks, rather than
focusing on one task until completion and then switching to another task.

 

Please take a moment to consider this definition and what types of activities a person
high in polychronicity might prefer, based on this definition. Note the emphasis on
shifting one ’s attention among tasks and think of activities that might exemplify this. For
example, checking one’s email intermittently while working on a writing task might fit,
but chewing gum while walking might not.

Details of the new measure:

The new measure will be entitled POLY. POLY will be administered by computer and will consist of a
number of statements to which a person is asked to indicate his or her level of agreement on a 1-5 scale.
The instructions will read as follows:

The following is a survey of normal individual preference. There are no correct or incorrect
answers, so please answer as honestly and accurately as possible. Your responses will be confidential.
Please read each item carefully and respond by indicating how much you agree or disagree with the item,
using the response scale provided.

Item generation instructions — please read carefully

Items should be worded as statements of preference, to which study participants can
indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement.
Be sure to phrase items as statements (rather than questions) and to use the first person
for all items.
There is not a target reading level in mind for the measure, but try to keep it simple by
avoiding unnecessarily complex wording or difficult vocabulary.
Please take care to create items that are clear, somewhat brief, and easy to understand.
Please try to focus your items on the idea of preference, leaving out related concepts such
as self-efficacy or competence.
An example item that illustrates these guidelines is as follows:

I prefer to combine cooking with other tasks such as watching TV.
This item is easy to understand, refers to tasks people often perform, and reflects a
personal preference for switching among tasks. Keep in mind that this example is NOT
being used as the ideal format for items, nor is it the only format that should be used- it is
simply included to illustrate the points discussed above. Your items may not resemble
the example at all, while still being excellent representations of the construct and
following all the guidelines- this is perfectly acceptable, and in fact it is preferable to
have a variety of items rather than many redundant ones.

It is also a goal to have items reflect varying degrees of polychronicity (from very low to
very high). For example, some people may be highly disturbed by performing more than
one task at a time, while others may need a much higher degree of stimulation in order to
be comfortable. Please make an effort to create items that reflect the entire continuum of

59

 

Appendix A cont’d

polychronicity, from items that reflect preference for a lot of multitasking to items that
reflect little to no multitasking.

Please create at least 50 items. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at
oberlan4@msu.edu. Please return your items to me by September 21, 2007 or sooner!

Again, thank you for your help with this task. Your time and efforts are greatly
appreciated!

60

Appendix B

13 7 Non-identical Items

Nu—a

9‘99?“

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

l6.

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.

. I don't mind situations where I have to switch between several tasks

I prefer to work in an environment where I can shift my attention from task to
task.

I prefer constant change in my life

I prefer life to be full of changes that I must deal with a moment-by-moment basis
I prefer my life to be filled with several projects

I prefer to surround myself with multiple sources of stimulation (e.g., radio,
television, conversations).

I would like to work in a job where I was constantly shifting from one task to
another, like a receptionist.

I would prefer to work in an environment where I have to handle many tasks at
once.

I would prefer to work in an environment where I have to react to changes
quickly.

I would rather work in a noisy place like a coffee shop than a library

I would thrive in a job like stock trader which requires being able to handle many
tasks at once

Chaotic environments make me nervous

I feel anxious in situations that require me to divide my attention

I avoid situations in which I have to switch back and forth between tasks

I would prefer to work in an environment where I can finish one task before
starting the next.

Working at a job, like a receptionist, where I was forced to switch between
answering phone calls, signing in clients and filing papers, would make me very
uncomfortable.

My ideal vacation is one where I can do nothing for long stretches of time

I like to talk on my cell phone while driving

I like to listen to music while I am working on other tasks.

I like preparing meals that require juggling several different tasks at the same time
Doing my homework is easier for me if I am combining it with another task.

I do not mind having a conversation while I am writing a paper.

I like to chat online while I do homework or research.

I prefer to listen to music while I do my homework.

When doing class assignments, I like to switch between subjects periodically.
Switching rapidly between email, homework and chatting helps to keep me
focused.

I do not mind talking to passengers in my car while I am driving.

I prefer applying makeup while I'm driving to work.

I don't mind being interrupted by a phone call while working on a task

I enjoy talking on the phone while I am doing something else.

I like to eat breakfast while I'm doing my doing my personal hygiene in the
morning.

I prefer writing a paper while I watch TV.

61

33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

41

43.

44.

45

47.

48.
49.
50.
51.

52.

53

57.
58.

59.

60.
61.

62.

Appendix B cont’d

While watching TV, I usually try to do something else at the same time
I like to exercise while watching television.

I like to fold my laundry while watching movies/television.

I like to read during commercials while watching television.

I prefer to do other things like cooking in between tv breaks.

I like to listen to books on tape while cleaning my apartment.

I prefer hearing the news on the radio/tv while I cook.

I like to play games that require me to shift my attention

. I like to read while I'm walking to class.
42.

I prefer surfing the net while I chat with my friends on an instant messaging
system.

I prefer to check my email intermittently even if I'm simultaneous working on a
project report.

I prefer to do multiple things online, like chatting on multiple instant message
conversations.

. I fi'equently check my e-mail while working on my computer
46.

When I am using a computer, I like to have multiple windows open so I can work
on multiple tasks at once.

When I am working on the computer, I prefer to shift my attention between
different tasks (e. g., writing a paper, checking email, browsing the internet)
instead of working solely on one task.

I prefer to combine cooking with other tasks such as cleaning the'house.

I prefer to combine exercise with listening to music or watching TV.

I prefer to combine laundry with other tasks such as preparing for a meeting (or
you can say "preparing for a class"). ,

I prefer to combine tasks like watering my plants while I'm talking on the cell
phone.

I prefer to surf the intemet while I talk on the cellular phone.

. I try to have conversations on the phone while working on my computer
54.

55.
56.

If I have the opportunity, I will check my e-mail while talking on the phone

I prefer to read the newspaper while eating breakfast.

I would love to have an extra set of hands so I could play a video game while I
work and talk on my cell phone.

If I have the opportunity, I will browse the intemet during a meeting

It does not bother me-when I'm interrupted by work emails while I'm completing a
project report.

When having a conversation with a friend, I often find myself thinking of other
things

I like to spend several hours reading a book at one sitting

I would rather wait until the end of the day to check e-mail than check it
periodically throughout

If I am watching TV and the telephone rings, I turn off the TV before answering

62

63.

65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

86

87
88

89

90

91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.

Appendix B cont’d

If I had two tasks (e. g., reading a paper and completing a worksheet) that needed
completed in the next hour, I would prefer to finish one task completely and then
focus on the second one as opposed to switching back and forth between the two.

. While I am driving, I prefer to have the radio off and everyone quiet so I can

concentrate solely on driving.

When I have to focus on one task at a time (e. g., reading a paper), I get bored.
I find doing only one thing at a time boring.

I am a busy person

I am an impulsive person

I am easily bored

I have difficulty concentrating on just one task

I have difficulty keeping my mind focused on the task at hand

I have difficulty meeting deadlines

I am an organized person

I have a "one-track" mind

I have a high degree of self-control

I have difficulty mentally disengaging from a task I have been performing

If I am interrupted I have trouble finding my spot again.

If I attempt too many firings at one time I become distracted.

I prefer to work on multiple tasks at once.

I am much more engaged in what I am doing if I am able to switch between
several different tasks.

I do not like to do one thing at a time.

I don't like to concentrate on just one task in my life

I don't like to focus my attention on one thing at a time.

I like to complete tasks as quickly as possible

I like to switch my attention from one task to another.

I lose interest in what I am doing if I have to focus on the same task for long
periods of time without thinking about or doing something else.

I love working on multiple tasks at one time.

I often find myself switching between the tasks that I am working on instead of
focusing on one task at a time.

I prefer doing multiple things at the same time, switching my attention from one
task to another.

I prefer to accomplish two or more tasks simultaneously.

I prefer to do many things simultaneously.

I prefer to focus my attention on multiple things at a time.

I prefer to focus on two or three tasks at once.

I prefer to have multiple projects going at the same time rather than just one

I prefer to have several tasks going on all at one time.

I prefer to multitask.

I prefer to start several things before finishing any of them.

I prefer to switch my attention between two tasks until they are both complete.

63

Appendix B cont’d

99. I prefer to work on several projects in a day, rather than completing one project
and then switching to another.

100.
101.

102.

103.

104.
105.

106.
107.
108.

109.

110.

111.
112.
113.

114.

115.
116.
117.
118.

119.
120.
121.
122.
123.

124.
125.
126.
127.

128.

I prefer working on as many tasks as possible at the same time.
I think I am more productive if I do two or three things at once.

I would rather work on several projects at the same time than concentrate my
efforts on just one

If I could have my way I would juggle my tasks, doing multiple things at the
same time.

If I could have my way, I would do many things simultaneously.

If I were to choose between working on one task at a time or working on
multiple tasks at a time, I would prefer working on multiple tasks at a time.
It annoys me if I can do only one thing at a time.

When completing a task, I am mentally planning what task to do next.

When completing a task, I am mentally switching my attention between the
current task and the task I will be completing next.

When I have a task to complete, I like to break it up by doing other tasks at the
same time.

When I'm completing a task, I find myself switching to another task and then
coming back to the original task.

I prefer not to be interrupted when working on a task.

I prefer doing one task at a time.

I am easily bothered by distraction when I am trying to concentrate on
something

I am more comfortable focusing on one task at a time than focusing on several
tasks at once.

I do not like having to attend to more than one task at a time.

I do not like to divide my attention into multiple tasks.

I do not like to do multiple things at the same time.

I don't like when I have to stop in the middle of a task to work on something
else.

I get confused if I try to do too many things at one time.

I hate having to split or shift my attention while working.

I hate multitasking

I like to finish one task completely before focusing on anything else.

I like working on a few tasks at one time, but become uncomfortable when I
have to attend to too many things at once.

I prefer not to start something new until I have finished what I was doing.

I prefer to finish one task before moving on to another one

I would rather put off a task until later than stop the one I am currently
performing

It makes me very uncomfortable when I am not able to finish one task
completely before focusing on another task.

When I am completing a task, I prefer to have all of my attention focused on it.

.64

129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.

Appendix B cont’d

I don't mind deviating from my schedule

I prioritize tasks in order to get done as much as possible in a block of time
I rarely spend more than a few minutes on any one task

Sometimes I get so involved in a task that I forget about meetings

I dislike being under time pressure in my work

I keep a calendar

I plan how much time I will allocate to a particular task before starting it

I put together a schedule each day and rarely deviate from that schedule

I rarely do anything on a whim

65

Figure 2
Histogram of Item Level Ratings by SMES

 

 

66

Appendix C

POLY Pilot Measure

 

Questionnaire/Survey: Multitasking Preference

 

The following is a pilot survey of . normal individual preference. There are no correct or .
incorrect answers, so please answer as honestly and accurately as possible in order to help us
in developing this measure. Your responses will be confidential. Please read each item . .
Carefully and respond by indicating how much you agree or disagree with the item, using the
response scale provided.

In addition to answering the questions, please note those which you find unClear or
repetitive, and record this information at the end of the survey in the area provided.
Your efforts will help us in further developing this measure.

1.I prefer to work on several projects in a day, rather than completing one project and
then switching to another.
If" f‘ t” t” I“

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

2.1 would like to work in a job where I was constantly shifting from one task to another,
like a receptionist or an air traffic controller.

r. r: c‘r r

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

3.1 lose interest in what I am doing if I have to focus on the same task for long periods of
time, without thinking about or doing something else.
a * r r a r,

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

4. When doing a number of assignments, I like to switch back and forth between them
ratherthan do one at a time.

P t“ t“ t“ C

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

67

Appendix C cont’d

5.1 like working on a few tasks at one time, but become uncomfortable when I have to
attend to too many things at once.

in r e c w r

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

6. When I have to focus on one task for a long time (e. g., reading a paper), I get bored.
1" (" r” I“ ("

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

7.I like to finish one task completely before focusing on anything else.
i“. r r a ’ - r:

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

8.1 like to do otherthings during TV commercials, like read or clean.
I t" t“ f‘ C i“

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

9. I prefer to combine cooking with other tasks such as cleaning the house.
a r: c r: ‘ r
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

10. When I am using a computer, I like to have multiple windows open so I can work on
multiple tasks at once.

. C C C t“ 1?
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

68

Appendix C cont’d

11.It makes me uncomfortable when I am not able to finish one task completely before
focusing on another task.

t“ t" t" t" t“

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

12.1 am much more engaged in what I am doing if I am able to switch between several
different tasks.

f” (" t" t" F

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

13.1 do not like having to attend to more than one task at a time.
F (" (5' t“ f“ .

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree . Agree

14. While I am driving, I prefer to have the radio off and everyone quiet so I can
concentrate solely on driving.
by r ' r r” i“

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

15.1 would rather work on several projects at the same time than concentrate my efforts
on just one. . . f .
F t"~ C , t" f“
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

16.1 would prefer to work in an environment where I can finish one task before starting
the next.

It" ' r" F t“ j I t“
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

69

Appendix C cont’d

17.1 would rather wait until the end of the day to check e-mail than check it periodically .
to ~ r” c r r

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

18. When I am completing a task, I like to have all of my attention focused on it.
I” If" t” t“ ("

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

19.1 don't like when I have to stop in the middle of a task to work on something else.
r w c ~ r r1 I r, *

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

20.1 like to talk on my cell phone while driving.
r r: r. r r

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

21. When I have a task to complete, I like to break it up by doing other tasks at the same
time. .
t“ (‘ t“ I” . t“

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

22.1 rarely like to spend more than a few minutes on any one task.
r: r: a r: ' r: w '

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

23.1 have a "one-track" mind.

a r, , r: r: c
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

70

Appendix C cont’d

24.1 like preparing meals that require juggling several different tasks (cutting vegetables,
cooking noodles) at the same time.

t” (" F t” f”

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

25.1 prefer to frequently check my e-mail while working on a computer.
' If" t‘ (" C 1?

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

26.1 prefer not to be interrupted when working on a task.
I” t" t” t“ I”

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

You have now completed the measure. Please take a moment to .
record your thoughts on the pilot measure. IMPORTANT: Due to
technological limitations, please do not use apostrophes or quotation
marks in your response.

27. Were any of the questions unclear? If so, which one(s)?

28. Were any of the questions repetitive? If so, which one(s)?

v
4. f

29. Do you have any comments or suggestions you feel would be useful for the
development of this measure?

71

Haw—o _

~a§i§u 93 ~83- flea: 0.942385%». 38‘ thw «2 u ~ N C

_ “Go—v.1—

w vo_ve1w

u “we—<1».

A “do—MFA

u Basin—d
a “co—vale

q 37.1.56

m “do—<1”

c moo—vale

3 37,13
2 “co—«1:3
.w 36.15
E weir—wan
K pawl—£6
3 87.13
3 “56.138
3 3.2138
3 coil—«3
3 moo—«133
wc poJPwo
w_ oo_v~1w_
ww “do—velww
ww “do—«138
wa uo_ve1wn
wu .90—<13
we “co—velwmno

Z—

wwq
.9:
Wm—
wba
w.wo
Pam
wbw
mum
wbe
Paw
wae
whm
wbu
9%
who
www
Brwo
who
www
who
wgw
w.wo
ubc
Pug
93
Pg

m0
_ .OA
_ bk
_ .oq
_ Lu
bu
.ea
.ow
— .OA
_ be
_ .OA
_ .3
.3
.ca
be
be
.ww
.wu
.3
.0w
_ . _ w
.cm
.mb
.3
_ .ow
.qm
.0w

3 8:13? 3% 5.3
we no: mo: 3% 5.3 .8

.3

.3
.QM

w w
:3
:3 :3
Joe 1.:
3 tau
:3 :3
.w.‘ .wa
t: .3
Lb :3.
.w.« .wu
13 .kw
a: :3
3 .3
:3 .wa
..«w .w»
._ m .w.‘
.w~ .3
:3 . _ m
.oo .5
..‘u :3
. _ a ._ m
:3 .w.“
.wa .3
.0a .5
Le ..w
..E :3
.aw :3

a.

.V§
.B‘

u

Joe
1. — w

bu
1.;
..wu
-.ca
aw w
-.om
-.oq
1.. o
i. _ w

.oc
1.:
1L _

.ou
1.:
Jon
.. _ o
-.OA

be
...ow
...cm
-._ m

m

. N».

..3

Re

3

..‘w

:

.Qw

_w

.Vu.

B

2

..o

 

22m. beatifiQE. REE. 8 Se 3;ng Seamed can be?1MU~ N. Banana 8 Sm Reyna £38: «5.3 a 53m.

wmwmavmimu «Gweawanww R25» and Real m: baaazSamm.
0333265. A: GER 35.6. 96 «$3383 8 h A .3.

72

Ana—o ~ 8:3

8 8 3 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 3 8
.2

-.8 .8

.8 .8 -.8

.8 .8 .8 .8

.8 .8 -.S .8 .8

.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8

z: .8 .8 .8 .3 .8 .8

.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8

.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 -.8 .8 .8 .8

.8 .8 .8 -.8 .8 .8 .8 -.3 .8 .2

.8 .8 .8 E .8 .2 .8 .8 .8 .8 -.8

.8 .8 .8 .t .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 83
.8 .8 .5 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .888

 

73

Figure 3
Scree Plot for EFA on Full POLY Pilot Measure

 

 

 

 

ScreePlot
84
6—4
0
2
fl
E4-
0
.9
IL!
2—
0—1
[ITIFITTIFIIIIIIIIIII
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021

Factor Number

74

Table 2

Eigenvalues for EFA on Full POLY Pilot Measure

Factor Initial Eigenvalues

Cumulative
Total % Variance %

l 7.46 35.52 35.52
2 1.66 7.89 43.41
3 1.40 6.68 50.08
4 1.20 5.69 55.78
5 1.02 4.87 60.65
6 .88 4.19 64.84
7 .84 4.01 68.85
8 .81 3.86 72.71
9 .80 3.82 76.53
10 .68 3.24 79.77
1 1 .61 2.93 82.70
12 .56 2.66 85.36
13 .53 2.50 87.86
14 .47 2.22 90.08
15 .43 2.07 92.14
16 .36 1.69 93.83
17 .34 1.64 95.47
18 .31 1.49 96.96
19 .27 1.27 98.22
20 .20 .96 99.18
21 .17 .82 100.00

 

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

75

Table 3
Factor Loadings for EFA on Full POLY Pilot Measure

Factor Loadings

Factor
1 2 3 4 5
poly_l .67 -.21
poly_2 .59 -.35
poly_3 ..48 .39 -.24
poly_4 .74 -.30
poly_6 .37 .60 -.44 .28
poly_7re .72 -.27
poly_8 .43
poly_9 .44 .25 .41
poly_lO .44 .32 .31 ‘ .30
poly_l lre .59 -.28 .28
poly_12' .75
poly_l 3re .69
poly_15 .70 .22
poly_l 6re .76 -.20
poly_18re .42 .24 .3 1
poly_19re .56 -.23
poly_2] .75
poly_22 .33 .21
poly_23re .55
poly_24 .31 .29 .29
poly_26re .41 .22 .39

 

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
5 factors extracted. 58 iterations required.

76

Figure 4

Scree Plat for EFA on Edited POLY Pilot Measure

Scree Plot

 

61

.A
l

Eigenvalue

N
I

0—1

 

 

1111
7 8 910

Factor Number

77

11

 

Table 4

Eigenvalues for EFA 0n Edited POLY Pilot Measure

Factor lnitial Eigenvalues
Cumulative
Total % Variance %

l 6.95 40.88 40.88
2 1.40 8.24 49.12
3 1.13 6.66 55.78
4 .91 5.33 61.1 1

5 .85 5.01 66.12
6 .81 4.77 70.89
7 .75 4.40 75.29
8 .64 3.74 79.03

9 .63 3.68 82.72
'10 .55 3.22 85.94
1 1 .49 2.91 88.84
12 .46 ' 2.71 91.56
13 .40 2.37 93.92
14 .32 1.86 95.78
15 .29 1.71 97.50
16 .24 1.39 98.89
17 .19 1.11 100.00

 

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

78

Table 5

Factor Loadings for EFA on Edited POLY Pilot Measure

Factor
1 2 3
poly_l .69 -.30
poly_2 .58
poly_3 .44
poly_4 .75 -.27
poly_7re .74 -.26
poly_8 .42
poly_9 .43 .48
poly_10 .43 .44 .23
poly_l lre .61 -.38 .42
poly_12 .75
poly_13re .68
poly_15 .7 1
poly_16re .76 -.21
poly_19re .56
poly_21 .74
poly_23re .54
poly 26re .40 .32

 

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
3 factors extracted. 18 iterations required.

79

Appendix D
POLY Measure Editing and Item Deletion
Note. Items in italics were deleted; bold words reflect edits.

1. I prefer to work on several projects in a day, rather than completing one project
and then switching to another.

2. I would like to work in a job where I was constantly shifting from one task to
another, like a receptionist or an air traffic controller.

3. I lose interest in what I am doing if I have to focus on the same task for long
periods of time, without thinking about or doing something else.

4. When doing a number of assignments, I like to switch back and forth between
them rather than do one at a time.

5. I like working on a few tasks at one time, but become uncomfortable when I have
to attend to too many things at once.

6. When I have to focus on one task for a long time (e. g., reading a paper), I get
bored.

7. I like to finish one task completely before focusing on anything else.

8. I like to do other things during TV commercials, like read or clean.

9. I prefer to combine cooking with other tasks such as cleaning the house.

10. When I am using a computer, I like to have multiple windows open so I can

switch between multiple tasks.

11. It makes me uncomfortable when I am not able to finish one task completely
before focusing on another task.

12. I am much more engaged in what I am doing if I am able to switch between
several different tasks.

13. I do not like having to shift my attention between multiple tasks.

[4. While I am driving, I prefer to have the radio off and everyone quiet so I can
concentrate Solely on driving.

15. I would rather switch back and forth between several projects than concentrate
my efforts on just one.

16. I would prefer to work in an environment where I can finish one task before
starting the next.

1 7. I would rather wait until the end of the day to check e-mail than check it
periodically throughout.

I 8. When I am completing a task, I like to have all of my attention focused on it.

19. I don't like when I have to stop in the middle of a task to work on something else.

20. I like to talk on my cell phone while driving.

21. When I have a task to complete, I like to break it up by switching to other tasks
intermittently.

22. I rarely like to spend more than a few minutes on any one task

23. I have a "one-track" mind.

24. I like preparing meals that require juggling several diflerent tasks (cutting
vegetables, cooking noodles) at the same time.

25. I prefer to fi'equently check my e-mail while working on a computer.

26. I prefer not to be interrupted when working on a task.

80

Figure 5

Histogram of Item Means for l7-item POLY

 

man

81

Appendix E

Informed Consent Form
Please read and enter full name

Abstract: You are being asked to participate in a study examining the contributions of ability and
non-ability measures to multi-tasking performance. The goal of this study is to understand multi-
tasking, specifically in understanding how people do multi-tasking in a computerized
environment and the extent to which individual differences such as interest in multitasking
predict performance and change over time in such a task. By securing this sort of understanding,
we can make advances in determining how to improve systems for selecting and/or training
individuals in tasks that require multi-tasking.

Procedure: The project in which you have been asked to participate has two sessions. First is an
online session during which you will complete one survey. Second is a session in the laboratory
where you will complete a series of surveys and perform a computerized work task.

Risks: There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study. Your privacy
will be protected in several ways. First, you will only be asked to provide the last five digits of
your PID. This information will be deleted from our records immediately after the data from both
study sessions are collected (the PID is used simply to connect your responses across the
measures from both sessions and so that we are able to give you extra credit for your
participation). Second, responses on all of the items on the questionnaires and your performance
data on the computerized tasks will be completely confidential. The data will only be accessible
by the primary (Dr. Fred Oswald and Elizabeth Oberlander) investigators in the study. Third, the
information gathered in this study will be combined with the data of all of the other participants
in the study for any analyses so that your responses cannot be identified. Any data reported from
this study will be in such a way that no one will be able to identify a particular participant (e.g.,
by giving typical results averaged across participants). Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

Benefits: You will gain experience in taking computer-based tests as well as experience in taking
a variety of different tests. You will learn more about how psychological research is done. You
will receive course credit for your participation.

By signing below, you indicate that you are free to refuse to participate in this project or any part
of the project. You may refuse to answer some of the questions and may discontinue your
participation at any time.

If you have any questions or concerns about your participation in this project, you can contact
Fred Oswald, 317 Psychology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 (foswald@msu.edu, 517-432-
9943). If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish
- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research Protections, (517)355-2180, fax (517)432-
4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu. mail 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
48824-1047.

Please PRINT your full name below:

 

First MI Last

 

82

Appendix F

POL Y Pretest

 

Questionnaire/Survey: Oberlander Pretest

 

The following is a survey of normal individual preference. There are no correct or incorrect
answers, so please answer as honestly and accurately as possible. Your responses will be
confidential. Please read each item carefully and respond by indicating how much you agree or
disagree with the item, using the response scale provided. Please note the ordering of the
response scale- from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

l.I prefer to work on several projects in a day, rather than completing one project and
then switching to another.

I“ t" t” t" (2

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

2.1 would like to work in a job where l was constantly shifting from one task to another,
like a receptionist or an air traffic controller.

1’“ f” g f~ f‘ 1"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

3.1 lose interest in what I am doing if I have to focus on the same task for long periods of
time, without thinking about or doing something else.

r r c r » r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

4. When doing a number of assignments, I like to switch back and forth between them
rather than do one at a time.

t” t“ f‘ t‘ .1"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

83

Appendix F cont’d

5.1 like to finish one task completely before focusing on anything else.

i" (7 F 1"“ t”.
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Strongly Disagree
Agree

6.1 like to do other things during TV commercials, like read or clean.
C t“ f” C t“
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
7.I prefer to combine cooking with other tasks such as cleaning the house.
r r ~ ‘ r: , c r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

8. When I am using a computer, I like to have multiple windows open so I can switch
between multiple tasks. ,
C t“ 1" t“ t".

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

9. It makes me uncomfortable when I am not able to finish one task completely before
focusing on another task.
r c . ' r“ c . r:

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

10.1 am much more engaged in what I am doing if I am able to switch between several
different tasks.

t" ‘ t‘ t‘ at“ i c"
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

84

Appendix F cont’d

11.1 do not like having to shift my attention between multiple tasks.
1" (7 (" f“ t“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

12.1 would rather switch back and forth between several projects than concentrate my
efforts on just one.

I" F f” t“ ("

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

13.1 would prefer to work in an environment where I can finish one task before starting
the next.

1'“ t“ t" f‘ (‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

14.1 don't like when I have to stop in the middle of a task to work on something else.
(‘ t“ t“ t‘ C

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

15. When I have a task to complete, I like to break it up by switching to other tasks
intermittently.

t“ l" (2 t“ f”

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

16.1 have a "one-track" mind.
r‘ F t“ t“ (‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

85

Appendix F cont’d

17.1 prefer not to be interrupted when working on a task.
F (A t" f‘ t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

Polychronicity is a personal preference variable that describes an individual’s preference for shitting
attention among tasks that are incomplete (multitasking), rather than focusing on each task until
completion and then switching to the next task. The measure you just took is called the POLY and
is intended to measure polychronicity. With this in mind, please answer the following:

18.1 did not understand what the POLY had to do with polychronicity.
r ' c c c . r~

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

19.1 could not see any relationship between the POLY and polychronicity.
t" F t“ C ("

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

20. It would be obvious to anyone that the POLY is related to polychronicity.
t" t" t” t“ ("‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

21 . The actual content of the POLY was clearly related to polychronicity.
r r“ c ' c r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

22. There was no real connection between the POLY and polychronicity.
r r‘. r (*7 c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

86

Appendix F cont’d

23. The items in the POLY were clear to me.
c r“ . c r c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

24. The items in the POLY were repetitive.
F F t" F t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

You have now completed the pretest. Attendance at the lab session you have chosen is
required in order to gain full credit for this study. Please remember to write down your lab
session time and the room number and show up 5 minutes early.

25.1 understand that I must show up at the lab session in order to get credit for this
’ experiment.

F Yes

87

Appendix G

Test of Cognitive Ability. Raven’ s Progressive Matrices Example

This rs a test of perception and clear thinking. This section contains a series of problems, and
each problem rs presented as symbols arranged 1n a grid of 3 rows and 3 columns. The bottom
right comer of this grid is missing a symbol, however, and you are to determine which one of the
8 possible solutions best completes the matrix.

Try the following example:

In the example below, the top part of the problem is a pattern with a bit out out of it. Look at the
pattern, think what the piece needed to complete the pattern correctly across and down must look
like. Then find the right piece out of the eight bits shown below. Only one of these pieces is

perfectly correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. 2 completes the pattern correctly going across, but is wrong going the other way. No. 3 is
going both across and downward the right way. No. 3 is the right bit.

 

88

 

Appendix H

Online Measures

Please respond to the following questions to the best of your ability. You are not required to
provide this information, but opting not to do so may render your other responses unusable in
some analyses. Remember, your responses will be confidential.

1. What is your overall GPA?
I" 3.5 to 4.0

i" 3.0 to 3.4
F 2.5 to 2.9
f“ 2.0 to 2.4
t“ 1.5 to 1.9

1" less than 1.5

2. What is your age?

‘7 over 32 years old

1’” 29 to 31 years old
i” 26 to 28 years old
t“ 23 to 25 years old
‘7 20 to 22 years old
1" 18 to 19 years old
(a

17 or under

3. What is your gender?
1" Male

F Female

89

Appendix H cont’d

4. What is your year in school?
i“ Freshman

r Sophomore
1" Junior
(" Senior
9 5th Year +

5 at ethnicity do you consider yourself to be?

Mexican American
Puerto Rican

Other Hispanic

.Wh

r“

t‘

r‘

4" American Indian or Alaskan Native

1" Asian

0 Black/African American

I“ White/Caucasian/Not of Hispanic Origin

C Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
1"

Other

6. What was your SAT verbal score (if you took the new SAT, what was your reading
score)? If you did not take the SAT, please answer accordingly.

f" I did not take the SAT
750-800
700-749
650-699
600-649
550-599
500-549
450-499
400-449
350-399

349 or below

3333333333

90

Appendix H cont’d

7. What was your SAT math score? If you did not take the SAT, please answer
accordingly.

f" I did not take the SAT
750-800
700-749
650-699
600-649
550-599
500-549
450-499
400-449
350-399

349 or lower

3333333333

8. What was your overall ACT score? If you did not take the ACT, please answer
accordingly.

1" I did not take the ACT
34 or higher

31-33

28-30

25-27

22-24

19-21

16-18

13-15

333333333

12 or lower

9. Please indicate your handedness.
C Lefthanded

C Righthanded

91

Appendix H cont’d

10. How much experience do you have playing video games?

P None

(‘ Some

1“ A fair amount

C A lot

C An extreme amount

11.1n general, how good would you say you are at video games, compared with other
people? '
C Don't ever play video games

I‘ Not very good
1’” About average
t” Pretty good
1"

Very good

Thefollowmg is a survey 0f normal individual preference. There are no correct or incorrect
answers, so please answer as honestly and accurately as possible. Your responses will be
confidential. Please read each item carefully and respond by indicating how much you agree or
disagree with the item, using the response scale provided. Please note the ordering of the
response scale- from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

12.1 prefer to work on several projects in a day, rather than completing one project and
then switching to another.

r: c r r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

13.1 would like to work in a job where I was constantly shifting from one task to another,
like a receptionist or an air traffic controller.

to r.r:r r.“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

92

Appendix H cont’d

14.1 lose interest in what I am doing if I have to focus on the same task for long periods
of time, without thinking about or doing something else.

(7 F t“ t“ ("

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

15. When doing a number of assignments, I like to switch back and forth between them
rather than do one at a time.

t” t" f‘ (" ("

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

16.1 like to finish one task completely before focusing on anything else.
t" f” ' t" t" t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

17.1 like to do other things during TV commercials, like read or clean.
1" ("- F f‘ (‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

18.1 prefer to combine cooking with other tasks such as cleaning the house.
t" f“ t" (7 ‘ t“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

19. When I am using a computer, I like to have multiple windows open so I can switch
between multiple tasks.

t“ F f‘ f” f”

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

93

Appendix H cont’d

20. It makes me uncomfortable when I am not able to finish one task completely before
focusing on another task.

1" t“ t“ f” (“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

21.1 am much more engaged in what I am doing if I am able to switch between several
different tasks. ,
r f c r“ r- r
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
22.1 do not like having to shift my attention between multiple tasks.
r c r - r w c.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

23.1 would rather switch back and forth between several projects than concentrate my
efforts on just one.
:- r‘ r r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

24.1 would prefer to work in an environment where I can finish one task before starting
the next.

,F’ f“ (7 f" t“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

25. Whenl arn completing a task, I like to have all of my attention focused on it.
i (*7 f (9 r w r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

94

Appendix H cont’d

26.1 don't like when I have to stop in the middle of a task to work on something else.
' r: :- ' c , r ' c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

27. When I have a task to complete, I like to break it up by switching to other tasks
intermittently.
.- r c r“ r
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
28.1 have a 'one-track' mind.
t“ F I t“ f“ r.‘
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree . Disagree
29.1 prefer not to be interrupted when working on a task.
i r f r . ' r r. A c
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each of these statements describes
you. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. This is a
survey of typical behavior, so there are no right or wrong answers. Generally, I...

30. Am the life of the party.
' r. t‘ - r“ r‘ r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

31. Get stressed out easily.
r r _ r c r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

95

Appendix H cont’d

32. Don’t talk a lot.

C”. t”. t" t“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

33. Am relaxed most of the time.

t" F t“ t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree

Agree

34. F eel comfortable around people.

(" C C F
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

35. Worry about things.

. 1". t“ t" t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

36._Keep in the background.

t” f” (‘ t‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

37. Seldom feel blue.

1" c r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

38. Start conversations.

c r r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

,1"

Strongly
Disagree

(I

Strongly
Disagree

("

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

96

Appendix H cont’d

39. Am easily disturbed.
f‘ f” 1" F t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

40. Have little to say.
C" (7‘ f‘ t‘ t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

41. Get upset easily.
1" F t” t" t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

42. Talk to a lot of different people at parties.
1*: ' c r r c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

43. Change my mood a lot.
C c f 1“ c c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

44. Don't like to draw attention to myself.
1" F t" t‘ C

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

45. Have frequent mood swings.
(‘g ('7 f” f” t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

‘97

Appendix H cont’d

46. Don't mind being the center of attention.

(" f‘ f‘ F

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

47. Get irritated easily.
1" t“ t” t‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

48. Am quiet around strangers.
(" 1"“ 1" 1"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

49. Ofien feel blue.
1"“ 1" t" 1"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

(

Strongly
Disagree

(h

Strongly
Disagree

f“

Strongly
Disagree

1"

Strongly
Disagree

50.1 would prefer complex to simple problems.

i“ t" F 1"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

51 .I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.

t“ t‘ t” . (‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree

r

Strongly
Disagree

("

Strongly

Disagree

98

Appendix H cont'd
52. Thinking is not my idea of fun.
a“ c ' r r: c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

53.] would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to
challenge my thinking abilities.

r r r C r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

54.1 try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to
think in depth about something.

r. c,r- r c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

55.1 find satisfaction in deliberating hard and long for hours.
r c r _ c r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

' 56.1 only thinkas hard as I have to.
c. 1- c r c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

57. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-tenn ones.
' r c , r r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree '

99

Appendix H cont’d

58.1 like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.
" r , r: c r: r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

59. The idea of relying on thought to make my way, to the top appeals to me.
c ' c r r: , c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

60.1 really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
. r ' c r r r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

6] . Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.
1" : c ' r r . .-

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
62.1 prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
r.‘r¥r~'*r c
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
63. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
c . c ' , r ’ c - , (*-

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

64.1 would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is
somewhat important but does not require much thought.
r7 r r11 «.1-
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

100

Appendix H cont’d

65.1 feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that requires a lot of mental
effort.

«1" (7 (3 t“ t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

66. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it
works.

(" F“ t" F t“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

67.1 usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.
r r r c r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

The following is a survey of normal individual preference. There are no correct or incorrect
answers, so please answer as honestly and accurately as possible. Your responses will be
confidential. Please read each item carefully and respond by indicating how much you agree or
disagree with the item, using the response scale provided.

68.1 do not like to juggle several activities at the same time.
‘ r r c c t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

69. People should not try to do many things at once.
f” t“ f’ t“ t“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

101

Appendix H cont’d

70. When I sit down at my desk, I work on one project at a time.
c C r c . c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

71.1 am comfortable doing several things at the same time.

1" f” f‘ (7 t”

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
72.1 like to juggle several activities at the same time.
c c ’ r,“ r .-

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

73.1 would rather complete an entire project every day than complete parts of several
projects.

If" t“ t” t“ (‘

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

74.1 believe that people should try to do many things at once.
r - r r c r“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

75. When I work) by myself, I usually work on one project at a time.
c ' r: r. f c . w r.

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

76.1 prefer to do one thing at a time.
‘ r r 3 c. ’ w r r
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

102

Appendix H cont’d

77.I believe people do their best work when they have many tasks to complete.
1" C” 1" f“ 1'"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

78.1 believe it is best to complete one task before beginning another.
c c r‘ r c

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

79.1 believe that it is best for people to be given several tasks and assignments to
perform.

F F (” t“ f“

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

80.1 seldom like to work on more than a single task or assignment at the same time.
t“ F I” l“ f”

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

81.1 would rather complete parts of several projects every day than complete an entire
project.
1" t“ 1"" t" t"

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
Choose the answer that best represents you.

82. When you are faced with an unfamiliar problem, what do you usually do?

1" Address the problem immediately
1” Think about what to do and then take action

t‘ Sit back and let things work out for themselves

103

Appendix H cont’d

83. Compared with other students, how quickly do you usually complete your class
assignments?

P I am usually finished before everyone else
(A I finish faster than most of my classmates
(i I finish right on time

r.

I frequently turn in assignments late

84. Has anyone ever told you that you talk too much?
F Yes, ofien

1" A couple of times
‘7 Once
‘7 No, never

85. During normal conversation, how quickly do you speak?

1" Faster than most people
(7 At an average pace

‘7 Slower than most people

' 86. How often do you finish other people’s sentences because they speak too slowly?

5’ Frequently
r" Sometimes
‘7 Almost never

87. Imagine that you are waiting at the doctor’s office 30 minutes past your appointment
time, and have several chores to do when you get home. What would you do?

1"- Read a magazine

F Keep checking your watch

t.“ Get impatient and somewhat angry
r.

Complain to the nurse

104

Appendix H cont’d

88. How often are you late for appointments?

P

(N
(N
t“

Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely

Never

89. When you are playing a game, how important is it for you to win?

(a
(A

F

Very important
Sometimes important

Not important at all

90. How would your classmates and friends rate you?

F

("
(H
(i

Always hardworking and serious
Sometimes hardworking and serious
Rarely hardworking and serious

Carefree

91 . How would your parents (or previous guardians) rate you?

(I

r
(I
(‘

Always helpful
Mostly. helpful

Sometimes helpful
Never helpful

92. How would your closest friends rate your general activity level?

F

t“
r‘
(I

Too slow — never gets anything done
Slow — but gets things done
Average — reasonably busy

Too active — should slow down

105

Appendix H cont’d

93. How often do you worry about future events?

t"

(I
t"
(I

Constantly
Frequently
Sometimes

Never

94. When you have free time, what would you prefer to do?

(a

F
{N
(H

Sleep
Watch TV
Go Shopping

Catch up on work or household chores

95. Looking back now, how would you rate your behavior as a child?

r

(’1.
(fl
(N

I was a problem child
I was difficult to discipline
I was an ordinary child

I was a little angel

96. You have a large amount of homework to do, but your closest fi'iends are having a
party. What do you do?

F
I"
{0"

Join the party
Do some homework and then join the party

Finish all of your homework and miss the party

97. Do you keep a daily schedule or calendar of your plans?

1” No, never

(A:
(A

Sometimes

Yes, always

106

Appendix H cont’d

98. When you are in a group situation (like completing a group project), how do you
usually act?

(I
F

("

I rarely participate
I act as a team player

I take charge

99. How far in advance would you study for a major test?

p

r
(i
r

Two weeks ahead or more
About one week before the test
A day or two beforehand

I usually don’t study

100. What is an ordinary day in your life like?

t“

(a
F
1’”

Full of problems
Full of fun
A mixture of problems and fun

There are never enough things to keep me busy

101. How many days per week do you engage in physical exercise?

(I

F
(H:
r

Four or more

Two or three
One

I don't exercise

107

Figure 6

Syn Win Screen Shot

 
   
  
 
 

Etc! treatmumvnlo:

l T U 12;. 1‘2. 2'.

 

 

 

Pm}: MICNlnwk-n
JW tea on menu"

    
 

 

Note. The text is not readable and the screenshot is used for demonstration purposes
only.

108

Figure 7

Histogram of Average Anxiety Ratings

 

am_AVG

109

Appendix 1

Online Posttests

Now that you have completed the task, please use the rating scale below to describe how
accurately each of these words below described you DURING THE SYNWIN TASK YOU
JUST PERFORMED. This is a survey of normal feelings participants have, so there are no right
or wrong answers. Just answer quickly and honestly.

I . Calm
t” t“ t“ t" t“

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
2. Relaxed
f“ t“ t“ t” t"

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
3. Tense
F (" t“ f” {3

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
4. Stressed
f" F f“ t“ 6’

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely
at bit a bit
all

110

Appendix I cont’d

5. At case
1" F (" l" ("

Not alittle Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
6. Upset
1” (" t" (7 F

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
7. Anxious
1"" 1" (" F t“

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
8. Nervous
t“ t" 1"“ (" ("

Not alittle Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
9. Scared
1"“ (" 1" 1" t“

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely
at bit a bit
all
10. Comfortable
F . t" t“ t" 1"
Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all

111

Appendix I cont’d

ll.Bored
f” (" f“ t“
Not a little Moderately Quite
at bit abit
all

l2.Excited
r : r r c
Not a little Moderately Quite
at bit a bit
all

13.Active
4:" ~ r r r

Not alittle Moderately Quite
at bit abit
all

14. Under-stimulated
t" t" t“ t“
Not a little Moderately Quite

at bit a bit
all

1 5. Energized
(7 F C (7
Not a little Moderately Quite

at bit a bit
all

16. Uninterested
r‘, 1- r If"
Not a little Moderately Quite

at bit a bit
all

(N

Extremely

(“a

Extremely

(.0

Extremely

f’

Extremely

('5

Extremely

(N

Extremely

112

Appendix I cont’d

1 7. Wound-up
r‘ (‘ 1" t‘ 1"

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit a bit
all
18. Lazy
t‘ t‘ t“ 6' ("

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely

at bit abit
all
19.Animated
t“ C t" t“ t"
Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely
at bit abit
all
20. Thrilled
F t“ 1'" (" if

Not a little Moderately Quite Extremely
at bit a bit
all

Now that you have completed the task, please use the rating scale below to describe how
accurately each of these statements describes your experience of the Sanin task you just took.
This is a survey of normal feelings participants have, so there are no right or wrong answers.
Again, just answer quickly and honestly.

21.1 enjoyed the Sanin task.
r r ’ r“ c r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

113

Appendix I cont’d

22.1 would like to perform the Sanin task again sometime.
c r: c r c ’
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
23.1 would recommend this experiment to my fiiends because it was fun.
r: r c w r‘ . r

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

24. The Sanin task is similar to things I like to do in ‘real life’.
r“ > t,‘ I" f l r“ ‘ r“ '

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

Imagine that we have asked you to provide us with another block of performance data on the
Sanin task, but that you are free to choose the number of tasks you would like to perform-
keep in mind that the score you receive will not be dependent on the number of tasks, and you
are free to choose however many tasks you would prefer to perform at once. What would you
choose?

25. Please indicate how many tasks you would like to perform:
(7 1

l" 2
C 3
C 4
26. Please explain why you chose to perform this many tasks, as opposed to the other

options (note. due to technical limitations, do not use apostrophes or quotation marks
in your response):

v
4 b

 

114

.320 a

weak >333. MUM. mmamwmarwh Si 335.83.33.65

2 2. mo . 5 ... a m a q 3 o .o

. 280.55 .5 55.. 0.3 3....

5 3.8;... 5.. ....3 3.5. .3 35

5 8.35 .5 5.5 5. .3. .3 3s

a 8.3... :6 5.5 3.3 .5 .3 .3 CE

m as; .5 3.3 93 .3 .3 .5 .3 «.3»

a :23 .5 595 93 .3 -..: -3 -... ...a «.3»

5 in .3 3.5 0.3 -.3 -.3 .3 .3 .3 ..5 25

3 B. .5 5.8 5.3 .5 .5 .5 .E .5 ..3 .3 3s

5 .3 5. 535 95 .3 5.. .3 .3 .3 -.5 .3 .5 «.3»

... 2.x ....5 55.3 93 ..5 ..5 -.5 -.5 -..: 5k ..5 ..3 .55 «.3
.. ea .5 3.3 95 .3 -3 .3 .3 -3 -..... .3 -.3 .3 .5
5 a... .5 5.5.. 5.53 .5 .5 .5 .3 -.5 -.3 .3 .5 :3 -.5
5 .315 .5 55.3 .53 .5 .5 .3 .5 ..o .3 .5 .3 -.o. -.5
... $15 .5 55.5 .33 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 -3 .3 .3 -.3 ..5
5 5:5 .5 52.3 5.55 -..... -..5 -3 .3 .3 ..5 .o. .5.“ ..o ..5
... $15 .5 .55.. .....o. .5 .5 .... .... -.3 .3 .3 5k .5 -.5
5 8.15 .5 53.3 .595 .5 .5 .3 ... .3 ..3 .... 5.. .3 ..2
5 .315 .5 .393 .35 .3 ... .3 ..o .5 ..5 ... .... -.3 ..5
5 $15 .5 395 55.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 -.3 .3 .5 ... .3 -.3
5.. 5.15 .5 55.5 5.5... -.3 -.3 -..: -..: .3 ..5 .3 .5 .3 ..3
5. arm .5 55.5 3.3 ..o .5 .... .5 -.3 -..o .o. 5.. .5 ..5
55 815 .5 55.3 3...: .3 ..o .3 .3 .3 .55 ... .5 .3 .5.“
5 OF. .5 5.5.. .e. .3 .... .5 .5 z: .55 .3 5.. .5 ..5
5.. 83.... .3 3.3 5.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .3 -..a .5 .3 .3 -.3

 

208. mean 96:» 3:58:33 m8 :33 o: :5 ammo—5.. 09.83303 m: :05 m8 mmmamoma 3 n A .3.

115

3320 a 83d

2

«33
.3
-3
-.3

.3
.3
-3
-.3
.3
-.3
.3
-3
.5
.3

._N

«.33

.NV

5

E

.3
.2
._w
.3
be

3

3

3

3

3

me

~—

Nu

Nw

116

Table 7

Item- Total Statistics

MID VID CITC AID

poly_l 39.35 61.36 .77 .90
poly_2 39.32 66.77 .39 .91
poly_3 39.08 66.14 .41 .91
poly_4 39.66 61.35 .73 .90
poly_S 39.85 62.24 .77 .90
poly_9 39.42 64.14 .60 .90
poly_lO 39.54 63.05 .64 .90
poly_l 1 39.26 63.99 .68 .90
poly_12 39.62 61.32 .81 .90
poly_l3 39.75 65.19 .58 .91
poly_l4 39.72 62.82 .62 .90
po1y_15 39.42 61.38 .74 .90
poly_l6 39.09 64.90 .52 .91
poly_l7 39.99 66.84 .41 91

 

Note. MID = Mean if Item Deleted, VID = Variance if Item Deleted, CIT C = Corrected
Item-total Correlation, AID = Alpha if Item Deleted.

117

Table 8

Item-Total Statistics for TABP Measure

CITC AID
tabp_l .06 .57
tabp_Z .12 .56
tabp_3 .09 .57
tabp_4 .15 .56
tabp_5 .12 .57
tabp_6 -.O3 .59
tabp_7 .l5 .56
tabp_8 .28 .54
tabp_9 .39 .52
tabp_lO .22 .55
tabp_l l .33 .53
tabp_lZ .2] .55
tabp_13 .23 .55
tabp_l4 -.08 .58
tabp_lS .17 .56
tabp_16 .22 .55
tabp_17 .30 .54
tabp_l 8 .27 .55
tabp_l9 .20 .56
tabp_20 .25 .55

 

Note. CIT C = Corrected Item-total Correlation, AID = Alpha if Item Deleted.

118

Appendix J
Content Validity Measure
As you are aware, polychronicity is a personal preference construct that describes an
individual’s preference for shifiing attention among ongoing tasks, rather than focusing
on one task until completion and then switching to another task. Please look over the
attached measure of polychronicity, the POLY, and rate the extent to which the POLY
reflects the expected content of this construct:
1. How much does the POLY reflect the content domain of polychronicity?

1 = Very little or not at all

2 = A little

3 = Somewhat

4 = Moderately

5 = Very much

119

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., Schneider, W., & Wickens, C. D. (1984). Deciding the existence of a
time-sharing ability: A combined methodological and theoretical approach. Human
Factors, 26, 71-82.

Benabou, C. (1999). Polychronicity and temporal dimensions of work in learning
Organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 257-268.

Bluedorn, A. C. (1998). An interview with anthropologist Edward T. Hall. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 7, 109-115.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to
do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. The Executive,
6, 17-26.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J ., Strube, M. J ., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity and
the inventory of polychronic values (IPV): The development of an instrument to
measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 14, 205-230.

Bilhner, M., Konig, C., Pick, M., & Krumm, S. (2006). Working memory dimensions as
differential predictors of the speed and error aspect of multitasking performance.
Human Performance, 19, 253-275.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 1 16-131.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for
cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.

Conte, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and Big
Five personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and supervisory performance
ratings. Human Performance, 16, 107-129.

Conte, J. M., Rizzuto, T. E., & Steiner, D. D. (1999). A construct-oriented analysis of
individual-level polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 269-287.

Conte, J. M., Schwenneker, H. H., Dew, A. F., & Romano, D. M. (2001). Incremental
validity of time urgency and other Type A subcomponents in predicting behavioral
and health criteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1727-1748.

120

Cotte, J ., & Ratneshwar, S. (1999). Juggling and hopping: What does it mean to work
polychronically? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 184-204.

Damos, D. L. (1993). Using meta-analysis to compare the predictive validity of single-
and multiple- task measures to flight performance. Human Factors, 35, 615-628.

Dawis, R. V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 481-489.

Dela Casa, L. G., Gordillo, J. L., Mejias, L. J., Rengel, F., & Romero, M. F. (1998).
Attentional strategies in Type-A individuals. Personality and Individual Dijfkrences,
24, 59-69.

Delbridge, K. A. (2000). Individual differences in multi-tasking ability: Exploring a
nomological network. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (in press). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods.

Ferguson, G. A. (1949). On the theory of test discrimination. Psychometrika, 14, 61-68.

Glass, D. C. (1977). Stress, behavior patterns, and coronary disease. American Scientist,
65, 177-187

Gray, J. A. (1981). The psychophysiology of anxiety. In R. Lynn (Ed.), Dimensions of
personality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel
selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Doubleday: Garden City, NY.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME:
International Press.

Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A
theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing.
Psychological Review, 91, 153-184.

Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in today’s organizations. In
D. Ilgen & E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance (pp. 1-20). Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco.

Ishizaka, K., Marshall, S. P., & Conte, J. M. (2001). Individual differences in attentional
strategies in multitasking situations. Human Performance, 14, 339-358.

121

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J ., & Rosenman, R. H. (1971). Progress toward validation of
a computer-scored test for Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 33, 193-202.

Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991). Exploring more than 24 hours a
day: A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of Consumer
Research, 18, 392-401.

Kirmeyer, S. L. (1988). Coping with competing demands: Interruption and the Type A
pattern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 621-629.

Konig, C. J ., Bithner, M., & Miirling, G. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and
attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and
extraversion are not. Human Performance, 18, 243-266.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly
reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods,
9, 202-220.

LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R. (2003).
The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are

ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6,
80-128.

Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t always tell who likes

them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 294-310.

Lundqvist, C. (2006). Competing under pressure: State anxiety, sports performance, and
assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass
correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.

Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences in organizations: Much more than g. In K.
R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual diflerences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3-30).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Onken, M. H. (1999). Temporal elements of organizational culture and impact on firm
performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 231-243.

Oswald, F. L., Hambrick, D. Z., & Jones, L. A. (2007). Keeping all the plates
spinning: Understanding and predicting multitasking performance. In D.H. J onassen
(Ed.), Learning to solve complex scientific problems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

122

Palmer, D. K., & Schoorman, F. D. (1999). Unpacking the multiple aspects of time in
polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 323-344.

Persing, D. L. (1999). Managing in polychronic times: Exploring individual creativity
and performance in intellectually intensive venues. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 14, 358-373.

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive

processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 27, 763-797.

Salthouse, T. A., Hambrick, D. Z., Lukas, K. E., & Dell, T. C. (1996). Determinants of
adult age differences on synthetic work performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 2, 305-329.

Slocombe, T. E. (1999). Applying the theory of reasoned action to the analysis of an
individual’s polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, I 4, 313-322.

Slocombe, T. E., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Organizational behavior implications of the
congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit
polychronicity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 75-99.

Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. E., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993).
Applicant reactions to Selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.

Stankov, L., Fogarty, G., & Watt, C. (1989). Competing tasks: Predictors of managerial
potential. Personality and Individual Di/fkrences, 10, 295-3 02.

Szymura, B., & Necka, E. (1998). Visual selective attention and personality: An
experimental verification of three models of extraversion. Personality and Individual
Differences, 24, 713-729.

Szymura, B., & Wodniecka, Z. (2003). What really bothers neurotics? In search for
factors impairing attentional performance. Personality and Individual Difikrences,
34, 109-126.

123