Advertisement

Individual Differences in the Assessment of Cognitive Workload

  • Stephen J. Guastello
Chapter
Part of the Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science book series (EESCS, volume 13)

Abstract

This chapter addresses a problem that is salient in the human factors and ergonomics communities regarding the inconsistent connections between subjective ratings of workload and actual performance. Previous work with vigilance tasks showed that a substantial part of subjective workload, and further connections to actual performance, were associated with psychosocial variables related to elasticity as defined in the cusp catastrophe models for cognitive workload and fatigue. The empirical study presented in this chapter was conducted with the data set described in earlier chapters. The influence of cognitive variables, compared to psychosocial variables, is much stronger in financial decision making contexts. It now appears that context is highly relevant for determining which psychosocial or ability variables best explain individual differences in subjective ratings of workload, all situational variables considered equal. Context, furthermore, affects the combination of psychosocial variables, abilities, and subjective ratings that result in performance dynamics.

Keywords

Emotional Intelligence Psychosocial Variable Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis Mental Demand Puzzle Piece 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blanchette, I. (Ed.). (2014). Emotion and reasoning. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boring, E. G. (1950). History of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Corr, P. J. (2010). Individual differences in cognition: In search of a general model of behavior control. In A. Gruszka, G. Matthews, & B. Szymura (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in cognition (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Neys, W., & Osman, M. (Eds.). (2014). New approaches in reasoning research. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gruszka, A., Matthews, G., & Szymura, B. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of individual differences in cognition (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guastello, S. J., Shircel, A., Malon, M., & Timm, P. (2015). Individual differences in the experience of cognitive workload. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 16, 20–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51.Google Scholar
  8. Karwowski, W. (2000). Symvatology: The science of an artifact-human compatibility. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mykytyn, P. P., Jr. (1989). Group embedded figures test (GEFT): Individual differences, performance, and learning effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 951–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. NASA Ames Research Center (n.d.). NASA Task Load Index (TLX) 1.0: Paper and pencil package. Moffett Field: Author. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/paperpencil.html
  11. Nygren, T. E. (1991). Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: Implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Human Factors, 33, 17–33.Google Scholar
  12. Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta Psychologia, 32, 301–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wilhelms, E. A., & Reyna, V. F. (Eds.). (2015). Neuroeconomics, judgment, and decision making. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations