Attention effects on form discrimination at different eccentricities

Considerable disagreement exists in the visual attention literature about how attention is allocated over the visual field. One frequently expressed metaphor is that attention moves like a spotlight, and in some variants it is assumed that attention takes longer to shift to targets further from fixation. In order to test this metaphor, five experiments were conducted in which target location was precued and form discrimination accuracy was assessed. By varying the interval between the precue and the target (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA), a time course of attention effects was obtained for targets at 2°, 6°, and 10° eccentricity. In the first three experiments, precueing effects were found, but there were no differences in performance as a function of eccentricity for very short SOAs, with either a peripheral cue or a foveal arrow cue. For long SOAs, however, performance was better for targets that were closer to fixation. In Experiments 4 (peripheral cue) and 5 (foveal cue), the targets were scaled to make them equally discriminable at all eccentricities. Again precueing effects were found, but there were no differences in accuracy as a function of eccentricity for most SOAs. These results suggest that attention shifting is not analogous to a constant-velocity moving spotlight.     

Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

Brainteaser interview questions such as “Estimate how many windows are in New York” are just one example of aggressive interviewer behaviour that lacks evidence for validity and is unsettling to job applicants. This research attempts to shed light on the motives behind such behaviour by examining the relation between dark-side traits and the perceived appropriateness of brainteaser interview questions. A representative sample of working adults (n = 736) was presented with a list of interview questions that were either traditional (e.g., “Are you a good listener?”), behavioural (e.g., “Tell me about a time when you failed”), or brainteaser in nature. Results of a multiple regression, controlling for interviewing experience and sex, showed that narcissism and sadism explained the likelihood of using brainteasers in an interview. A subsequent bifactor analysis showed that these dark traits shared a callousness general factor. A second longitudinal study of employed adults with hiring experience demonstrated that perspective-taking partially mediated the relationship between this general factor and the perceived helpfulness and abusiveness of brainteaser interview questions. These results suggest that a callous indifference and a lack of perspective-taking may underlie abusive behaviour in the employment interview.