Polychronic Attitude Index

1. Abstract

The Polychronic Attitude Index (PAI), developed by Carol Felker Kaufman, Paul M. Lane, and Jay D. Lindquist in 1991, is a foundational psychometric instrument designed to measure an individual’s preference for polychronic time use—specifically, the behavioral and cognitive disposition toward engaging in two or more tasks, activities, or service encounters simultaneously, as contrasted with monochronic time use, which privileges sequential, single-task completion. Derived from Edward T. Hall’s macro-anthropological conceptualization of cultural temporal orientations, the PAI translates cultural-level temporal frameworks into a rigorous, individual-difference metric optimized for consumer behavior, organizational workflow, marketing environments, and media multitasking contexts. The instrument comprises a parsimonious four-item, unidimensional scale evaluated on a five-point or seven-point Likert-type response continuum ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Across three decades of empirical testing, the scale has demonstrated robust psychometric properties, consistently exhibiting internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) ranging from .68 to .84 across consumer samples, retail environments, cross-cultural adaptations, and occupational settings. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses robustly confirm a stable single-factor structure with strong standardized item loadings typically exceeding .60, robust convergent validity with concurrent time-use indices, strong discriminant validity against generalized impatience, impulsivity, and neuroticism, and substantial predictive utility regarding multi-channel shopping behaviors, tolerance for retail density, media consumption patterns, and response to service wait times. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the PAI, examining its theoretical lineage, structural morphology, psychometric indices, empirical operationalizations, and continuing relevance in contemporary digital and multi-device interaction ecosystems.

2. Keywords

Polychronicity, Polychronic Attitude Index, monochronic time, time use, multitasking, temporal orientation, consumer behavior, service encounters, psychometrics, media multitasking, task switching, retail psychology

3. Authors

The Polychronic Attitude Index was originated and psychometrically operationalized by:

• Carol Felker Kaufman-Scarborough, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing at the School of Business, Rutgers University–Camden. Dr. Kaufman-Scarborough is an internationally recognized scholar in time perception, consumer vulnerability, retail logistics, and disability studies in consumer environments.
• Paul M. Lane, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Marketing and Applied Business, Western Michigan University. Dr. Lane’s research focuses on temporal dynamics in consumer decision-making, innovation, and global marketing strategies.
• Jay D. Lindquist, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University. Dr. Lindquist has published extensively on consumer temporal orientations, retail patronage behavior, and psychometric scale development in service marketing.

Inquiries regarding the theoretical provenance and academic application of the scale can historically be directed to Rutgers University School of Business or Western Michigan University Department of Marketing.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Polychronic Attitude Index (PAI) is to assess an individual’s psychological preference, cognitive comfort, and voluntary behavioral inclination toward engaging in multiple tasks simultaneously within a given temporal interval, versus scheduling and completing tasks in a strict, compartmentalized, linear sequence. For decades preceding the development of the PAI, classical microeconomic frameworks of consumer time allocation, notably Gary Becker’s (1965) household production theory, operated on the foundational assumption of temporal linearity and zero-sum budgeting—positing that 24 hours in a calendar day represent an unyielding ceiling wherein one activity necessarily displaces another in an arithmetic zero-sum trade-off. Kaufman, Lane, and Lindquist (1991) formulated the PAI specifically to challenge and empirically transcend this reductionist assumption, proposing that individuals experience and allocate time non-linearly by combining multiple subjective events within the same physical temporal window, colloquially described as “creating more than 24 hours a day.”

From an applied research and diagnostic standpoint, the PAI addresses critical empirical voids across organizational, consumer, and technological settings. In consumer research, the instrument serves to differentiate how monochronic versus polychronic shoppers navigate complex retail spaces, respond to environmental sensory stimulation, and process multi-channel merchandising. High-PAI individuals (polychrons) view time as fluid, elastic, and multi-layered; consequently, they proactively combine shopping with socializing, consuming mobile media, browsing multiple product categories at once, and engaging with multi-functional digital interfaces. In contrast, low-PAI individuals (monochrons) organize their activities sequentially, prioritize single-task focus, and experience acute cognitive overload, dissatisfaction, and temporal stress when subjected to forced task-interleaving, environmental clutter, or fragmented service encounters.

In retail and service management, the PAI provides researchers with a validated diagnostic metric for predicting customer evaluations of service encounters, perceived waiting times, and queue management architecture. While monochronic consumers evaluate service encounters through the lens of punctuality, structured sequencing, and dedicated, uninterrupted staff attention, polychronic consumers exhibit greater tolerance for interleaved staff interactions, shared service attention, and dynamic, multi-station transactions. Moreover, the rapid evolution of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and digital consumer environments has expanded the PAI’s purpose into the domain of human-computer interaction (HCI) and digital media multitasking. The scale is widely deployed to investigate smartphone usage dynamics, multi-screen entertainment consumption, simultaneous e-commerce browsing, and the psychological boundary between voluntary task-switching and cognitive fragmentation.

Within organizational psychology, the PAI is applied to assess employee person-environment fit (P-E fit), evaluating how an individual’s intrinsic temporal orientation interacts with job role complexity, open-plan office acoustics, continuous technological interruption, and multi-project workflows. By providing a parsimonious, psychometrically validated measure that avoids the confounding influences of generalized hyperactivity, somatic stress, or extrinsic work pressure, the PAI allows organizational and behavioral scientists to isolate subjective temporal preference as a distinct, stable psychological trait.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Polychronic Attitude Index is individual-level polychronicity. To fully understand this construct, it must be systematically unpacked across its behavioral, affective, and cognitive sub-dimensions, and differentiated from neighboring temporal constructs.

5.1 The Behavioral Dimension: Task Interleaving vs. Linear Compartmentalization

At the behavioral level, polychronicity manifests as the active enactment of task interleaving. Rather than executing Task A from initiation to completion before transitioning to Task B, the polychronic individual initiates Task A, shifts to Task B mid-stream, potentially introduces Task C, and circulates dynamically among these active goals until all are progressively resolved. This behavioral pattern is not driven by an inability to sustain attention, but by a deliberate preference for concurrent workflow. In consumer environments, this is exemplified by an individual who listens to a podcast, navigates an e-commerce platform, monitors an ongoing digital auction, and chats with a friend simultaneously. For the monochronic individual, behavior is governed by strict chronological compartmentalization, characterized by rigorous scheduling, distinct task boundaries, and an aversion to switching tasks prior to the psychological closure of completing the preceding activity.

5.2 The Affective Dimension: Temporal Comfort vs. Fragmentation Anxiety

The affective core of the PAI measures the emotional valence associated with multitasking. Polychrons experience high positive affect, cognitive stimulation, and a subjective sense of efficacy and vitality when juggling multiple simultaneous activities. When forced into rigid, single-task environments characterized by enforced waiting or temporal inertia, polychronic individuals frequently report boredom, restlessness, and under-stimulation. Conversely, monochronic individuals derive positive affect, emotional calm, and a sense of mastery from uninterrupted single-minded absorption (resembling flow states). When subjected to unexpected interruptions, simultaneous competing demands, or fragmented attention, monochrons experience marked temporal distress, frustration, irritability, and elevated perceptions of cognitive fatigue.

5.3 The Cognitive Dimension: Diffuse Attentional Allocation

Cognitively, the construct reflects differences in attentional control and executive functioning styles. Polychronicity involves a diffuse, distributed attentional architecture capable of maintaining multiple cognitive goal representations concurrently active in working memory. The individual maintains a broad attentional spotlight, allowing opportunistic exploitation of external stimuli. In contrast, monochronicity relies upon a focused, narrow attentional spotlight that acts as a cognitive filter, aggressively inhibiting peripheral stimuli, secondary tasks, and environmental interruptions in order to protect primary task processing.

5.4 Divergence from Confounding Constructs

It is clinically and theoretically paramount to distinguish polychronicity from neighboring psychological constructs:

• Polychronicity vs. Multi-tasking Ability: The PAI measures an attitude and preference (what an individual likes and aspires to do), not objective cognitive executive capability (what an individual can execute without dual-task performance decrements). Empirical research often demonstrates a modest or even non-significant correlation between self-reported polychronicity and objective cognitive switching efficiency, highlighting that liking multitasking does not necessarily confer immunity to cognitive bottlenecks.
• Polychronicity vs. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Impulsivity: Polychronicity represents a structured, voluntary temporal philosophy rather than an involuntary failure of impulse control or executive disinhibition. Polychrons deliberately orchestrate multiple activities to maximize utility and stimulation, whereas impulsive task-switching is characterized by unplanned, erratic shifts driven by external distractors.
• Polychronicity vs. Time Urgency / Type A Behavior: As established in the work of Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, Type A time urgency is defined by chronic hurriedness, hostility, and a persistent struggle against time. Polychronicity, by contrast, is not inherently characterized by hostility, acute somatic tension, or distress; it is an alternative mode of structuring time that can occur at both high and low levels of ambient life stress.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Polychronic Attitude Index rests primarily upon the foundational anthropological theories of Edward T. Hall, alongside contemporary theories of human cognitive architecture and consumer temporal allocation.

6.1 Edward T. Hall’s Anthropological Chronemics

In his seminal works, The Silent Language (1959) and The Hidden Dimension (1966), Edward T. Hall introduced the concept of chronemics—the study of the role of time in human communication and culture. Hall posited that cultures could be broadly categorized along a continuum of temporal organization:

• Monochronic Time (M-Time): Characteristic of Northern European, North American, and industrialized Western societies. In M-time cultures, time is conceptualized as linear, discrete, divisible, and quantifiable (e.g., “time is money”). Time is treated as a ribbon extending from the past into the future, sliced into precise segments. M-time emphasizes schedules, promptness, single-task completion, and the sacredness of appointments. Interpersonal relationships are frequently subordinated to schedules.
• Polychronic Time (P-Time): Characteristic of Latin American, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and indigenous African cultures. In P-time cultures, time is circular, relational, fluid, and simultaneous. The focus is on the holistic field of events and interpersonal relationships rather than rigid calendar grids. Multiple activities happen at once; schedules are treated as flexible guidelines; transactions are complete only when the relational dynamic is satisfied, regardless of the clock.

The theoretical breakthrough achieved by Kaufman, Lane, and Lindquist (1991) was the recognition that Hall’s macro-level cultural dichotomy represents a continuous, intra-cultural individual-difference variable. Within any given macro-culture, whether predominantly monochronic or polychronic, individual citizens exhibit significant psychological variation across their own chronic temporal preferences. The PAI was constructed to translate Hall’s qualitative anthropological descriptions into a standardized psychometric metric operating at the micro-level of individual cognition and behavioral preference.

6.2 Cognitive Load Theory and Attentional Bottlenecks

The theoretical underpinning of the PAI is further enriched by cognitive psychology, specifically Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) and the central bottleneck model of information processing (Pashler, 1994). Human cognitive architecture contains fundamental constraints within working memory and the central executive processor. When an individual attempts dual-task processing, cognitive interference occurs, typically resulting in a psychological refractory period (PRP) effect. The PAI captures an individual’s subjective comfort with these cognitive interference zones. Highly polychronic individuals possess higher thresholds for subjective cognitive discomfort when navigating divided attention, exhibiting a psychological tolerance for cognitive switching costs that monochronic individuals find aversive.

6.3 Non-Linear Time Allocation Theory

In consumer economics, the PAI challenges traditional microeconomic frameworks. Traditional household production models assumed a linear constraint where total available time ( T ) equals the sum of mutually exclusive activities: ( T = t_1 + t_2 + dots + t_n ). Kaufman et al. (1991) formalized a non-linear theoretical framework wherein time use is synergistic: ( T_{text{effective}} > T_{text{clock}} ), achieved via concurrent consumption activities. An individual can simultaneously consume food, absorb commercial advertising, commute, and converse on a digital terminal. The PAI indexes the individual’s propensity to orchestrate their lifestyle around this non-linear production model.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Polychronic Attitude Index has been extensively scrutinized and confirmed across dozens of empirical investigations spanning more than three decades.

7.1 Construct and Factorial Validity

Initial validation by Kaufman, Lane, and Lindquist (1991) in an exploratory consumer sample established that the four items loaded heavily onto a single underlying factor, demonstrating high construct homogeneity. Subsequent investigations, including rigorous confirmatory factor analyses (e.g., Lindquist & Kaufman-Scarborough, 2007; Persing, 1999), have continuously reaffirmed that the four items tap into a unified latent construct. Standardized factor loadings consistently exceed the .50 benchmark, with typical values falling between .62 and .86, confirming strong construct saturation.

7.2 Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through statistically significant correlations between the PAI and alternative temporal scales:

• Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): Bluedorn et al. (1999) developed the 10-item IPV to measure organizational polychronicity. Multiple comparative studies (e.g., König & Waller, 2010; Poposki et al., 2009) report substantial positive correlations between the PAI and the IPV (typically ( r = .48 ) to ( .65, p < .001 )), indicating strong convergence in assessing preferences for simultaneous task involvement despite differences in target contexts (consumer/lifestyle vs. workplace teams).
• Time Orientation Measures: The PAI correlates positively with present-hedonistic and present-fatalistic dimensions of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), and negatively with extreme, rigid future-planning subscales that emphasize strict scheduling.
• Self-Reported Daily Activity Logs: In time-diary studies (e.g., Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999), scores on the PAI significantly predict the actual number of multi-layered time blocks logged by respondents, providing ecological behavioral convergence.

7.3 Discriminant Validity

Crucially, psychometric studies demonstrate that the PAI is empirically distinct from personality traits and affective states that might superficially resemble polychronicity:

• Impulsivity and Neuroticism: Correlations between the PAI and measures of trait impulsivity (such as the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) or Neuroticism from the NEO-PI-R are consistently non-significant or weak (typically ( |r| < .15 )), demonstrating that polychronicity is an organized, deliberate preference rather than a deficit in inhibitory control or emotional stability.
• General Sensation Seeking: Although polychrons seek higher informational variety, the PAI shows distinct divergence from physical risk-taking or thrill-seeking, establishing that it measures temporal cognitive structuring rather than physiological arousal-seeking.

7.4 Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The PAI displays exceptional predictive validity across varied behavioral domains:

• Retail Density and Atmospheric Evaluation: High-PAI consumers report significantly higher store satisfaction, positive affective response, and extended dwell time in high-density, highly stimulating retail environments compared to low-PAI shoppers, who experience sensory overload and report lower purchase intentions under identical environmental conditions (Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 2002).
• Service Encounters and Queue Tolerance: Polychronic consumers exhibit significantly lower negative evaluations of waiting times during service interruptions if they are provided with alternative secondary tasks (e.g., digital self-service kiosks, informational screens, or reading material) during the delay, whereas monochronic consumers evaluate interruptions negatively regardless of secondary stimulation.
• Media Multitasking Index (MMI): Studies examining multi-screen digital behavior (e.g., Ophir et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2012) find that high PAI scores consistently predict elevated frequencies of cross-media consumption, such as texting, web browsing, and gaming while viewing television or attending online lectures.

8. Reliability

Despite its brevity—comprising only four items—the Polychronic Attitude Index has repeatedly demonstrated acceptable to good reliability across diverse demographics, organizational environments, and national cultures.

8.1 Internal Consistency Reliability

In the foundational validation study by Kaufman, Lane, and Lindquist (1991), the initial Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was reported at ( alpha = .68 ). While this value sits near the conventional baseline for newly developed exploratory scales, subsequent studies utilizing refined sampling methodologies, larger cohorts, and 7-point response formats have documented higher internal consistency values:

• Lindquist and Kaufman-Scarborough (1999, 2004) observed Cronbach’s alphas ranging from ( alpha = .72 ) to ( alpha = .81 ) in extensive studies of American consumer shopping patterns.
• In occupational and organizational psychology investigations, such as work examining role stress and task interruption, researchers have consistently reported alpha values between ( .74 ) and ( .84 ).
• Cross-cultural adaptations across Western and non-Western samples (e.g., comparative analyses in Latin America, East Asia, and Western Europe) have sustained internal consistency coefficients typically exceeding the accepted ( .70 ) threshold, ranging from ( .71 ) to ( .79 ).

8.2 Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have shown that the PAI measures a stable psychological trait rather than a transient, fluctuating state. In longitudinal and test-retest evaluations over intervals ranging from two weeks to two months, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson test-retest stability coefficients have remained robust, typically falling between ( r_{tt} = .75 ) and ( r_{tt} = .83 ). This stability confirms that individual polychronicity reflects an enduring temporal style that remains relatively constant across varying day-to-day contextual fluctuations.

8.3 Composite Reliability and Item-Total Correlations

In structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations, composite reliability (CR) metrics regularly exceed ( .75 ), with average variance extracted (AVE) values consistently approaching or exceeding the recommended .50 threshold. Corrected item-total correlations across the four items routinely range between ( .45 ) and ( .71 ), confirming that each item contributes substantial, unique, and congruent variance to the underlying latent construct without redundant collinearity.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural morphology of the Polychronic Attitude Index has been evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous independent empirical datasets.

9.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In original and early replicative studies using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Common Factor Analysis with Varimax and Promax rotations, eigenvalue examination universally reveals a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue significantly exceeding 1.0 (typically ranging from 1.95 to 2.65). The second extracted factor routinely yields eigenvalues far below 0.70, establishing an unequivocal “scree” drop-off. This single factor accounts for approximately 52% to 68% of the total item variance, confirming strong unidimensionality. Standardized factor loadings across the four items are summarized below:

9.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations using maximum likelihood estimation have formally evaluated the unidimensional measurement model. Because a standard one-factor model with 4 observed variables yields only 2 degrees of freedom (( df = frac{4(4+1)}{2} – 8 = 2 )), the model provides an ideal, highly constrained structural test. Empirical CFA evaluations across consumer and management datasets consistently yield exemplary goodness-of-fit indices:

• Chi-Square / Degree of Freedom Ratio (( chi^2 / df )): Typically between 1.05 and 2.10, indicating negligible residual discrepancy between observed and implied covariance matrices.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds .97 (values between .98 and .999 are widely documented).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently reported between .95 and .99.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Typically ranges from .015 to .048, well beneath the conservative .06 threshold for superior model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values routinely fall below .035.

Modification indices rarely indicate significant localized covariance between error terms, confirming that the scale is unburdened by item redundancy or secondary latent dimensions.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Polychronic Attitude Index are structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological scale / Individual-difference psychometric inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults across general, consumer, student, and occupational populations. Reading level is approximately 6th grade, ensuring rapid cognitive comprehension.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey, mobile web application, or integrated module within broader consumer omnibus batteries.
• Number of Items: 4 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes, rendering it exceptionally well-suited for high-density survey designs, field research, and mobile in-situ consumer tracking where respondent fatigue must be minimized.
• Response Continuum: Evaluated on an anchored Likert-type scale. While originally tested with a 5-point format, contemporary consumer and organizational studies predominantly utilize a 7-point format to maximize variance:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Any negatively keyed item (e.g., statements reflecting a strict preference for completing one task entirely prior to beginning another) is reverse-scored: ( text{Score}_{text{reversed}} = (text{Scale Maximum} + 1) – text{Response} ).
  • An overall Polychronic Attitude Index score is derived by computing either the arithmetic mean or the sum of all 4 items.
  • Mean scoring yields an interpretable scale index ranging from 1.00 to 7.00 (or 1.00 to 5.00), where higher composite values indicate stronger polychronicity (preference for simultaneous multitasking) and lower composite values signify monochronicity (preference for linear, sequential single-tasking).
  • Depending on the empirical design, researchers treat the PAI as a continuous variable in regression and SEM models, or segment respondents into distinct temporal cohorts using tertile splits (e.g., Low PAI / Monochronic, Moderate PAI, High PAI / Polychronic).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Polychronic Attitude Index was formally established and published in 1991 by Carol Felker Kaufman, Paul M. Lane, and Jay D. Lindquist within the peer-reviewed literature: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 19, Issue 4, pages 392–401.

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale was published in an academic research journal for scientific dissemination. In accordance with standard scholarly conventions, the instrument may be utilized free of royalty fees by independent researchers, academic faculty, and graduate students for non-commercial, empirical research investigations, provided full bibliographic attribution is granted to the original authors and the journal publication. Commercial organizations, consulting practitioners, and proprietary diagnostic software providers seeking to incorporate the PAI into commercial platforms or revenue-generating assessment products should confirm copyright compliance and permissions via the publisher (Springer Nature) or contact the surviving authors directly.

12. References

The following foundational and contemporary references document the theoretical evolution, psychometric validation, and empirical application of the Polychronic Attitude Index and related chronemic constructs:

• Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228949
• Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument to measure a shared artistic belief. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949910263747
• Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Doubleday & Company.
• Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday & Company.
• Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991). Exploring more than 24 hours a day: A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726511
• Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (1999). Time management and polychronicity: Comparisons, contrasts, and relationships to shopping behaviors. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(3), 206–224.
• Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (2002). E-shopping in a multiple channel environment: Exploring the polychronic consumer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(4), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760210433645
• König, C. J., & Waller, M. J. (2010). Time for change: How polychronicity research can expand our view of time in organizations. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 29, 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-7301(2010)0000029007
• Lindquist, J. D., & Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2007). The Polychronic—Monochronic Tendency Scale: Development, refinement, and validation. Time & Society, 16(2–3), 253–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X07080270
• Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
• Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
• Persing, D. L. (1999). Managing in polychronic times: Exploring work-nonwork interactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949910277120
• Poposki, E. M., Oswald, F. L., & Brou, R. J. (2009). Development and validation of a new measure of polychronicity: The Multitasking Preference Inventory. Human Performance, 22(5), 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903248380
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
• Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic LC4MP approach to everyday media multitasking: Motives, cognitive loads, and gratification. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01679.x
• Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271

13. Items of the Scale