Advertisement

The Four-Factor Imagination Scale (FFIS): a measure for assessing frequency, complexity, emotional valence, and directedness of imagination

  • Darya L. ZabelinaEmail author
  • David M. Condon
Original Article

Abstract

Recent findings in psychological research have begun to illuminate cognitive and neural mechanisms of imagination and mental imagery, and have highlighted its essential role for a number of important outcomes, including outcomes relevant for the study of psychopathology and psychotherapy. Scientific study of imagination, however, has been constrained by the virtue of being framed mainly as an ability for mental imagery. Here we propose that imagination is a widespread phenomenon that we all engage in, and which affects a wide range of important outcomes beyond more commonly studied constructs like creativity. Thus, the Four-Factor Imagination Scale (FFIS) focuses on features of the imaginative process, and measures imagination in terms of individual differences in those features, including frequency, complexity, emotional valence, and directedness of imagination. Study 1 consisted of construct elicitation and generation of a large pool of candidate survey items. Study 2 (N = 378) conducted exploratory quantitative analysis on the preliminary pool of candidate items in a larger sample, revealing four distinct factors of the designed items. Study 3 (N = 10,410) confirmed the structure of the preliminary items, and reported internal consistency and unidimensionality, as well as convergent and discriminant validity of the resultant scales. The FFIS confirms that imagination is multi-faceted in nature, and is better approached as a constellation of more narrowly measurable constructs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Paul Silvia and Oshin Vartanian for helpful discussions regarding the earlier version of this manuscript.

Funding

This Project was funded by the Imagination Institute Grant from the Templeton Foundation (Grant Number RPF-15-04) to DLZ and DMC. The authors have no conflict of interest pertaining to the Psychological Research submission. The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants gave their informed consent prior to their participation in the study.

Supplementary material

426_2019_1227_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (435 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 434 kb)

References

  1. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics, 52(3), 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaty, R. E., Chen, Q., Christensen, A. P., Qiu, J., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2018). Brain networks of the imaginative mind: Dynamic functional connectivity of default and cognitive control networks relates to openness to experience. Human Brain Mapping, 39, 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedek, M., Schües, T., Beaty, R. E., Jauk, E., Koschutnig, K., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2018). To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses. Cortex, 99, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, G. P., Macleod, A. K., Tata, P., & Goddard, L. (2002). Worry and the simulation of future outcomes. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 15(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carriere, J. S., Seli, P., & Smilek, D. (2013). Wandering in both mind and body: Individual differences in mind wandering and inattention predict fidgeting. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 67(1), 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Condon, D. M. (2018). The SAPA Personality Inventory: An empirically-derived, hierarchically-organized self-report personality assessment model.  https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/SC4P9.
  7. Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2014). The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain resource. Intelligence, 43, 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Condon, D. M., Roney, E., & Revelle, W. (2017). A SAPA-project update: On the structure of phrased self-report personality items. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 5, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feng, Z., Logan, S., Cupchik, G., Ritterfeld, U., & Gaffin, D. (2017). A cross-cultural exploration of imagination as a process-based concept. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 37(1), 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaesser, B., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Episodic simulation and episodic memory can increase intentions to help others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4415–4420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 5, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
  13. Goldwin, M., & Behar, E. (2012). Concreteness of idiographic periods of worry and depressive rumination. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(6), 840–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Lucas, C. G. (2015). When younger learners can be better (or at least more open-minded) than older ones. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hershfield, H. E., Goldstein, D. G., Sharpe, W. F., Fox, J., Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2011). Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, S23–S37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Analyzing the amazon mechanical turk marketplace. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 17(2), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Irish, M., Addis, D. R., Hodges, J. R., & Piguet, O. (2012). Exploring the content and quality of episodic future simulations in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 50(14), 3488–3495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jankowska, D. M., & Karwowski, M. (2015). Measuring creative imagery abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jing, H. G., Madore, K. P., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Worrying about the future: An episodic specificity induction impacts problem solving, reappraisal, and well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102–138.Google Scholar
  21. Jung, R. E., Flores, R. A., & Hunter, D. (2016). A new measure of imagination ability: Anatomical brain imaging correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–8.Google Scholar
  22. Kaiser, R. H., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Wager, T. D., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2015). Large-scale network dysfunction in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of resting-state functional connectivity. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(6), 603–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), 932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LeBoutillier, N., & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearson, J., Naselaris, T., Holmes, E. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). Mental imagery: functional mechanisms and clinical applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 590–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  30. Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Revelle, W. (2017). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 1.7.Google Scholar
  32. Revelle, W., Condon, D. M., Wilt, J., French, J. A., Brown, A., & Elleman, L. G. (2016). Web and phone based data collection using planned missing designs. In N. G. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), Handbook of online research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosseel, Y. (2017). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Ghent University. R package version 0.5-23.1097.Google Scholar
  36. Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Samli, A. C. (2011). From imagination to innovation: New product development for quality of life. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., Hassabis, D., Martin, V. C., Spreng, R. N., & Szpunar, K. K. (2012). The future of memory: remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron, 76(4), 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seli, P., Carriere, J. S., & Smilek, D. (2015). Not all mind wandering is created equal: Dissociating deliberate from spontaneous mind wandering. Psychological Research, 79(5), 750–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. S. (1963). A factor-analytic study of daydreaming and conceptually-related cognitive and personality variables. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 17(1), 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singer J. L., Antrobus J. S. (1966, Revised 1970). Imaginal Processes Inventory. In, J. L. Singer & J. S. Antrobus (Eds.). New York, NY: Center for Research in Cognition and Affect Graduate Center, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  44. Stewart, E., Frank, H., Benito, K., Wellen, B., Herren, J., Skriner, L. C., & Whiteside, S. P. (2016). Exposure therapy practices and mechanism endorsement: A survey of specialty clinicians. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(4), 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stöber, J., & Borkovec, T. D. (2002). Reduced concreteness of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Findings from a therapy study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(1), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor, M., Carlson, S. M., Maring, B. L., Gerow, L., & Charley, C. M. (2004). The characteristics and correlates of fantasy in school-age children: imaginary companions, impersonation, and social understanding. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Vol. 219). Lexington: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  49. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The torrance tests of creative thinking—Norms—Technical manual research edition, figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
  50. Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weibel, D., Martarelli, C. S., Häberli, D., & Mast, F. W. (2018). The fantasy questionnaire: A measure to assess creative and imaginative fantasy. Journal of Personality Sssessment, 100(4), 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zabelina, D. L., & Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Dynamic network interactions supporting internally-oriented cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 40, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωh: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological ScienceUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations