Imagery: A Dimension of Mind Rediscovered

Abstract

This paper examines the re‐emergence of imagery as a topic commanding attention in psychology. Recent research (by persons such as Haber, Paivio, Sheehan, Singer and Inhelder) is surveyed within the framework of the cognitive‐experiential Zeitgeist. Attention is then given to methodological issues involved in devising a ‘new’ introspection and to a number of theoretical statements on the nature and development of imagery, notably those of Bartlett, Bruner and Piaget. Questions such as the kind and dimension of imagery, individual differences in imagery, and the relationship of imagery to creativity are raised. The general conclusion is that the study of imagery affords a good opportunity for gaining knowledge of the ‘everyday stream’.

Individual differences in imaging behavior: vividness and controllability

“…It seems that vivid clear imagery is more easily aroused by concrete than by abstract nouns (Sheehan, 1972b). Kessel (1972) feels that Paivio's estab lishment of the functional relationship between imagery and learning and memory contributed significantly to the eradication of "pseudo-objective" taboos against imagery research.…”

“…In 1883, Sir Francis Galton conducted the first and still referenced study of mental imagery which concerned individual differ ences in vividness of imagery. Imagery remained an important part of early psychology until the beginning of the 1900's and the advent of behaviorism (Boring, 1942;Hebb, 1960;Horowitz, 1972;Kessel, 1972;Leibovitz, London, Cooper, & Hart, 1972;McKellar, 1973;McMahon, 1973).…”

“…The scientific literature abounds with arguments for the sta tus of mental images as both possible and desirable material for scientific psychological study. Numerous papers are calling for more research (e.g., Day, 1969;Kessel, 1972;McGlynn & Gordon, 1973;McGlynn, Hofius, & Watulak, 1974;Pylyshyn, 1973;Singer, 1969). In his major philosophical paper and review of research, Pylyshyn (1973) notes that imagery has not just reappeared as an object to be studied.…”

“…Pylyshyn feels that any discussion of consciousness cannot avoid the simultaneous implica tion of the existence of mental images. Other researchers (Kessel, 1972;Meissner, 1966;Zener, 1958;Zener & Graffon, 1962) have seriously ques tioned the claim that imagery is subjective and not available to scientific scrutiny by asserting that scientific objectivity seeks repeatable events under specifiable and manipulable conditions. Therefore, if different peo ple claim to experience similar images under specifiable conditions, the self-report of images can be objectively studied.…”

“…In actuality, introspection is still alive and well (Boring, 1961;Kessel, 1972;Taylor, 1962). The answer to the question of accepting self-reports as data is suggested by Taylor's statement that in many cases there is no alternative.…”