Effects of stimulus- or response-oriented training on psychophysiological responses and the propositional structure of imagery

Abstract

This research was performed to test Lang's theory (1979a) about psychophysiological changes accompanied with the emotional imagery. The purposes were to reconfirm his observation, and to investigate further the effects of response-and stimulus-oriented trainings on psychophysiological responses to various propositional structures of imagery when subjects were asked to imagine freely instead of using given imagery scripts. Twenty subjects were devided into stimulus and response groups. After a relaxation training, the stimulus and the response groups were given the stimulus and the response-oriented trainings, respectively. All subjects then, took, the script imagery test and the free imagery test. Measures in IBI, respiration, EMG, and temperature during neutral, fear, and action scenes in the test battery were analysed. The results generally support Lang's hypothesis, that the response-oriented imagery is more effective in eliciting psychophysiological changes than the stimulus-oriented imagery. For the free imagery condition, no physiological differences between two oriented groups were apparent in all scenes. The results however, suggested, that the propositional structure of imagery were altered by the proposition oriented training.

The psychophysiology of self-mutilation.

“…First, individuals with good imagery ability are more likely to display a psychophysiological arousal pattern that follows imagery script content. Second, imagery scripts with an emphasis on response elements are superior to scripts containing mainly stimulus elements in eliciting a realistic psychophysiological response pattern (Hirota & Hirai, 1986;Lang et al, 1980). The use of personally relevant material in the script enhances the psychophysiological response of individuals (Pitman et al, 1987(Pitman et al, , 1990.…”

“…The inclusion of response elements in the self-mutilation scripts administered to nonmutilators did not appear to alter arousal levels in either direction, despite suggestions that response elements enhance the psychophysiological arousal to imagery (Hirota & Hirai, 1986;Lang et al, 1980). The research investigating the efficacy of response versus stimulus imagery has relied on imagery presented in a single block or script.…”

“…Furthermore, the content of guided imagery has been demonstrated to affect the psychophysiological response. Guided imagery emphasizing an active response to the event resulted in greater psychophysiological activity than imagery scripts that concentrated solely on stimulus detail (Hirota & Hirai, 1986; Lang, Kozak, Miller, Levin, & McLean, 1980). The efferent pattern of “response” imagery more closely followed script content (Lang et al, 1980).…”

Effects of relaxation-response-or arousal-response-oriented training on psychophysiological responses during fear imagery

“…He assumed that response-oriented subjects showed greater physiological activity during imagery than did stimulus-trained subjects. Evidence to support the hypothesis was found in some experiments (Dekker & Everaerd, 1988;Hirota & Hirai, 1986;Lang, 1979;Lang, Kozak, Miller, Levin, & McLean, 1980;Lang, Levin, Miller, & Kozak, 1983). For response propositions, however, those previous studies investigated only the effects of arousal-response-oriented training.…”

Bioinformational theory and behavior therapy.

“…In keeping with previous findings, fear scenes produced larger heart rate and skin conductance responses than did neutral scenes, and subjects who were instructed to focus directly on responses during the imagery scenes showed greater heart rate increases. Several other research groups have demonstrated that increased response processing during imagery, achieved either by manipulating imagery content or through explicit response training and instructions, enhances physiological responding (e.g., Carroll, Marzillier, & Merian, 1982;Hirota & Hirai, 1986). More recently, Zander and McNally (1988) attempted to introduce increasing amounts of information into imagery scripts for agoraphobics (i.e., fear scripts included stimulus content only; stimulus and response content; or stimulus, response, and meaning content).…”