Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing.

Abstract

We introduce a model to relate the personality dimensions of introversion-extraversion, achievement motivation, and anxiety to efficient cognitive performance. We show how these personality dimensions in combination with situational moderators (e.g., success, failure, time pressure, incentives, time of day, and stimulant drugs) affect the motivational constructs of arousal and effort. We propose a general information-processing model that accounts for the systematic effects of these motivational states on certain task components (sustained information transfer and some aspect of short-term memory). We combine empirical generalizations about task components in a structural model and derive testable predictions that differentiate alternative motivational hypotheses.There are two major approaches to the study of human intellectual performance. The first focuses on the effect of personality and individual differences, and the second attempts toThe order of authorship is arbitrary. This research was supported in part by Grant MH29209(01-04) from the National Institute of Mental Health to both authors, in part by Grant MH29209(05-07) from the National Institute of Mental Health to William Revelle, and in part by a grant from the University of Queensland to Michael Humphreys. Preparation of an earlier draft of the article done at Oxford University was supported in part by Fogarty Senior International Fellowship TW00580 from the National Institutes of Health to William Revelle.We gratefully acknowledge the suggestions and comments made on earlier drafts of this article by K. Anderson, J. Atkinson, D. Birch, D. Broadbent, C. Duncan, H. J. Eysenck, L. Goldberg, J. A. Gray, M. J. Lynch, G. Mandler, J. Onken, T. Rocklin, and B. Underwood. We particularly appreciate the many hours of discussion and criticism given to us by our students. We would also like to thank N. Block, R. Conti, T. Lederer, L. Smith, and R. Shore for their assistance in preparing the various drafts.Requests for reprints should be sent to William Revelle, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201 or to Michael S. Humphreys, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4067. develop general laws of cognitive psychology or information processing. Although these two approaches rarely are combined, it is difficult to find an example of cognitive performance that is not better understood by a combination of both areas. In this article we propose a theory that integrates these two fundamentally different paradigms.We believe that theoretical and empirical work on at least three personality dimensions poses a problem for anyone interested in the relationships of personality to efficient cognitive performance. These three areas of personality (introversion-extraversion, I/E; achievement motivation; and anxiety) have been shown in a number of studies to be relatively independent. Furthermore, research in all three areas has dealt with the situational and motivational determina...

Non-image forming effects of illuminance level: Exploring parallel effects on physiological arousal and task performance

“…This so called Yerkes-Dodson Law (YDL) suggests a different optimal physiological arousal level for performance on easy vs. difficult tasks. Later studies also (partly) confirmed the YDL for human subjects [27][28][29][30].…”

Drivers’ Reliance on Lane-Keeping Assistance Systems as a Function of the Level of Assistance

“…This finding indicates that "performance related changes in blood flow and energetic arousal may share some common mechanism" (Hitchcock et al, 2003, p. 107). Thus, arousal may be viewed as the agent that is responsible for the production of resources (Hitchcock et al, 2003;Humphreys & Revelle, 1984;Matthews et al, 1990;Warm et al, 1996).…”

The contribution of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory to personality theory

“…This is a particular problem in the way many of us address the implications of RST. Some of these theoretical descriptions include structural models of relationships (e.g., Furnham and Jackson, Chapter 15; Humphreys and Revelle, 1984) that are admittedly unclear in the specific pattern of predictions.…”

“…The discussions in the preceding chapters have focused on learning to approach given appetitive cues and learning to avoid given aversive cues, and the use of an inhibitory system to resolve conflict in the case when the cues themselves are conflicting. However, a broader interpretation of these three systems (Furnham and Jackson, Chapter 15) is that we can distinguish between general tendencies for action and inaction, approach, avoidance, and inhibition (Atkinson and Birch, 1970;Elliot and Thrash, 2002;Humphreys and Revelle, 1984;Kuhl and Blankenship, 1979;Revelle, 1993;Revelle and Michaels, 1976).…”