Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS)
AMCIS 1998 Proceedings
Association for Information Systems Year 
The Relationship Between Time
Constraint and Time Pressure
Lehman Benson III Markus Groth
University of Arizona University of Arizona
Lee Beach
University of Arizona
This paper is posted at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL).
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1998/84

-243-
The Relationship Between Time Constraint and Time Pressure
Lehman Benson III
Markus Groth
Lee Beach
The University of Arizona
The tempo of the modern society (especially in Western cultures) has continually accelerated (McGrath & Kelly, 1986;
Rastegary & Landy, 1993). This acceleration has particularly affected the modern workplace. Eisenhardt (1989) discusses the
concept of "high -velocity" environments that are characterized by rapid changes in technology, competitors, demand,
organizational structure, and regulatory rules. Many modern workplaces are examples of high-velocity environments that often
induce feelings of stress or time pressure due to having to make decisions under constant time constraints. As Rastegary &
Landy (1993) noted, perhaps the most substantial challenge facing employees, as a result of modern time orientation, is choosing
between/among different courses of action while under what seems like constant time constraints.
An interesting, related phenomenon is that the aforementioned time constraints do not affect all people in the same way
(Bluedorn & Denhart, 1988), or even the same person the same way in different situations (Svenson & Benson, 1993). This
phenomenon is important when one considers many authors use the terms ‘time constraints’ and ‘time pressure’ interchangeably
(Payne, Bettman, & Luce 1996; Svenson & Maule 1993), which is incorrect.
Time constraints are limits on the amount of time available to complete a task. Time pressure is the subjective perception
of stress or of being rushed. The relationship between the two turns upon (1) the amount time available to complete the task
being less than the amount of time that is required, and (2) the person who is to perform the task being motivated to complete
it in the available time. Common sense suggests that perceived time pressure ought to be related in some way to required time
relative to available time, perhaps merely the difference between the two. It also suggests that perceived time pressure ought
to be different for different levels of motivation (or task importance), holding required and available time constant.
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between time constraints (for task completion) and reported
perceptions of time pressure. Understanding how perceived pressure relates to required and available time is important because
there has been an increasing amount of research (Ben Zur & Breznitz, 1981; Payne, Bettman & Johnson, 1988, Ordòñez &
Benson, 1996) that investigates the effect of time pressure on judgment and decision-making.
The most common method used to operationalize time pressure is to have one group (the experimental group) of subjects
make a decision under a deadline or time constraint. This group’s performance is later compared to another group (the control
group) that made the same decision without a time constraint, or a generous time constraint. The problem with these studies is
that they assume a monotonic, perhaps even linear, relationship between time constraints and perceived time pressure. However,
the difference between time constraints and time pressure is not well defined and the aforementioned assumption about required
and available time needs to be tested.
Testing the Assumption
As stated above, perceived time pressure may reasonably be perceived to relate to the time required and the time available
to perform a task. Two possible models are the following:
In which Rr stands for required time, Ra stands for available time and PP stands for perceived time pressure:
Additive model
PP = f (Rr - Ra), (Eq. 1)
Ratio Model
PP = f (Rr / Ra), (Eq.2)
Thus, if the difference is equal to or greater than zero, subjects should perceive no pressure, but if it is less than zero they
should perceive pressure and the pressure should increase as the difference becomes increasingly negative.
In what follows, Experiment 1A & 1B will differentiate between the subtractive and ratio models of perceived time pressure.
Experiment 1
Method
The two models were differentiated by presenting subjects with a series of unspecified hypothetical tasks that required a
specific amount of time (Rr) for completion and for which a specific amount of time was available (Ra). Two methods of
presenting the combinations of Rr and Ra were used, (see below), resulting in experiments 1a and 1b. In both experiments,
subjects were asked to rate on a 10 point scale “how pressured a person would feel” for each combination of required and

-244-
available time. The design in both experiments was fully factorial with three levels of required time and four levels of available
time.
In each experiment, if the subtractive model is appropriate model, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA on rated pressure
should produce significant main effects for Rr and Ra, and an insignificant interaction. If the interaction is significant the
subtractive model can be rejected and, insofar as an interaction can be interpreted as indicative of division, the ratio model
becomes the favored model.
Subjects
Seventy-five undergraduate business students participated for class credit; 37 in experiment 1a and 38 in experiment 1b.
Experiment 1a: Matrix Method.
Subjects were given a matrix containing 12 cells. The columns of the matrix were labeled ‘time required’ (1 week, 10 days,
2 weeks) and the rows were labeled ‘time available’ (3,5,7,9 days). Subjects responded by writing a number between 0 (none)
and 10 (extreme) in each cell to indicate how pressured a person would feel if confronted with that combination of times.
Experiment 1b: List Method.
Subjects were read each of the 12 combinations of required and available times in random order. They responded by writing
a number between 0 and 10 in successive blanks on an answer sheet to indicate how pressured a person would feel if confronted
with that combination of times.
Results
A separate ANOVA was done for each of the two experiments. Both yielded significant main effects for Rr and Ra, as well
as a significant interaction between the two. This indicates that the subtractive model is inappropriate for both the matrix and
the list methods of presenting the time combinations. The ANOVA results for experiment 1a (matrix) were: F (2, 72) = 262.24,
p <.0001 for Rr, F (3, 108) = 271.30, p < .001 for R a, and F (6, 216) = 16.56, p < .001 for the interaction. For experiment 1b
(list) the results were: F (2, 74) = 197.24, p < .001 for Rr, F (3, 111) = 206.10, p < .0001 for Ra, and F (6, 216) = 16.56, p < .0001
for the interaction.
Table 1 contains the mean rated pressure (PP) for the two presentation methods for each ratio of presented times. Using
the means from 1a as the independent variable and the means from 1b as the dependent variable, the correlation between the two
lists is r = .99, slope = 1.00, intercept = -.37, where the intercept is not significantly different from zero. Although the negative
intercept suggests that the means from 1b tend to be slightly, but insignificantly, lower than for 1a, these results indicate that the
two methods yield essentially the same ratings of perceived time pressure.
Table 1. Mean Rated Pressure for Each Time Ratio for Experiments 1a and 1b
Ratio Exp.1a Exp. 1b
.78 1.08 1.32
1.00 2.59 1.74
1.11 3.27 2.74
1.40 5.03 4.34
1.43 5.65 5.55
1.56 6.24 5.42
2.00 7.32 6.97
2.00 7.86 7.09
2.34 7.14 6.92
2.80 9.03 8.63
3.34 8.70 8.71
4.67 9.76 9.39
Figure 1 contains the graphs of mean rated pressure as a function of Rr for each level of Ra, for the two presentation methods
combined. The fan shape of the lines illustrates the interaction detected by the ANOVA analyses.
Discussion
The significant interactions in the two ANOVA’s for experiments 1a and 1b, illustrated for the combined data in Fig. 1,
imply that the subtraction model is inappropriate and, insofar as one can interpret the significant interactions as evidence for
division, the ratio model appears best. In addition, the matrix and list methods of presenting R r and Ra appear to yield nearly
equivalent ratings of time pressure. Clearly, this research must be regarded as merely a first step in the investigation of the

-245-
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
One Week 10 Days Two Weeks
Resources Required R r
R
at
ed
P
re
ss
ur
e
3 days
5 days
7
days 9
days
Resources
Availiable R
a

Figure 1. Mean Rated Pressure for the Three
Levels of Required Time (Rr) for Each Level
of Available Time (Ra)
relationship between time constraints and perceived time pressure.
In the interest of experimental control the stimulus materials were
very simplistic and context free. However, the paper clearly
demonstrates that time constraints and time pressure are not the same
thing.
References
Benson III, L., & Beach, L.R. (1996). The effects of time constraints
on the pre-choice screening of decision options. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 222-228.
Ben Zur, H., & Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effects of time pressure on
risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica 47, 89-104.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and Organizations.
Journal of Management, 14 29-320.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Making fast decisions in high-velocity
environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 542-575.
McGrath, J.E., & Kelly, J.R. (1986). Time and human interaction:
Toward a social psychology of time. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Ordoñéz, L., & Benson L. (1997). Decisions under fire: how time
pressure affects risky decision making strategies. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 121-140.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1988). Adaptive
strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 14, 534-552.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Luce M.F. (1996). When time is money: decision behavior under opportunity-cost time pressure.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66, 131-152.
Rastegary H., & Landy J. L. (1993). Time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure. In O. Svenson, & A.J. Maule (Eds.) Time
pressure and stress in human judgement and decision making. New York: Plenum.
Svenson o., Benson L. (1993) On experimental instructions and the inducement of time pressure behavior. In O. Svenson, &
A. J. Maule (Eds.), (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgement and decision making. New York: Plenum.