Psychological Assessment Reports in Selection Decisions: The Role of Spatial Contiguity Principle
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v17i2.290Keywords:
psychological reports, psychological report design, personnel selection, cognitive psychology, spatial contiguity principle, eye-tracking methodologyAbstract
Two ways of building psychological assessment reports were explored in two separate cvasi-experimental studies.In the first study, depending on their assigned experimental group, participants received either an integrated or a spatially distant type of report. They were subsequently invited to choose, based on the reports and a corresponding job description, the better candidate for a fictitious job, out of two options. The obtained results suggest that there is no significant difference between the two groups, c2(1) = 0.10, p = .921, fc = 0.009, p = 1.000. Thus, the way in which the reports were structured did not influence in any way the participants’ decision. For the second experiment, which had a similar approach, an eye-tracker was used. Participants were asked to solve the same task, while their eye movements were recorded. The only significant between-group difference was in regards to the integrated transitions the participants made between the graphic and the text, t(29) = 4.45, p = .000, d = 1.59. No significant difference was observed regardingthe number offixations or the duration of fixationsbetween the two groups. Based on these results, we argue that the two contrasted ways of building an assessment report do not influence the accuracy of decisions made.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Amer, T. (1991). An experimental investigation of multi-cue financial information display and decision making. Journal of Information Systems, 5(2), 18-34.
Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers' decision making and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 233-248.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2, 135-146.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Bartram, D., Brown, A., Fleck, S., Inceoglu, I., & Ward, K. (2006). OPQ32 Technical Manual. Thames Ditton: SHL Group Ltd.
Bigne, E., Llinares, C., & Torrecilla, C. (2016). Elapsed time on first buying triggers brand choices within a category: A virtual reality-based study. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1423-1427.
Bonnardel, N., Piolat, A., & Le Bigot, L. (2011). The impact of colour on Website appeal and users’ cognitive processes. Displays, 32(2), 69-80.
Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.
Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182.
Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 3-14.
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324.
Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology. Theory and Practice, 328, 614.
Dunn, C., & Grabski, S. (2001). An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decision Sciences, 32(1), 55-94.
d’Ydewalle, G., & Gielen, I. (1992). Attention allocation with overlapping sound, image, and text. In Eye movements and visual cognition (pp. 415-427). Springer, New York, NY.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 117, 133.
Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216-224.
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525.
Hard, N. J., & Vanecek, M. T. (1991). The implications of tasks and format on the use of financial information. Journal of Information Systems, 5(2), 33-47.
Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 23(9), 1215-1226.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2004). The effects of information format and shopping task on consumers' online shopping behavior: A cognitive fit perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 149-184.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?. Educational Psychology Review,23(1), 1-19.
Kelton, A. S., Pennington, R. R., & Tuttle, B. M. (2010). The effects of information presentation format on judgment and decision making: A review of the information systems research. Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 79-105.
Lim, K. H., & Benbasat, I. (2002). The influence of multimedia on improving the comprehension of organizational information. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 99-127.
Levy, J. S. (1997). Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 87-112.
Lurie, N. H., & Mason, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 160-177.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85-139). Academic Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). 12 Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning: Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 279.
Meißner, M., & Oll, J. (2019). The promise of eye-tracking methodology in organizational research: A taxonomy, review, and future avenues. Organizational Research Methods, 22(2), 590-617.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117.
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110-117.
Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 366-387.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1-8.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 27, 27-42.
Schmidt‐Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students' viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 226-237.
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: a meta-analysis.Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 679-701.
SHL Group (1992, 2002). Motivation Questionnaire manual and user’s guide. Thames Ditton, UK: SHL.
Speier, C. (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11), 1115-1131.
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618-1625.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 71-85). Springer, New York, NY.
Van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning.Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95-99.
Wästlund, E., Otterbring, T., Gustafsson, A., & Shams, P. (2015). Heuristics and resource depletion: eye-tracking customers’ in situ gaze behavior in the field. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 95-101.
Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers' decision making and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 233-248.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2, 135-146.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Bartram, D., Brown, A., Fleck, S., Inceoglu, I., & Ward, K. (2006). OPQ32 Technical Manual. Thames Ditton: SHL Group Ltd.
Bigne, E., Llinares, C., & Torrecilla, C. (2016). Elapsed time on first buying triggers brand choices within a category: A virtual reality-based study. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1423-1427.
Bonnardel, N., Piolat, A., & Le Bigot, L. (2011). The impact of colour on Website appeal and users’ cognitive processes. Displays, 32(2), 69-80.
Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.
Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182.
Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 3-14.
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324.
Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology. Theory and Practice, 328, 614.
Dunn, C., & Grabski, S. (2001). An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decision Sciences, 32(1), 55-94.
d’Ydewalle, G., & Gielen, I. (1992). Attention allocation with overlapping sound, image, and text. In Eye movements and visual cognition (pp. 415-427). Springer, New York, NY.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 117, 133.
Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216-224.
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525.
Hard, N. J., & Vanecek, M. T. (1991). The implications of tasks and format on the use of financial information. Journal of Information Systems, 5(2), 33-47.
Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 23(9), 1215-1226.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2004). The effects of information format and shopping task on consumers' online shopping behavior: A cognitive fit perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 149-184.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?. Educational Psychology Review,23(1), 1-19.
Kelton, A. S., Pennington, R. R., & Tuttle, B. M. (2010). The effects of information presentation format on judgment and decision making: A review of the information systems research. Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 79-105.
Lim, K. H., & Benbasat, I. (2002). The influence of multimedia on improving the comprehension of organizational information. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 99-127.
Levy, J. S. (1997). Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 87-112.
Lurie, N. H., & Mason, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 160-177.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85-139). Academic Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). 12 Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning: Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 279.
Meißner, M., & Oll, J. (2019). The promise of eye-tracking methodology in organizational research: A taxonomy, review, and future avenues. Organizational Research Methods, 22(2), 590-617.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117.
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110-117.
Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 366-387.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1-8.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 27, 27-42.
Schmidt‐Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students' viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 226-237.
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: a meta-analysis.Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 679-701.
SHL Group (1992, 2002). Motivation Questionnaire manual and user’s guide. Thames Ditton, UK: SHL.
Speier, C. (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11), 1115-1131.
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618-1625.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 71-85). Springer, New York, NY.
Van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning.Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95-99.
Wästlund, E., Otterbring, T., Gustafsson, A., & Shams, P. (2015). Heuristics and resource depletion: eye-tracking customers’ in situ gaze behavior in the field. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 95-101.
Downloads
Published
2019-11-20
How to Cite
Spînu, R. ., & Iliescu, D. (2019). Psychological Assessment Reports in Selection Decisions: The Role of Spatial Contiguity Principle . Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 17(2), 12–41. https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v17i2.290
Issue
Section
Research articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal,it also allows for use of the work for non-commercial purposes and if others remix, transform or build upon the works found in this journal they must distribute the contributions under the same licence as the original.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See: The Effect of Open Access).
