A training paradigm for imagery awareness and the investigation of concomitant personality integration

Abstract

Imagery is a ka1eidescopic phenomenon which has generated much speculation and study. Philosophers advance imagery as man's primary transcendent function, i.e., self-reflection (Sartre, 1948). Social scientists, until recently, have concentrated upon verifying and delimiting the imagery experience (Richardson, 1969). It is generally accepted by developmental psychologists as an important element in human evolution (Bruner, 1968). Psychotherapy, in attempting to motivate and maintain successful behavior, is capitalizing on this function in the process of understanding and promoting action (Horowitz, 1970). To date, little research has focused on the dynamic qualities or functions of imagery elaborated by philosophy and utilized by psychotherapy. Due to imagery's ascribed importance by theorists and practitioners and the dirth of research in this area, the purpose of this study was to investigate imagery as a dynamic variable capable of change through intervention and to assess its potential contribution to personal growth. Imagery is initially defined and described in its philosophical and psychological contexts. Next, imagery is suggested as a viable cognitive/ affective skill which can be enhanced with appropriate training. Finally, a learning paradigm for imagery awareness is presented and its effectiveness evaluated. Evaluation in terms of imagery accessibility was the major research question of this study. Three measures were used to assess imagery accessibility: (a) the Imagery Process Measure; (b) the Betts Test of Mental Imagery; and, (c) the Imaginal Process Inventory. The therapeutic effects of the training paradigm in terms of personality integration were also measured in terms of responses to the Personal Orientation Inventory. Subjects were 37 undergraduate students of the University of Hawaii. Each of these subjects was randomly assigned to one of four groups; (a) one of two imagery training groups; (b) a discussion of imagery group; or, (c) a control group. Both training groups and the discussion group met for a total of four two-hour sessions. posttests were completed within 24 hours following the group experience. There were no significant differences among groups on any of the post measures assessing imagery accessibility or personality integration. Thus neither imagery accessibility nor personality integration were found to be significantly enhanced by the presented training paradigm.