Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Differences in Resource Allocation Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition

Part of the book series: The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality ((SSHE))

Abstract

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; Nęcka, 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note, however, that some modern theories distinguish effort from resources. For example, Humphreys and Revelle (1984, p. 158) defined effort “as the motivational state commonly understood to mean trying hard or being involved in a task”. They also made clear distinction between the subjective feeling of trying hard and on-task effort, defined in terms of resources allocation.

  2. 2.

    Note, however, that Matthews and Gilliland (1999) found solid empirical support for Eysenck’s claim on the biological basis of extraversion restricted only to data obtained in the studies on phasic electrodermal response and eyelid conditioning.

  3. 3.

    According to Eysenck (1992), cognitive correlates of creativity and psychoticism are similar (the weakness of inhibition hypothesis). However, further consideration on arousal–creativity and arousal–psychoticims relationships suggest different effectiveness of dual task performance of highly creative subjects and subjects scoring high on P scale.

  4. 4.

    Groborz and Nęcka (2003) defined attentional control as mechanism that reduces chaos in the output of the information processing system (reduction of possible albeit unnecessary response tendencies) and measured its effectiveness with the use of Stroop and Navon tasks. High creative subjects showed better interference control. The reduction of unnecessary response tendencies due to selectivity rules alternation is also strongly demanded in selectivity task of the SUPER-DIFF DIVA test. Thus, high creative subjects perform this test generally better. However, dual task coordination is not one of the aspects of so defined attentional control. What is more, Nęcka (1999) found that high creative subjects perform the DIVA test in the dual task condition even worse than low creative ones.

References

  • Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. J., & Revelle, W. (1983). The interactive effects of caffeine, impulsivity, and task demands on a visual search task. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 127–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beh, H. C., & Harrod, M.-E. (1998). Physiological responses in high-P subjects during active and passive coping. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 28, 291–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and Stress. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1982). Task combination and selective intake of information. Acta Psychologica, 50, 253–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bullen, J. G., & Himsley, D. R. (1984). Psychoticism and visual recognition threshold. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claridge, G. S. (1987). Psychoticism and arousal. In J. Strelau & H. J. Eysenck (Eds.), Personality dimensions and arousal (pp. 133–150). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, E. (1962). Activation and behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilisation and the organisation of behaviour. Psychological Review, 66, 183–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: CC Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1992). The definition and measurement of psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 757–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality: Biological foundations. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), The neuropsychology of individual differences (pp. 151–256). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, A. (1969). “Stimulus hunger”: Individual differences in operant strategy in a button-pressing task. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 7, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geen, R. G. (1984). Preffered stimulations levels in introverts and extraverts: Effect on arousal and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1303–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groborz, M., & Nęcka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: Exploration of generation and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruszka, A. (1999). Relationship between basic personality dimensions and the attentional mechanism of cognitive inhibition. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 30, 129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, W., & Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, E. (1980). Intelligence as an information processing concept. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 449–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, E., & Lansman, M. (1982). Individual differences in attention. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 207–254). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaušovec, N. (1997). Differences in EEG activity during the solution of closed and open problems. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A. R. (1982). The chronometry of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 255–311). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A. R. (2005). Mental chronometry and the unification of differential psychology. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition and intelligence (pp. 26–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, J., Beauvale, A., & Bener, J. (1997). Evoked cardiac response as a function of cognitive load differs between subjects separated on the main personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, I., & Moray, N. (1993). A simulation study of human performance deterioration and mental workload. Le Travail Humain, 6, 321–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangan, G. L. (1974). Personality and conditioning: Some personality, cognitive and psychophysiological parameters of classical appetitive (sexual) GSR conditioning. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 9, 125–135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 137–152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C., Anderson, K., Moore, K., & West, A. N. (1996). Creativity, oversensitivity, and rate of habituation. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 423–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C., & Hines, D. (1975). Creativity and cortical activation during creative, intellectual, and EEG feedback tasks. Biological Psychology, 3, 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G. (1987). Personality and multidimensional arousal: A study of two dimensions of extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G. (1992). Extraversion. In A. P. Smith & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of human performance (pp. 96–193). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G., & Amelang, M. (1993). Extraversion, arousal theory and performance: A study of individual differences in the EEG. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (2002). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G., & Desmond, P. A. (2002). Task-induced fatigue states and simulated driving performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 659–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). The personality theories of H. J. Eysenck and J. A. Gray: a comparative review. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 583–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moruzzi, G., & Magoun, H. W. (1949). Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1, 455–473.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1984). Resources – a theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nęcka, E. (1997). Attention, working memory and arousal: Concepts apt to account for “the process of intelligence”. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality end emotion (pp. 503–554). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nęcka, E. (1999). Creativity and attention. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 30, 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nęcka, E. (2000). Pobudzenie Intelektu. Zarys Formalnej Teorii Inteligencji. [The Formal Theory of Intelligence]. Cracow: Universitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninio, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Reaction time in focused and in divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 393–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W., & Loftus, D. A. (1990). Individual differences and arousal: Implications for the study of mood and memory. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, K. (1996a). Level of encoding, preattentive processing and working memory capacity as sources of cognitive ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 759–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, K. (1996b). The speed-accuracy transition due to task complexity. Intelligence, 22, 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass, J. G., Luce, R. D., & Galanter, E. (1967). Some experiments on simple and choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stankov, L. (1983). Attention and intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankov, L. (1988). Attention and intelligence. Psychology of Aging, 3, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankov, L. (2005). Reductionism versus charting: Ways of examining the role o lower-order cognitive processes in intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition and intelligence (pp. 51–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavridou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). The relationship between psychoticism, trait creativity and the attentional mechanism of cognitive inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelmack, R. M. (1981). The psychophysiology of extraversion and neuroticism. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model of personality (pp. 38–64). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? American Psychologist, 56, 360–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szymura, B. (1999). On the organization of the processes of selective attention. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 30, 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymura, B., & Nęcka, E. (1998). Visual selective attention and personality: An experimental verification of three models of extroversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 713–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szymura, B., & Nęcka, E. (2005). Three superfactors of personality and three aspects of attention. In A. Eliasz, S. E. Hampson, & B. de Raad (Eds.), Advances in personality psychology (pp. 75–90). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymura, B., & Nęcka, E. (in prep.). Attention and intelligence. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymura, B., Śmigasiewicz, K., & Corr, P. J. J. (2007). Psychoticism and flexibility of attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2033–2046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szymura, B., & Wodniecka, Z. (2003). What really bothers neurotics? In search for factors impairing attentional performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimuli to rapidity of habit-information. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1997). The psychobiological basis of personality. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland

    Błażej Szymura

Authors
  1. Błażej Szymura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Al. Mickiewicza 3, Cracow, 31-120, Poland

    Aleksandra Gruszka

  2. Dept. Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Dyer Hall 217, Cincinnati, 45221, USA

    Gerald Matthews

  3. Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Al. Mickiewicza 3, Cracow, 31-120, Poland

    Blazej Szymura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szymura, B. (2010). Individual Differences in Resource Allocation Policy. In: Gruszka, A., Matthews, G., Szymura, B. (eds) Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation