» Articles » PMID: 38182856

Individual Differences in Inattentional Blindness

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2024 Jan 5
PMID 38182856
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

People often fail to notice unexpected objects and events when they are performing an attention-demanding task, a phenomenon known as inattentional blindness. We might expect individual differences in cognitive ability or personality to predict who will and will not notice unexpected objects given that people vary in their ability to perform attention-demanding tasks. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for empirical inattentional blindness reports and identified 38 records that included individual difference measures and met our inclusion criteria. From those, we extracted individual difference effect sizes for 31 records which included a total of 74 distinct, between-groups samples with at least one codable individual difference measure. We conducted separate meta-analyses of the relationship between noticing/missing an unexpected object and scores on each of the 14 cognitive and 19 personality measures in this dataset. We also aggregated across personality measures reflecting positive/negative affectivity or openness/absorption and cognitive measures of interference, attention breadth, and memory. Collectively, these meta-analyses provided little evidence that individual differences in ability or personality predict noticing of an unexpected object. A robustness analysis that excluded samples with extremely low numbers of people who noticed or missed produced similar results. For most measures, the number of samples and the total sample sizes were small, and larger studies are needed to examine individual differences in inattentional blindness more systematically. However, the results are consistent with the idea that noticing of unexpected objects or events differs from deliberate attentional control tasks in that it is not reliably predicted by individual differences in cognitive ability.

Citing Articles

Inattentional blindness in medicine.

Hults C, Ding Y, Xie G, Raja R, Johnson W, Lee A Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):18.

PMID: 38536589 PMC: 10973299. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00537-x.

References
1.
Balduzzi S, Rucker G, Schwarzer G . How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019; 22(4):153-160. PMC: 10231495. DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. View

2.
Barrett L, Tugade M, Engle R . Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychol Bull. 2004; 130(4):553-73. PMC: 1351135. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553. View

3.
Bartos F, Maier M, Wagenmakers E, Doucouliagos H, Stanley T . Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: Model-averaging across complementary publication bias adjustment methods. Res Synth Methods. 2022; 14(1):99-116. PMC: 10087723. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1594. View

4.
Beanland V, Allen R, Pammer K . Attending to music decreases inattentional blindness. Conscious Cogn. 2011; 20(4):1282-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.04.009. View

5.
Beanland V, Tan C, Christensen B . The unexpected killer: effects of stimulus threat and negative affectivity on inattentional blindness. Cogn Emot. 2017; 32(6):1374-1381. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2017.1394269. View