Taking another look at intelligence and personality using an eye-tracking approach.

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH npj Science of Learning Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1038/s41539-024-00252-8
Lisa Bardach, Aki Schumacher, Ulrich Trautwein, Enkelejda Kasneci, Maike Tibus, Franz Wortha, Peter Gerjets, Tobias Appel
{"title":"Taking another look at intelligence and personality using an eye-tracking approach.","authors":"Lisa Bardach, Aki Schumacher, Ulrich Trautwein, Enkelejda Kasneci, Maike Tibus, Franz Wortha, Peter Gerjets, Tobias Appel","doi":"10.1038/s41539-024-00252-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intelligence and personality are both key drivers of learning. This study extends prior research on intelligence and personality by adopting a behavioral-process-related eye-tracking approach. We tested 182 adults on fluid intelligence and the Big Five personality traits. Eye-tracking information (gaze patterns) was recorded while participants completed the intelligence test. Machine learning models showed that personality explained 3.18% of the variance in intelligence test scores, with Openness and, surprisingly, Agreeableness most meaningfully contributing to the prediction. Facet-level measures of personality explained a larger amount of variance (7.67%) in intelligence test scores than the trait-level measures, with the largest coefficients obtained for Ideas and Values (Openness) and Compliance and Trust (Agreeableness). Gaze patterns explained a substantial amount of variance in intelligence test performance (35.91%). Gaze patterns were unrelated to the Big Five personality traits, but some of the facets (especially Self-Consciousness from Neuroticism and Assertiveness from Extraversion) were related to gaze. Gaze patterns reflected the test-solving strategies described in the literature (constructive matching, response elimination) to some extent. A combined feature vector consisting of gaze-based predictions and personality traits explained 37.50% of the variance in intelligence test performance, with significant unique contributions from both personality and gaze patterns. A model that included personality facets and gaze explained 38.02% of the variance in intelligence test performance. Although behavioral data thus clearly outperformed \"traditional\" psychological measures (Big Five personality) in predicting intelligence test performance, our results also underscore the independent contributions of personality and gaze patterns in predicting intelligence test performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":48503,"journal":{"name":"npj Science of Learning","volume":"9 1","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"npj Science of Learning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00252-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intelligence and personality are both key drivers of learning. This study extends prior research on intelligence and personality by adopting a behavioral-process-related eye-tracking approach. We tested 182 adults on fluid intelligence and the Big Five personality traits. Eye-tracking information (gaze patterns) was recorded while participants completed the intelligence test. Machine learning models showed that personality explained 3.18% of the variance in intelligence test scores, with Openness and, surprisingly, Agreeableness most meaningfully contributing to the prediction. Facet-level measures of personality explained a larger amount of variance (7.67%) in intelligence test scores than the trait-level measures, with the largest coefficients obtained for Ideas and Values (Openness) and Compliance and Trust (Agreeableness). Gaze patterns explained a substantial amount of variance in intelligence test performance (35.91%). Gaze patterns were unrelated to the Big Five personality traits, but some of the facets (especially Self-Consciousness from Neuroticism and Assertiveness from Extraversion) were related to gaze. Gaze patterns reflected the test-solving strategies described in the literature (constructive matching, response elimination) to some extent. A combined feature vector consisting of gaze-based predictions and personality traits explained 37.50% of the variance in intelligence test performance, with significant unique contributions from both personality and gaze patterns. A model that included personality facets and gaze explained 38.02% of the variance in intelligence test performance. Although behavioral data thus clearly outperformed "traditional" psychological measures (Big Five personality) in predicting intelligence test performance, our results also underscore the independent contributions of personality and gaze patterns in predicting intelligence test performance.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用眼动跟踪法再次审视智力和个性。
智力和个性都是学习的关键驱动因素。本研究通过采用与行为过程相关的眼动追踪方法,扩展了之前关于智力和个性的研究。我们对 182 名成年人进行了流体智力和五大人格特质测试。在参与者完成智力测试时,我们记录了眼动信息(注视模式)。机器学习模型显示,人格解释了智力测验得分中3.18%的变异,其中开放性和令人惊讶的宜人性对预测的贡献最大。与特质水平的测量相比,面相水平的人格测量对智力测验分数变异的解释量(7.67%)更大,其中 "想法与价值观"(开放性)和 "服从与信任"(合意性)的系数最大。注视模式解释了智力测验成绩的大量差异(35.91%)。注视模式与五大人格特质无关,但某些方面(尤其是神经质的自我意识和外向性的自信)与注视有关。凝视模式在一定程度上反映了文献中描述的测试解决策略(建设性匹配、反应消除)。由基于注视的预测和人格特质组成的综合特征向量解释了智力测验成绩变异的 37.50%,其中人格和注视模式都有显著的独特贡献。包含人格特征和注视模式的模型可以解释智力测验成绩变异的 38.02%。虽然行为数据在预测智力测验成绩方面明显优于 "传统 "心理测量(大五人格),但我们的结果也强调了人格和注视模式在预测智力测验成绩方面的独立贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Spatiotemporal predictions guide attention throughout the adult lifespan. Interbrain neural correlates of self and other integration in joint statistical learning. Feature versus object in interpreting working memory capacity. Mathematics interest, self-efficacy, and anxiety predict STEM career choice in emerging adulthood. Enhancing mathematical learning outcomes through a low-cost single-channel BCI system.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1