The role of visual imagery in the enhanced cognitive interview: guided questioning techniques and individual differences

10.1002/jip.6 ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Davis ◽  
Marilyn McMahon ◽  
Kenneth M. Greenwood
2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 833-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaella Nori ◽  
Luca Bensi ◽  
Elisa Gambetti ◽  
Fiorella Giusberti

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Botella ◽  
María José Contreras ◽  
Pei-Chun Shih ◽  
Víctor Rubio

Summary: Deterioration in performance associated with decreased ability to sustain attention may be found in long and tedious task sessions. The necessity for assessing a number of psychological dimensions in a single session often demands “short” tests capable of assessing individual differences in abilities such as vigilance and maintenance of high performance levels. In the present paper two tasks were selected as candidates for playing this role, the Abbreviated Vigilance Task (AVT) by Temple, Warm, Dember, LaGrange and Matthews (1996) and the Continuous Attention Test (CAT) by Tiplady (1992) . However, when applied to a sample of 829 candidates in a job-selection process for air-traffic controllers, neither of them showed discriminative capacity. In a second study, an extended version of the CAT was applied to a similar sample of 667 subjects, but also proved incapable of properly detecting individual differences. In short, at least in a selection context such as that studied here, neither of the tasks appeared appropriate for playing the role of a “short” test for discriminating individual differences in performance deterioration in sustained attention.


2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Howard ◽  
Roger A. Kerin

The name similarity effect is the tendency to like people, places, and things with names similar to our own. Although many researchers have examined name similarity effects on preferences and behavior, no research to date has examined whether individual differences exist in susceptibility to those effects. This research reports the results of two experiments that examine the role of self-monitoring in moderating name similarity effects. In the first experiment, name similarity effects on brand attitude and purchase intentions were found to be stronger for respondents high, rather than low, in self-monitoring. In the second experiment, the interactive effect observed in the first study was found to be especially true in a public (vs. private) usage context. These findings are consistent with theoretical expectations of name similarity effects as an expression of egotism manifested in the image and impression management concerns of high self-monitors.


2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rodway ◽  
Karen Gillies ◽  
Astrid Schepman

This study examined whether individual differences in the vividness of visual imagery influenced performance on a novel long-term change detection task. Participants were presented with a sequence of pictures, with each picture and its title displayed for 17  s, and then presented with changed or unchanged versions of those pictures and asked to detect whether the picture had been changed. Cuing the retrieval of the picture's image, by presenting the picture's title before the arrival of the changed picture, facilitated change detection accuracy. This suggests that the retrieval of the picture's representation immunizes it against overwriting by the arrival of the changed picture. The high and low vividness participants did not differ in overall levels of change detection accuracy. However, in replication of Gur and Hilgard (1975) , high vividness participants were significantly more accurate at detecting salient changes to pictures compared to low vividness participants. The results suggest that vivid images are not characterised by a high level of detail and that vivid imagery enhances memory for the salient aspects of a scene but not all of the details of a scene. Possible causes of this difference, and how they may lead to an understanding of individual differences in change detection, are considered.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Kahn ◽  
Daniel W. Cox ◽  
A. Myfanwy Bakker ◽  
Julia I. O’Loughlin ◽  
Agnieszka M. Kotlarczyk

Abstract. The benefits of talking with others about unpleasant emotions have been thoroughly investigated, but individual differences in distress disclosure tendencies have not been adequately integrated within theoretical models of emotion. The purpose of this laboratory research was to determine whether distress disclosure tendencies stem from differences in emotional reactivity or differences in emotion regulation. After completing measures of distress disclosure tendencies, social desirability, and positive and negative affect, 84 participants (74% women) were video recorded while viewing a sadness-inducing film clip. Participants completed post-film measures of affect and were then interviewed about their reactions to the film; these interviews were audio recorded for later coding and computerized text analysis. Distress disclosure tendencies were not predictive of the subjective experience of emotion, but they were positively related to facial expressions of sadness and happiness. Distress disclosure tendencies also predicted judges’ ratings of the verbal disclosure of emotion during the interview, but self-reported disclosure and use of positive and negative emotion words were not associated with distress disclosure tendencies. The authors present implications of this research for integrating individual differences in distress disclosure with models of emotion.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart S. Miller ◽  
Jericho M. Hockett ◽  
Conor J. O'Dea ◽  
Derrick F. Till ◽  
Donald A. Saucier

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy H. Leonard ◽  
Abhishek Srivastava ◽  
Jack A. Fuller

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document