This research examined the correlation between imagined interactions (IIs), a type of social cognition and intrapersonal communication, and the various personality traits that constitute “The Big 5.” A canonical correlation analysis revealing the association between attributes and functions of imagined interactions and Big 5 personality traits in an attempt to further define the experience of having imagined interactions as a personality trait is presented. Frequency and neuroticism were found to have a relationship, in addition to frequency and openness. Additional linkages revealed include: non-discrepant II's and conscientiousness and extraversion; catharsis and relational maintenance and conscientiousness and neuroticism; and relational maintenance and neuroticism/lack of conscientiousness. Results are discussed in terms of a heritability model of traits and Freudian personality theory in terms of poetic imagination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenT. H. (1990). An investigation of Machiavellianism and imagined interaction. Communication Research Reports, 7(2), 116–120.
2.
BarrettD. L. (1996). Fantasizers and dissociaters: Two types of high hypnotizables, Two Imagery Styles. In KunzendorfR.SpanosN.WallaceB. (Eds.), Hypnosis and imagination, New York, NY: Baywood.
3.
BarrettD. L. (2010). Dissociaters, fantasizers, and their relation to hypnotizability. In BarrettD. L. (Ed.), Hypnosis and hypnotherapy (Vol. 2; pp. 62–63). New York, NY: Praeger/Greenwood.
4.
BeattyM. J.PenceM. E. (2010). Verbal aggressiveness as an expression of selected biological influences. In AvtgisT.RancerA. (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory. New York, NY: Routledge Press.
5.
BudaevS. V. (1999). Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801–813.
6.
CapraraG. V.PeruginiM.BarbaranelliC. (1994). Studies of individual differences in aggression. In PotegalM.KnutsonJ. F. (Eds.), The dynamics of aggression: Biological and social processes in dyands and groups (pp. 123–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
DalyJ. A. (2002). Personality and interpersonal communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
EysenckH. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). London: Methuen.
9.
EysenckS.EysenckH. J.BarrettP. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.
10.
FreudS. (1908/1972). The relation of the poet to day-dreaming. In RieffP. (Ed.), Character and culture (pp. 34–43). New York: Collier Books.
11.
GallagherS. (2001). The practice of mind: Theory, simulation, or interaction?Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 83–108.
12.
GordonR. M. (1996). ‘Radical’ simulationism. In CarruthersP.SmithP. K. (Eds.). Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
GrayJ. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In StrelauJ.AngleitnerA. (Eds.), Explorations in temperament (pp. 105–128). New York, NY: Plenum.
14.
HamiltonM. A.BuckR. W.ChoryR. M.BeattyM. J.PatrylakL. A. (2009). Individualistic and cooperative affect systems as determinants of aggressive or collaborative message choice. In BeattyM. J.McCroskeyJ. C.FloydK. (Eds.), Biological dimensions of communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
15.
HeiselA. D.BeattyM. J. (2006). Are cognitive representations of friends' request refusals implemented in the orbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex? A cognitive neuroscience approach to “theory of mind” in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 249–265.
16.
HendinH. M.CheekJ. M. (1997). Assessing Hypersensitive Narcissism: A Re-examination of Murray's Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599.
17.
HoneycuttJ. M. (2003a). Imagined interactions: Daydreaming about communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
18.
HoneycuttJ. M. (2003b). Linking introversion and extraversion to guided imagery. Psychological Reports, 92, 1295–1298.
19.
HoneycuttJ. M. (2003–2004). Imagined interaction conflict-linkage theory: Explaining the persistence and resolution of interpersonal conflict in everyday life. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 23, 3–25.
20.
HoneycuttJ. M. (2010). Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
21.
HoneycuttJ. M.BryanS. P. (2011). Scripts and communication for relationships. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
22.
HoneycuttJ. M.KeatonS. A. (2012–2013). Imagined interactions and personality preferences as predictors of relationship quality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32, 3–21.
23.
JangK. L.LivesleyW. J.VernonP. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577–591.
24.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
25.
KlingerE. (1980). Imaginal processes: A glimpse of the promised land. In MahoneyM. (Ed.). Psychotherapy process: Current issues and future directions. New York, NY: Plenum.
26.
KomarrajuM.KarauS. J.SchmeckR. R.AvdicA. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 472–477. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019.
27.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism in the Five-Factor model and the HEXCO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 331–339.
28.
McCannR. M.HoneycuttJ. M.KeatonS. (2010). Toward a greater specificity in cultural value analysis: The interplay of intrapersonal communication affect and cultural values in Japan, Thailand, and the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39, 157–172.
29.
McRaeR. R.TerraccianoA.78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005a). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547.
30.
MurrayH. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
NoftleE. E.ShaverP. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208.
32.
O'BrienT. B.DeLongisA. (1996). The interactional context of problem-; emotion-; and relationship-focused coping: The role of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality, 64, 775–813.
33.
RiccilloS. C. (1994). Phylogenesis: Understanding the biological origins of intrapersonal communication. In VocateD. R. (Ed.), Intrapersonal communication: Different voice, different minds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34.
SchmittD. P.RealoA.VoracekM.AllikJ. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.
35.
ShaferA. B. (2001). Relation of the Big Five to the EASI scales and the Thurstone Temperament Schedule. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 193–204.
36.
SrivastavaS.JohnO. P.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053.
37.
SwickertR.OwensT. (2010). The interaction between neuroticism and gender influences the perceived ability of social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 385–390.
38.
WindleM. (1989). Temperament and personality: An exploratory interinventory study of the DOTS-R, EASI-II, and EPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(3), 487–501.
