Effects of Cognitive Style,Task Type,and Emergent Features on Display Effectiveness

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a person's cognitive style and the presence of emergent features in displays on performance in information integration and focused attention tasks. Cognitive style was assessed using Kagan's Matching Familiar Figures Test and performance was measured for each task type. It was predicted that when task demands required the observer to integrate information from different display locations (integrated task), impulsives would perform better than reflectives. Conversely, when the observer had to attend to single elements (focused task), reflectives would be better than impulsives. The display configured with an emergent feature was hypothesized to produce fewer errors and shorter response times for both focused and integrated tasks. Results showed that both tasks were aided by the configural design, eliciting shorter response times, and that this was true regardless of cognitive style. Implications of the results for display design are discussed.

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, 513–533.

Bennett

K. B.

Toms

M. L.

Woods

D. D.

(1993). Emergent features and graphical elements: Designing more effective configural displays. Human Factors, 35, 71–97.

Carswell

C. M.

Wickens

C. D.

(1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics, 30, 511–527.

Kagan

(1965). Impulsive and reflective children: significance of conceptual tempo. In Krumboltz

J. D.

(Ed.), Learning and the educational process (pp. 133–161). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kagan

(1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17–24.

Nowicki

J. R.

Coury

B. G.

(1993). Individual differences in processing strategy for a bar graph display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 1315–1319). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Pomerantz

J. R.

(1986). Visual form perception: An overview. In Schwab

Nusbaum

(Eds.), Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Vol. 2. Visual perception (pp. 1–30). New York: Academic Press.

Pomerantz

J. R.

Pristach

E. A.

(1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 635–649.

Salkind

N. J.

Wright

J. C.

(1977). The development of reflection-impulsivity and cognitive efficiency: An integrated model. Human Development, 20, 377–387.

10.

Sanderson

P. M.

Flach

J. M.

Buttigieg

M. A.

Casey

J. C.

(1989). Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors, 31, 183–198.

11.

Sanderson

P. M.

Haskell

Flach

J. M.

(1992). The complex role of perceptual organization in visual display design theory. Ergonomics, 35, 1199–1219.

12.

Siegel

A. W.

Kirasic

K. C.

Kilburg

R. R.

(1973). Recognition memory in reflective and impulsive preschool children. Child Development, 44, 651–656.

13.

Zelniker

Jeffrey

W. E.

, (1976). Reflective and impulsive children: Strategies of information processing underlying differences in problem solving. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41, (5, Serial No. 168).