Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 313–318 | Cite as

Individual differences in imagination inflation

  • Christopher HeapsEmail author
  • Michael Nash
Brief Reports

Abstract

Garry, Manning, Loftus, and Sherman (1996) found that when adult subjects imagined childhood events, these events were subsequently judged as more likely to have occurred than were not-imagined events. The authors termed this effectimagination inflation. We replicated the effect, using a novel set of Life Events Inventory events. Further, we tested whether the effect is related to four subject characteristics possibly associated with false memory creation. The extent to which subjects inflated judged likelihood following imagined events was associated with indices of hypnotic suggestibility and dissociativity, but not with vividness of imagery or interrogative suggestibility. Results suggest that imagination plays a role in subsequent likelihood judgments regarding childhood events, and that some individuals are more likely than others to experience imagination inflation.

Keywords

False Memory Critical Item Dissociative Experience Scale Journal ofPersonality Imagination Inflation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barnier, A. J., &McConkey, K. M. (1992). Reports of real and false memories: The relevance of hypnosis, hypnotizability, and test control.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,101, 521–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein, E. M., &Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale.Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease,174, 727–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers, K. S. (1993). The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Normative and comparative data.International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis,41, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers, K. S., &Farvolden, P. (1996). Revisiting a century-old Freudian slip—from suggestion disavowed to the truth repressed.Psychological Bulletin,119, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardena, E. (1994). The domain of dissociation. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.),Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 15–31). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,36, 1501–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clare, I. C. H., Gudjonsson, G. H., Rutter, S. C., &Cross, P. (1994). The inter-rater reliability of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Form 2).British Journal of Clinical Psychology,33, 357–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobson, M., &Markham, R. (1993). Imagery ability and source monitoring: Implications for eyewitness memory.British Journal of Psychology,32, 111–118.Google Scholar
  9. Driscoll, L. N., &Wright, C. (1991). Survivors of childhood ritual abuse: Multi-generational satanic cult involvement.Treating Abuse Today,1, 5–13.Google Scholar
  10. Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., &Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goff, L. M., &Roediger, H. L., III (1998). Imagination inflation for action events: Repeated imaginings lead to illusory recollections.Memory & Cognition,26, 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., &Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Selfrelevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so?Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,43, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility.Personality & Individual Differences,5, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilgard, E. R. (1965).Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  15. Hyman, I. E.,Jr., &Billings, F. J. (in press). Individual differences and false childhood memories.Memory.Google Scholar
  16. Hyman, I. E.,Jr.,Gilstrap, L. L.,Decker, K., &Wilkinson, C. (1998).Manipulating remember and know judgments of autobiographical memories: An investigation of false memory creation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. Hyman, I. E., Jr., &Pentland, J. (1996). The role of mental imagery in the creation of false childhood memories.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., &Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence.American Psychologist,52, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious.Science,237, 1445–1452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Labelle, L., &Perry, C. (1986, August).Pseudomemory creation in hypnosis. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Laurence, J. R., &Perry, C. (1983). Hypnotically created memory among highly hypnotizable subjects.Science,222, 523–524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Leavitt, F. (1997). False attribution of suggestibility to explain recovered memory of childhood sexual abuse following extended amnesia.Child Abuse & Neglect,21, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loftus, E. F. (1997, September). Researchers are showing how suggestion and imagination can create “memories” of events that did not actually occur.Scientific American,262, 71–75.Google Scholar
  26. Markham, R., &Hynes, L. (1992). The effect of vividness of visual imagery on reality monitoring.Journal of Mental Imagery,17 (3–4), 159–170.Google Scholar
  27. Marks, D. J. (1973). Visual imagery in the recall of pictures.British Journal of Psychology,64, 17–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ofshe, R. J. (1992). Inadvertent hypnosis during interrogation: False confession due to dissociative state, misidentified multiple personality and the satanic cult hypothesis.International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis,40, 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Register, P. A., &Kihlstrom, J. F. (1988). Hypnosis and interrogative suggestibility.Personality & Individual Differences,9, 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossi, J. S. (1977). Reliability of a measure of visual imagery.Perceptual & Motor Skills,45, 694.Google Scholar
  31. Sheehan, P. W., Statham, D., &Jamieson, G. A. (1991). Pseudomemory effects and their relationship to level of susceptibility to hypnosis and state instruction.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,60, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spiegel, D. (1995). Hypnosis and suggestion. In D. E. Schacter (Ed.),Memory distortion: How minds, brains, and societies reconstruct the past (pp. 129–149). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.Cognitive Psychology,5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wells, G. L., &Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,56, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whalen, J. E., &Nash, M. R. (1996). Hypnosis and dissociation: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives. In L. Michelson & W. Ray (Eds.),Handbook of dissociation: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives (pp. 191–206). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, D. B., &Loftus, E. F. (in press). Measuring dissociation: Comparison of alternative forms of the Dissociative Experiences Scale.International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville

Personalised recommendations