Błażej Szymura

What really bothers neurotics? In search for factors impairing attentional performance

Abstract The authors examine the relationship between neuroticism and the efficiency of visual attention. The predicted relations stem from the biological theory of personality and the Yerkes–Dodson law. According to M.W. Eysenck, neurotics would show worse performance in more demanding attentional tasks, whereas stable subjects would perform worse in less demanding task stimulation conditions. The main aim of the presented study was to determine specific stimulation conditions that impair attentional performance in neurotic subjects. In four experiments (N=64, N=100, N=91, N=102) a computerized test of visual selective attention was applied in order to assess selectivity, distraction susceptibility and dual task performance. The main manipulation between the experiments was the speed of stimuli presentation. The data suggest that it is the speed of stimuli presentation rather than the tasks complexity that impairs the efficiency of neurotics’ attentional mechanisms. Results are discussed in terms of possible implications for the biological theory of personality and the theory of the behavioral inhibition system.

Individual Differences in Resource Allocation Policy

Apart from many other things, people differ in the way they allocate their attentional resources to the tasks they are engaged in. Individual differences in attentional resources management seem interesting as correlates of temperament/personality and intellectual traits (Eysenck, 1982; Necka, 1997). Although the differences in the effectiveness of attentional resources management with regard to individual difference variables are not very salient (these variables usually explain no more than 10–15% of variance in attentional task performance), it still seems worth asking whether people characterized by different levels of intelligence or creativity, a different necessity of extraversion, neuroticism or psychoticism trait also differ in the specificity of attentional functioning – the major strategy by which the cognitive system protects its limited capacity against overload (Broadbent, 1982). Knowledge of such relationships should increase our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms of human temperament/personality and intelligence. It should also be helpful in the creation of an integrated model of cognitive performance, which also takes into account interindividual variability.

Conclusion: The State of the Art in Research on Individual Differences in Executive Control and Cognition

The chapters in this book illustrate the richness and diversity of research on individual differences (IDs) in executive control. Our aim in this summary chapter is to identify some of the major themes in this research area, and to discuss how the various chapters address these themes. This chapter is not intended to provide a general synthesis of the field, which would be premature. The reader is referred to the preceding chapters and the commentary sections for the various theoretical perspectives on IDs in executive control. The chapter is organized around three sets of topics. First, we outline the major research issues that provide the foundation for the study of IDs in executive control. Next, we identify some areas of reasonable consensus, at least in terms of general approaches (although significant differences in detail may remain). We finish with a survey of some areas of controversy, where some more fundamental differences between researchers may reside.

Individual Differences in Attention: The Commentaries

In this commentary, I will focus on a few key issues and priorities for future research on individual differences in attention. More specifically, I will consider the following: (a) the kinds of tasks that are most relevant for assessing attentional and executive processes; (b) attentional biases and cognitive performance; and (c) the most relevant dimensions of individual differences.