EXPERIMENTAL-INTROSPECTIVE METHODOLOGY FOR INVESTIGATING THE CAPACITY FOR IMAGINATION
Abstract
The article is devoted to the development and approbation of the experimental-introspective methodology “Imagination,” aimed at comprehensive investigation of individual characteristics of imagination as an important cognitive-emotional mechanism. The relevance of studying imaginational abilities in the context of their role in creative, professional, educational activities and psychosomatic well-being of personality is substantiated. Existing diagnostic instruments (methodologies of F.Galton, J. Betts, D. Marks, R. Gordon) and their limitations regarding comprehensive measurement of imagination parameters are analyzed. A new approach is presented that allows evaluation of seven key characteristics of imagination: facility, vividness, detail, dynamism, contactability, transformability, and sensoriality. The procedure of conducting, results of statistical analysis based on a sample of participants with different age, gender, and psychosomatic characteristics are described. Significant differences between groups were established, particularly lower dynamism indicators in young men compared to women of the same age, as well as identified connections of low imaginational capacity in individuals with psychosomatic complaints. The developed methodology has high potential for research and practical psychology, particularly for diagnostics, development and correction of imagination, as well as in the field of psychology of bodily Self and psychosomatics.
References
2. Galton F. Statistics of mental imagery. Mind. 1880. № 5 (19). Р. 301–318. URL: https://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1880-mind-statistics-mental-imagery.pdf.
3. Gordon J. The measurement of imagery in different sensory modalities. Journal of General Psychology. 1949. № 40. Р. 267–272. URL: https://elsevierpure.bucknell.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/39753540/Differences_in_Auditory_Imagery_Self-Report_Predict_Neural_and_Be.pdf.
4. Marks D.F. Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology. 1973. № 64 (1). Р. 17–24. URL: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x.
5. Paivio A., Yuille J.C., Madigan S.A. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs. 1967. № 76 (1). Pt. 2. Р. 1–25. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Concreteness%2C-imagery%2C-and-meaningfulness-values-Paivio-Yuille/3591fbd05e9f8fc8cbdbcf9d67eaf1e3f1ee4bfb.
6. Pearson J., Naselaris T., Holmes E.A., Kosslyn S.M. Mental imagery: Functional mechanisms and clinical applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2015. № 19 (10). Р. 590–602. URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/529e96c6e4b02dbe8c63d032/t/56099305e4b080746e8 4ce63/1443468061147/Pearson+et+al.+-+2015+-+Mental+Imagery+Functional+Mechanisms+and+Clinical.pdf.
7. Shepard R.N., Metzler J. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science. 1971. № 171 (3972). Р. 701–703. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028571801202.
8. Хомуленко Т.Б., Родіна К.М. Роль уяви у функціонуванні інтроцептивної чутливості особистості в юнацькому віці. Вісник ХНПУ імені Г.С. Сковороди. 2020. № 56. С. 269–283.
