This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Chronemics is the study of the role of time in communication. It is one of several subcategories of the study of nonverbal communication. Other prominent subcategories include haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and proxemics (the use of space).
Thomas J. Bruneau of Radford University coined the term "chronemics" in the late 1970s to help define the function of time in human interaction:
Chronemics can be briefly and generally defined as the study of human tempo as it related to human communication. More specifically, chronemics involves the study of both subjective and objective human tempos as they influence and are interdependent with human behavior. Further, chronemics involves the study of human communication as it relates to interdependent and integrated levels of time-experiencing. Previously, these interdependent and integrated levels have been outlined and discussed as: biological time; psychological time; social time; and cultural time. A number of classification systems exist in the literature of time. However, such systems are not applied to human interaction directly.
Chronemics can be defined as "the interrelated observations and theories of man's use of time"[This quote needs a citation] - the way in which one perceives and values time, structures time, and reacts to time frames communication. Time perception plays a large role in the nonverbal communication process. Time perceptions include punctuality, willingness to wait, and interactions. The use of time can affect lifestyle, daily agendas, speed of speech, movements, and how long people are willing to listen.
Time can be used as an indicator of status. For example, in most companies the boss can interrupt progress to hold an impromptu meeting in the middle of the work day, yet the average worker would have to make an appointment to see the boss. The way in which different cultures perceive time can influence communication as well.
Cultures are sometimes[when?] considered monochronic or polychronic.
A monochronic time system means that things are done one at a time and time is segmented into precise, small units. Under this system, time is scheduled, arranged and managed.
The United States considers itself a monochronic society. This perception came about during the Industrial Revolution, when "factory life required the labor force to be on hand and in place at an appointed hour" (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 238). Many Americans like to think that to them, time is a precious resource not to be wasted or taken lightly. "We buy time, save time, spend time and make time. Our time can be broken down into years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and even milliseconds. We use time to structure both our daily lives and events that we are planning for the future. We have schedules that we must follow: appointments that we must go to at a certain time, classes that start and end at certain times, work schedules that start and end at certain times, and even our favorite TV shows, that start and end at a certain time."
As communication scholar Edward T. Hall wrote regarding the American's viewpoint of time in the business world, "the schedule is sacred." Hall says that for monochronic cultures, such as the American culture, "time is tangible" and viewed as a commodity where "time is money" or "time is wasted." The result of this perspective is that monochronic cultures, place a paramount value on schedules, tasks and "getting the job done."[full ] These cultures are committed to regimented schedules and may view those who do not subscribe to the same perception of time as disrespectful, inefficient or unreliable.
A polychronic time system is a system where several things can be done at once, and wider view of time is exhibited and time is perceived in large fluid sections. Examples of polychronic behaviors include: typing while answering telephones or taking notes while sitting participating in meetings. Polychronicity is in contrast to those who prefer monochronicity (doing one thing at a time).
Polychronic cultures are much less focused on the preciseness of accounting for each and every moment. As Raymond Cohen notes, polychronic cultures are more focused on tradition and relationships rather than on tasks--a clear difference from their monochronic counterparts. Cohen notes that "Traditional societies have all the time in the world. The arbitrary divisions of the clock face have little saliency in cultures grounded in the cycle of the seasons, the invariant pattern of rural life, community life, and the calendar of religious festivities" (Cohen, 1997, p. 34).
Polychronic culture is more focused on relationships, rather than watching the clock. Polychronic societies have no problem being "late" for an appointment if they are deeply focused on some work or in a meeting that ran past schedule, because the concept of time is fluid and can easily expand or contract as need be. As a result, polychronic cultures have a much less formal perception of time. They are not ruled by precise calendars and schedules. Rather, "cultures that use the polychronic time system often schedule multiple appointments simultaneously so keeping on schedule is an impossibility."
Researchers have developed the following questionnaires to measure polychronicity:
|Monochronic people||Polychronic people|
|Do one thing at a time||Do many things at once|
|Concentrate on a task set before them||Concentrate on an event happening around them|
|Consider time commitments (deadlines, schedules) seriously||Consider objectives (goals, results) seriously|
|Are low-context and need information||Are high-context and already have information|
|Are committed to the job and end results||Are committed to people and relationships|
|Dedicate themselves to plans||Change plans often and easily|
|Are more concerned with privacy and individual ownership||Are more concerned with community and shared connections|
|Emphasize prompt time recognition, regardless of relationship or circumstances||Emphasize response based on nature of relationship and circumstances|
|Have strong tendency to build temporary, practical relationships||Have strong tendency to build lifetime, familial relationships|
Conflicting attitudes between the monochronic and polychronic perceptions of time can interfere with cross-cultural relations, and similar challenges can occur within an otherwise assimilated culture. One example in the United States is the Hawaiian culture, which employs two time systems: Haole time and Hawaiian time.
"When you hear someone say, 'See you at two o'clock haole time,' they mean they will just that. Haole time is when the person will meet when they say they will meet. But if you were to hear someone say, 'I'll be there at two o'clock Hawaiian time,' then something different is implied. Hawaiian time is very lax and it basically means 'when you get there.'" --Nick Lewis
The way an individual perceives time and the role time plays in their lives is a learned perspective. As discussed by Alexander Gonzalez and Phillip Zimbardo, "every child learns a time perspective that is appropriate to the values and needs of his society" (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 227).
There are four basic psychological time orientations:
Each orientation affects the structure, content, and urgency of communication (Burgoon, 1989). The past orientation has a hard time developing the notion of elapsed time and these individuals often confuse present and past happenings as all in the same. People oriented with time-line cognitivity are often detail oriented and think of everything in linear terms. These individuals also often have difficulty with comprehending multiple events at the same time. Individuals with a present orientation are mostly characterized as pleasure seekers who live for the moment and have a very low risk aversion. Those individuals who operate with future orientation are often thought of as being highly goal oriented and focused on the broad picture.
The use of time as a communicative channel can be a powerful, yet subtle, force in face-to-face interactions. Some of the more recognizable types of interaction that use time are:
Time orientation has also revealed insights into how people react to advertising. Martin, Gnoth and Strong (2009) found that future-oriented consumers react most favorably to ads that feature a product to be released in the distant future and that highlight primary product attributes. In contrast, present-oriented consumers prefer near-future ads that highlight secondary product attributes. Consumer attitudes were mediated by the perceived usefulness of the attribute information.
Just as monochronic and polychronic cultures have different time perspectives, understanding the time orientation of a culture is critical to becoming better able to successfully handle diplomatic situations. Americans think they have, a future orientation. Hall indicates that for Americans "tomorrow is more important" and that they "are oriented almost entirely toward the future" (Cohen, 2004, p. 35). The future-focused orientation attributes to at least some of the concern that Americans have with "addressing immediate issues and moving on to new challenges" (Cohen, 2004, p. 35).
On the other hand, many polychronic cultures have a past-orientation toward time.
These time perspectives are the seeds for communication clashes in diplomatic situations. Trade negotiators have observed that "American negotiators are generally more anxious for agreement because "they are always in a hurry" and basically "problem solving oriented." In other words, they place a high value on resolving an issue quickly calling to mind the American catchphrase "some solution is better than no solution" (Cohen, 2004, p. 114). Similar observations have been made of Japanese-American relations. Noting the difference in time perceptions between the two countries, former ambassador to Tokyo, Mike Mansfield commented "We're too fast, they're too slow" (Cohen, 2004, p. 118).
Different perceptions of time across cultures can influence global communication. When writing about time perspective, Gonzalez and Zimbardo comment that "There is no more powerful, pervasive influence on how individuals think and cultures interact than our different perspectives on time--the way we learn how we mentally partition time into past, present and future." (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 227)
Depending upon where an individual is from, their perception of time might be that "the clock rules the day" or that "we'll get there when we get there."[This quote needs a citation] Improving prospects for success in the global community requires understanding cultural differences, traditions and communication styles.[according to whom?]
The monochronic-oriented approach to negotiations is direct, linear and rooted in the characteristics that illustrate low context tendencies. The low context culture approaches diplomacy in a lawyerly, dispassionate fashion with a clear idea of acceptable outcomes and a plan for reaching them. Draft arguments would be prepared elaborating positions. A monochronic culture, more concerned with time, deadlines and schedules, tends to grow impatient and want to rush to "close the deal."
More polychronic-oriented cultures come to diplomatic situations with no particular importance placed on time. Chronemics is one of the channels of nonverbal communication preferred by a High context Polychronic negotiator over verbal communication.The polychronic approach to negotiations will emphasis building trust between participants, forming coalitions and finding consensus. High context Polychronic negotiators might be charged with emotion toward a subject thereby obscuring an otherwise obvious solution.
Time has a definite relationship to power. Though power most often refers to the ability to influence people (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 314), power is also related to dominance and status (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 315).
For example, in the workplace, those in a leadership or management position treat time and - by virtue of position - have their time treated differently from those who are of a lower stature position. Anderson and Bowman have identified three specific examples of how chronemics and power converge in the workplace - waiting time, talk time and work time.
Researchers Insel and Lindgren (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 325) write that the act of making an individual of a lower stature wait is a sign of dominance. They note that one who "is in the position to cause another to wait has power over him. To be kept waiting is to imply that one's time is less valuable than that of the one who imposes the wait."
There is a direct correlation between the power of an individual in an organization and conversation. This includes both length of conversation, turn-taking and who initiates and ends a conversation. Extensive research indicates that those with more power in an organization will speak more often and for a greater length of time. Meetings between superiors and subordinates provide an opportunity to illustrate this concept. A superior - regardless of whether or not they are running the actual meeting - lead discussions, ask questions and have the ability to speak for longer periods of time without interruption. Likewise, research shows that turn-taking is also influenced by power. Social psychologist Nancy Henley notes that "Subordinates are expected to yield to superiors and there is a cultural expectation that a subordinate will not interrupt a superior" (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 326). The length of response follows the same pattern. While the superior can speak for as long as they want, the responses of the subordinate are shorter in length. Albert Mehrabian noted that deviation from this pattern led to negative perceptions of the subordinate by the superior. Beginning and ending a communication interaction in the workplace is also controlled by the higher-status individual in an organization. The time and duration of the conversation are dictated by the higher-status individual.
The time of high status individuals is perceived as valuable, and they control their own time. On the other hand, a subordinate with less power has their time controlled by a higher status individual and are in less control of their time - making them likely to report their time to a higher authority. Such practices are more associated with those in non-supervisory roles or in blue collar rather than white collar professions. Instead, as power and status in an organization increases, the flexibility of the work schedule also increases. For instance, while administrative professionals might keep a 9 to 5 work schedule, their superiors may keep less structured hours. This does not mean that the superior works less. They may work longer, but the structure of their work environment is not strictly dictated by the traditional work day. Instead, as Koehler and their associates note "individuals who spend more time, especially spare time, to meetings, to committees, and to developing contacts, are more likely to be influential decision makers" (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 327).
A specific example of the way power is expressed through work time is scheduling. As Yakura and others have noted in research shared by Ballard and Seibold, "scheduling reflects the extent to which the sequencing and duration of plans activities and events are formalized" (Ballard and Seibold, p. 6). Higher-status individuals have very precise and formal schedules - indicating that their stature requires that they have specific blocks of time for specific meetings, projects and appointments. Lower status individuals however, may have less formalized schedules. Finally, the schedule and appointment calendar of the higher status individual will take precedence in determining where, when and the importance of a specific event or appointment.
Developed by Judee Burgoon, expectancy violations theory (EVT) sees communication as the exchange of information which is high in relational content and can be used to violate the expectations of another which will be perceived as either positively or negatively depending on the liking between the two people.
When our expectations are violated, we will respond in specific ways. If an act is unexpected and is assigned favorable interpretation, and it is evaluated positively, it will produce more favorable outcomes than an expected act with the same interpretation and evaluation.
The interpersonal adaptation theory (IAT), founded by Judee Burgoon, states that adaptation in interaction is responsive to the needs, expectations, and desires of communicators and affects how communicators position themselves in relation to one another and adapt to one another's communication. For example, they may match each other's behavior, synchronize the timing of behavior, or behave in dissimilar ways. It is also important to note that individuals bring to interactions certain requirements that reflect basic human needs, expectations about behavior based on social norms, and desires for interaction based on goals and personal preferences (Burgoon, Stern & Dillman, 1995).