Imagination as a Facet of Openness/Intellect: A New Scale Differentiating Experiential Simulation and Conceptual Innovation

Abstract

Previous research has investigated the nature of imagination as a construct related to multiple forms of higher-order cognition. Despite the emergence of various conceptualizations of imagination, few attempts have been made to explore the structure of imagination as a trait in the context of existing hierarchically-nested personality dimensions. We present the Dual Facet Imagination Scale (DFIS) for measuring trait imagination that distinguishes between experiential simulation and conceptual innovation, aligned with the two major subfactors (aspects) of the Big Five dimension Openness/Intellect. In two samples (N = 210 & 5771), we provide evidence of a consistent factor structure distinguishing experiential and conceptual descriptions of imagination, as well as validity as measures of facets of Openness and Intellect. The DFIS provides a trait measure of two major forms of imagination in line with mainstream models of the hierarchical structure of personality.

Distinguishing the roles of mental imagery and relational reasoning in creativity: a review and methodological proposal

“…Such variations in associative and executive abilities also corroborate the existence of distinct patterns of imagination (e.g. high frequency of mental imagery and low engagement in conceptual reasoning), as previously reported (Sassenberg et al;2023). In this review, we present experimental evidence and historical examples indicating that variations in mental imagery susceptibility and relational reasoning capacity between people probably result in distinctive patterns of imaginative abilities and, hence, should be separately measured and compared to each other when assessing creativity, as it has been previously suggested by Cotter, Ivcevic & Moeller (2020).…”

“…Furthermore, associative inference and future-oriented thought (Table 1) demonstrate the predictive nature of mental imagery, being capable of exploring available (but absent) possibilities (Cahart-Harris & Friston, 2010;Klichowicz et al, 2021Klichowicz et al, , 2022Spalding et al, 2018), while abstract inference and deductive reasoning (Table 1) display the intangible nature of relational reasoning, which allows it to generate knowledge beyond past (and thus expected) experiences (Halford, Wilson, & Phillips, 2010;Holyoak & Lu, 2021;Wu, Jung & Zhang, 2016). It's important to note that similar categorizations of imagination have been previously suggested by other researchers (Sassenberg et al, 2023;Vyshedskiy, 2019).…”

“…manipulation of information and of the retrieval process) (Beaty et al, 2014;De Dreu et al, 2012;Gonen-Yaacovi et al, 2013;Holyoak & Lu, 2021;Kosslyn, Ganis, & Thompson, 2001;Marron et al, 2018;Matheson et al, 2023;Wu, Jung & Zhang, 2016). Furthermore, people present different levels of engagement in these distinct cognitive processes and of functional connectivity within its related cortical areas (Blain et al, 2020a;2020b;Forthmann et al, 2019;Jones & Estes, 2015;Marron et al, 2018;Sassenberg et al, 2023;Wu, Jung & Zhang, 2016). Such variations in associative and executive abilities also corroborate the existence of distinct patterns of imagination (e.g.…”

“…Nonetheless, as already mentioned, creativity research mainly uses the mean values between subjects' fluency and originality scores, and thus between their associative and executive abilities, to perform comparisons with other variables, not addressing the patterns of performance in these two metrics (Cotter, Ivcevic & Moeller;. Furthermore, although fluency and originality scores are somehow effective at measuring associative and relational creativity, respectively, DT tasks were not conceived to discriminate between associative and executive abilities, which seem to be the most important variables concerning imagination (Sassenberg et al, 2023;Vyshedskiy, 2019;Peason, 2019). Considering this gap in experimental research, we developed a new experimental paradigm to measure the individual differences in associative creativity and relational creativity.…”

Variation in divergent thinking, executive-control abilities, and mind-wandering measured in and out of the laboratory

“…By this view, positive-constructive or unconstrained mindwandering doesn't make people more creative, but high creativity makes people mind wander more, or differently. Openness to experience-a trait with long-standing links to creativity and to imagination and vivid conscious experience, as well as mind-wandering (Kane et al, 2017;Oleynick et al, 2017;Sassenberg et al, 2023)-seems like an obvious shared source of variation.…”