These current comparative studies explore the impact of individual differences in personality factors on interface interaction and learning performance behaviors in both an interactive visualization and a menu-driven web table in two studies. Participants were administered three psychometric measures designed to assess Locus of Control, Big Five Extraversion, and Big Five Neuroticism. Participants were then asked to complete procedural learning tasks in each interface. Results demonstrated that all three measures predicted completion times. Additionally, analyses demonstrated that personality factors also predicted the number of insights participants reported while completing the tasks in each interface. Furthermore, we used the psychometric findings in conjunction with a follow-up psychometric survey with a further 50 participants to build initial user profiles based on the cognitive task being undertaken. We discuss how these findings advance our ongoing research in the Personal Equation of Interaction.
GigerenzerGGoldsteinDG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev1996; 103(4): 650–669.
3.
SimonHA. Cognitive architectures and rational analysis: comment. In: Van LehnK (ed.) Architectures for intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991, pp.25–39.
4.
StanovichKE. Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999
5.
KaptelininVNardiBA. Acting with technology activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
6.
BoyatzisREKolbDA. From learning styles to learning skills: the executive skills profile. J Manag Psychol1995; 10(5): 3–17.
7.
HeuerRJ. The psychology of intelligence analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence. Washington, DC: CIA, 1999.
8.
GreenTMJeongDHFisherB. Using personality factors to predict interface learning performance. In: Proceedings of 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2010.
9.
SunRMerrillEPetersonT. From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: a bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Sci2001; 25: 203–244.
10.
AndersonJR. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychol Rev1982; 89(4): 369–406.
11.
PlaisantD. The challenge of information visualization evaluation. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, Gallipoli, Italy, May 25–28 2004.
12.
HallRHRocklinTRDnsereauTR. et al. The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material. J Educ Psychol1988; 80(2): 172–178.
13.
HeppnerPPAndersonWP. The relationship between problem solving self-appraisal and psychological adjustment. Cognitive Ther Res1984; 9: 415–427.
14.
MaciaA. Visual perception of landscapes: sex and personality differences. Our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, pp.279–285.
15.
PalmerJ. Scientists and information: II. Personal factors in information behavior. J Doc1991; 3: 254–275.
16.
MesserSB. The relation in internal–external control to academic performance. Child Dev1972; 43(4): 1456–1462.
17.
WeissHShermanJ. Internal–external control as a predictor of task effort and satisfaction subsequent to failure. J Appl Psychol1973; 57(2): 132–136.
18.
HongJJeongDHShawCD. et al. GVis: a scalable visualization framework for genomic data. In: BrodlieKDukeDJJoyKI (eds) Proceedings of IEEE EuroVis2005, vol. 5. Eurographics Association, pp.191–198.
19.
RotterJB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr1966; 80(1): 1–28.
20.
CacioppoJPettyRFeinsteinJ. et al. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychol Bull1996; 119(2): 197–253.
21.
DonnellanMBOswaldFLBairdBM. et al. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychol Assessment2006; 18: 192–203.
22.
JudgeTAErezABonoJE. et al. Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?J Pers Soc Psychol2002; 83(3): 693–710.
23.
BoekaertsM. Personality and the psychology of learning. Eur J Personality1996; 10: 377–404.
KaganDMDouthatJM. Personality and learning FORTRAN. Int J Man Mach Stud1985; 22: 685–696.
26.
PintrichPRRoeserRWDe ReGrootEAM. Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. J Early Adolescence1994; 14(2): 139–161.
27.
PoropatAE. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol Bull2009; 135(2): 322–338.
28.
SallehNMendesEGrundyJ. et al. The effects of neuroticism on pair programming: an empirical study in the higher education context. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM ’10), Bolzano-Bozen, Italy, 2010, p. 10. New York: ACM.
29.
ThomasLRatcliffeMWoodburyJ. et al. 2002; Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. In: Paper presented at the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, Cincinnati, KY, February 26 – March 02, 2002.
30.
SchwarzerRDiehlMSchmitzGS. The self-regulation scale. Berlin: Freie Universitat, Gesundheitspsychologie, 1999.
31.
BeckAEpsteinNBrownG. et al. An inventory for measuring anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psych1988; 56: 893–897.
32.
ArcherRP. Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. J Pers Assess1979; 43(6): 617–627.
33.
BudnerS. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. J Pers1962; 30(1): 29–50.
34.
ChangRZiemkiewiczCGreenTM. et al. Defining insight for visual analytics. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl2009; 29(2): 14–17.
