The present study tests an extension of the Maximal Adaptability Model of Stress (Hancock & Warm, 1989) that incorporated individual differences into the model (Szalma, 2008). The purpose was to investigate how the task characteristics of information rate (event rate) and information uncertainty (number of displays to be monitored) interact with participant personality (Neuroticism) to affect the performance, workload, and stress associated with a cognitive vigilance task. Results supported claim by Szalma (2008) that the maximal adaptability model should be modified to include person characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakanP. (1959). Extraversion-introversion and improvement in an auditory vigilance task. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 325–332.
2.
GoldbergL.R.JohnsonJ.A.EberH.W.HoganR.AshtonM.C.CloningerC.R.GoughH.G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
3.
HancockP.A.WarmJ.S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31, 519–537.
4.
HancockP.A. (1996). Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics, 39(9), 1146–1162.
5.
HartS.G.StavelandL.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In. HancockP.A.NajmedinM. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Oxford, England: North-Holland.
6.
HeltonW.S. (2004). Validation of a short stress state questionnaire. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48, 1238–1242.
7.
HockeyG. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive – energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93.
8.
MatthewsG. (2001). Levels of transaction: A cognitive science framework for operator stress. In: HancockP.A.DesmondP.A. (Eds.), Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 5–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
MatthewsG.CampbellS.E.FalconerS.JoynerL.A.HugginsJ.GillilandK.GrierR.WarmJ. S. (2002). Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion, 2, 315–340.
10.
MatthewsG.DearyI.J.WhitemanM.C. (2003). Personality traits, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
SzalmaJ.L. (2008). Individual differences in stress reaction. In: HancockP.A.SzalmaJ.L. (eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 323–357). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
12.
SzalmaJ.L.TeoG. (in press). The effect of spatial and temporal task characteristics on performance, workload, and stress. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54.
13.
WarmJ. S.HoweS.R.FishbeinH.D.DemberW.N.SpragueR.L. (1984). Cognitive Demand and the vigilance decrement. In MitalA. (Ed.), Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors I (pp. 15–20). North Holland: Elsevier.
