A Time Attitude Scale for Cross Cultural Research

This article was downloaded by: [Dokuz Eylul University ]On: 26 September 2014, At: 05:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Global MarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wglo20

A Time Attitude Scale for CrossCultural ResearchJosé I. Rojas-Méndez a b , Gary Davies b , Omer Omerc , Paitoon Chetthamrongchai d & Canan Madran ea University of Talca , Chileb Manchester Business School , Englandc King Saud University , Saudi Arabiad UTCC , Bangkok, Thailande CUIBF , Adana, TurkeyPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: José I. Rojas-Méndez , Gary Davies , Omer Omer , PaitoonChetthamrongchai & Canan Madran (2002) A Time Attitude Scale for Cross CulturalResearch, Journal of Global Marketing, 15:3-4, 117-147

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J042v15n03_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wglo20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J042v15n03_06

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Time Attitude Scale for Cross CulturalResearch

José I. Rojas-MéndezGary DaviesOmer Omer

Paitoon ChetthamrongchaiCanan Madran

ABSTRACT. The paper describes the development and testing of aquestionnaire instrument designed to assess the attitudes of individualstowards time. Five constructs are identified from the literature: past,present and future orientations, time pressure (or time as duration) andplanning (time as succession). Scale items were developed and tested infour countries: the UK, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Chile. In the lastthree mentioned countries, the questionnaire was translated into thehome language from English using the back translation method. In total,2,155 respondents completed the instrument. The scale is tested for reli-ability using Cronbach Alpha both as a whole and in its five constituentparts for each country. Convergent validity was tested using StructuralEquation Modelling. Past and future orientations, and time pressure

José I. Rojas-Méndez is affiliated with the University of Talca, Chile, and Manches-ter Business School, England. Gary Davies is affiliated with the Manchester BusinessSchool, England. Omer Omer is affiliated with the King Saud University, Saudi Ara-bia. Paitoon Chetthamrongchai is affiliated with the UTCC, Bangkok, Thailand. CananMadran is affiliated with CUIBF, Adana, Turkey.

Address correspondence to: Gary Davies, Manchester Business School, Booth StreetWest, Manchester M15 6PB, England. (E-mail [email protected]).

The authors wish to thank Professor Allen Bluedorn from University of Mis-souri-Columbia, U.S.A., and two anonymous reviewers from The Academy of Man-agement, for their comments and suggestions on an early version of this manuscript.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Management To-ronto 2000 Conference (International Management Division).

Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 15(3/4) 2002 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

emerge as relatively well-defined constructs, reflecting their emphasis inthe literature on time attitudes generally. The results are discussed in thecontext of cross-cultural research and in the context of a growing debateabout the use of Cronbach Alpha as an absolute indicator for scale devel-opment. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document De-livery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 by The Haworth Press,Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Time attitude, cross cultural research, time orientation

INTRODUCTION

There are a number of trends that have made the need for a cross-cul-tural measure of attitudes towards time more pressing. In most societ-ies, the allocation of time has become as important a decision as theallocation of money. In richer societies, large groups of affluent con-sumers exist for whom time pressure is a daily issue. Disposable incomeis not a problem; finding the time to dispose of it has become the prob-lem. The services sector is more important to the economies of whatused to be called industrialised societies. Many services, retailing, theleisure industries and transport involve the consumer in major time allo-cation decisions. Finally markets are becoming increasingly trans-na-tional and trans-cultural if not global in nature. Measures that areestablished solely within one culture are less relevant than those thatcan be used in multi-cultural research. An understanding of how andwhy people allocate time has increased in its significance.

The aim of this paper is to report on the development of a cross-cul-tural time attitude measure. The measure has been used within An-glo-Saxon, Arabic, Far Eastern and South American contexts.

TIME ATTITUDE MEASURES

In general terms, one’s orientation refers to the degree of involve-ment in something. This involvement can be on the thought level or onthe action level (De Volder 1979). Time orientation or temporality is re-lated to our subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Forexample, it refers to the emphasis of the past and tradition as opposed to

118 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://www.HaworthPress.com

living for today or investing in tomorrow (Henry 1976). When an indi-vidual develops a tendency to overemphasise one temporal frame whenmaking decisions, it is said that a temporal bias emerges in behaviour(Zimbardo and Boyd 1999).

Understanding differences in attitudes toward time may be useful indifferent disciplines. Carstensen et al. (1999) note that perception oftime plays a fundamental role in the selection and pursuit of socialgoals, with significant implications for emotion, cognition, and motiva-tion. Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) also argue that temporal orientationexerts a dynamic influence on many important judgements, decisions,and actions. More specifically, temporality may be used in marketingfor segmenting markets (Brodowsky and Anderson 2000), and explain-ing consumer behaviour (Chetthamrongchai and Davies 2000).

A number of measures of attitude towards time have been published(Cottle 1976; De Volder 1979; Block et al. 1983/4; Gonzalez andZimbardo 1985; Scriber and Gutek 1987; Ko and Gentry 1991; Lin andMowen 1994; Zimbardo and Boyd 1999; Brodowsky and Anderson2000). Each of these studies has tried to establish a comprehensive mea-sure of time attitude. Others have focussed on one particular perspec-tive, for example nostalgia, a construct that is similar to past orientation(Holbrook and Schindler 1996; Holbrook and Schindler 1994). Manystudies have relied upon small sample sizes. Of the more comprehen-sive studies, Gonzalez and Zimbardo (1985) achieved a large samplesize of more than 11,000 drawn from Psychology Today readers, mostlyfrom U.S.A. Schriber and Gutek’s (1987) study of American employeesinvolved 529 respondents and Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) surveynearly 1,000 U.S. students. Using factor analysis, Gonzalez and Zim-bardo (1985) identified seven orthogonal temporal factors; Schriber andGutek (1987) fifteen, and Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) five. Block et al.(1983/4) used a similar approach to identify six orthogonal factors.

The studies of Ko and Gentry (1991) and Brodowsky and Anderson(2000) are unique in their attempt to establish a cross-cultural measurebut, as with many other studies, the sample sizes achieved were quitelow, as were the reliability levels when reported. Both studies involvedonly two countries.

Although some scholars have suggested the need to investigate thetopic of time using culture as the level of analysis (Bluedorn andDenhard 1988), to date none of the survey instruments has been adoptedas a standard measure of attitude towards time. There are a number ofpossible explanations. First, none of the studies aiming to achieve acomprehensive measure appear to have started with an attempt to em-

Rojas-Méndez et al. 119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

bed theoretically-established constructs within their questionnaires.Second, some scales have been developed based exclusively on studentsamples (Zimbardo and Boyd 1999), which may not be fully representa-tive of the general population. And lastly, most of the scales proposedup to the present have been developed based on one country, or two atthe most, hence, there is a lack of cultural grounding. This is despite along tradition of research into time attitudes. As a result, it is often diffi-cult and sometimes impossible to relate theory to the factors establishedin such work or to compare one study with another.

TIME ALLOCATION THEORY

How people perceive time and how this might relate to time alloca-tion has been studied within many disciplines over many years. There isa long-standing and broad consensus that time is socially constructed(Gurvitch 1964; Adam 1990), and that it is not a single concept (Fraisse1963; Hirschman 1987). The notion of time orientation, that individualsplace their thoughts more into one of three zones, past, present and fu-ture, has received much support (Wallace and Rabin 1960; Fraisse1963; de Volder 1979; Bergadaa 1990; Carmon 1991), together with thenotion that different time orientations promote different time alloca-tions (Bergadaa 1990; Morello 1988; Davies and Omer 1996).

Time pressure is another, potentially different, perspective wheretime is seen from an economic viewpoint (Becker 1965; Juster andStafford 1991) that of something of value. Time pressure is also a themein the psychology literature, as a cause of differences in decision mak-ing compared to when time pressure is absent (Wright, 1974). A feelingof time pressure causes us to reallocate activities, reducing the timetaken for some often routine activities, so as to increase the total amountof discretionary time available (Jacoby et al. 1976; Berry 1979; Gross1987; Kim 1989; Fram and Axelrod 1990; Kaufman 1990). Time here istime as duration, specifically that of clock time. The key element in aperson’s attitude to time is that it is a scarce resource, something thatcannot be wasted. Time within this perspective has a value; time andmoney become exchangeable.

Fraisse (1984) emphasised the distinction between time as durationand time as succession, where time is characterised by a series of eventsby which individuals construct their sense of time and by which theynavigate their lives. Time as succession is in the latter sense closelylinked to the way we plan our lives.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

In summary, there appear to be five distinct attitudes towards timethat appear in a range of literature, three time orientations: “past,”“present” and “future”; and two time perspectives: “time as duration”and “time as succession.” The last two can also be seen as allied to theideas of “time pressure” and “planning using events.” Different issueswill be seen by different individuals in different ways depending uponthe way they conceive of time. For example, consider the example of ayoung person deciding whether to continue with an education at Uni-versity level or to accept paid employment. Past orientation wouldprompt the consideration of any history of higher education in the fam-ily. Present orientation would prompt thinking about the immediatebenefits of an income against perhaps going into debt by continuingwith an education. Future orientation would evoke concern for beingbetter qualified and the benefits this may mean in terms of long-termemployment prospects. If time as duration is important in the individ-ual’s thinking, then a decision between a longer or shorter course willbe important. Time pressure may become an issue as deadlines for mak-ing a decision approach and any feeling of pressure could modify deci-sion making. If the individual sees time more in terms of events, thenplanning ahead may be the norm and all application forms will be re-quested and completed ahead of any deadline. The decisions made willbe influenced by the balance within the individual of the various and po-tentially competing attitudes towards time.

Planning and future orientation in this example appear to be similar.Whether they are and what other interactions there may be between thefive attitudes to time that are most prominent in the literature will re-main unclear until there are valid scales to assess each attitude.

TIME AND CULTURE

As time is seen as socially constructed (Berger and Luckman 1966),it is not surprising that authors frequently expect attitudes to time to besignificantly different between cultures (Coser and Coser 1963; Doob1971; Graham 1981; Kelly 1982; Gross 1987; Ko and Gentry 1991;Bonvillian and Nowlin 1994; Lewis 1995). Future orientation and timeas clock time is expected to be more prominent in Western and industrialsocieties. Past orientation is expected to be more prominent in tradi-tional societies such as China, Japan and Korea, while Latin Americansocieties are expected to be more present-oriented. If attitudes to timeare universal, the same underlying attitudes to time will be observable


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

in all societies. The different socialisation experienced by any one indi-vidual will only affect the dominance of individual facets. If on theother hand time attitudes themselves are socially constructed, any attemptto apply the same measurement scale universally will fail, as cultural ef-fects will dominate. Attitudes to time will be unique to individual cul-tures (Davies and Omer 1996). Time attitude scales will only be usefulat the level of a single society. We might expect reality to fall betweenthese two and for scales derived within one culture to have at least somerelevance in another. The greater the relevance, the more useful itwould be to derive a cross-cultural scale of time attitude.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

During the 1990s five studies have been made by the authors of timeattitude and, in four cases, time allocation. The purpose of this paper isto draw together the results of such work as they relate to the develop-ment of a scale that can be usefully applied in cross-cultural research.

The examination of these five previous studies will contribute to theunderstanding of societies’ attitudes toward time. If separate factorsemerge at the level of a multi-group analysis, it would be instructive tosee if they remain consistent across the different country samples whenthey are analysed separately. If the same pattern emerges across thecountry samples, then we will be in a position to propose a valid cross-cultural measure of Time Attitude. In such a case, of course, this wouldnot mean that all countries or cultures have the same time orientation,since they may rank differently on any one of the proposed dimensions.

Therefore, in this research our aim is to answer the following ques-tions about attitudes toward time:

1. Are there separate factors explaining people’s time attitude?2. If separate factors exist, are they consistent across different coun-

tries or are they culture-bound?

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUESIN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

Our research constitutes an attempt to develop and test a scale tomeasure time attitude across different cultures or countries. The devel-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

opment of both valid and reliable survey instruments is a difficult task,particularly in cross-cultural studies (Green and White 1976). As Ferber(1974) notes, a questionnaire is reliable when it provides consistentmeasures in all comparable situations and over time. Additionally, asurvey instrument achieves validity when it is capable of measuringwhat it was purported to observe or measure (Remenyi et al. 1998).

Another consideration in cross-cultural research concerns the equiva-lence of the concepts, words or statements which are employed in whatare inevitably different versions of the questionnaire (Berry 1980; Greenand White 1976). One method suggested to establish conceptual equiva-lence of measures is through a careful process of survey instrument trans-lation (Berry 1980). Functional equivalence concerns whether similaractivities take place in different societies (e.g., the use of a diary to recordor plan activities by individuals). Finally, metric equivalence exists whenthe psychometric properties of the measures show a congruent structureacross countries sampled. Confirmatory factor analysis is the suggestedprocedure to assess the metric equivalence of measures (Steenkamp andBaumgartner 1998; Netemeyer et al. 1991). Therefore, if there is evi-dence of dimensionality and reliability among the country samplesstudied, then metric equivalence is supported (Berry 1980; Hui andTriandis 1985).

METHOD

Instrument

A major challenge in our context is to collect comparable data frompeople who speak different languages and belong to different cultures.The following procedures were used to minimize potential reliabilityproblems. A questionnaire was drafted originally in English and thentranslated into Arabic, Spanish and Thai languages by bilingual personswho were native speakers of the language into which the translation wasmade, and hence were familiar with the local culture as well. The ques-tionnaires then were back translated into English by bilingual personswhose native language was English to ensure the translations were asprecise as possible (Malhotra et al. 1996; Douglas and Craig 1983). In-consistencies with the original version were analysed and resolved tominimise idiomatic problems. Additionally, to minimise problems dueto translation, the questionnaire was pre-tested on samples of Ph.D. stu-dents in the UK (n = 15), British academic staff (n = 10), British citizens


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

(n = 113), Chileans living in Chile (n = 13), Saudis living in Saudi Ara-bia (n = 27), Saudis living in the UK (n = 46) and Thai citizens living inThailand (n = 100). Our approach mirrors previous work (see for exam-ple: Hague 1987; Luck and Rubin 1987; Kinnear and Taylor 1987). Alarger number of items were screened in pilot studies to evolve the finalquestionnaire.

The final version of the proposed “Time Attitude Scale” contained22 items designed to measure the five time attitude dimensions thatcan be expected from the theoretical background (past, present, future,succession and duration). Responses to the time-orientation state-ments were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors be-ing 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Since question ordermay significantly affect the answers given by respondents (Foddy1993), the items were randomly assigned into two-different versions ofthe questionnaire. Table 1 shows the list of the 22 items, the source fromwhich they were taken, as well as the question order utilised for the timeorientation measures.

Table 2 presents the methodological issues related to the collectionprocess. The study is unusual in that it was conducted in four countries(speaking four different languages and with very different cultures andsocial structures). This entailed using four different research methods:mall-intercept, mail-questionnaires, personal interviews and drop-offpick-up. It was expected that the use of multiple methods would lead tomore reliable results than research dependent exclusively on one method(Samiee and Jeong 1994).

The 22 items were collected either from existing questionnaires, ordeveloped and piloted by one or more of the authors from the ideas con-tained in previous research in areas such as anthropology, sociology,psychology and marketing (Omer 1998; Ko and Gentry 1991; Bergadaa1990; Gonzalez and Zimbardo 1985; Gjesme 1979; Wessman 1973;and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961). Items were chosen to assess thefive attitudes toward time expected from the literature. In theory whensearching a variety of sources for items, one would expect an increase ina measure’s reliability (Churchill and Peter 1984).

Since validity of subjective questions, such as the 22 time orientationitems, can only be assessed by the extent to which answers are associated inexpected ways with the answers to other questions given by the same indi-vidual, we followed the suggestions given by Fowler (1993). First, it wasdecided to use more rather than fewer categories for the Likert scale (seveninstead of five or six). Odd numbers allow the respondent to select a neutralpoint and more scale points allow for more diversity in response, at the risk


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1. Comparative Order of the TIme Orientation Items

Statements Takenfrom

Chile Thailand SaudiArabia

Britain(version 1)

Britain(version 2)

1 I don't like change OO; B* 1 6 1 1 6

2 I like to think about what I am going to do in thefuture

KG 2 7 2 2 7

3 I have control over my future OO 3 5 3 3 5

4 I like things that happen unplanned OO 4 16 4 4 16

5 I live for today OO; GZ* 5 3 5 5 3

6 Children should be taught well the traditionsof the past

KG 6 19 6 6 19

7 The best way to do new tasks well is to relyon what has been done in similar instancesin the past

KG 7 15 7 7 15

8 I like to hear my elders talk about the “old days” KG 8 20 8 8 20

9 It is important to know one's family history KG 9 21 9 9 21

10 It is very important to understand what happenedin the past

KG 10 8 10 10 8

11 I use a calendar to schedule events well aheadof time

KG 11 14 11 11 14

12 I always seem to be doing things at the lastmoment

G 12 13 12 12 13

13 I have been thinking a lot recently about whatI am going to do in the future

G* 13 17 13 13 17

14 I often try to do more than one thing at a time W* 14 1 14 14 1

15 I am always in a rush OO 15 4 15 15 4

16 Time is precious OO 16 9 16 16 9

17 The future is more important than the past to me OO 17 10 17 17 10

18 I like to look back on what I did in the past OO 18 12 18 18 12

19 I am constantly looking at my watch OO 19 2 19 19 2

20 I use a diary to plan ahead OO 20 22 20 20 22

21 I am always looking for ways of saving time G* 21 18 21 21 18

22 I am mostly concerned about how I feel now(in the present)

G* 22 11 22 22 11

B*: Adapted from Bergadaá, Michelle M. (1990). “The Role of Time in the Action of the Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17(De-cember): 289-302G, G*: Gjesme, Torgrim (1979). “Future Orientation as a Function of Achievement Motives, Ability, Delay of Gratification, and Sex,” The Jour-nal of Psychology 101:173-188.GZ*: Adapted from Gonzalez, Alexander and Philip G. Zimbardo (1985). “Time in Perspective,” Psychology Today (March):21-26.KG: Ko, Gary and James W. Gentry (1991). “The Development of Time Orientation Measures for Use in Cross-Cultural Research,” Advancesin Consumer Research 18:135-142.OO: Omer, Omer (1998). An Examination of Consumer Time Allocation. Doctoral Thesis, Manchester Business SchoolW*: Adapted from Wessman, Alden E. (1973). “Personality and the Subjective Experience of Time,” Journal of Personality Assessment(37):103-114.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

of giving respondents a confusingly large choice. Second, concerningface validity, we included several questions with different wording tomeasure the same predicted time-orientation factor. For instance, for theproposed Time-Pressure factor, we included statements such as: “I oftentry to do more than one thing at a time,” “I am always in a rush,” “I am con-stantly looking at my watch.”

Finally, some adjustments were made in order to achieve conceptual oritem equivalence. For instance, in the survey form dichotomous ques-tions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer were avoided, because asBonvillian and Nowlin (1994) indicate, Thais are reluctant to displeaseanother with a negative answer, hence in practice there is no word for“no” in Thai. Likewise, it was found that some statements had an incom-plete meaning when translated literally from English into other lan-guages. For instance, one time orientation statement reading “I look to thefuture for success” in English, was reworded, when translated into Span-ish, in order to attain item equivalence. Thus, the statement in this lan-guage reads “I look to the future to get success,” but has the samemeaning as in the original English that the future offers hope for success.

Samples

Data were collected from general populations (non-student samples)composed of 575 British, 158 Chileans, 238 Thais and 1,184 Arabs, for


TABLE 2. Methodological Issues

Country Language Year ofData

Collection

Research Method Pre-test

TotalSample

SizeMall-Intercept

MailedQ'res

PersonalInterview

Drop-offpick-up

Incentives

Chile Spanish 1999 158 (63.0%) Yes 158

England

English 1994 50 (63.0%) Yes

575English 1995 50 (55.5%) Yes

English 1997 254 (28.5%) Yes Yes

English 1997 221 (22.1%) Yes Yes

Thailand Thai 1997 115 (57.5%) 123 (54.0%) Yes 238

SaudiArabia

Arabic 1994 55 (55.0%) Yes

1,184Arabic 1995 51 (60.0%) Yes

Arabic 1995 1,078 (65.0%) Yes

TOTAL 1994-1999 115 1,553 123 364 2,155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

a grand total of 2,155 respondents, during a time-span of about 4 yearsfrom late 1994 to early 1999. Table 3 shows the demographic profile ofthe samples. Overall, the majority of the respondents were males (59%),mostly younger than 40 years old (78%) and a slightly higher percent-age of respondents were without university degrees (55%). Comparingacross countries, the UK, Chilean and Thai samples are skewed towardboth females and people older than 40 years old; while the Saudi sampleis strongly skewed toward males and people younger than 25 years old.However, comparisons across the country samples will not be soughthere, since it is the relationship of items and time constructs that is theprimary concern in this study.

Countries Chosen as Study Sites

The selection of the UK, Chile, Thailand and Saudi Arabia, as thebase for the study was rather opportunistic, because the authors are citi-zens of, or at the time when the study was conducted were working in,one of those countries. However, far from being a disadvantage, this is-sue is considered a real strength for study due to the cultural knowledgeheld by the authors regarding the population of the various countries.The study overcomes the common criticism of cross-cultural studiesdue to the exclusion of samples from developing and/or non-Eng-lish-speaking countries (Samiee and Jeong 1994). The four countriesare very different in many ways.


TABLE 3. Demographic Profile of the Sample (%)

Variable Global UK Chile Thailand Saudi Arabia

GenderMaleFemale

59.240.8

34.865.2

43.756.3

18.181.9

81.618.4

AgeLess than 2525-2930-3435-3940 and older

30.518.420.0

9.421.7

4.613.325.411.944.8

22.110.112.713.341.8

11.313.423.816.934.6

47.923.017.6

6.25.3

Educational LevelLess than secondary schoolSecondary schoolFirst degree or equivalentPost-graduate education

13.740.832.413.1

24.427.222.226.2

18.832.546.8

1.9

7.618.659.014.8

9.152.930.0

7.8

Total Sample size (n) 2,155 575 158 238 1,184

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

The United Kingdom. The UK is a European constitutional and he-reditary monarchy. It has a total area of 244,100 square kilometres,where 90% of its 59 million inhabitants are concentrated in urban areas.In 1998 the UK’s GDP reached US$ 1,416 billion giving a GPD per ca-pita of US$ 23,900, placing the UK’s economy, as the fifth largest in theOECD. As in most developed countries, services represent about two-thirds of the economy (EIU 1999). The dominant religion is Christianbut Protestant. Based on Hofstede (1994), British society is onestrongly oriented to individualism and masculinity, with a low levelboth in uncertainty avoidance and power distance.1

Chile. Chile is a newly re-instated democracy in South America, ofEuropean ancestry, with a population of 14.8 million inhabitants (84%urban residents). It has a land area of 756,946 square kilometres. Theofficial language of the country is Spanish. Three quarters of the popu-lation are mestizos (a mixture of colonists from Spain and indigenouspeoples, mostly Mapuches) and around the same percentage profess theRoman Catholic religion. The Chilean economy is mainly based onmining, agriculture, forestry and fishing. In 1998, the main economicindicators showed a GDP of US$ 76.2 billion, and a GDP per head ofUS$ 5,139 (EIU 1999). The dominant religion is Christian and Catho-lic. According to Hofstede (1994) Chileans are inclined to collectivism,have a rather high degree of power distance, are strongly feminine ori-ented (as opposed to masculine) and feel highly threatened by uncertainor unknown situations.

Thailand. Located in Southeast Asia, Thailand has a total area of514,000 square kilometres, where 30% of its 61.5 million inhabitantsare urban residents. Thailand has one of the most homogeneous popu-lations in Southeast Asia, with the main unifying force in the Buddhistreligion, professed by 95% of its inhabitants. The country is a constitu-tional monarchy. About 14% of Thais claim Chinese ancestry (a figurethat can rise to 70% in the capital city of Bangkok). In the last two de-cades, Thailand has undergone a transformation of its economy movingfrom an agricultural to a manufacturing and high-tech orientation. Thai-land’s GDP in 1998 reached US$ 116.1 billion, which corresponds toUS$ 1,899 per head (EIU 1999). Thai society is collectivist, stronglyoriented to a feminine culture, with moderate uncertainty avoidance anda rather high power distance. Except for the uncertainty avoidance,Thailand is very similar to Chile in the value dimensions analysed byHofstede (1994).

Saudi Arabia. Located in the Arabian Peninsula, the kingdom ofSaudi Arabia has an estimated area of 2.15 million square kilometres.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Its 20.2 million inhabitants speak Arabic, the official language, and pro-fess the Islamic religion, which is a dominant aspect in this culture(Barakat 1993). Saudis’ plans for the future are viewed with a sense ofinevitability and will be realised only “if Allah (God) wills it” (Ferraro1990). Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Figures from 1998 indi-cate a GDP of US$ 131.5 billion, and an estimated GDP per head ofUS$ 6,526. Saudi authorities are increasingly concerned about the num-ber of foreigners in the country, estimated at about 25% of the popula-tion. In order to protect employment for Saudi nationals, they haveenacted a measure that private-sector companies with more than 20 em-ployees, must hire at least 10% of Saudi nationals (EIU 1999). Hofstede(1994) describes Saudis as collectivists, even more than other Arabcountry citizens such as the Lebanese or Egyptians. Also, he foundthat Arab country citizens show a high power distance, a moderate un-certainty avoidance, masculinity index, and are inclined to be more col-lectivist as opposed to individualist.

One last comment must be made regarding the religion practised bythe people in the countries under study, which may affect the way theysee the different constructs dealing with time orientation posited in thispaper. Buddhism, as an Eastern religion, is separated from Christianityand Islam (Western religions that grew from the same roots) by a clearphilosophical line (Hofstede 1994). Western religions are based on theexistence of a “Truth” that can be achieved by true believers, whileEastern religions are based on the person improving by means of rituals,meditation and ways of living (i.e., “Virtue”).

Hofstede (1994) argues that a questionnaire developed by Westernminds may identify different constructs (for instance, Truth versus Vir-tue) from one developed by Eastern minds. Thus, a valid and reliablecross-cultural survey instrument must be able to traverse the gaps be-tween these cultural/national differences. If our proposed Time AttitudeScale is able to generate comparable constructs across our four countrysamples, then we have strong evidence of a survey instrument that is notculture-bound.

RESULTS

The data collected from the samples in the four different countrieswere analysed using approaches recommended in the cross-culturalpsychology literature (Bond 1988; Hui and Triandis 1985). First, the 22items were examined at a national or intracultural level (i.e., each one of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

the four countries separately), and then a multi-group or pan-culturalanalysis was performed (i.e., all countries together) to look for the pres-ence of similar items explaining similar factors across all countries.

The following steps were followed: (a) reliability measures for theproposed Time Attitude Scale; (b) principal components with non-or-thogonal rotation; and (c) Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Reliability of the Time Orientation Scale

The first step in the analysis was to assess the reliability of the pro-posed Time Orientation scale as a whole (i.e., including the 22 items). Ata national level, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were, for the entirescale, 0.63 (Chile), 0.55 (UK), 0.71 (Thailand), and 0.63 (Saudi Arabia).With the exception of the UK sample, reliability coefficients are wellwithin the range of acceptability for exploratory scales (Peterson 1994).When data were analysed as a multi-group (n = 2,155), the reliability co-efficient reached 0.62. If the Time Attitude Scale is unidimensional,then using the alpha coefficient is an appropriate measure, but it is be-low the current threshold recommended level of 0.70 for establishedscales but above the figure of 0.6 originally proposed (Nunnally 1978).However, if the scale is multidimensional (as expected), then the alphacoefficient value is not totally relevant. Some other form of constructvalidation is necessary to assess the reliability of the measure (Cortina1993). The issue is returned to later in the paper.

Factor Analysis Procedure

To assess whether the five time attitude factors posited were beingcoherently measured, the 22-item scale was factor analysed using prin-cipal components analysis with non-orthogonal (oblimin) rotation re-stricted to a 5-factor solution. It would have been inappropriate to useunconstrained factor analysis in this context as we already expected fivefactors. Furthermore we could not justify the assumption inherent in or-thogonal rotation that the factors were independent. The results areshown in Tables 4 A, B, C, D and E.

The first conclusion is that the five constructs posited in theoryemerge quite clearly. However, some of the items that explain individ-ual factors vary when performing factor analysis by individual country.This may imply that each one of the proposed constructs in the TimeOrientation Scale is manifest in a different way across the four culturesunder study. Thus, each one of the five-attitude factors toward time may


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 4A. Factor Analysis: Past Orientation*

Variable Name Global Chile Britain Thailand SaudiArabia

Children should be taught well the traditions of the past 0.665 0.687 0.689 0.671 0.658It is very important to understand what happened in the past 0.614 0.616 0.626 0.417 0.603I like to look back on what I did in the past 0.571 0.582 0.433 0.533I like to hear my elders talk about the “old days” 0.705 0.779 0.707 0.789 0.672The best way to do new tasks well is to rely on what hasbeen done in similar instances in the past

0.520 0.355 0.436 0.531

I like to think about what I am going to do in the future 0.315 0.323I have been thinking a lot recently about what I am going todo in the future

0.305 0.301

It is important to know one's family history 0.383 0.688 0.642 0.747I am always looking for ways of saving time 0.322 0.331I am mostly concerned about how I feel now (in the present) 0.316I like things that happen unplanned 0.327

I live for today 0.362

Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient 0.67 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.61

Variance Explained (%) 13.97 12.05 12.50 8.56 14.2

Sample Size 2,049 156 566 235 1,120

TABLE 4B. Factor Analysis: Future Orientation*


I am always looking for ways of saving time 0.460 0.329 0.464I like to think about what I am going to do in the future 0.653 0.789 0.666 0.569 0.458I have been thinking a lot recently about what I am goingto do in the future

0.535 0.322 0.620 0.484

The future is more important than the past to me 0.606 0.486 0.613 0.603I am constantly looking at my watch 0.523 0.309 0.308

I have control over my future 0.434 0.653 0.496 0.729The best way to do new tasks well is to rely on what hasbeen done in similar instances in the past

�0.353

I don't like change 0.501Time is precious 0.322 0.574I use a calendar to schedule events well ahead of time

I live for today �0.412 �0.343

I am mostly concerned about how I feel now(in the present)

�0.396 �0.573

I am always in a rush 0.306I like things that happen unplanned 0.509Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient 0.60 0.62 0.55 0.53 0.59


Sample Size 2,063 150 559 233 1,136

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 4C. Factor Analysis: Time Pressure*


It is important to know one's family history 0.363 0.494

I live for today 0.439

I am always in a rush 0.622 0.652 0.804 0.454 0.647

I always seem to be doing things at the last moment 0.588 0.394 0.383 0.505

I often try to do more than one thing at a time 0.484 0.696 0.610 0.384 0.551

I am mostly concerned about how I feel now(in the present)

0.431 0.325 0.551

I like things that happen unplanned 0.407

I am constantly looking at my watch 0.555 0.607 0.538 0.361

I am always looking for ways of saving time 0.691 0.474

The future is more important than the past to me 0.435

I don't like change 0.595 0.396

I like to look back on what I did in the past 0.613

It is very important to understand what happenedin the past

0.408

I have thinking a lot recently about what I am going to doin the future

0.538

I like to think about what I am going to do in the future 0.438



Sample Size 2,062 144 571 227 1,126

TABLE 4D. Factor Analysis: Successional Perspective (Planning)*


I use a diary to plan ahead 0.833 0.707 0.804 0.612 0.846

I use a calendar to schedule events well ahead of time 0.821 0.743 0.825 0.752 0.797

Time is precious 0.635

I am always looking for ways of saving time �0.464 0.401 0.541 0.578

I always seem to be doing things at the last moment 0.348 0.468 �0.549 0.495 �0.324

I like things that happen unplanned 0.349

The future is more important than the past to me �0.362

It is very important to understand what happenedin the past

�0.353



Sample Size 2,118 151 572 235 1,152

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

be composed of a set of cross-cultural etic items (those culture-free andtherefore similar in all cultures) and at the same time of a set of emicitems (specifically related to one society or culture). If this is so, a com-bination of etic and emic items should generate a scale with improvedreliability and validity in different cultures. Certainly, to avoid the cul-tural ethnocentrism tendency, it is necessary to distinguish between emicand etic measures (Samiee and Jeong 1994).

As mentioned above, some items fall in different factors when com-pared across countries, however, the following results are common (eticcomponents) across the four cultures:


TABLE 4E. Factor Analysis: Present Orientation*


I am mostly concerned about how I feel now (in thepresent)

0.357 0.390 0.728 0.312

I don't like change 0.688

Time is precious 0.522 0.543 0.348

I often try to do more than one thing at a time

I like things that happen unplanned 0.395 0.462 0.428

I have been thinking a lot recently about what I am goingto do in the future

0.348 0.653 0.330 0.489

I am always in a rush 0.310

I am constantly looking at my watch 0.452

I always seem to be doing things at the last moment 0.500 0.367 0.325

I like to look back on what I did in the past 0.418

I like to think about what I am going to do in the future 0.562

I live for today �0.458 0.607 0.608 0.674

I am always in a rush 0.344

I am always looking for ways of saving time 0.429

The best way to do new tasks well is to rely on what hasbeen done in similar instances in the past

0.665

The future is more important than the past to me 0.308

I have control over my future 0.415



Sample Size 2,101 145 567 233 1,143

* Restrictions applied to the analysis:(a) Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization(b) 5-factor solution(c) Loading factors less than 0.3 have been omitted, and those judged to constitute a factor in each sample–when the Cronbach's Alpha coef-ficient was the highest–are in italics and boldface.(d) Variables with negative factor loading were reversed when calculating Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

1. Past Orientation. The following six items explain this factor bothat pooled and national level: “Children should be taught well thetraditions of the past,” “it is very important to understand whathappened in the past,” “I like to look back on what I did in thepast,” “I like to hear my elders talk about the old days,” “the bestway to do new tasks well is to rely on what has been done in simi-lar instances in the past,” and“ it is important to know one’s familyhistory.” (That the items loaded negatively in the Thai results hasno practical significance.)

2. Future Orientation. Four items consistently emerge in explainingthis factor: “I like to think about what I am going to do in the fu-ture,” “I have been thinking a lot recently about what I am going todo in the future,” “the future is more important than the past tome,” and “I have control over my future.”

3. Time Pressure. Four items emerged as a result of the factor analy-sis: “I am always in a rush,” “I always seem to be doing things atthe last moment,” “I often try to do more than one thing at a time,”and “I am constantly looking at my watch.” The item “I am alwayslooking for ways of saving time” was found to be part of this fac-tor only for the Chilean and UK samples. “Time is precious” wassurprisingly related neither with the country samples nor with thepooled database.

4. Planning. Not two but four items consistently emerged as beingpart of this factor: “I use a diary to plan ahead,” “ I use a calendarto schedule events well ahead of time,” “I am always looking forways of saving time,” and “I always seem to be doing things at thelast moment.”

5. Present Orientation. The following five items seem to be com-mon as a result of the factor analyses (of which four were hy-pothesised in advance): “I am mostly concerned about how I feelnow in the present,” “I like things that happen unplanned,” “I al-ways seem to be doing things at the last moment,” “I live for to-day,” and “I have been thinking a lot recently about what I amgoing to do in the future.” This last item is quite confusing in theresults since it moves in the same direction as the other items,giving the impression that present orientation is linked with thefuture. Of course, this relationship was not expected in advance.The hypothesised item “I don’t like change” did not significantlyload with this factor.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Overall, 20 out the 22 items originally included in the scale signifi-cantly loaded into the five proposed factors (although two items loadedwith more than one factor). The two items not related at all with the pos-ited factors were “I don’t like change” and “time is precious” were pre-dicted to explain present orientation and time pressure, respectively.Among the 20 items that significantly load into the five factors, 17 wereexactly predicted in the way they load, by means of applying face valid-ity. The item “I always seem to be doing things at the last moment”loaded with three constructs (planning, time pressure and present) in-stead of the two predicted (present and time). The second item that didnot load exactly as expected was “I have been thinking a lot recentlyabout what I am going to do in the future” explaining future but alsopresent orientation. Finally, the item “I am always looking for ways ofsaving time” significantly loaded with the planning factor rather thantime pressure as had been expected.

Based on the factor analyses, the main differences at the emic levelamong the four countries are the following:

a. The UK. The British sample tended to associate the future with anotion of change and the value of time. In fact, three additionalitems loaded significantly in addition to the etic ones: “I don’t likechange (reverse score),” “I am always looking for ways of savingtime,” and “time is precious.”

b. Chile. Looking for ways of saving time and considering the futuremore important than the past are closely related to the time pres-sure factor. The planning factor includes the item “I like thingsthat happen unplanned (reverse score).” The present factor seemsto be closely related to time pressure, since most of the items hy-pothesised to explain that factor also load significantly here.

c. Thailand. Looking for ways of saving time and thinking about thefuture emerge as items in the past orientation factor. This could beexplained by the influence of Buddhism with its emphasis on rein-carnation. Being in a rush and liking things that happen unplannedseem to be related with future orientation. The time pressure factoris also explained by items related with past (2), present (2) and fu-ture (2). Planning is associated with looking ways for saving time.Present orientation is related to two items dealing with time pres-sure and one with the past (“I am always in a rush,” “I am alwayslooking for ways of saving time” and “the best way to do new tasksis to rely on what has been done in similar instances in the past”).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

d. Saudi Arabia. Looking for ways of saving time and thinking aboutthe future emerge as items in the past orientation factor. “Time isprecious” and “I am always looking for ways of saving time” areassociated with future orientation. The items “it is important toknow one’s family history” and “I don’t like change” tend to berelated with time pressure. Present orientation for Saudis also isexplained with two items related to the future but with reversedscore: “I have control over my future” and “I like to think aboutwhat I am going to do in the future.”

Assuming that it is valid to use alpha coefficients to assess reliabilityin multidimensional scales in a cross-cultural context, then our resultsseem to be weak enough to reject the use of the scale. However, fromthe technical point of view, an adequate coefficient alpha would onlysuggest that, on average, split halves of the tests are highly correlated.Alpha coefficients say nothing about how well the two halves are mea-suring the constructs that they are intended to measure or explain(Cortina 1993). Hence, before accepting or rejecting the proposed scale,it is imperative to explore its validity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to test the four sub-scalesthat contained more than two items in the global measure. Amos wasused and specifically the maximum likelihood algorithm. Factors werederived from those defined in Tables 4A to 4E and tested. The simplestmodel was derived in each case and assessed for goodness of fit usingthree measures, GFI, AGFI and CFI. The items used and the test scoresare given in Table 5. In each case other than Time Pressure all threemeasures exceeded 0.95 (and here two of the three exceeded 0.90). Thisindicates that each factor is valid for the global sample.

Confirmatory factor Analysis was also used to assess the ability ofthe five sub-scales to contribute to a single, unobserved construct, timeorientation. The simplest model with acceptable validity is shown inFigure 1. Past and Future orientations and time pressure contribute totime orientation with goodness of fit measures for GFI, AGFI and CFIof 0.98, 0.97 and 0.93, respectively. Including measure for present ori-entation and planning did not improve the model. The CFI fit scoreswere particularly low in both cases.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

DISCUSSION

The normative literature (Nunnally 1978) and empirical studies(Peterson 1994; Churchill and Peter 1984) place the threshold for ac-ceptable reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) at 0.70 (or 0.60 inNunnally 1967). However, this must not be a surprise because the theo-


TABLE 5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Number Statements Present Past Future Planning TimePressure

1 I don't like change

2 I like to think about what I am going to doin the future

�

3 I have control over my future �

4 I like things that happen unplanned �

5 I live for today �

6 Children should be taught well the traditionsof the past

�

7 The best way to do new tasks well is to relyon what has been done in similar instancesin the past

�

8 I like to hear my elders talk about the “old days” �

9 It is important to know one's family history

10 It is very important to understand whathappened in the past

�

11 I use a calendar to schedule events wellahead of time

�

12 I always seem to be doing things at the lastmoment

�

13 I have been thinking a lot recently about whatI am going to do in the future

�

14 I often try to do more than one thing at a time

15 I am always in a rush �

16 Time is precious �

17 The future is more important than the pastto me

�

18 I like to look back on what I did in the past �

19 I am constantly looking at my watch �

20 I use a diary to plan ahead �

21 I am always looking for ways of saving time �

22 I am mostly concerned about how I feel now(in the present)

�

GFI 0.999 0.997 0.994 N/A 0.991

AGFI 0.997 0.990 0.970 N/A 0.957

CFI 0.998 .998 0.968 N/A 0.902

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

retical recommendations (Nunnally 1967, 1978) have been taken assacrosanct and, as a result, reported alpha coefficients are in large mea-sure a function of these recommendations (Peterson 1994). Hence, itappears that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained in this study (onaverage in the neighbourhood of 0.55) are not strong enough to supportthe proposed scale. We need then to discuss the relevance of Cronbachalpha and the threshold of 0.6/0.7. However, Confirmatory FactorAnalysis implies that the scale has inherent value.

First, there are some issues that could produce inherently low Cronbachalpha coefficients in our study.

a. The sample size. In the marketing literature studies dealing withbig sample sizes are not frequent (less than 30% according to Pe-terson (1994)). Churchill and Peter (1984) found a significantlynegative relationship between the magnitude of alpha coefficientsand sample sizes. Our sample size is over 2000, a relatively largesample size.

b. The type of samples. Although neither Churchill and Peter (1984)nor Peterson (1994) reported substantive relationships betweenthe type of sample (i.e., students versus general population) for


Time

Past

Future

Pressure

tim6

tim7

tim8

tim10

tim18

tim2

tim13

tim17

tim16

tim19

tim21

d1

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

d3

d2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

Note: SeeTable 5 for a complete description of theVariable names.For instance, variable “tim6” correspondsto the statement listed in Row6 which reads“Children should be taught well the traditions of the past.”

FIGURE 1. SEM Model of Time Orientation Scale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

the same measure, it appears that the more the sample membersare homogenous and educated, the higher will be the reliabilitycoefficient (college student samples should evince higher scalesreliabilities than non-college student samples because studentsshould be more experienced in completing questionnaires andperhaps more educated).

c. Number of items in the scale. The original scale was composed ofonly 22 items, and consequently the proposed five factors have anumber of items that range from two to six, which is low. Theo-retically, the larger the number of items in a scale, the more reli-able will be the scale (Nunnally 1978). Empirically, Churchilland Peter (1984) found a positive relationship between the num-ber of items used in the scale and the reliability of the measure.More recently, Cortina (1993) demonstrates that alpha can begreater than 0.70, in spite of low average item intercorrelation ormultidimensionality, provided there are a sufficient number ofitems.

d. Respondents-centered scale. Out of 22 items proposed in thescale, 18 items were respondent-centered and only 4 stimulus-centered. The emphasis on the former scale orientation in the pro-posed scale tends to reduce the alpha coefficients. Peterson (1994)found that respondent-centered scales exhibited smaller alpha co-efficients than stimulus-centered scales.

e. Reliability can be improved simply by adding very similar items toa scale. Boyle (1991) has argued that scales exhibiting very highalpha coefficients (e.g., above 0.90) should be avoided, becausethey simply imply a high level of item redundancy, not scale reli-ability. In our proposed scale, with the exception of two items ex-plaining future orientation, all the items differ not only in thewording but also in their meaning.

f. The context of cross-cultural research. In cross-cultural research,there are a number of other specific issues. First, the questionnaireneeds to be translated. Second, the scale needs to have the samemeaning in different societies. It is expected that reliability, asmeasured by Cronbach alpha, will be affected (Samiee and Jeong1994).

In summary, being rigorous in the research design process seems tomitigate against the achievement of higher reliability coefficients in theproposed scale. Our results clearly show the existence of a trade-off be-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

tween developing a valid scale, and at the same time attempting tomaximise reliability through Cronbach alpha coefficients. Churchilland Peter (1984) discussed this contradiction in a meta-analysis studyon the reliability of rating scales. They exemplify the dichotomy by as-suming a construct measured by a single item repeated several times. Insuch a case, the scale would have a very high reliability (alpha near to1.0). However, since it is impossible to capture what it is meant by aconstruct using just one single item, the measure would suffer from alow construct validity. Consequently, they caution that the failure, al-though being rigorous in research design characteristics, to generatehigher reliability estimates should not necessarily indicate that theitems used to measure a construct are not worthwhile for developingvalid measures.

Since our primary objective is to develop a valid Time AttitudeScale, we should be more focussed on achieving construct validityrather than high levels of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. In valid scales,as is the case here, all items explaining a main construct should have acommon core (which increases reliability of that construct) but shouldalso contribute some unique variance which is not tapped by other items(which in turns may reduce reliability) (Churchill and Peter 1984).Moreover, as Churchill (1979) notes, a key question in judging con-struct validity is, “Does the measure behave as expected?” Certainly,the measures used here, in general, behaved as expected in explainingthe five main constructs of time orientation.

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis results indicate that the scale hasconvergent validity. In particular, three elements, past and future orien-tations and time pressure, appear to be particularly well-defined withinthe measure if attitude to time is to be considered as a single construct.More work would be useful on the other two constructs, planning andpresent orientation.

As an illustration of the application of the scale, Table 6 contains thescores for each time attitude for each of the country samples within thisstudy. It must be emphasised that the samples are not intended to be to-tally compatible nor representative of each nation and therefore the av-erage scores on each attitude are not necessarily indicative of thepopulation of each country as a whole. Time attitudes can also changeover time and our studies took place over a number of years. Neverthe-less it is interesting to compare the mean scores. The Saudis score rela-tively highly on Future orientation. The Thais rank first for Planning.The Chileans appear more past-oriented. The British score lowest fortime pressure. The Thais score lowest for Present orientation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

CONCLUSION

Our study has certain limitations. Although we have researched infour countries and four languages, the scale may not be as valid in othercontexts. For example, we show that there are emic and etic issues withthe scale, that may differ if we had included other cultures. We includeda limited number of measures for each construct. The picture mighthave changed particularly on the relative validity of individual factors ifwe had included more items.

Four countries, four different languages, four different geographiclocations, four different dominant religions, and different types of con-stitutional governments were, nevertheless, included in the study whichto date has been the most comprehensive of its type investigating peo-ples’ attitude toward time. The study is also unusual in that the surveyitems were derived from the theory of time perception. The answers tothe research questions are quite clear. There are separate factors ex-plaining people’s time orientation and they seem to be culture free, al-though some emic evidence (culture bound dimensionality) was foundas a result of factor analysis.

The proposed Time Orientation Scale is comprised of 20 items,which in turn includes the following five different factors:

Past Orientation

1. Children should be taught well the traditions of the past2. The best way to do new tasks well is to rely on what has been done

in similar instances in the past3. I like to hear my elders talk about the “old days”4. It is important to know one’s family history5. It is very important to understand what happened in the past6. I like to look back on what I did in the past


TABLE 6. Average Scores for Each Time Attitude for Each Country

Time Attitude Chile UK Thailand Saudi Arabia

Future 5.21 4.95 5.55 5.72

Past 5.56 4.86 4.70 5.30

Pressure 4.84 4.48 4.82 5.14

Planning 3.77 4.77 5.16 4.28

Present 4.86 4.24 3.59 4.13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Future Orientation

1. I like to think about what I am going to do in the future2. I have control over my future3. I have been thinking a lot recently about what I am going to do in

the future4. The future is more important than the past to me

Time Pressure

1. I am always in a rush2. Time is precious3. I am constantly looking at my watch4. I am always looking for ways of saving time

Planning

1. I use a calendar to schedule events well ahead of time2. I use a diary to plan ahead

Present Orientation

1. I like things that happen unplanned2. I live for today3. I am always seem to be doing things at the last moment4. I am mostly concerned about how I feel now (in the present)

From the methodological point of view, it was found that questionorder and research methods used to collect data had no significant ef-fect on construct validity. A trade-off was found between reliabilityand construct validity. In fact, the higher the reliability, the lower theconstruct validity. There is little comment on this issue in the litera-ture. Most authors appear to look for acceptable values for both reli-ability and validity. It would be interesting to see a wider debate onthis point.

Some questions remain open to be investigated. Does the Time Ori-entation Scale have the same dimensionality in other cultures/coun-tries? How does time orientation affect consumers/employees or anyother group’s behaviour? To what extent is reliability required in orderto develop valid scales, particularly in cross-cultural research? How canvalidity and reliability be compensated for? Is it really true that good


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

measures must achieve the reliability threshold recommended in the lit-erature, particularly in the psychology journals?

Some further research is implied. There would be value in extendingthe number of items in the scale and specifically for certain dimensionssuch as Planning and Present orientation. The scale can be usefullytested as it is in other countries and cultures. There are a number of theo-retical issues that can now be tested using the scale. For example, whilein this paper we have not attempted to propose and test a model of timeallocation, we do so elsewhere, arguing that attitudes to time shape atti-tudes to time-consuming activities which in turn affect the way peoplebehave towards the time-consuming activity (Davies & Madran, 1997;Davies & Chettamrongchai 2000). We can now study the evolution ofattitudes towards time longitudinally. Earlier we noted that Saudis ap-pear more future oriented than expected, is this due to an earliermisperception or is Saudi society changing? We can explore what de-termines attitudes to time. Is it the socialisation process, is it genetic? Iftime attitudes are socialised, then they can be modified by, for example,advertising. Finally, as we have shown here, time attitudes do vary bycountry. The same time-related products or services (savings, educa-tion, time-saving durables) marketed globally may need different posi-tioning if attitudes towards past and future differ. A traditional appeal inone market may have to be changed for another where the future holdsmore appeal.

NOTE

1. Hofstede proposed four cultural dimensions along which societies can be classi-fied. Those are: (a) Power Distance: the degree to which unequal distribution of poweris accepted; (b) Individualism: the degree to which individual decision making is val-ued; (c) Uncertainty Avoidance: the degree to which uncertainty is tolerated; and (d) Mas-culinity: the degree to which society values assertiveness, performance, ambition, achieve-ment, and material possessions.

REFERENCES

Adam, B. (1990). Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Barakat, H. (1993). The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State. University of Califor-

nia Press, CA.Becker, G. (1965). A Theory of Allocation of Time. The Economic Journal, Septem-

ber, 493-517.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Bergadaá, M. M. (1990). The Role of Time in the Action of the Consumer. Journal ofConsumer Research, 17, December, 289-302.

Berger, P.L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York:Anchor Books.

Berry, L. (1979). The Time Buying Consumer. Journal of Retailing, 55(4), 58-69.Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to Methodology, in H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry

(Eds.), The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 1-29), Vol 2. Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Block, R., Suggan, J., & Nickol, L. (1983/84). Temporal Inventory on Meaning andExperience: A Structure of Time. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 3 (3),203-225.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and Organizations. Journal of Man-agement, 14(2), 299-320.

Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding Universal Dimensions of Individual Variation in Multi-cultural Studies of Values: The Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 1009-1015.

Bonvillian, G., & Nowlin, W. A. (1994). Cultural Awareness: An Essential Element ofDoing Business Abroad. Business Horizons, November-December, 44-50.

Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does Item Homogeneity Indicate Internal Consistency or Item Re-dundancy in Psychometric Scales? Personality and Individual Differences, 12,March, 291-294.

Brodowsky, G. H., & Anderson, B. B. (2000). A Cross-Cultural Study of ConsumerAttitudes Toward Time. Journal of Global Marketing, 13(3), 93-109.

Carmon, Z. (1991). Recent Studies of Time in Consumer Behaviour. In R. H. Holman &M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 703-705), 18, Associ-ation for Consumer Research.

Carstensen, L.L., Isaacowitz, D., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking Time Seriously: ATheory of Socioemotional Selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.

Chetthamrongchai, P., and Davies, G. (2000). Segmenting the Market for Food Shop-pers using Attitude to Shopping and to Time. British Food Journal, 102(2), 81-101.

Churchill, G. A. Jr., & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research Design Effects on the Reliability ofRating Scales: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, November,360-375.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Ap-plications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.

Coser, L., & Coser, R. (1963). Time Perspective and Social Structure. In A.W.Gouldner & H. P. Gouldner (Eds), Modern Sociology (pp. 191-202). New York:Harcourt Brace & World.

Cottle, T. (1976). Perceiving Time. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Davies, G., & Omer, O. (1996). Time Allocation and Marketing. Time & Society, 5(2),

253-268.Davies, G. Madran, C. (1997) Time, Food Shopping and Food Preparation: Some Atti-

tudinal Linkages. British Food Journal, 99(3/4), 80-88.Davies G., & Chettamrongchai, P. (2000) Segmenting the Market for Food Shoppers

Using Attitudes to Shopping and to Time. British Food Journal, 102(2), 81-101,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

De Volder, M. L. (1979). Time Orientation: A Review. Psychologica Belgica, 19 (1),61-79.

Doob, L. (1971). Patterning of Time. New Haven: Yale University Press.Douglas, P., & Craig, S. (1983). International Marketing Research. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.EIU (1999). The Economist Intelligence Unit: Country Profile 1999-2000, reports 18,

80, 93, and 101, London.Ferber, R. (1974). Handbook of Marketing Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Co.Ferraro, G. (1990). The Cultural Dimension of International Business. Prentice-Hall:

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory

and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Fowler, F. J. Jr. (1993). Survey Research Methods. 2nd edn, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE

Publications.Fraisse, P. (1963). Psychology of Time. New York: Harper and Row.______ (1984). Perception and Estimation of Time. Annual Review of Psychology, 35,

1-36.Fram, E. H., and Axelrod, J. (1990). The Distressed Shopper. American Demograph-

ics, 12(10), 44-45.Gjesme, T. (1979). Future Orientation as a Function of Achievement Motives, Ability,

Delay of Gratification, and Sex. The Journal of Psychology, 101, 173-188.Gonzalez, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1985). Time in Perspective. Psychology Today,

March, 21-26.Graham, R.J. (1981). The Role of Perception of Time in Consumer Research. Journal

of Consumer Research, 7, March, 335-342.Green, R. T., & White, P. D. (1976). Methodological Considerations in Cross-National

Consumer Research. Journal of International Business Studies, Fall/Winter, 81-87.Gross, B. L. (1987). Time Scarcity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Implications for

Consumer Research. Research in Consumer Behaviour, 16, 339-345.Gurvitch, G. (1964). The Spectrum of Social Time. Reidel, Dordrecht.Hague, P. (1987). Good and Bad in Questionnaire Design. Industrial Marketing Di-

gest, 12, 3rd Quarter, 161-170.Henry, W. A. (1976). Cultural Values Do Correlate with Consumer Behavior. Journal

of Marketing Research, 13, 121-127.Hirschman, E. C. (1987). Theoretical Perspectives of Time Use. In J. H. Sheth & E.C.

Hirschman (Eds.), Research in Consumer Behavior (pp. 55-81), 2.Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its

Importance for Survival. London: Harper Collins Publishers.Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1994). Age, Sex, and Attitude Toward the Past as

Predictors of Consumers’ Aesthetic Tastes for Cultural Products. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 31, August, 412-422.

______ & ________(1996). Market Segmentation Based on Age and Attitude Towardthe Past: Concepts, Methods, and Findings Concerning Nostalgic Influences onCustomer Tastes. Journal of Business Research, 37, 27-39.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in Cross-Cultural Psychology: AReview and Comparison of Strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16,June, 131-152.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. J., & Berning, C. K. (1976). Time and Consumer Behaviour:An Interdisciplinary Overview. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, March, 320-339.

Juster, F., & Stafford, F. (1991). The Allocation of Time: Empirical Findings, Behav-ioural Models, and Problems of Measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 29,471-522.

Kaufman, C. J. (1990). Usage Versus Ownership: Suggestions for Refining Studies ofTime Saving and Wives’ Employment. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(1),23-30.

Kelly, J. R. (1982). Leisure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kim, C. (1989). Working Wives’ Time Saving Tendencies: Durable Ownership, Con-

venience Food Consumption and Meal Purchases. Journal of Economic Psychol-ogy, 10(3), 391-409.

Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Evans-ton, IL: Row & Peterson.

Ko, G., & Gentry, J. W. (1991). The Development of Time Orientation Measures forUse in Cross-cultural Research. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 135-142.

Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1987). Marketing Research–An Applied Approach.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewis, R. (1995). When Time is Lost in the Transaction. Management Todays, Decem-ber, 87-88.

Lin, X., & Mowen, J. (1994). Time Orientation and Consumer Behavior: Theoreticaland Scale Development. American Marketing Association Conference, Summer,277-283.

Luck, D. J., & Rubin, R. S. (1987). Marketing Research. 7th ed., New Jersey: PrenticeHall.

Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Peterson, M. (1996). Methodological Issues inCross-cultural Marketing Research. International Marketing Review, 13(5), 7-43.

Morello, G. (1988). Business Requirements for Future Expectations in CompetitiveBank Services–The Issue of Time Perception. Research for Financial Services,ESOMAR, Milan.

Netemeyer, R. G., Durvasula, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1991). A Cross-National As-sessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of MarketingResearch, 28, August, 320-327.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. 1st ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.______(1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.Omer, O. (1998). An Examination of Consumer Time Allocation. Doctoral Thesis,

Manchester Business School.Peterson, R. A. (1994). A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha. Journal of

Consumer Research, 21, September, 381-391.Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in Busi-

ness and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: SAGEPublications.

Samiee, S., & Jeong, I. (1994). Cross-Cultural Research in Advertising: An Assess-ment of Methodologies. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 22(3),205-217.

Schriber, J. B., & Gutek B. A. (1987). Some Time Dimensions of Work: Measurementof An Underlying Aspect of Organization Culture. Journal of Applied Psychology,72(4), 642-650.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing Measurement Invariance inCross-National Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.

Wallace, M., & Rabin, A. (1960). Temporal Experience. Psychological Bulletin, 57,213-236.

Wessman, A. E. (1973). Personality and the Subjective Experience of Time. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 37, 103-114.

Wright, P. (1974). The Harassed Decision-Maker, Time Pressures, Distractions andthe Use of Evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 555-569.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, ReliableIndividual-Differences Metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(6), 1271-1288.

SUBMITTED: November 2000FIRST REVISION: January 2001

SECOND REVISION: February 2001ACCEPTED: May 2001


For FACULTY/PROFESSIONALS with journal subscriptionrecommendation authority for their institutional library . . .

Please send me a complimentary sample of this journal:

(please write complete journal title here–do not leave blank)

If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would you like tomake sure that your library also subscribes to this journal? If you havethe authority to recommend subscriptions to your library, we will send youa free complete (print edition) sample copy for review with your librarian.

1. Fill out the form below and make sure that you type or write out clearly both the nameof the journal and your own name and address. Or send your request via e-mail [email protected] including in the subject line “Sample Copy Request” andthe title of this journal.

2. Make sure to include your name and complete postal mailing address as well as yourinstitutional/agency library name in the text of your e-mail.

[Please note: we cannot mail specific journal samples, such as the issue in which a specific article appears.Sample issues are provided with the hope that you might review a possible subscription/e-subscription withyour institution's librarian. There is no charge for an institution/campus-wide electronic subscriptionconcurrent with the archival print edition subscription.]

I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription.Institution/Agency Library: ______________________________________________

Name: _____________________________________________________________

Institution: __________________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________

City: ____________________Return to: Sample Copy Department,The Haworth Press, Inc.,

10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580

State: __________ Zip: ____________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dok

uz E

ylul

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 0

5:41

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

A Time Attitude Scale for Cross Cultural Research

Documents

Transcript of A Time Attitude Scale for Cross Cultural Research