ABSTRACT
Over 10 years ago Al Paivio (1969, 1971) revolutionized the study of cognitive psychology by approaching the study of mental imagery from an empirical perspective. The three operations he suggested involved manipulations of stimulus concreteness, mediational instructions, and individual differences. The first two of these variables have proven most informative regarding imagery processing and, indeed, examination of these variables have, to a large extent, defined the last 10 years of imagery research (for a review, see J. Richardson, 1980). Use of individual differences in imagery, however, has proven to be the poor cousin of these three procedures. Although the study of imagery abilities has a long and honest lineage which can be traced back to Galton (1880), the offspring of this labor has been, in general, quite disappointing. First, unlike manipulations based on the other two procedures, clear-cut and consistent relationships do not tend to emerge when variations in imagery level are used to predict task performance. A second disappointment is more general and is also found to some extent with the other two operational definitions of imagery. Even when relationships are observed, these relationships are, at best, only proxies for the criteria we are really seeking. If imagery is important as a symbolic system then the question we must ultimately be interested in is understanding how this symbolic system works to determine real-life decisions. How do differences in imagery level influence the vocations we choose to follow or the situations we see as being humorous or even the choice of the person we decide to marry? These are questions of “ecological validity”: a second-generation of research that should follow the first generation of laboratory discovery and analysis. This second generation has not even been considered, at least with respect to imagery level differences, partly, I believe, because of difficulties found at the first level of laboratory research.
