Individual Differences in the Control of Imagery Processing: Knowing How, Knowing When, and Knowing Self

Abstract

Scientists have studied individual differences in imagery for well over a hundred years (e.g., Galton, 1880). During all this time, theorists have favored datadriven models in explaining imagery differences, such as those that assume the differences result from either the latency or the perceptual clarity with which images are formed. These data-driven models have had little to say about the role that prior knowledge or belief systems play in producing individual variability in image arousal or effectiveness. To emphasize the importance of concept-driven components, Katz (1983) proposed an interactive model in which he postulated that imaginal effectiveness results, in part, from the conjoint influence of three related knowledge states. These states can be characterized as "how-to knowledge;' "when-to knowledge;' and "self-knowledge." The goal of the interactive model is to understand when and how people use imagery mediators in their everyday activities. From this perspective, the research questions of interest revolve around the conditions under which imaginal processes are spontaneously employed. The present chapter is directed at separately examining the three knowledge states suggested by the model as they relate to memory-relevant situations. We should begin with a warning: imagery effects in memory have been widely discussed in the 15 years since the epochal book by Paivio (1971) and yet there is a relative paucity of research performed on the type of question to which we are directed by the interactional model. In this chapter the relevant literature is reviewed. The aim is not to provide conclusive evidence for the interactional model but to summarize and direct the reader to research questions and problems triggered by the model. An Interactive Model of Imagery DifferencesThe basic assumption of the model is that most tasks do not have an obligatory mode of processing. That is, different operations applied to the same problem may prove effective in producing results, albeit not necessarily equally effective results (e.g., Simon, 1975; or the parallel race model suggested for imagery by Kosslyn, 1983

Spatial and verbal abilities in children's crossmodal recognition: A dual coding approach.

“…These components appear more critical to performance on the MPFB than on the PMA-SR (K-1), a putative visuospatial measure that shared little variance with the MPFB. Further study of individual differences in visuospatial ability, particularly via the techniques of componential analysis (Katz, 1987; Pellegrino & Goldman, 1983), should improve our understanding of the developmental transition into proficient use of imagery memory strategies.…”

“…Visuospatial tests such as the MPFB may measure skill in a variety of component processes, including generation of accurate representational images, maintenance of images in short-term memory, and mental transformation of images (Katz, 1987; Paivio, 1986). Children's initial success in applying an imagery strategy in cross-modal recognition may depend especially on the development of image maintenance and transformation processes.…”

Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators

“…Each "tool" in this battery of abilities imparts an independently selected advantage which modern humans have more or less integrated into a universal adaptability (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992;Deacon, 1997;Pinker 1997). Individuals with especially high visual-spatial abilities are called "high imagers" (Katz, 1987) or "strong visualizers" (Sommer, 1978). Tests and measurements for visual-spatial capacity have a long history, but questions concerning the nature of what is being measured remain unresolved by psychometricians (Eliot & Smith, 1983;Gardner, 1993;Lohman, 1994;Perkins, 1995).…”

Using readers’ imagery of literary characters to study text meaning construction

“…These images recur throughout the reading, changing in form and content as additional cues are encountered. Thus, meaning construction is a result of both data-driven and concept-driven processes (Katz, 1987).…”