User:Mattoliv0821

Chronemics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Chronemics is the study of the use of time in nonverbal communication. The way we perceive time, structure our time and react to time is a powerful communication tool, and helps set the stage for communication. Across cultures, time perception has plays a large role in the nonverbal communication process. Time perceptions include punctuality, willingness to wait, and interactions. The use of time affects lifestyles, daily agendas, speed of speech and movements and how long people are willing to listen.

Cultures are usually put into two time system categories: monochronic and polychronic. A monochronic time system means that things should be done one at a time and time is segmented into precise, small units. In a monochronic time system time is a commodity. Time is scheduled, arranged and managed under this system. Americans are on the monochronic time system. A polychronic time system means several things are being done at the same time. Cultures that use the polychronic time system often schedule multiple appointments simultaneously, so keeping on schedule is an impossibility that was never really a goal. Time and the perception of time can therefore be very important, and may cause conflicts when cultures collide.

Time can also be used as an indicator of status. For example, the boss in most companies can interrupt progress to hold an impromptu meeting during the middle of the work day, yet the average worker would have to make an appointment to see the boss. The way different cultures perceive time can influence communication as well. For example, most Americans will schedule a meeting for a specific time such as 2:15 p.m., and expect all involved parties to be punctual at the specified time. In many cultures in Central and South America, however, they may set a time to meet "sometime in the afternoon" and many times the schedule is broken, changed or deadline unmet, with no feelings of guilt or apology.

[edit] Theories associated with Chronemics • Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) o Founded by Judee Burgoon. 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.

o 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.

o Relationship to Chronemics:  In some cultures, people place a high value on time and use time as a basis for decisions. In other cultures, time is less significant. For example, in Mexico or Central America tour guides may fail to indicate the correct arrival and departure times. In other countries, such as Switzerland, a traveler can set his or her watch by the promptness of the trains. When these cultures cross, expectancy with respect to time is violated and can cause discord between the people involved.

• Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) o Founded by Judee Burgoon and David Buller. IDT posits communication senders attempt to manipulate messages so as to be untruthful, which may cause them apprehension concerning their false communication being detected. Simultaneously, communication receivers try to unveil or detect the validity of that information, causing suspicion about whether or not the sender is being deceitful. While most people think that they can spot deception, IDT affirms that most people cannot.

o According to IDT, there are 3 stages to deception:  Falsification – creates a fiction  Concealment – hides a secret  Equivocation – dodges the issue

o Relationship to Chronemics:  Pausing in between statements is usually an indicator that an individual is going to lie or be deceptive in their response. IDT says that the deceiver can control these nonverbal cues, perhaps in a way that will even throw off the other person so that they will not know if it is the truth or deceit. This manipulation of time to create confusion decreases the odds that the deceiver will not be discovered.

• Interpersonal Adaptation Theory (IAT) o IAT 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.

o Relationship to Chronemics:

 The old statement “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” holds true with IAT and chronemics. There will be situations when even though you are a very timely person, you may have to deal with someone who is not as timely as you are and adapt your communication to their needs. These adaptations can vary depending on the position of the person you are dealing with, as well as the cultural background of that person.  It is also important to remember that although you will sometimes have to adapt to others, there will be times that things would be more positively valanced if the other parties adapted to your concept of time.

Chronemics as a Communication tool of Power in the Workplace
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 (link to definitions? – dominance is a communication style and status refers to a person’s position or hierarchy – Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 315).

In the workplace, those in a leadership or management position treat time—and by virtue of position – have their time treated differently than 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.

Waiting 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.”

Employees of equal stature won’t worry about whether they are running a few minutes behind schedule to meet with one another. On the other hand though, if you are a mid-level manager who has a meeting with the company president, a late arrival might be a nonverbal cue that you do not respect the authority of your superior – which may spell career suicide.

Talk time:	There is a direct correlation between the power 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. 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. Mehrabian, noted that deviation from this pattern led to negative perceptions of the subordinate by the superior (note: maybe can we say that it violates expectancy?)  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.

Work time: It is likely that you will never see a president or a high level executive punching a time clock. Their time is perceived as more 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 les 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 9-5 work schedule, their superiors may keep less structured hours. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the superior works less. In fact, 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 Siebold p. 6). Higher-status individuals have very precise and formal schedules – indicating that there 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 of the higher status individuals will take precedence in determining where, when and the importance of a specific event or appointment.

Chronemics and its Influence on International Communication and Diplomacy
Just as there are different time zones, so too are there different perceptions of time across cultures, and its influence on global communication situations. Gonzalez and Zimbardo comment in writing on Time Perspective that “There is no more powerful, pervasive influence on how individuals think and cultures interact than our difference 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.”

Those cultures that view time in precise measure with one thing being done in a linear manner or “one thing at a time” are monochronic cultures. In contrast, those cultures that view time as a system where several things are happening at the same time are polychronic cultures (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#Chronemics_).

Americans are considered a monochronic society. “For Americans, time is a precious resource not to be wasted or taken lightly. We view it as a commodity: 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 our daily life and future life. We have schedules that we must follow, appointments that we must go to at a certain time, class starts and ends at certain times, work starts and ends at certain times, our favorite TV shows start and end at a certain time” (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#How_we_use_Chronemics).

As communication scholar Edward Hall wrote regarding the American’s viewpoint of time “the schedule is sacred.” (Cohen, 2004, p. 35). Hall says that, for monochromic cultures such as the American culture “time is tangible” (Guerrero, DeVito & Hecht, 1999, p. 238) and viewed as a commodity where “time is money” or “time is wasted.” The result of this perspective is that American’s and other monochronic cultures such as the Germans and Swiss, place a paramount value on schedules, tasks and “getting the job done.”  These cultures are committed to regimented schedules and may view those who do not subscribe to the same perception of time as disrespectful.

Unlike Americans and other European cultures, Latin American and Arabic cultures have the opposite view of time. These cultures are much less focused on the preciseness of accounting for each and every moment. Instead, their culture is more focused on relationships than watching the clock. They have no problem being “late” for an event if they are with family or friends, because the relationship is what really matters. As a result, polychronic cultures have a much less formal perception of time. They are not ruled by precise calendar and schedules. Rather, (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#Chronemics_), “cultures that use the polychronic time system often schedule multiple appointments simultaneously so keeping on schedule is an impossibility that was never really a goal” (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#Chronemics_).

While the clash between the monochronic culture and polychronic cultures/perceptions of time can rifle the best of diplomatic intentions, similar challenges can occur within a co-culture (define co-culture via a link). In the United States, the Hawaiian culture provides an example of how culture clashes can exist within the same culture. Two times systems exist in Hawaii where “the Polynesians live somewhere between two time systems: Hauley time and Hawaiian time. When you hear someone say “See you at two o’clock hauley time,” that means that they will see you at precisely two o’clock. But if you hear someone say, “I will be there at two o’clock Hawaiian time” then the message virtually has a different meaning. This is because Hawaiian time is very lax and basically means “when you get there” (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#Chronemics_).

Other examples of co-cultures include the use of street time in urban neighborhoods and the ways that the Mormon community views being late as being inconsiderate. (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#Chronemics_).

The effect of monochronic and polychronic differences on diplomacy

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. This begins in part with understanding the past, present and future influence on a culture. American’s, for instance have a future orientation. Hall indicates those “tomorrow is more important and are oriented almost entirely toward the future” (Cohen, 2004, p. 35). The future-focused orientation, attribute to at least some of the concern that American’s have with “addressing immediate issues and moving on to new challenges” (Cohen, 2004, p. 35).

On the other hand, other cultures have more of a past-orientation toward time. The Chinese, for instance, place great significance on the past. As Cohen discussed, “For the Chinese, the opium wars of the nineteenth century and the Boxer rebellion are still relevant to and come up in the discussion of contemporary issues” (Cohen, 2004, p. 36). These time perspectives are the seeds for communication clashes in diplomatic situation. 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 the America catchphrase “Some solution is better than no solution” (Cohen, 2004, p. 114). Similar observations have been made of Japanese-American relations. Noting he 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).

Improving prospects for success in the global community requires understanding cultural differences, traditions and communication styles. The United States’ approach to negotiations is direct, linear and rooted in the characteristics that illustrate low context tendencies. The low context and individualistic U.S. approaches diplomacy in a lawyerly fashion with draft arguments, a mission and an idea of how they will move the process along. A monochronic culture, more concerned with time, deadlines and schedules, the North (in this case, the U.S.) tends to grow impatient and want to rush to “close the deal.”

More collectivistic, polychronic-oriented cultures come to diplomatic situations with no particular importance placed on time. Rather than worry about the ticking of the clock, they are more willing to let time tick away if it means they are having a meaningful discussion and are forming strong relationships. They would rather take that time to get to know each other before sitting down and getting into the details. On the other hand the collectivistic culture is high context. Rather than rely on verbal, the high context negotiator operates with a greater emphasis on nonverbal communication, with chronemics being one of those nonverbal channels of communication. They are more deeply concerned with discussing broad themes and philosophies before details of a negotiation are addressed. Above all else, they place far less value on simply reaching agreement and far more value on ensuring that the outcome of any agreement “is good and looks good” so that they can preserve face, as is the norm in the collectivist culture.

Understanding these cultural differences and perspectives on time can greatly improve future United States negotiations in the international community.

[edit] References Adler, R.B., Lawrence B.R., & Towne, N. (1995). Interplay (6th ed.). Fort Worth : Hardcourt Brace College.

Ballard, D & Seibold, D., Communication Monographs, Vol. 71, No. 1, March 2004, pp.1-27

Buller D., & Burgoon, K. (1996). "Interpersonal Deception Theory," Communication Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 203-242.

Burgoon, J.K., & Saine, T. (1978). The Unspoken Dialogue. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cohen, R. (2004). Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Guerrero, L.K., Devito J.A.,& Hecht M.L. (1999). The Nonverbal Communication Reader: Classic and Contemporary Readings (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Hall, J.A., & Kapp, M.L. (1992). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (3rd ed.). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston,Inc.

Knapp, M. L. & Miller, G.R. (1985). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Koester, J., & Lustig, M.W. (2003). Intercultural Competence (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2000). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Internet Sources
http://www.expertmagazine.com/articles/late.htm

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory80.htm#Chronemics_