Ss were asked to image suggested items and to rate their imagery on six different dimensions, each being a seven-point scale. Contrary to Galton (1883), both 42 low-imagers and 42 high-imagers were superior in visualizing faces of friends than acquaintances. Ss' generation of successive images steadily improved the quality of imagery. Differences were found in imagery reports of low- and high-imagers as a function of being made privately in a laboratory, in a group setting, or at home.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FitzgeraldD.AusubelD. P.Cognitive versus affective factors in the learning and retention of controversial material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 54, 73–84.
2.
GaltonF.Inquiries into human faculty. London: Dent, 1883.
3.
MarksD. F.Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 1973, 64, 17–24.
4.
ReadJ. D.PetersonR. H.Individual differences in the ease of imagining the faces of others. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975, 5, 347–349.
RichardsonA.Voluntary control of the memory image. In SheehanP. W. (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Pp. 10–129.
7.
ShafferW. O.ShiffrinR. M.Rehearsal and storage of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 92, 292–296.
8.
SheehanP. W.Functional similarity of imaging to perceiving: individual differences in vividness of imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 1011–1033.
9.
WeaverG. E.Effects of poststimulus study time on recognition of pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 799–801.
