skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702590acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
note

Personality as a Predictor of User Strategy: How Locus of Control Affects Search Strategies on Tree Visualizations

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Individual differences matter. While this has been the theme for many recent works in the Visualization and HCI communities, the mystery of how to develop personalized visualizations remains. This is largely because very little is known about how users actually use visualizations to solve problems and even less is known about how individual differences affect these problem-solving strategies. In this paper, we provide evidence that strategies are indeed influenced by individual differences. We demonstrate how the personality trait locus of control impacts strategies on hierarchical visualizations, and we introduce design recommendations for personalized visualizations.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p3251-ottley.mp4

mp4

124.2 MB

References

  1. Anderson, C. R. Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977), 446--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Brown, E. T., Ottley, A., Zhao, H., Lin, Q., Souvenir, R., Endert, A., and Chang, R. Finding waldo: Learning about users from their interactions. IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST) (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Cassidy, S., and Eachus, P. Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology 20 (2000), 307--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Findley, M. J., and Cooper, H. M. Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (1983), 419--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fisher, K., and Johnstion, M. Experimental manipulation of perceived control and its effect on disability. Psychology and Health 11, 5 (1996), 657--669.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., and Gough, H. G. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 40, 1 (2006), 84--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Green, T. M., and Fisher, B. Towards the personal equation of interaction: The impact of personality factors on visual analytics interface interaction. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), IEEE (2010), 203--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Judge, T. A., and Bono, J. E. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001), 80--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. National Center for Biotechnology Information. NCBI genome database. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/. Accessed 11/18/2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ottley, A., Crouser, R. J., Ziemkiewicz, C., and Chang, R. Manipulating and controlling for personality effects on visualization tasks. Information Visualization (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Peck, E. M., Ottley, A., Yuksel, B. F., Chang, R., and Harrison, L. ICD 3: Towards a 3-dimensional model of individual cognitive differences. ACM BELIV'12: Beyond Time and Errors: Novel Evaluation Methods for Information Visualization (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Shneiderman, B. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In Visual Languages, 1996. Proceedings., IEEE Symposium on, IEEE (1996), 336--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Steichen, B., Carenini, G., and Conati, C. User-adaptive information visualization: using eye gaze data to infer visualization tasks and user cognitive abilities. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, ACM (2013), 317--328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ziemkiewicz, C., Ottley, A., Crouser, R. J., Yauilla, A. R., Su, S. L., Ribarsky, W., and Chang, R. How visualization layout relates to locus of control and other personality factors. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on 19, 7 (2013), 1109--1121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Personality as a Predictor of User Strategy: How Locus of Control Affects Search Strategies on Tree Visualizations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • note

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader