Personality and Cognitive Performance

Abstract

The two experiments reported here are concerned with the influence of trait anxiety and other individual differences on cognitive performance using the face-in-the-crowd procedure. Participants completed questionnaires (EPQ-R; STAI; Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) IntroductionA more recent line of research is concerned with the biasing effects of anxiety on cognitive processes, leading to enhanced awareness of threat (see Eysenck, 2006). It is now commonplace to relate anxiety to the attentional resources and working memory (e.g., Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos & Calvo, 2007). However, cognitive psychological accounts of anxiety are not necessarily conclusive and consistent (see Fajkowska & Krejtz, 2007, for a review). We have suggested that promising as an approach to better understanding cognitive functioning in anxiety is to study a group of trait anxious individuals as heterogeneous. Recent research from a number of fields led us to believe, that the heterogeneity of high-anxious group is mainly formed by differentiation in individual properties related to effort and arousal (e.g., Fajkowska & Krejtz, 2006;2007) and by differentiation in style of coping (e.g., Weinberger, Schwartz & Davidson, 1979;Asendorpf & Scherer, 1983;Eysenck, 2000;2006).The purpose of this article is to describe within the frame of the attentional control theory an initial study, which tested the hypothesis that anxious individuals process facial threat and other facial emotional stimuli in a manner associated with their style of coping and the level of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.The attentional control theory is an approach to anxiety and cognition representing a major development of Eysenck (1979) and Eysenck and Calvo's (1992) processing efficiency theory. The central focus of the processing efficiency theory was on a distinction between effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness refers to the quality of task performance, which is conventionally assessed by various behavioural measures (e.g., speed of performance; accuracy of performance). In contrast, efficiency refers to the relationship between the effectiveness of performance and the effort or processing resources invested in that performance. According to the theory, anxiety generally impairs processing efficiency on complex tasks to a greater extent than performance effectiveness.The original processing efficiency theory rested on two major assumptions. First, worry is the component of state anxiety responsible for effects of anxiety on performance effectiveness and efficiency. Worry or self-preoccupation is characterised by concerns over evaluation and failure and

ERP Responses to Facial Affect and Temperament Types in Eysenckian and Strelauvian Theories

“…Thus, the present study extends, in some important ways, the current literature on the relations between PEN and RTT temperament traits, attentional mechanisms, and stimulation processing. Although there are a few exceptions (e.g., Fajkowska, in press; Fajkowska & Eysenck, 2008), most studies in this area have focused on a single temperament dimension, whereas here the emphasis is on temperament types . Second, the current investigation is likely to contribute to the significant debate on cognitive and cortical mechanisms underlying temperament types within the PEN and RTT approaches.…”

Psychometric properties of Attentional Control Scale: The preliminary study on a Polish sample

“…Much of the research examining individual differences in AC mechanisms have focused on tasks that primarily engage the posterior attentional system (Fajkowska & Eysenck, 2008). However, a range of studies looking at the determinants of individual general adaptation suggests that a crucial contribution to it might be viewed in a balance between posterior and anterior systems of AC (Eysenck et al, 2007).…”

Individual differences in visual and auditory processing of emotional material

“…Moreover, Corbetta, and Shulman (2002) indicated that anxiety (Neuroticism) impairs efficient functioning of the goal-directed attentional system, and increases the extent to which processing is influenced by the 'bottom-up' attentional system. On the other hand, additional studies (Derryberry & Reed, 2002;Fajkowska & Eysenck, 2008) have shown that highly anxious individuals form a heterogeneous group, which differs in the level of 'top-down' attentional control. Thus, anxious good attenders are able to constrain their automatic tendencies to preferentially process threatening material, as opposed to anxious poor attenders.…”