Abstract

Abstract The experiment examined the relationship between individual differences in imagery ability and physiological activity during affective and non-affective imagery. Self-described good and poor imagers were assessed before and after a training procedure which encouraged somatovisceral involvement in imagery. The two groups of imagers were indistinguishable on a variety of personality measures, including general intelligence, social desirability bias, and report of somatic or visceral anxiety. Picture-memory recall performance also failed to differentiate the two groups. In contrast, imagery of standard affective and action-oriented scripts produced significantly greater physiological activity for good imagers than for poor imagers, particularly after training. For good imagers, pattern of physiological activity vaned with content of imagery script (action, fear, and anger), suggesting that training amplified intrinsic, emotion-specific response dispositions. Whereas poor imagers were generally unresponsive to the standard emotional scripts, training did enhance their reaction to personally relevant affective images. Results were interpreted as supporting a view of emotional imagery which emphasises the role of response information in image processing.

Keywords

PsychologyRecallMental imageAngerCognitive psychologyContrast (vision)PsychophysiologyAction (physics)Developmental psychologyCognitionSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
1987
Type
article
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
367-390
Citations
239
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

239
OpenAlex
11
Influential
138
CrossRef

Cite This

Gregory A. Miller, Daniel N. Levin, Michael J. Kozak et al. (1987). Individual differences in imagery and the psychophysiology of emotion. Cognition & Emotion , 1 (4) , 367-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938708408058

Identifiers

DOI
10.1080/02699938708408058

Data Quality

Data completeness: 77%