Attention, extraversion, and stimulus—personality congruence

Bakan, Paul; Leckart, Bruce T.

doi:10.3758/bf03207407

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would later be developed into the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). Items on the Extraversion scale included questions such as: “Are you inclined to be overconscientious?”; “Do you ever change from happiness to sadness, or vice versa, without good reason?”; “Do you like work that requires considerable attention to detail?”; and “Do you enjoy participating in a showing of ‘Rah Rah’ enthusiasm?” Other experiments that made use of the MPI also split their participants into three IE groups of introverts, extraverts, and ambiverts (e.g., Bakan & Leckart, ; Farley, ). Categorizing by personality type for the purposes of experimental design also occurred later with the use of modified questionnaires, such as the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory (e.g., Riding & Wicks, ).…”

Section: The Ambivert At the Crossroads Of Type And Traitmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ambivert: A failed attempt at a normal personality

Davidson

2017

J History Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, attention has been drawn toward an overlooked and nearly forgotten personality type: the ambivert. This paper presents a genealogy of the ambivert, locating the various contexts it traversed in order to highlight the ways in which these places and times have interacted and changed-ultimately elucidating our current situation. Proposed by Edmund S. Conklin in 1923, the ambivert only was meant for normal persons in between the introvert and extravert extremes. Although the ambivert could have been taken up by early personality psychologists who were transitioning from the study of the abnormal to the normal, it largely failed to gain traction. Whether among psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, or applied and personality psychologists, the ambivert was personality non grata. It was only within the context of Eysenck's integrative view of types and traits that the ambivert marginally persisted up to the present day and is now the focus of sales management and popular psychology.

show abstract

Section: The Ambivert At the Crossroads Of Type And Traitmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ambivert: A failed attempt at a normal personality

Davidson

2017

J History Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much research has been generated concerning the relationship between the time S spends looking at visual stimuli and personality variables (Bakan & Leckart, 1966), as well as such stimulus variables as complexity and familiarity (Leckart & Bakan, 1965;Leckart, 1966). Because of the growing interest in looking time, the author felt that a replication on a different but comparable srudent population would be of value.…”

Section: Fairleigh Dickinson Universitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Complexity Judgments of Photographs and Looking Time: Replication

Watman

1967

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In these studies free looking time is defined as the amount of time S spends looking at a stimulus when he is free to look at it for as long as he wishes. And, despite the fact that these studies have been conceived of as investigations of orienting behavior, exploratory behavior, attention, and perceptual development they indicate that looking time is a function of stimulus as well as subject variables (e.g., Bakan & Leckart, 1966; Berlyne, 1958;Brown & Farha, 1966;Day, 1966;Leckart, 1966;McReynolds, 1963; Nunnally&Faw, 1968;andZamansky, 1958).…”

Section: Twenty-eight College Students Viewed Two Sets Of 30 Color Phmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of looking time

Leckart

Bakan

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-eight college students viewed two sets of 30 color photographs each under instructions to look at each picture for as long as they wished. Equal thirds of the stimuli in eachset were selected from high, middle, and low complexity levels. The sets were presented 7-10 weeks apart. The results indicated significant between-and within-session correlations that were not dependent on stimulus complexity. It was suggested that the findings were indicative of a consistency in either the rate at which Ss process information or the amount of information they process or both.A recently published bibliography (Leckart & Faw, 1968) indicates that in the last 10 years over 100 studies have appeared in the literature which have used free looking time as the dependent variable. In these studies free looking time is defined as the amount of time S spends looking at a stimulus when he is free to look at it for as long as he wishes. And, despite the fact that these studies have been conceived of as investigations of orienting behavior, exploratory behavior, attention, and perceptual development they indicate that looking time is a function of stimulus as well as subject variables (e.g., Bakan & Leckart, 1966; Berlyne, 1958;Brown & Farha, 1966;Day, 1966;Leckart, 1966;McReynolds, 1963; Nunnally&Faw, 1968;andZamansky, 1958).The purpose of the present study was to determine the reliability of the looking time measure. Accordingly, it was decided to give Ss two similar looking time tests separated by a few weeks and note any consistency in looking times between and within sessions. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 30 undergraduate volunteers of both sexes selected from an introductory psychology course. The data from two Ss was incomplete because of their unavailability for the second session. ApparatusThe stimuli were 60 color slides of landscapes, single objects, and arrays of objects which were rated on a 7-point complexity scale and used in previous experiments (e.g., Leckart, 1966;Leckart, 1967). On the basis of the mean complexity ratings the stimuli were divided into two sets of 30 each. Within each set of 30 there were 10 stimuli selected from the high, middle, and low complexity range. The means for these stimuli were: Set I-high =2.60, middle =4.12, and low = 6.09; and Set 2-high = 2.62, middle = 4.12, and low =6.11.The stimuli in Set I were used for the first free looking session and the stimuli in Set 2 were used for the second free looking session.The stimuli were projected on a white screen by a Kodak Carousel 700 projector placed 8 ft from the screen. Ss sat in a chair placed 5 ft from and facing the screen on which a 20 x 30 in. image was projected.The stimuli were changed with a manual switch provided the Ss. Looking times were automatically recorded to the nearest .1 sec with an Esterline-Angus event recorder. Neither the recorder nor the supporting electronics could be seen or heard by S. ProcedureSubjects were instructed to view the stimuli one at a time, looking at each for as long as they wished. Finger electrod...

show abstract

Attention, extraversion, and stimulus—personality congruence

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

The ambivert: A failed attempt at a normal personality

The ambivert: A failed attempt at a normal personality

Complexity Judgments of Photographs and Looking Time: Replication

Reliability of looking time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About