No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the present study was to develop a pictorial presence scale using selfassessment-manikins (SAM). The instrument assesses presence sub-dimensions (selflocation and possible actions) as well as presence determinants (attention allocation, spatial situation model, higher cognitive involvement, and suspension of disbelief). To qualitatively validate the scale, think-aloud protocols and interviews (n ¼ 12) were conducted. The results reveal that the SAM items are quickly filled out as well as easily, intuitively, and unambiguously understood. Furthermore, the instrument's validity and sensitivity was quantitatively examined in a two-factorial design (n ¼ 317). Factors were medium (written story, audio book, video, and computer game) and distraction (non-distraction vs. distraction). Factor analyses reveal that the SAM presence dimensions and determinants closely correspond to those of the MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire, which was used as a comparison measure. The findings of the qualitative and quantitative validation procedures show that the Pictorial Presence SAM successfully assesses spatial presence. In contrast to the verbal questionnaire data (MEC), the significant distraction-effect suggests that the new scale is even more sensitive. This points out that the scale can be a useful alternative to existing verbal presence selfreport measures.

Numerous studies reported a positive relationship between speed of information processing (SIP) and the g factor of intelligence. Only very few studies, however, examined SI P’s relationship to speed-, capacity-, and memory-related aspects of psychometric intelligence. In order to further elucidate this relationship, a Hick reaction time task and the Berlin Intelligence Structure (BIS) test were administered to 240 participants. From the BIS test, indicators of BIS -Capacity, BIS -Speed, and BIS -Memory were determined. By means of fixed-links modeling, we subdivided variance in reaction time from the Hick task into a component representing individual differences in speed directly related to the systematically increased number of possible responses and another component representing individual differences in speed associated with residual sources unrelated to the experimental variation of response alternatives. While the former speed component was primarily related to BIS -Capacity and, to a lesser extent, to BIS -Speed, the latter one was only weakly related to BIS -Speed but unrelated to BIS -Capacity. None of the two speed components from the Hick task showed an association with BIS -Memory. Our findings indicate that individual differences in SI P caused by experimentally increasing the number of possible responses were more strongly associated with capacity- than with speed-related aspects of psychometric intelligence. In addition, individual differences in SI P not associated with the experimental manipulation of response alternatives showed rather weak relationships to each of the three BIS operations and could be considered equally strong.

One of the best-established findings in intelligence research is the pattern of positive correlations among various intelligence tests. Although this so-called positive manifold became the conceptual foundation of many theoretical accounts of intelligence, the very nature of it has remained unclear. Only recently, Process Overlap Theory (POT) proposed that the positive manifold originated from overlapping domain-general, executive processes. To test this assumption, the functional relationship between different aspects of executive attention and the positive manifold was investigated by re-analyzing an existing dataset (N = 228). Psychometric reasoning, speed, and memory performance were assessed by a short form of the Berlin Intelligence Structure test. Two aspects of executive attention (sustained and selective attention) and speed of decision making were measured by a continuous performance test, a flanker task, and a Hick task, respectively. Traditional structural equation modeling, representing the positive manifold by a g factor, as well as network analyses, investigating the differential effects of the two aspects of executive attention and speed of decision making on the specific correlations of the positive manifold, suggested that selective attention, sustained attention, and speed of decision making explained the common but not the unique portions of the positive manifold. Thus, we failed to provide evidence for POT’s assumption that the positive manifold is the result of overlapping domain-general processes. This does not mean that domain-general processes other than those investigated here will not be able to show the pattern of results predicted by POT.