Monochronic versus Polychronic time orientation : and the effect of cultural intelligence

(1)

Monochronic versus Polychronic Time Orientation

And the Effect of Cultural Intelligence

Sarah Noor van de Kraats

10368507

June 29, 2015

Bsc Economics and Business - Business Administration

University of Amsterdam

Amsterdam Business School

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Sarah Noor van de Kraats who declares to

take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and

that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have

been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision

of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Today, many people are spending a significant amount of time abroad and because of this they are forced to interact with people from other countries and cultures. To make these interactions pleasurable, it is necessary that people have an understanding of differences between cultures. This study especially investigated the differences between time cultures, with the focus being on monochronic versus polychronic time orientations. Monochronic people are very punctual, while polychronic people are less structured and more chaotic with regard to time. Using an experimental vignette design it was investigated how monochronic people perceive polychronic people and their behaviour in three different areas: personal appropriateness, likeability and social appropriateness. It was expected that people who spent more time in a foreign country have increased levels of cultural intelligence and that this influences a person’s attitude towards people from another time orientation as well, in a positive way. It was found that although people who have spent more time abroad have increased levels of cultural intelligence, this did not affect one’s attitude towards the appropriateness of the behaviour of a person from another time culture. Besides this, monochronic people, who either spent time abroad or not, all found monochronic time behaviour the most appropriate in all circumstances.

(5)

1. Introduction

In recent years, globalization has gradually increased and more people have moved to other countries for their work (Ascalon, Schleicher & Born, 2008). As an effect of this, many people from different cultures are forced to interact, both at work and socially. Besides this, many universities offer their students the opportunity to study abroad. This has also brought students from different cultures together, who have to socialize and live together.

These necessary interactions with people from different cultures can be difficult for a person, since everyone has their own rituals shaped by one’s own culture (Brislin & Kim, 2003). Thus, to make any foreign experience pleasurable, it is important to be aware that assumptions, symbols and meanings may differ among cultures (Beamer, 1992; as cited in Jan & Kim, 2009). In that way, people will understand each other better and are able to develop a relationship, either a working, academic or social relationship.

In order to do so, it is important to be aware of and understand the different aspects of how time is handled in different cultures. Some timeframes are well known globally. One of them is Anglo time, the timeframe that people are used to here in the Netherlands. Anglo time indicates the belief that time is money and punctuality is valued (White, Valk and Dialmy, 2010). In Latin America the concept of Mañana is well established. This means that todays business will be put off until tomorrow (White et al., 2010). Another well-known concept is Colored People’s time, which refers to a casual attitude towards time (White et al., 2010).

Underlying the above-mentioned concepts are different factors that influence time perceptions in cultures. Brislin and Kim (2003) mentioned the main differences. These include people’s attitude towards flexibility of time and an attitude toward the pace of time. Underlying this generalization of flexibility of time are the influences of clock versus event time, punctuality norms, the division between task and social time, polychronic and monochronic time use and work and leisure time. Regarding the pace of life, Brislin and Kim mentioned fast and slow paces of life, periods of silence, time as a symbol, past, present and future orientation and the efficiency of time (2003).

Thus, it is clear that many time aspects can influence the way people from different cultures work together, how they socialize and how their views about time and concepts related to punctuality and lateness differ. This research wants to focus on one aspect of the flexibility of time differences mentioned by Brislin and Kim (2003), which is monochronic versus polychronic time orientation. People who belong to a monochronic time orientation

(6)

show great concern for punctuality and order (Davidhizar, Giger & Turner, 1994), while polychronic time-oriented people are less concerned with structure and have a more relaxed attitude towards time (Reinecke, Ngyuen, Bernstein, Näf & Gajos, 2011). The reason this study focuses on the differences between these two time orientations is because it remains unclear how people deal with the differences between a polychronic or monochronic culture regarding punctuality and what behaviour they find acceptable.

The aim of this study is to investigate how people from monochronic cultures perceive and assess people, their actions and time norms from a polychronic culture. This research also wants to determine whether monochronic oriented people who have spent a significant amount of time living in a polychronic time oriented culture have a higher level of tolerance and acceptance towards those people and their actions than M-time oriented people who have not done so. As is found by Earley and Mosakowski (2004), people who have spent a longer period of time will have increased levels of cultural intelligence. Thus, the effect of different levels of cultural intelligence on the judgments of the behavior will be examined as well. To be more specific and narrow this research down, there is a focus on the behavior and norms of people related to social interactions only.

This research is carried out using an experimental vignette design. Respondents are presented with two realistic scenarios to assess the dependent variables in this research. These results are then analysed with regard to the effect of foreign experience in a polychronic time culture.

This thesis is structured as follows. First, the current literature of the concepts of monochronic and polychronic time and punctuality is discussed. Afterwards, the theoretical framework is given and predictions concerning the research question are made and hypothesises are drawn. Following this, the method of this research is explained. Afterwards, the results from the analysis are given. Finally, this study discusses the results and concludes by giving an answer to the research question. Limitations and proposals for further research are mentioned as well.

(7)

2. Literature Review

Everyone who travels to another country and leaves behind their own social networks and cultural environment is likely to find differences in social and cultural rules, the norms and values embedded in the environment and people (Berry, 1999; as cited in Jang & Kim, 2009). One aspect that can be especially difficult for people visiting another country to get used to is a country’s time orientation. Hall (1959) indicates the importance of being aware of different time orientations, by arguing that people’s use of time is a silent language that affects everyday-life (as cited in Brislin & Kim, 2003).

According to Davidhizar, Giger and Turner (1994), ways of handling time and subsequent involvement with others has been related to cultural heritage. They explained that ways of handling time are usually learned early in life and develop in relation to behavior that is either rewarded or punished by family members. Besides this, schools and other institutions can also influence one’s handling of time and the punctuality norms one possesses (1994).

To address such differences, this paper delves into the two main time orientations a person can have; monochronic and polychronic time orientations. Furthermore, it is of importance to give a clear definition of what punctuality really is and means. The next two sub-chapters of this theoretical framework will explain these concepts in great detail.

2.1 Monochronic and Polychronic Time Orientation

Hall first developed the concepts of monochronic and polychronic time in 1983 (Bluedorn, 1998; as cited in Brislin & Kim, 2003). Monochronic time is also known as M-time. It is found that M-time people focus solely on a single task at a time (Brislin & Kim, 2003). Furthermore, according to Hall (1983), monochronic countries show a greater concern for time management, including punctuality (as cited in Reinecke et al., 2011). Besides this, for a monochronic person it is very important to maintain order and structure (Davidhizar et al., 1994).

The opposite of this concept of monochronic time is polychronic time, also known as P-time. P-time involves the undertaking of many activities at once (Davidhizar et al., 1994). People who have a P-time orientation have a relaxed attitude towards getting things done (Reinecke et al., 2011). Also, a polychronic person frequently jumps from one task to the other and may appear somewhat impulsive (Davidhizar et al., 1994).

(8)

concepts of clock and event time. As can be noted from the article of Brislin and Kim, (2003) there are two ways of scheduling tasks over time; one way is to use clock time and the second way is to use event time. Clock time is used to describe the concept where individuals divide time into objective and quantifiable units. Here, the external clock dictates when tasks will begin or end (Avnet & Sellier, 2011).

In contrast to clock time, event time indicates that people finish one planned activity when they internally sense that the former task is complete (Lauer, 1981 as cited in Avnet & Sellier, 2011). Thus, polychronic time is a very similar concept to event time, since people’s attitude towards time is more lenient here (Brislin & Kim, 2003), while monochronic time is equivalent to clock time. Therefore, for the remainder of this paper event time and polychronic time will be used to indicate the same concept, as will be done with clock time and monochronic time.

As this research tries to investigate how people from a monochronic culture see and judge the actions and people from a polychronic culture, it is of importance to know which countries belong to which time-orientation. Therefore, in this paper, the Netherlands will be used as an example of a monochronic culture and all the respondents are Dutch. According to Brislin and Kim (2003) The Netherlands is indeed a M-time country, since only clock time is found in Western Europe, which is where The Netherlands is located.

Unlike the use of only one country for M-time, the countries that have a P-time orientation and that are investigated in this paper are manifold. Event time is often found in Central and South America, South Asia and Southern Europe. On the other hand, North America, East Asia and Oceania are not part of the P-time cultures (Brislin & Kim, 2003). Besides this, countries that have developing economics also exhibit an event time orientation (Brislin & Kim, 2003). Thus, most sub-Saharan African countries and Arabian Middle East are event-oriented. Therefore, the countries this study will mark as P-time oriented will include countries from all over the world, ranging from Argentina to Senegal and from Panama to Indonesia.

2.2 Punctuality and Time Norms

To determine one’s punctuality and time norms, it is important to first define what is meant with punctuality. According to White, Valk and Dialmy, punctual people are “on-time.” However, they also argue that in one country, there does not seem to be a single shared view for what counts as on time (2010). One important finding by White, Valk and Dialmy concerns the context of the meetings and their influence on the perception of “on-time”. They

(9)

found that for social happenings, the standards for lateness are more varied than for business meetings (2010). However, this research is only concerned with social meetings.

Furthermore, the person being judged as late can be of influence to the judgment of lateness. For instance, it is found that if a person higher in hierarchy arrives late people are more lenient than if a person lower in hierarchy arrives late (White et al., 2010). Although this research does not concern people in different hierarchies, it is likely that there is a difference in the way people from the same culture are judged as opposed to people from another culture. This is because people expect that people who are like them behave in a similar way and have the same values.

In order to be able to assess the behavior of others, this research will examine the way a monochronic person rates the behaviour of both a monochronic and polychronic oriented person in multiple ways, based on vignettes. These are the related to the individual norms of a person (How appropriate do you find this behaviour?), the liking towards another person (How much would you like to be around this person?) and the social norm of the monochronic person (How appropriate do other people you know find this behaviour?).

2.3 Research Gap

Although there are clear definitions of both the different time orientations and time norms people possess (Brislin & Kim, 2003), it remains unclear to what extent one’s time orientation will influences how other people’s behaviour related to time is perceived.

Therefore, this research aims to investigate how people from monochronic cultures perceive and assess people and their actions from polychronic cultures, related to time and punctuality norms. Furthermore, since many people these days work, study or spend their holidays abroad for a long time, this research’s wants to take into account a moderation effect of the time a monochronic person has lived in a polychronic culture. Altogether, this research aims to investigate the following:

“How does one’s own time orientation influence the assessment of other people’s behavior related to time and punctuality and does time spent in another time orientation influence a person’s judgment”?

Thus having defined the research question, it is of importance to further explain what exactly is meant by time spent in another time orientation, why this is believed to be of importance and how this can influence the outcome of this research.

(10)

3. Theoretical Framework

In this chapter, the influence of being accustomed to one type of time orientation on judging the punctuality of others will be explained more extensively. It is of importance to explain the dependent variables and the moderator that are used. These dependent variables are personal appropriateness, likeability and social appropriateness. The moderator is the period a respondent from a monochronic culture has lived in a country with a polychronic time orientation.

3.1 Time Norms

To determine the time norms and the level of regard people have for people from a different culture, it is important to take different variables into account. The variables this research focuses on are the appropriateness of a person’s behavior, the likeability of that person and the degree to which other people in the respondents’ social circle find the behavior appropriate.

With appropriateness of another person’s behavior it is meant that a person can accept and approve of the behavior of another person. Since there are big differences between event time oriented people and clock time oriented people (Brislin & Kim, 2003) it is likely that people who have not spent a lot of time abroad find it difficult to accept the behavior of another person that is completely in contrast to their own standards. As an effect of being unable to agree or associate oneself with the behavior of other, it is expected that a person is not very likeable if one cannot find his or her own norms and values in that person. Besides this, even if people can understand another person because of higher levels of cultural intelligence, they may not like their norms. Finally, M-time people who do not understand differences between cultures are likely to believe that others think like them and also find the behavior of the P-time people unacceptable. Moreover, although a person can find the behavior of another person who has a different time-orientation appropriate because of high levels of cultural intelligence, it is likely that this person can place oneself in other people’s shoes because of his or her cultural awareness (Thomas, Liao, Aycan, Cerdin, Pekerti, Ravlin, Stahl, Lazarova, Fock, Arli, Moeller, Okimoto, & van de Vijver, 2015) and can therefore estimate how other people from his or her own culture will react towards the behavior of P-time people. Thus, all these factors are of importance to judge the behavior of different P- time-oriented people and their appropriateness.

(11)

3.2 Cultural Intelligence

According to Earley and Mosakowski, cultural intelligence is “an outsider's seemingly natural ability to interpret someone's unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures the way that person's compatriots would” (2004, p. 140). In other words, cultural intelligence can be seen as the capability a person possesses to work in other cultures and relate to other cultures effectively. Cultural intelligence is a relatively new concept dating from the beginning of the twentieth century (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004).

Similar to cultural intelligence is the concept of Cross-Cultural Social Intelligence (CCSI), as mentioned by Ascalon, Schleicher and Born (2008). CCSI is presented as an extension of social intelligence and has been defined as “the ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and behavior of persons, including oneself, in interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon that understanding” (Marlowe, 1986, p. 52; as cited in Ascalon et al, 2008, p. 111).

It is now clear that high levels of cultural intelligence and CCSI both make it easier for people to work and live among people from different cultures. Therefore, people who possess a high level of cultural intelligence are more likely to accept the differences in cultural time norms that exist and to adjust better in different circumstances. Ascalon, Schleicher and Born (2008) further strengthened this prediction by arguing that people with higher levels of CCSI function better among different cultures. According to Earley and Mosakowski cultural intelligence is developed through cognitive, physical and emotional/motivational means (2004). Especially focusing on the cognitive means, this means that cultural intelligence increases when people spent more time in other cultures. Therefore, it is expected that M-time people who have lived in a P-M-time oriented culture before, will be more open and accepting towards P-time people than M-time people who have not done so. Earley and Mosakowski (2004) also argue that people who fully embody the norms of their own culture can be alien when they enter a culture that is different than their own. Therefore, it is also expected that people who have not experienced life in another time-oriented culture are less acceptable of people and their actions that are not in accordance with their own norms.

Hypothesis 1: M-time people who have lived in a P-time oriented culture for a longer period will be more open and accepting towards P-time people and their lateness than M-time people who have not done the same.

(12)

According to Thomas et al. (2015), cultural intelligence consists of three different aspects. These are cultural knowledge, cultural skills and cultural metacognition. As they stated “cultural intelligence consists of knowledge and skills developed in specific cultural (intercultural) contexts, but is dependent on the general process of cultural metacognition to produce cultural intelligent behavior” (Thomas et al., 2015, p. 3). Thus, it is of importance that all three aspects are present to determine whether someone has a high level of cultural knowledge or not.

3.2.1 Cultural Knowledge

Cultural knowledge consists of both content-specific knowledge, which relates to recognizing the existence of other cultures, and general process knowledge, which involves dealing with intercultural encounters, of the effect of culture on one’s own nature or the nature of others (Chi & VanLehn, 1991; as cited in Thomas et al., 2015). Jang and Kim (2009) defined cultural knowledge as the amount of knowledge one has about a particular culture. It is expected that the level of cultural knowledge a person has will increase when more time is spent in a different country (Jang & Kim, 2009). Thus, levels of cultural knowledge are expected to rise when people spent more time in another country and thus increase the level of cultural intelligence.

3.2.2 Cultural Skills

Cultural intelligence also involves the skills to learn from social experiences, appreciating differences between cultures between people and being able to adapt to different cultural situations (Thomas et al., 2015). According to Kitsantas (2004) cultural skills and global understanding are increased when time is spent living and also studying abroad. Thus, cultural skills are an important aspect of cultural intelligence too.

3.2.3 Cultural Metacognition

“Cultural metacognition is knowledge of and control over one’s thinking and learning activities in the specific domain of cultural experiences and strategies” (Thomas et al., 2015, p. 4). Although not all researchers agree on every aspect of cultural metacognition, there is consensus that metacognition involves the awareness of the cultural context, analysis of the influence of the cultural context and planning action in different types of contexts (Thomas et al., 2015).

(13)

Thus, all these three factors influence cultural intelligence. As it is believed that higher levels of cultural intelligence are of importance for diverse cultural acceptance and form as more time is spent abroad, it is hypothesized that cultural intelligence is higher for M-time people who have lived in a P-time culture as well.

Hypothesis 2: Cultural intelligence is higher for M-time people who have lived in a P-time culture for a longer period of time than for M-time people who have not done the same. Furthermore, all three factors are all specific factors relating to cultural intelligence, but they all influence cultural intelligence in general. Also, the higher one’s level on each individual aspect, the higher the overall cultural intelligence. Moreover, the factors influence each other in different ways (Thomas et al., 2015). Therefore, the third hypothesis assumes that if a person scores high on all three aspects of cultural intelligence, the person will better understand a person from another culture than a person who only scores high on zero, one or two aspects of cultural intelligence.

Hypothesis 3: An M-time person who scores high on all three aspects of cultural intelligence will be more understandable towards a person of a P-time culture than a person who scores high on only zero, one or two aspects of cultural intelligence.

3.2.4 Appropriateness and Likeability

In previous researches it is found that people regard persons from the same hierarchy or group they themselves belong to as the same (White et al., 2010). Therefore, it is expected that the Dutch respondents will find the behavior of the M-time people more appropriate on all aspects than the behavior of a P-time person and that the difference between the judgment of the two scenarios is smaller for P-time people, since they have higher levels of cultural awareness as mentioned by Thomas et al. (2015).

Hypothesis 4a: All the respondents will indicate a higher level of personal appropriateness, liking and social appropriateness for the M-time vignette than for the P-time vignette.

Hypothesis 4b: The difference of the judgments between both vignettes is smaller for P-time people than for M-time people.

(14)

4. Method

This research focuses specifically on researching the views of Dutch people regarding punctuality and lateness of both monochronic and polychronic people. The aim is to see how Dutch people (monochronic culture) assess punctuality and lateness of others (either monochronic or polychronic). Besides this, the effect culture intelligence has on the assessment of likeability, personal norms and social norms will be evaluated.

4.1 Experimental Design

To assess the respondents’ views, this study uses a survey with experimental vignettes. According to Atzmuller and Steiner (2010, p. 128), a vignette is “a short, carefully constructed description of a person, object, or situation, representing a systematic combination of characteristics” (as cited in Aguinis & Bradley, 2014, p. 353). Wallander (2009) further explains that in experimental vignettes selected characteristics describing the objects to be judged by respondents are manipulated. Thus, respondents are presented with scenarios with descriptions in which several different factors believed to influence the judgments being studied are systematically varied. It is used to measure the intentions and actions of individuals (Wallander, 2009). For this research, a vignette approach is beneficial since multiple variables that can influence the judgment will be researched. Thus, the vignettes are a convenient way to measure how Dutch citizens feel about the punctuality of others. Wallander (2009) stresses that a vignette approach is more complete than a simple survey approach. Moreover, according to Gould (1996; as cited in Hughes & Huby, 2001) increasing recognition of the limitations of questionnaires in studies of attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and norms also makes the use of vignettes more understandable in this type of research. Thus, since the aim here is to measure perceptions, beliefs and norms, a vignette study is appropriate.

Besides this, as mentioned, a survey is used to collect the primary data. Therefore, this study will be an empirical, quantitative study. Quantitative data studies can either use an inductive or deductive approach (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). This study uses a deductive approach, which means that it tests the hypotheses that were deducted from the literature mentioned earlier (Saunders et al., 2007). The collection of all the individual data gathered through the survey will give an insight into the beliefs of monochronic people and the influence cultural knowledge has on the assessment on the time norms of others.

(15)

Therefore, data from people of different ages from all over The Netherlands is collected. The results of this study will be beneficial for many people and companies who want to collaborate with people from different time cultures and want to understand each other in a more profound way.

4.2 Data Sources and Data Collection

This study gathers data with the aid of a survey. A survey perfectly fits the deductive approach of this study and offers the possibility to measure perceptions of individuals (Saunders et al., 2007). Besides this, it is beneficial to use a survey here since a lot of data can be easily collected and the data is easily comparable (Saunders et al., 2007). Furthermore, with the use of a survey it is possible to generate findings that are representative of the whole population in a more economical feasible way than collecting the data for the whole population. However, since a small sample will be used to represent the whole population, it is necessary to ensure that the sample is representative (Saunders et al., 2007). Altogether, the use of a survey in this research can be used to collect data with the aid of a standardized questionnaire, which increases the reliability and validity of this research (Saunders et al., 2007).

Thus, the type of survey used for this study is a questionnaire. Questionnaires work best with standardized questions that can be easily interpreted among the respondents (Robson, 2002; Saunders et al., 2007). Also, a questionnaire enables the researcher to examine and explain relationships between variables, in particular cause- and-effect relationships (Saunders et al., 2007), which this research aims to do.

The type of questionnaire used is a self-administered questionnaire. This means that the respondent completes the questionnaire alone without guidance from the researcher (Saunders et al., 2007). The questionnaire is distributed online, which is an easy and fast way to collect data from self-administered questionnaire.

4.3 Research Sample

The questionnaire is distributed among social contacts of the researcher and among social contacts of the colleagues of the researcher, who are researching similar topics. The questionnaire is distributed online, the respondents are all aged between 18 and 65 years old and all possess the Dutch nationality since birth. Besides this, it is important that all the respondents are not only Dutch, but are also used to a monochronic time orientation. Therefore, they all have to have lived in the Netherlands for at least the first 15 years of their

(16)

life. Moreover, it is of importance that a part of the sample has experienced life in an event time culture.

The questionnaire was made using the free questionnaire tool Qualtrics. A link to the survey is sent to respondents via e-mail. Also, the link is posted on the private Facebook accounts of the researcher and the colleagues of the researcher.

4.4 Questionnaire and Operationalization of Variables

The questionnaire consists of five different parts. The first part is an introduction to the research and assures the respondents that their participation is anonymous. In this way, it is likely that more honest answers will be obtained (Saunders et al., 2007).

4.4.1 Vignettes

The next part of the questionnaires involves the vignettes, also known as the scenarios. These are used to test whether monochronic people’s attitude, concerning time and punctuality, towards people from a polychronic culture and a monochronic culture differ and whether a high level of cultural intelligence makes a difference. Two different vignettes are used and tested.

As mentioned before, a vignette is a short, carefully constructed description of a person, object or situation representing a systematic combination of characteristics (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). It is a short description that that is used to represent a real-life situation without having to conduct a natural experiment.

Two vignettes are created for this research. One vignette contains a description of a polychronic person that behaves like a typical P-time person. The other scenario describes behavior that is typical for a M-time person. The vignettes that are used are the following:

Polychronic

Scenario 1

You have decided to go out with your friend tonight and the two of you have agreed to meet at 8 PM. However, your friend is 1,5 hour late because she/he was still having dinner with another friend and that dinner did not end before you were supposed to meet. Beside this, your friend did not write down your meeting and did not feel that he or she was too late.

(17)

The scenario above is typical for a polychronic culture for multiple reasons. Firstly, polychronic people tend to finish one event first before starting another (Brislin & Kim, 2003). In the vignette this is included with the mention that your friend first finished dinner with another friend. Secondly, event time people tend to be very chaotic and often do not use a planner (Davidhizar et al., 1994). Therefore, this scenario mentioned that the friend did not write the appointment down. Lastly, the scenario mentioned that the friend did not feel he or she was too late. Again, this is very typical of an event time person (Brislin & Kim, 2003).

Monochronic

The second scenario is based on a monochronic person and his or her behaviour. A monochronic person is very clock-oriented and punctual. Therefore, when a person agrees to meet someone at 8 PM, he or she wants to be there at 8 PM (Reinecke et al., 2013). This also means that people feel they have a responsibility towards another person. Thereby saying that people know they planned it wrong themselves, for instance they left out time to change, this is one’s own fault and does not have to mean a person can be late.

Thus, the vignettes mentioned above are two distinctive scenarios relating to either a polychronic or a monochronic person. Both of these scenarios focus solely on behaviour in a social context. This can be a limitation since there is no focus in this research on what is appropriate behaviour concerning time in other contexts, such as an academic or professional environment. Besides this, as can be seen from the scenarios, this research does not make any distinction between the behaviour of a male or a female. This is beyond the extent of this research.

The respondents are shown both scenarios. After having read both of them, 3 questions are asked, that again have to be answered using a 5-Point scale. These questions

Scenario 2

You have decided to go out with your friend tonight and the two of you have agreed to meet at 8 PM. Your friend is on time and came straight from work and did not have time to change. However the/she felt that they had to rush to you since he/she felt it was inappropriate to be late.

(18)

concern the dependent variables of this research, which are the individual norm of the respondent, the liking towards the person mentioned in the vignette and the social norm of the respondents. These dependent variables will be used since they accurately represent how monochronic people perceive the behaviour of both other monochronic people and polychronic people. The following questions are asked concerning the two different scenarios:

1. How appropriate do you find his behaviour?

(1 Very inappropriate-2 inappropriate– 3 neutral 4 appropriate 5 very appropriate) 2. How much would you like to be around this person?

(1 very strongly avoid – 2 strongly avoid – 3 indifferent – 4 strongly prefer – 5 very strongly prefer)

3. How appropriate do other people that you know find this behaviour?

(1 Very inappropriate-2 inappropriate– 3 neutral - 4 appropriate 5 very appropriate)

4.4.2 Control Questions

The third part of the questionnaire consists of demographical and control questions. As already mentioned, it is of importance to know whether the respondent is indeed a Dutch citizen who’s time orientation is indeed monochronic. Therefore, the respondent has to indicate whether he or she is in the possession of a Dutch passport and was born in The Netherlands. Besides this, to guarantee that the respondent is indeed a clock time oriented person, the person has to indicate whether he or she has lived in The Netherlands for at least the first fifteen years of his or her life.

4.4.3 Cultural Background and Cultural Intelligence

The final part of the questionnaire gathers the respondents’ information concerning cultural intelligence and cultural knowledge. Firstly, two questions are asked to determine whether the respondent has experienced live in a polychronic culture for longer than two months, where this was and how often the respondent has done so.

To determine a person’s level of cultural intelligence, multiple statements are proposed to the respondents and they have to answer using a 5-point scale, with the responses ranging from 1 Not at all - 2 A little - 3 Somewhat - 4 A lot - 5 Extremely well.

As mentioned before, cultural intelligence can be measured using cultural knowledge, cultural skills and cultural metacognition. To ensure this research captures the influence of all

(19)

these factors, this research will include two items from each of the 3 dimensions that influence cultural intelligence, thus creating three factors that are rated on a 2-10 scale, combing two 1-5 scales. To do so, 6 of the 10 statements Thomas et al. (2015) developed and used for their research will be used (Appendix A). The reason that not all statements are included is the limited length of the survey. It is chosen to keep the survey short and to the point in order to not lose the respondent’s interest in finishing the survey. Besides this, these specific six statements are chosen because they convey the clearest idea of the categories and are believed to be most easy to interpret. The following statements will be included in the questionnaire:

1. I know the ways in which cultures around the world are different. (Knowledge Item) 2. I can give examples of cultural differences from my personal experience, reading, and so

on. (Knowledge Item)

3. I can change my behavior to suit different cultural situations and people. (Skill Item) 4. I accept delays without becoming upset when in different cultural situations and with

culturally different people. (Skill Item)

5. I am aware of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with someone from another culture. (Metacognition Item)

6. I am aware that I need to plan my course of action when in different cultural situations and with culturally different people. (Metacognition Item)

4.4.4 Demographic Background

Finally, some more background questions are asked, concerning the gender of the respondents, their occupation and the years of education they have completed. All these factors are of importance to create a better image of the respondent and to see if the sample represents the population well.

Thus, the dependent variables for this research are the individual norm, liking and social norm. The moderator of this research is the level of cultural intelligence, consisting of cultural knowledge, skills and metacognition (Thomas et al., 2015). Finally, the independent variables are the vignettes and demographic characteristics of the respondents. Appendix B gives an overview of the questionnaire.

(20)

5. Results

5.1 Descriptive Statistics

The total number of respondents for this survey is 75 but due to a high number of incomplete questionnaires, the total number of respondents who finished the survey was 52. However, one of those remaining respondents did not fulfill the requirements either, as the respondent indicated to have lived in South America and also only the Netherlands, which is incompatible, and was thus invalid and dropped as well. Since this study aims to determine if the cultural norms of Dutch people differ with a different level of cultural intelligence, this survey only takes into account the responses of Dutch citizens who have at least lived in the Netherlands for the first 15 years of their life. Together, a total of 38 respondents fulfill the requirements (N=38). Of the total of 38 respondents, 44.7% is male (n=17) and 55.3% is female (n=21). The oldest respondent was born in 1950 and the youngest in 1997. The mean year is 1986. The average age of the respondent is 28.32 years old (SD=13.37). From those respondents, 68.4% is a full-time student (n=26) and 84.2% has paid work (n=32) with an average of 18.94 hours per week (SD=11.48). Overall, the respondents have experienced 15.13 years of formal education (SD=4.79).

A total of 9 of the Dutch respondents (23.70%) have lived in a polychronic time zone for longer than 2 months. Only one person has lived in two different polychronic countries within one area, while the other respondents all have lived in one event-time country in one specific area. The areas in which these respondents have lived are South American (3), Central America (2), South Asia (1) and Southern Europe (3). This means that the areas of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab Middle East are not visited for longer than two months by any of the respondents.

5.1.1 Monochronic Sample

When making a distinction between the two groups, Dutch citizens and Dutch citizens who have lived in a polychronic culture, there are differences between the two groups. The monochronic sample consists of 29 respondents (n=29). 44.8 per cent of these respondents are male (n=13) and 55.2 per cent is female (n=16). 18 respondents are students, which is 62.1 per cent. Furthermore, only 6.9 per cent of the monochronic sample does not have paid for (n=2). The working part works for an average of 19.74 hours per week (SD=11.27). Finally, the same indicates that the average respondent of this sample was born between 1984 and

(21)

1985, thus being around 30 years old.

5.1.2 Polychronic Sample

The polychronic group, as will be referred to them, is made up of 4 males and 5 females (n=9). Besides this, the polychronic sample consists of 8 students (88.9) and only one respondent who is not a student. 55.6 percent has paid work with a mean of 14.6 hours per week (SD=12.92). The average respondent of this sample was born between 1992 and 1993 and thus is around 22/23 years of age.

5.2 Hypothesis Testing

Before the hypothesis can be tested, it is of importance to show the correlations between all the variables in this study. The means, standard deviations and correlations can be found in Table 1 on the next page.

(22)

(23)

The correlation matrix in Table 1 shows how all the different variables are correlated to each other. Regarding the first hypothesis of this study, it can be seen that there is an absence of relationship between the culture people have lived in an their judgment of the behaviour of the person in the P-scenario (0,13; 0,09 and -0,19) since all these Pearson correlations are less than 0.20 (Fields, 2009). Besides this, only a negative relationship is found between time culture and social appropriateness, although negative relationships are expected for all three variables (H1).

For cultural intelligence a negative relationship is found between time spent only in an M-time culture and cultural knowledge and cultural metacognition (-0,39 and -0,34, respectively, as expected (H2). Only for cultural skills an absence of relationship was found (-0,17). Concerning H3, an expectation that people with high cultural intelligence judge P-time behaviour more favourable, no significant relationship was found either (0,07; 0,05 and 0,06). Moreover, the correlation table shows that only a negative correlation is found between the type of time culture and likeability of the M-vignette (-0,28), which is also not as one would expect. Concerning H4, it can be seen from the means in Table 1 that there are indeed differences between the judgment of scenario’s 1 and 2, however further tests have to confirm their significance. Furthermore no great, significant correlations were found. The variables will now be tested and discussed more closely with the aid of the hypotheses to see the true effects of living in different time zones on the judgment of other people’s punctuality and behaviour.

5.2.1 Acceptance and Openness towards P-time People

To test the first hypothesis, 3 independent variables had to be tested, which are the personal appropriateness (1.1), likeability (1.2) and social appropriateness (1.3) of a person and their behaviour. For each of these variables, two group means were compared, namely of M-time people who have spent time in a P-time culture and those who have not, therefore an independent samples t-test was used. For the analysis, a 95% significance level was used.

To do so, the first test variable is “How appropriate do you find this behaviour?” regarding scenario 1, since this measures the punctuality and lateness of a P-time person, and the grouping variable is “In which of the following countries have you lived for longer than two months? – None (1, 0)”. The means showed that for the people who have not lived in a P-time period (M=1.62, SD=0.94), the level of personal appropriateness of the first scenario is seen as more appropriate than by people who have lived in a P-time culture (M=1.33, SD=1.00). Besides this, Levene’s Test for was observed to not be significant (0.719) thus

(24)

equal variances are assumed. Since it is hypothesized that the appropriateness is bigger for M-time people who have experienced live in a P-M-time area, the test is one-sided. Therefore, the two-sided probability was divided by two (0.435/2=0.218) and the t-value right-tailed is 1.688. It was found that t(36) = 0.789, p> 0.05 is not significant. Therefore, H1.1 is not supported, which was already clear from the fact that the direction of the difference is opposite from that of the hypothesised direction.

To give a complete answer to hypothesis 1, the other variables were examined as well. This was done the in same way. For hypothesis 1.2 (likeability) participants who have only spent time living in the Netherlands (M=1.93, SD=0.75) showed higher levels of likeability towards P-time people than Dutch people who have lived among them did (M=1.78, SD=0.67). The critical t-value still being 1.688. This difference was not significant t(36) = 0.547, p > 0.05. Therefore, H1.2 was not supported either.

Hypothesis 1.3 (social appropriateness) was also not supported. Although this is the only proposition of hypothesis 1 where a higher mean was found for people who had lived in a P-time culture (M = 2.11, SD=0.93) versus only M-time people (M=1.83, SD=0.54) this difference was not significant t(36) = -1.150, p > 0.05. Altogether, H1 is not supported.

5.2.2 Cultural Intelligence

The second hypothesis predicted that cultural intelligence is higher for M-time people who have lived in a P-time culture for a longer period of time than for M-time people who have not done so. Since two group means had to be compared, an independent t-test was again used. Also, a confidence interval of 95% was used and the test is one-tailed.

The first step that was taken in order to be able to determine the level of cultural intelligence for the groups was to determine the level of cultural intelligence for every single person. This was done by making a new variable that adds the values of all 6 statements related to cultural intelligence. This new variable, labeled “CultInt”, was then split up in two groups, M-time people who have lived only in a M-time culture and M-time people who have lived in a P-time culture as well. The means showed that people who have lived in a P-time cultural (M=22.44. SD=2.70) have indeed higher levels of cultural intelligence than people who have not (M=19.55, SD=2.97). As a result of Levene’s Test, equal variances were assumed. The independent t-test showed that with a 95% confidence interval the one-sided probability is 0.0065 (0.013/2) and thus significant. Also, the critical t value is 1.688 and t(36) = 2.603, p < 0.05. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is supported and indeed support is found for the idea that cultural intelligence increases when more time is spent abroad for a longer period of

(25)

time, specifically in a P-time culture.

5.2.3 Aspects of Cultural Intelligence

Hypothesis 3 is concerned with all three aspects that together form cultural intelligence and predicted that M-time people, thus the whole sample of 38 respondents, who score high on all three aspects of cultural intelligence will be more understandable towards a person of a P-time culture than a person who does not score high on all three. Thus, for this hypothesis no difference is made between people who have spent time in a P-time culture and those who have not. As mentioned cultural knowledge, cultural skills and cultural metacognition are these 3 factors. To determine what a high level of cultural intelligence is, the means of all 3 factors concerning cultural knowledge were calculated. Thus, all 6 statements are assigned to cultural knowledge, cultural skills or cultural metacognition and new variables were created, which were thus rated on a scale of 2-10, combining two 1-5 scales. From these variables the means were then calculated. Table 2 shows the means and the standard deviations for these new variables.

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

CultKnow 38 4,00 10,00 6,6842 1,41622

CultSkill 38 4,00 9,00 6,6579 1,14553

CultMeta 38 3,00 10,00 6,8947 1,46655

Valid N (listwise) 38

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of the 3 cultural intelligence factors

A person was classified as having high cultural intelligence when his or her values were higher than the mean for all the three aspects. A new variable was made, called “ CItype1”, which indicated the person who satisfied the criteria of having high cultural intelligence on all three levels. 16 people (42.1%) were found who possessed high levels of all three aspects and the other 22 (57.9%) did not.

To test whether the person who possesses high levels of cultural intelligence on all aspects is more understandable towards a P-time person and their behavior, all the three independent variables concerning personal appropriateness (3.1), likeability (3.2) and social appropriateness (3.3) had to be tested again. To do so, an independent t-test was used that is one-tailed and has a critical t-value of 1.688 (df=36, α=0.05).

(26)

personally less accepting of P-time people than were people who did not score high on all three levels (M=1.63, SD=1.03). Therefore, proposition 3.1 is already not supported. Besides this, the difference was not significant t(36) = 0.396, p >0.005, significance is 0.348 (0.695/2).

The likeability of people who scored higher on all levels of cultural intelligence towards P-time people was higher for people who reported high levels of all factors (M=1.94, SD=0.68) than for people who did not (M=1.86, SD=0.78). However, this difference was not significant, with significance being 0.381 (0.762/2), t(36) = 0.305, p > 0.05.

Finally, people who possessed higher levels of cultural intelligence (M=1.94, SD=0.77) on all levels also rated the social appropriateness of P-time behavior higher than people who did not (M=1.86, SD=0.56). Again, the result was not significant t(36) = 0.342, p > 0.05. In conclusion, hypothesis 3 is not supported.

5.2.4 M-time and P-time

The final hypothesis assumed that all respondents indicated higher levels for all three dependent variables from the M-time vignette than for the P-time vignette, because they are all originally from an M-culture. To test this hypothesis, three tests were done. All three tests were done using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. First, the personal appropriateness of the behaviour of both the monochronic vignette and the polychronic vignette were compared to each other (4a.1). Thus, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare scores on the personal appropriateness of the behaviour of the person in the vignette in the polychronic scenario (Scenario 1) and the monochronic scenario (Scenario 2). The means and the standard deviations are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for personal appropriateness for the polychronic and monochronic vignettes

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N How appropriate do you find this behavior? - P scenario. 1,55 ,950 38 How appropriate do you find this behavior? -M scenario. 3,53 1,109 38

(27)

Table 3 shows a difference between the means of the scenarios and scenario 2 is being rated higher. This effect was significant, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.33, F(1, 37) = 75.05, p < 0.05, multivariate partial eta squared = 0.67. Thus, it was found that H4a.1 is supported.

The one-way repeated measures ANOVA was also conducted to compare likeability of the person and his/her behaviour in both scenarios. The means and standard deviations can be found in Table 4.

Mean Std. Deviation N

How much would you prefer to be around this

friend? -P scenario. 1,89 ,727 38

How much would you prefer to be around this

friend? - M scenario. 3,84 ,973 38

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics for likeability for the polychronic and monochronic vignettes

As can be seen from the table, higher levels of likeability for scenario 2 (M-time scenario) than for scenario 2. This effect was significant as well, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.272 F(1, 37) = 98.93, p < 0.05, multivariate partial eta squared = 0.73. Thus H4a.2 is supported

Doing the same for the social appropriateness, Table 5 sows the descriptive statistics.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for social appropriateness for the polychronic and monochronic vignettes

Mean Std. Deviation N

How appropriate do others you know find this behavior? - P scenario.

1,89 ,649 38

How appropriate do others you know find this behavior? - M scenario.

(28)

Higher levels of appropriateness were found for scenario 2 and a significant effect was found as well, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.267, F(1, 37) = 101.59, p < 0.05, multivariate partial eta squared = 0.73. Thus, H4a.3 is supported.

Since the results are all significant it can be assumed that hypothesis 4a is supported and that all respondents indeed indicate higher levels of personal appropriateness, likeability and social appropriateness for the M-time vignette in contrast to the P-time vignette.

Taking this one step further, it can be tested if the differences between the judgment of entirely monochronic Dutch citizens and those who have lived in an event time culture for a longer period are indeed smaller between the monochronic and polychronic vignettes for event time people (H4b). As was described in the conceptual framework, it is expected that people regard people from the same group as themselves, thus Dutch citizens regard other M-time people as the same, and find their behaviour as appropriate as their own (White et al., 2010). Thus, in order to test whether the difference between both scenarios is smaller for P-time people than for M-P-time people, it is expected that all respondents judge the M-P-time scenario the same, since the respondents are all Dutch citizens. Moreover, it is expected that the P-time scenario is judged differently; as more appropriate by people who have lived in an event time culture before since they have experienced life there (Thomas et al., 2015).

Thus, in order to test H4b, it was necessary to first see if there were no significant differences between the M-time scenario for both P-time people and M-time people, for all three independent variables. It is found that the means for M-time people and P-time people are 3,48 (SD=1,24) and 3,67 (SD=0,50) respectively, for personal appropriateness. Concerning likeability, the means are 3,69 (SD=1.04) and 4.33 (SD=0.50). Finally, for social appropriateness the means are 3.52 (SD=0.87) and 3.56 (SD=0.73). Since these two group means could be compared for the three independent variables, an independent t-test was again used for each. Also, a confidence interval of 95% is used and the test is two-tailed.

As a result of Levene’s Test, equal variances were assumed for personal appropriateness. The independent t-test showed that with a 95% confidence interval the two-sided probability is 0.670 and thus not significant. For likeability, a significant difference was not found either. The two-sided probability is 0.083. Finally, social appropriateness also showed no significant difference with a two-sided probability of 0.906. Thus, it can indeed be assumed that there are no significant differences between the M-time scenario judgments of all respondents.

(29)

scenario does indeed have significant differences between the two groups of respondents, given the fact that there are no differences in the monochronic scenario. However, as is already tested in H2, t these differences are not found. Therefore, it can be assumed that H4b is not supported. To be certain, a test will be done concerning the differences. In order to do so, three new variables were created; PersonalAMminusP, LikeabilityMminusP and SocialAMminusP.

For personal appropriateness, it was found that the mean difference for P-time people was 2.33 (SD=1.32), while it was 1.86 (SD=1.43) for completely M-time people. This already indicates that the hypothesis is untrue for personal appropriateness. Furthermore, the difference found was not significant using an independent t-test. Again, as a result of Levene’s Test, equal variances were assumed. The independent t-test showed that with a 95% confidence interval the one-sided probability is 0.193 (0.386/2). Also, the critical t value is 1.688 and t(36) = 0.877, p > 0.05.

For likeability, the means that were found were 2.56 for P-time people (SD=1.01) and 1.76 (SD=1.21) for M-time people. Again, the difference is bigger for P-time people, in contrast to the expectations. After performing an independent samples t-test, it was found that the one-sided probability is 0,042 (0.083/2) and the critical t value is 1.688 again, t(36)=1.781, p <0.05. Thus, the relationship found here is significant. However, it is in the other direction than expected. Therefore, H4b.2 is not supported.

Finally, the social appropriateness was tested. This is the only independent variable that found a smaller difference for people who had lived in an event time culture, as was expected. For M people, the mean was 1.69 (SD=0.89) while it is 1.44 (SD=1.33) for Dutch people who have experienced another time culture as well. However, this result was again not found significant, with a on-sided probability of 0.264 (0.527/2), t(36)=-0.639, p > 0.05. As a consequence, H4b.3 is not supported and thus H4b is not supported.

6. Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine if one’s own time orientation, specifically a clock time orientation, influences the judgment of other people’s behavior related to time and punctuality. Moreover, this research was interested in determining whether time spent in a polychronic culture increases cultural intelligence and affects the judgment of punctuality.

(30)

This subject is seen as of importance these days, as many more people work and study abroad and thus have to interact with people from different time orientations. Since it is still unclear to what extent one’s time orientation influences how they see other people’s time-related behavior (Brislin & Kim, 2003) this research was undertaken.

Multiple hypotheses were examined in this study. Two scenarios were used to show behavior of both a polychronic person (Scenario 1) and a monochronic person (Scenario 2). For every scenario, respondents had to indicate the level of personal appropriateness, likeability and social appropriateness of this personal described and their behavior.

6.1 P-time Scenario Likeability and Appropriateness

First of all, it was assumed that M-time people who have lived in an event time culture for a longer period of time will be more open and accepting towards P-time people and their punctuality than people who have only experienced life in a clock time culture. This assumption is based on the belief that people’s cultural intelligence increases as they spent more time abroad and that they will be more open and accepting towards others and their habits (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). However, this study was unable to find support for this hypothesis. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is no difference between the appropriateness and likeability of P-time people judged by M-time people and M-time people who have spent time in a P-time culture.

One possible explanation for these results is that people who have spent more time abroad become more aware of their own values and the norms they are accustomed to and regard as comfortable (Kartoshkina, 2015). Kartoskhinka researched American students, similar to Dutch students because they both have a M-time orientation, upon return from studying abroad. She found that many of them became appreciative of their own style of life (2015). Since M-time people who have never lived in another time orientation area, they can be more open and are unsure of what they prefer because of a lack of real life experience.

Regarding this point it is important to note that there is no significant difference between the ways the two types evaluate the two scenarios. This means that the effect is not as strong that people who have lived abroad have a deeper regard for M-time behavior than people who have not. Therefore, it would be interesting to look at the effect of these two groups before and after they have lived in another time culture, to gain a deeper insight in the effect of having spent time abroad.

(31)

6.2 Cultural Intelligence

As hypothesized in this study, it was indeed found that higher levels of cultural intelligence occur if a M-time person has spent more time in a P-time culture. As mentioned, it is believed that cultural intelligence is developed through cognitive, physical and emotional/motivational means and increases when more time is spent abroad, in another culture (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). This is because people are exposed to other people and their behavior and are forced to adjust to them in order to life among them. Thus according to this study, this is indeed true.

However, there is a chance that people who have lived in a foreign country have selected themselves because of already higher levels of cultural intelligence and an interest in other (time) cultures. Personality is thus of influence as personality traits impact cross-cultural adjustment (Huff, Song & Gresch, 2014). Therefore, it would be beneficial to test the levels of cultural intelligence before and after the exchange period and to test if a significant change occurred.

6.3 Cultural Intelligence of the Whole Sample

The third hypothesis of this research assumed that all three factors that influence cultural intelligence are of importance in order to be more accepting towards a person and their behavior, from another time culture. These three factors are cultural knowledge, cultural skills and cultural metacognition. It is believed that it is necessary that all factors are high, since the higher the individual levels of cultural intelligence, the higher the aggregate level. Besides this, all factors are truly of importance since they influence one another (Thomas et al., 2015).

Thus, it was expected that people who scored high on all levels would be find the behavior and the person more appropriate and likeable. However, this was not found to be true. Although indeed higher levels were found for likeability and social appropriateness, the results were not significant. For personal appropriateness, M-time people even scored higher. Therefore, this H3 was not supported.

A possible explanation for this is that there were 16 people out of the sample of 38 who scored high on all levels. As was proved in the previous hypothesis, if you have experienced life in a P-time culture your cultural intelligence is higher, although it remains uncertain if this is a treatment effect or a selection effect, as discussed above. However, in H1 it was found that this does not influence one’s openness towards others. Again, this can be related to personality and the fact that although people with a personality that allows them to have increased levels of cultural intelligence (Huff et al., 2014) have not experienced life in

(32)

another country and therefore have no real-life experience. Thus, the effect of real-life experienced could be examined further.

6.4 M-time and P-time Scenarios

Hypothesis 4 assumed that all respondents indicate higher levels of appropriateness and likability for the M-vignette than for the P-time vignettes. This is because all the respondents of this study are Dutch citizens who have lived here for at least the first 15 years of their lives and are thus well accustomed to a monochronic time orientation. Besides this, it is expected that all these Dutch respondents will see another Dutch person or M-time person as one of their own and because of this, they find this persons behavior more appropriate than a P-time person’s behavior (White et al., 2010). Furthermore, H4 also assumed that although there are differences expected between the judgments of punctuality of the different scenarios, the difference is smaller for people who have lived in a P-time before, since these people should be able to adjust better to others because of their higher level of cultural intelligence as a consequence of living abroad.

The first assumption of H4 was supported in this research. Thus, all respondents indeed indicate higher levels of personal appropriateness, likeability and social appropriateness for the M-time vignette in contrast to the P-time vignette. This is as expected, since it is found by Brislin and Kim (2003) that people see themselves as belonging to one group and find it more difficult to accept the behavior of a person that is totally different than their own.

In contrast to this, the second assumption of H4 was not supported. The differences turned out in favor of the other side than expected for personal appropriateness and likeability, although this was not significant. Besides this, although social appropriateness indeed showed a smaller difference, as expected, this result was also not significant. There can be multiple reasons why this hypothesis was not supported, with a main reason being that those people who have lived in a P-time culture become more used to and attached to their own values than people who have not done so because of possible unpleasant foreign experiences (Kartoshkina, 2015).

6.5 Contributions and limitations

This study has contributed to the knowledge that already existed about differences between time cultures in multiple ways; it found that people who have spent more time living in a P-time culture have higher levels of cultural intelligence than people who have not done so and

Monochronic versus Polychronic time orientation : and the effect of cultural intelligence