Imagine you’re late for a job interview. If you are the interviewee, you’ve probably lost the job before you have a chance to say a word—your lateness sends a message to the employer that you don’t value punctuality and his or her time. If you are the interviewer, however, it can be completely acceptable for you to keep the interviewee waiting. In fact, by making the person wait, you assert your status by clearly conveying that you have control.

Chronemics is the use of time in nonverbal communication—the ways that you perceive and value time, structure your time, and react to time. Your time orientation—your personal associations with the use of time—determines the importance you give to conversation content, the length or urgency of the interaction, and punctuality (Burgoon et al., 1989). For example, when you are invited to someone’s home in the United States for dinner, it’s acceptable to arrive about ten minutes after the time suggested. It shows consideration for your host not to arrive too early or too late (and possibly ruin the dinner). Similarly, spending time with others communicates concern and interest. For example, good friends will make plans to spend time together even when it’s inconvenient.

In our personal lives, deciding the timing of a message can be tricky. How long do you wait after you’ve met someone to send that person a Facebook friend request or an invitation to connect professionally on LinkedIn? How long do you wait to text or call someone you met at a party to see if he or she might want to go out on a date? Right after you’ve left the party may seem too eager, but a week later may suggest you’re not really interested. Research shows that we do use people’s response rate (how quickly they return e-mails, texts, etc.) as an indication of interest and immediacy, but the situation and context also make a difference (Döring & Pöschl, 2009; Kalman & Rafaeli, 2011; Kalman, Ravid, Raban, & Rafaeli, 2006; Ledbetter, 2008).