Phenomenal characteristics of guided imagery, natural imagery, and autobiographical memories

Abstract

Research indicates that guided imagery experiences can be mistaken for actual experiences under some circumstances. One explanation for such effects is that memory representations of guided imagery and actual events contain similar phenomenal characteristics such as sensory and contextual details, making the source of the events less distinguishable. This study examined this prediction, comparing memory characteristic ratings for guided imagery experiences with those for memories of perceived and natural imagery events (e.g., fantasies). Results replicated previous findings for the difference between perceived and natural imagery memories. Guided imagery ratings were also lower than those for perceived memories for most sensory details (sound, smell, and taste) and temporal details. However, guided imagery ratings for reflective details were lower than both perceived and natural imagery memory ratings. Thus, guided imagery was similar to natural imagery with respect to sensory details, but similar to perceived memories with respect to reflective details.

Phenomenal characteristics associated with projecting oneself back into the past and forward into the future: Influence of valence and temporal distance

“…With regard to their phenomenal qualities, we found that memories of past experiences were overall more detailed than representations of future events: they contained more sensorial details and their context (location, time of day) was more clearly represented. These findings are consistent with previous studies that showed that memories of real events contain more sensorial and contextual details than memories of imagined events (e.g., Arbuthnott, Geelen, & Kealy, 2002;Johnson et al, 1988;McGinnis & Roberts, 1996). These differences in phenomenal experience are essential because they play a pivotal role in helping people to discriminate memories of real events that have been experienced in the past from representations of imagined events, dreams, or beliefs (see Johnson et al, 1993;Mitchell & Johnson, 2000, for a description of the processes involved in attributing mental experiences).…”

Remembrance of lies past: A comparison of the features and consistency of truthful and fabricated trauma narratives

“…Studies based on real and imagined events using RM techniques have frequently found that participants rate their own truthful experiences as more realistic, memorable, believable and detailed (e.g. Arbuthnott, Geelen, & Kealy, 2002;Kealy et al, 2006;Sporer, 1997). In addition, the traumatic nature of the events in this study may have impeded participants' abilities to respond as if the fabricated trauma had happened.…”

Getting Students Beyond Ideologies: Using Heterosexist Guided imagery in the Classroom

“…This approach is not without controversy, however; and concerns have been raised over the legitimacy or appropriateness of deep breathing and relaxation in the classroom, as well as the creation of potential memory misrepresentations (Arbuthnott et al 2002;Drake 1996;Murphy 1996). Memory misrepresentations can occur when guided imagery experiences are mistaken for actual experiences, so participants cannot distinguish between what is real versus what has been imagined.…”

“…Grauerholz and Scuteri (1989) also recognized that students can over-personalize an experience, and the instructor may need to assist students in processing the possible emotional reaction and applying the experience to sociological principles. Guided imagery experiences can be mistaken for reality under some circumstances (Arbuthnott et al 2002), and some a "Sociological imagination" includes students' responses like "felt how it was to be in someone else's shoes" or "took the role of the other." students could react in a manner reflecting a belief that the emotions and feelings experienced had actually occurred.…”