Putting time in perspective: How and why construal level buffers the relationship between wait time and aggressive tendencies

• Author: Sandra L. Robinson,Michael A. Daniels,Dorit Efrat‐Treister
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2433

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Putting time in perspective: How and why construal level

buffers the relationship between wait time and aggressive

tendencies

Dorit Efrat-Treister

1

| Michael A. Daniels

2

| Sandra L. Robinson

2

1

Guilford Glazer School of Business and

Management, Ben-Gurion University of the

Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

2

Sauder School of Business, The University of

British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada

Correspondence

Dorit Efrat-Treister, Guilford Glazer School of

Business and Management, Ben-Gurion

University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 8499000,

Israel.

Email: tdorit@bgu.ac.il

Funding information

Israel Association for Canadian Studies; Israel

Science Foundation, Grant/Award Number:

11/5322; Israeli Centers for Research

Excellence

Summary

We spend a substantial part of our daily life waiting, and unfortunately, wait time can

fuel aggressive tendencies. Our study examines the relationship between wait time,

perceived wait time, and aggressive tendencies from a construal level perspective. In

Study 1, we found that the higher the construal level, the stronger the relationship

between actual and perceived wait time and the stronger relationship between per-

ceived wait time and aggressive tendencies. In Study 2, we manipulated construal

level and found that power explains the moderating impact of construal on the wait—

aggressive tendencies relationships. Results demonstrate the role of construal in

explaining both perceived wait time and aggressive responses to long wait times,

suggesting that mental construal influences both the psychological experience of

time and the subsequent reaction to that experience. Overall, these results contrib-

ute to research on subjective time perspective by enhancing the knowledge and

understanding of the determinants and effects of perceived wait time.

KEYWORDS

aggressive tendencies, construal level, power, time perception, wait time

1|INTRODUCTION

Time delays and waits at work are common and impactful (Allen,

Lehmann & Rogelberg, 2018; Guenter, Van Emmerik, & Schreurs,

2014; Rogelberg et al., 2014). They take a myriad of forms in organi-

zations (Maister, 1985), from waiting for returned calls, decisions, or

receiving critical information for task completion. A particularly com-

mon form of waiting involves meeting delays. More than half of all

meetings start late (Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Rogelberg, 2018;

Elsayed-Elkhouly, Lazarus, & Forsythe, 1997). Employees arrive late to

meetings millions of times each day and over 60% of the time; this

results in waits for the rest of the employees (Rogelberg et al., 2014).

This is especially significant given that meetings occupy a significant

portion of work time (Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006), and

employees increasingly report shortages of time and time stress

(Perlow, 1999; Robinson & Godbey, 1997).

Delays and waiting at work are aversive experiences (Freud,

1959), resulting in negative mood states, anger, and frustration

(Maister, 1985; Rogelberg et al., 2014; Taylor, 1994), along with ten-

dencies toward incivility or aggressive tendencies (Efrat-Treister et al.,

2019; Mroz & Allen, 2017). These findings are consistent with broader

research highlighting the relationship between wait time and aggres-

sive thoughts, feelings, and actions (Groth & Gilliland, 2006;

Munichor & Rafaeli, 2007).

Given the ubiquity and negative impact of waits and delays in

organizations, it remains relatively understudied, especially with

regard to its impact on aggressive tendencies. This is especially critical

in light of the known detrimental effect of aggressive tendencies upon

targets and work relationships (Hershcovis, 2011; Hershcovis et al.,

2007). Although the experience of waiting may be inevitable, it is

important to explore ways of reducing aggressive responses to waits.

We postulate that one way to do so is by examining the role of

Received: 16 April 2018 Revised: 17 January 2020 Accepted: 17 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2433

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job J Organ Behav. 2020;41:294–309.

294

construal level theory (CLT) in this experience. Hence, we seek to

answer the following question: How does construal level (CL) impact

employees' perceptions of waiting and their aggressive tendencies fol-

lowing the wait?

A key to understanding and potentially altering the relationship

between wait time and aggressive tendencies comes from consider-

ation of how the perception of wait time is subjective and differs

between individuals (e.g., Eldor et al., 2017; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).

This subjectivity has two co-occurring manifestations: one, in terms of

the perception of wait time, which may vary from actual wait time

(e.g., Allman, Teki, Griffiths, & Meck, 2014) and two, in terms of the

reactions to the perceived wait time (e.g., Rafaeli, Barron, & Haber,

2002). By focusing on variables that contribute to the experience of

wait time, and explaining how wait time contributes to aggression, we

advance our understanding of the causes and effects of subjective

time perspective (see e.g., Fried & Slowik, 2004; Zimbardo & Boyd,

1999). Thus, two individuals facing the same objective wait time may

perceive and react to it differently. To the extent that we can identify

a factor that influences both the perceived wait time and the aggres-

sive reactions to it, we will be able to reduce such aggressive reactions

when waiting is inevitable

We can identify such a factor by turning our attention to CLT,

which highlights how different levels of construal explain differ-

ences in perceived time (Hansen & Trope, 2013; Trope &

Liberman, 2003; Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002). CL refers to

the level of abstraction at which one mentally represents the

world, such that lower CL involves more concrete thinking, and

higher CL involves more abstract thinking. As we argue in this

paper, CL can impact the effect of wait duration on aggressive ten-

dencies in two ways: altering perceptions of time duration and

influencing reactions to perceived wait. Those with low CL com-

pared with higher CL, perceive more markers in the passage of

time thus perceive a shorter wait duration. Moreover, as we will

argue, for a given perceived wait duration, those with high CL,

compared with low CL, will experience more aggressive tendencies

due to their higher sense of power and thus frustration with hav-

ing to wait.

We hope to make several contributions. We seek to contribute

to the body of research that has uncovered an important relation-

ship between wait time and aggressive tendencies (e.g., Angland,

Dowling, & Casey, 2014) by examining the complex role played by

CL. Building on the work of Hansen and Trope (2013), we show

that low CL can reduce the perception of the passage of time

which in turn may reduce aggressive tendencies related to waiting

by making the wait duration seem shorter. Moreover, we extend

this work by showing how for a given wait duration, high CL may

also increase aggressive tendencies, and demonstrate empirically

why this is the case. This in turn contributes to the small but

growing body of research that identifies the limitations of the posi-

tive influence of high CL in light of most research, which has

highlighted its positive consequences (e.g., Rosen, Koopman,

Gabriel, & Johnson, 2016; higher organizational learning: Reyt &

Wiesenfeld, 2015; Henderson & Trope, 2009).

This research comprises two related studies, as elaborated on

below. First, we theorize and test a model wherein CL operates as a

double moderator influencing both the relationship between wait time

and perceived wait time as well as the relationship between perceived

wait time and aggressive tendencies (Study 1). We further hypothe-

size and test whether the moderating role of CL on the latter relation-

ship can be explained by a sense of power (Study 2). See Figure 1 for

our hypothesized model.

2|THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND

HYPOTHESES

Aggression is defined as behavior intended to harm others (Rippon,

2000) and includes actions that range from raising one's voice,

using foul language, threatening, throwing objects, or engaging in

sabotage. These behaviors tend to be uncivil (e.g., Andersson &

Pearson, 1999), deviant (e.g., Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Robinson &

Bennett, 1995), and retaliatory (e.g., Hershcovis, 2011). Mild forms

of aggression, such as raising one's voice often precede more

severe types of aggression such as physical abuse (Dupré & Bar-

ling, 2006); thus, it is imperative to understand triggers of aggres-

sion and curtail its occurrence. In this research, we examine

aggressive tendencies, which we define as the self-reported desire

to act with aggression. This focus is chosen given its wider occur-

rence in organizations, and because it is an important precursor to

actual aggressive behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Ham-

mock & Richardson, 1992). Thus, aggressive tendencies are impor-

tant to recognize and manage before they escalate into aggression.

A known trigger of aggressive tendencies is waiting. Wait time

often thwarts the achievement of personal goals (Rafaeli et al.,

2002) and is perceived as a waste of valuable time (Blayac &

Causse, 2001; Börjesson & Eliasson, 2014; Kawamura, 2000),

therefore eliciting frustration (e.g., Anderson, Camacho, & Bal-

krishnan, 2003; Gates, Ross, & McQueen, 2005; Pich et al., 2011;

Pruyn & Smidts, 1998) and aggressive tendencies (Berkowitz, 1989;

FIGURE 1 Full research model [Colour figure can be viewed at

wileyonlinelibrary.com]

EFRAT-TREISTER ET AL.295