1983
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.9.3.394
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imagery paradigms: How vulnerable are they to experimenters' expectations?

Abstract: The effects of experimenters' expectations on subjects' responses in imagery paradigms were investigated by leading some experimenters to believe that performance based on the use of imagery would be superior to performance based on perception. Other experimenters were led to expect perceptual superiority. Three paradigms are tested. Experiment 1 considered imaginal and perceptual acuity as functions of the size and relative brightness of the stimulus patterns; Experiment 2 compared imaginal and perceptual sca… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
72
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
72
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Instead, all our mental representations are propositional and have the same functional nature. A common criticism made by propositional accounts against mental imagery studies focuses on the danger of revealing the study objective in the instructions to participants and, in doing so, producing the desired behavior (e.g., Intons-Peterson, 1983). We argue that this study cannot be a target of this criticism.…”
Section: Eye Movements and Internal Imagesmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Instead, all our mental representations are propositional and have the same functional nature. A common criticism made by propositional accounts against mental imagery studies focuses on the danger of revealing the study objective in the instructions to participants and, in doing so, producing the desired behavior (e.g., Intons-Peterson, 1983). We argue that this study cannot be a target of this criticism.…”
Section: Eye Movements and Internal Imagesmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…A "classic" objection (Pylyshyn, 1981;Intons-Peterson, 1983), often leveled to the whole paradigm of imagery experiments, could be raised for the present study; namely, that subjects are complying with "demand characteristics" of the experiment and recapitulate the behavior of perception simply on the basis of their intuition of what the experimenters are expecting them to do or by "simulating" their past perceptual behavior. Many responses have been given in the past to this type of criticism (e.g., Finke & Pinker, 1982Jolicoeur & Kosslyn, 1985).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the experimenter was in close contact with the subjects during these procedures, we were careful to use a naive experimenter, as recommended by Intons-Peterson (1983). The experimenter was skilled in performing the task, but was unaware of the major purpose of the experiment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%