PERSONALITY TRAITS MODULATE VISUAL ATTENTION IN PICTURE NAMING/CATEGORISING TASKS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The main question motivating this study was to which extent overt visual selective attention depends on personality traits and on whether the participant is performing a linguistic or non-linguistic task. To answer this question, this study investigated the effects of personality traits and task demands (i.e., categorising and naming pictures) on visual selective attention. The visual selective attention of 64 Dutch participants was assessed using eye-tracking. Their personality traits were measured using the Big-Five model (BFI-2-S). The results indicated that higher degrees of extraversion, open-mindedness and agreeableness affect visual selective attention during language production tasks. That is, more extraverted, more open-minded and more agreeable people could be more distracted by their partners’ pictures more than conscientious as well as emotionally negative people could be. Those who have more degrees of the latter personality traits selectively attend to their own pictures and overlook their partners’. Thus, this study contributed to the considerable number of studies investigating the effect of individual differences on cognitive processing demonstrating that some personality traits could affect selective visual attention in picture naming/categorising tasks.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Brehm, L., Taschenberger, L., & Meyer, A. (2019). Mental representations of partner task cause interference in picture naming. Acta psychologica, 199, 102888.
Costandi, M. (2013). 50 Human Brain Ideas You Really Need to Know. UK: Quercus Publishing.
• Couperus, J.W., Lydic, K. O., Hollis, J. E., Roy, J. L., Lowe, A.R., Bukach, C. M., & Reed, C. L. (2021). Individual Differences in Working Memory and the N2pc. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15:620413. 10.3389/fnhum.2021.620413
•
Cummins, R. G., Gong, Z., & Kim, H.-S. (2016). Individual differences in selective attention to information graphics in televised sports. Communication & Sport, 4(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479513517491
Dalmaso, M., Castelli, L., Scatturin, P., & Galfano, G. (2021). Can attitude similarity shape social inhibition of return? Visual Cognition, 29(7), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2021.1922566
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological science, 11(4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00255
Hoedemaker, R. S., & Meyer, A. S. (2019). Planning and coordination of utterances in a joint naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(4), 732–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000603
Kaspar, K., & König, P. (2012). Emotions and personality traits as high-level factors in visual attention: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00321
Matsumoto, K., Shibata, S., Seiji, S., Mori, C., & Shioe, K. (2010). Factors influencing the processing of visual information from non-verbal communications. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 64, 299–308.
Matthews, G. (2008). Personality and information processing: A cognitive-adaptive theory. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (p. 56–79). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200462.n3
McIntyre, M. M., & Graziano, W. G. (2016). Seeing people, seeing things: Individual differences in selective attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1258-1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216653937
Nummenmaa, L., & Calder, A. J. (2009). Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.006
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
Salley, B., & Colombo, J. (2016). Conceptualizing Social Attention in Developmental Research. Social development (Oxford, England), 25(4), 687–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12174
Severens, E., Van Lommel, S., Ratinckx, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119 (2), 159–187.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117-143.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science (New York, N.Y.), 268(5217), 1632–1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863
Tufft, M. R. A., & Gobel, M. S. (2021). Gender and perceived cooperation modulate visual attention in a joint spatial cueing task. Visual Cognition, 30(1–2), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2021.1976892
Wilson, K.E., Lowe, M.X., Ruppel, J., Pratt, J. & Ferber, S. (2016). The scope of no return: Openness predicts the spatial distribution of inhibition of return. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 78, 209–217 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0991-5
Wu, D. W.-L., Bischof, W. F., Anderson, N. C., Jakobsen, T., & Kingstone, A. (2014). The influence of personality on social attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.017