Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The importance of personality characteristics in the processing of displays is examined. Forty-six people, screened for specific information processing and decision making preferences using the MBTI, learned to classify instances of system data into one of four state categories. System data were presented in one of three types of display formats: a polygon; a bargraph; and a digital display. The experiment involved two sessions: a training session where each person learned the classification task; and an extended practice session with no feedback. The ability of people to accurately classify instances was found to be influenced by both the type of display and their personality type. The importance of individual differences in display research is discussed, with emphasis placed on the implications for training, and selection of display formats.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

K.B.

Flach

J.M.

(1992), Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34(5), 513–534.

Bennett

K.B.

Toms

M.L.

Woods

D.D.

(1993), Emergent features and graphical elements: Designing more effective configural displays. Human Factors, 35(1), 71–98.

Coury

B.G.

Boulette

M.D.

(1992), Time stress and the processing of visual displays. Human Factors, 34(6), 707–726.

Coury

B.G.

Boulette

M.D.

Smith

R.A.

(1989), The effects of uncertainty and diagnosticity on classification of multidimensional data with integral and separable displays of system status. Human Factors, 31(5), 551–569.

Coury

B.G.

Weiland

M.Z.

Cuqlock-Knopp

V.G.

(1992), Probing the mental models of system state categories with multidimensional scaling. Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 673–696.

Crosby

M.E.

Peterson

W.W.

(1991), Using eye movements to classify search strategies. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, pp. 1476–1480.

Davies

D.L.

Groves

S.J.

Knowles

P.A.

(1990), An experimental application of personality type as an analogue for decision-making style, Psychological Reports, 66, 167–175.

Fisher

D.L.

(1993), Optimal performance engineering: Good, better, best. Human Factors, 35(1), 115–140.

Garner

W.R.

(1974). The Processing of Information and Structure (John Wilev: New York).

10.

Hunter

Levy

(1982), Relationship of problem-solving behaviors and Jungian personality types, Psychological Reports, 51(2). 379–384.

11.

Kerin

R.A.

Slocum

J.W.

Jr. (1981), Decision-making style and acquisition of information: Further exploration of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Psychological Reports, 49, 132–134.

12.

Matta

K.F.

Kern

G.M.

(1991), Interactive videodisc instruction: The influence of personality on learning, Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 541–552.

13.

Myers

I.B.

(1977), The MyersBriggs Type Indicator, Distributed by Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto, CA.

14.

Myers

McCaulley

M.H.

(1985), Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

The Influence of Personality in the Processing of Display Formats

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References