Central to Bentley et al.’s vision is a “map” that captures the essence of human decision-making around collective behaviour in the digital age. Key to their argument is the expectation that decision-making is shifting towards imitation or herding driven by popularity and without grounding in the knowledge of the benefits of the behaviour. To explain this phenomenon, Bentley et al. focus on economies replete with online communication where people inhabit an information ecology characterised by data overload in terms of both the number of sources of intelligence and the number of choices on offer.
We argue that the authors’ characterisation of decision-making occurring under conditions of time constraint biases the map towards a “clock time” culture. We suggest that adopting the “map” as an empirical framework appropriate for hypothesis testing may be premature unless the signature of the behavioural pattern also takes into account temporal perspectives anchored by alternative established societal and/or individual relationships with time. Specifically, the alternatives that we consider include a focus on “event time” together with a broadening of orientation towards future time.
The distinction between clock time and event time has been made socio-historically, particularly in relation to the rise of clock-time culture associated with mass timetabling consequent on introduction of the first passenger train in England in the 1820s (Zerubavel Reference Zerubavel1982) and the subsequent industrial revolution in Western Europe. More-recent distinctions between clock and event cultures focus on different behaviour patterns associated with each tendency. For instance, in clock time, activities are typically completed one at a time in sequence. In contrast, in event time, the inclination is to shift to and fro across tasks without any clock-determined schedules. One notion is that each society displays an overriding “average” set of behavioural markers towards either clock time or event time, whilst individuals within the society/culture will also display their own tendencies (e.g., Hall Reference Hall1959) which correspond with these societal norms to a lesser or greater degree. In this respect, whilst the United States and Western Europe are considered to focus on clock time, South or Central America, the Middle East, and South Europe are more event focused (Lindquist & Kaufman-Scarborough Reference Lindquist and Kaufman-Scarborough2007).
Although there is a risk of oversimplification in adopting any conceptual dichotomy, the narrative around differentiation between the notions of clock time and event time (Levine Reference Levine1997) has been theorized around the concepts of “monochronicity” and “polychronicity” (Hall Reference Hall1959), particularly in relation to workplace behaviour. Monochronicity refers to the tendency to colonize time with one activity at a time whilst polychronicity revolves around doing more than one activity simultaneously.
Treatment of time as an economic resource is a hallmark of clock time where decision-making takes place under time constraints. However, in the big-data era, clock time is not necessarily exclusively dominant in economies replete with online communication. For instance, consider Japan. With a pervasive online economy and around 80% of the population accessing the Internet (MMG [Miniwatts Marketing Group] 2013), the culture yet functions on a combination of clock and event time (Tsuji Reference Tsuji2006). In addition, in rural India, there is a growing reliance on the mobile Internet, against a backdrop where the predominant mode is event time.
Further, recent evidence suggests that there are discernible differences in the way humans self-regulate (Avnet & Sellier Reference Avnet and Sellier2011). People with a “self-regulation” couched in an approach known as “prevention” engage in activity which reduces the number of errors until no further risks are discernible. In this way, they are internally guided, thereby aligning with an event time rather than an external temporal cue. In contrast, individuals characterised with a self-regulation approach known as “promotion” rely less on internal resources to determine when a job is done and instead prioritise external, temporal cues to ensure a timely completion of tasks.
Evidence from across social science converges to suggest that alternatives to clock time exist. Within the digital age, this has implications for decision-making processes. In terms of trends which may guard against a shift to the southeast (cf. target article, sect. 3.1, para. 4) or provide an alternative conceptualisation of this shift, studies of cultural differences in decision making reveal a number of findings which suggest that the tendency towards herd-like outcomes may be less likely once we take a temporal cultural perspective.
A number of studies reveal cultural dimensions to decision making. For instance, in a dynamic simulation task called COLDSTORE, individuals in clock time cultures (e.g., United States, Germany) tend towards “adaptor-type” decision making compared with those from event cultures (e.g., India, Philippines, and Brazil) who engage in more “oscillator-type” decision-making characterised by taking the present situation into account (Güss & Dörner Reference Güss and Dörner2011). Significantly, whilst the “map” proposed by Bentley et al. focuses on the role of the past and the present, adopting a cultural perspective would mean taking into account the work by Zimbardo and Boyd (Reference Zimbardo and Boyd1999) where people have a predominant disposition to a future time orientation. The map could be strengthened by reflecting those cultures which display a time orientation towards the future, which may mean that Bentley et al. have underestimated the extent to which those populations below the “equator” in the southeast quadrant of their map can perceive benefits. We know, for instance, from work on risk-taking that cultures with more hierarchical views underestimate risk because they defer to the expertise of experts when making choices (Dake Reference Dake1991).
Of further relevance to the mechanism of imitation associated with herding, is the notion that increased imitation can be desirable. For instance, in the domain of sustainable transport, any trends towards the uptake of carbon reduced or carbon neutral transportation systems are liable to be viewed as worthy outcomes. In particular, the practice of making real-time traffic jams on highways visible to prospective commuters via personal or public display systems has the scope to discourage imitation of a “popular” (typically fossil fuelled) trip mode taken by previous commuters. On a project called Sixth Sense Transport (Norgate et al. Reference Norgate, Winstanley, Davies, Smith, Harding and Speed2013), we are eliciting imitation of pro-environmental behaviour through design of Apps (applications) intended to achieve this.
In conclusion, we would like to persuade Bentley et al. to extend their “map” with a cultural perspective that reflects alternative conceptions of human relationships with time, and would enable social scientists to devise new testable hypotheses in topical domains within society.
Central to Bentley et al.’s vision is a “map” that captures the essence of human decision-making around collective behaviour in the digital age. Key to their argument is the expectation that decision-making is shifting towards imitation or herding driven by popularity and without grounding in the knowledge of the benefits of the behaviour. To explain this phenomenon, Bentley et al. focus on economies replete with online communication where people inhabit an information ecology characterised by data overload in terms of both the number of sources of intelligence and the number of choices on offer.
We argue that the authors’ characterisation of decision-making occurring under conditions of time constraint biases the map towards a “clock time” culture. We suggest that adopting the “map” as an empirical framework appropriate for hypothesis testing may be premature unless the signature of the behavioural pattern also takes into account temporal perspectives anchored by alternative established societal and/or individual relationships with time. Specifically, the alternatives that we consider include a focus on “event time” together with a broadening of orientation towards future time.
The distinction between clock time and event time has been made socio-historically, particularly in relation to the rise of clock-time culture associated with mass timetabling consequent on introduction of the first passenger train in England in the 1820s (Zerubavel Reference Zerubavel1982) and the subsequent industrial revolution in Western Europe. More-recent distinctions between clock and event cultures focus on different behaviour patterns associated with each tendency. For instance, in clock time, activities are typically completed one at a time in sequence. In contrast, in event time, the inclination is to shift to and fro across tasks without any clock-determined schedules. One notion is that each society displays an overriding “average” set of behavioural markers towards either clock time or event time, whilst individuals within the society/culture will also display their own tendencies (e.g., Hall Reference Hall1959) which correspond with these societal norms to a lesser or greater degree. In this respect, whilst the United States and Western Europe are considered to focus on clock time, South or Central America, the Middle East, and South Europe are more event focused (Lindquist & Kaufman-Scarborough Reference Lindquist and Kaufman-Scarborough2007).
Although there is a risk of oversimplification in adopting any conceptual dichotomy, the narrative around differentiation between the notions of clock time and event time (Levine Reference Levine1997) has been theorized around the concepts of “monochronicity” and “polychronicity” (Hall Reference Hall1959), particularly in relation to workplace behaviour. Monochronicity refers to the tendency to colonize time with one activity at a time whilst polychronicity revolves around doing more than one activity simultaneously.
Treatment of time as an economic resource is a hallmark of clock time where decision-making takes place under time constraints. However, in the big-data era, clock time is not necessarily exclusively dominant in economies replete with online communication. For instance, consider Japan. With a pervasive online economy and around 80% of the population accessing the Internet (MMG [Miniwatts Marketing Group] 2013), the culture yet functions on a combination of clock and event time (Tsuji Reference Tsuji2006). In addition, in rural India, there is a growing reliance on the mobile Internet, against a backdrop where the predominant mode is event time.
Further, recent evidence suggests that there are discernible differences in the way humans self-regulate (Avnet & Sellier Reference Avnet and Sellier2011). People with a “self-regulation” couched in an approach known as “prevention” engage in activity which reduces the number of errors until no further risks are discernible. In this way, they are internally guided, thereby aligning with an event time rather than an external temporal cue. In contrast, individuals characterised with a self-regulation approach known as “promotion” rely less on internal resources to determine when a job is done and instead prioritise external, temporal cues to ensure a timely completion of tasks.
Evidence from across social science converges to suggest that alternatives to clock time exist. Within the digital age, this has implications for decision-making processes. In terms of trends which may guard against a shift to the southeast (cf. target article, sect. 3.1, para. 4) or provide an alternative conceptualisation of this shift, studies of cultural differences in decision making reveal a number of findings which suggest that the tendency towards herd-like outcomes may be less likely once we take a temporal cultural perspective.
A number of studies reveal cultural dimensions to decision making. For instance, in a dynamic simulation task called COLDSTORE, individuals in clock time cultures (e.g., United States, Germany) tend towards “adaptor-type” decision making compared with those from event cultures (e.g., India, Philippines, and Brazil) who engage in more “oscillator-type” decision-making characterised by taking the present situation into account (Güss & Dörner Reference Güss and Dörner2011). Significantly, whilst the “map” proposed by Bentley et al. focuses on the role of the past and the present, adopting a cultural perspective would mean taking into account the work by Zimbardo and Boyd (Reference Zimbardo and Boyd1999) where people have a predominant disposition to a future time orientation. The map could be strengthened by reflecting those cultures which display a time orientation towards the future, which may mean that Bentley et al. have underestimated the extent to which those populations below the “equator” in the southeast quadrant of their map can perceive benefits. We know, for instance, from work on risk-taking that cultures with more hierarchical views underestimate risk because they defer to the expertise of experts when making choices (Dake Reference Dake1991).
Of further relevance to the mechanism of imitation associated with herding, is the notion that increased imitation can be desirable. For instance, in the domain of sustainable transport, any trends towards the uptake of carbon reduced or carbon neutral transportation systems are liable to be viewed as worthy outcomes. In particular, the practice of making real-time traffic jams on highways visible to prospective commuters via personal or public display systems has the scope to discourage imitation of a “popular” (typically fossil fuelled) trip mode taken by previous commuters. On a project called Sixth Sense Transport (Norgate et al. Reference Norgate, Winstanley, Davies, Smith, Harding and Speed2013), we are eliciting imitation of pro-environmental behaviour through design of Apps (applications) intended to achieve this.
In conclusion, we would like to persuade Bentley et al. to extend their “map” with a cultural perspective that reflects alternative conceptions of human relationships with time, and would enable social scientists to devise new testable hypotheses in topical domains within society.