Visual Imagery Differences in the Recall of Pictures

Abstract

Male and female subjects who differed in their verbal reports of visual image vividness were tested for recall in three experiments involving coloured photographs as stimuli. In all three experiments subjects who reported vivid visual imagery were more accurate in recall than subjects who reported poor visual imagery. In the first two experiments, females recalled more accurately than males. On the assumption that vividness reports and recall were both mediated by the same covert event - a visual image - these results provide further evidence that images have an important role in memory.

Full text

BY.
J.
Psychol.
(1973),
64,
1,
pp.
17-24
Printed in Great Britain
17
VISUAL IMAGERY DIFFERENCES IN THE
RECALL OF PICTURES
BY
DAVID
F.
MARKS
Department of Psychology, University of
Otago,
Dunedin, New Zealand
Male and female subjects who differed in their verbal reports
of
visual image vividness
were tested
for
recall in three experiments involving coloured photographs
as
stimuli. In all
three experiments subjects who reported vivid visual imagery were more accurate in recall than
subjects who reported poor visual imagery. In the first two experiments, females recalled more
accurately than males. On the assumption that vividness reports and recall were both mediated
by the same covert event
-
a
visual
image
-
these results provide further evidence that images
have an important role in memory.
In what ways, if any, does the recall of
a
man who states that
his
imagery
is
clear
and vivid differ from that of another who reports imagery that is vague and dim? A
number of recent studies (Paivio,
1969, 1970;
Bugelski,
1970)
have been interpreted
as
demonstrations of the functional significance of imagery in
tasks
involving
a
memory component. Can individual differences in verbal reports of imagery vividness
therefore be used
as
a
predictor of performance in memory tasks?
A
recent study by Sheehan
&
Neisser
(1969)
produced some evidence that vivid
imagery reports are correlated with accurate recall of geometric designs. Recall was
compared for subjects selected for their having high and low scores on
a
shortened
form of the Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (Sheehan,
1967).
On the
principal
task
no difference in accuracy was obtained between the ‘high’ and ‘low’
imagers. Only for the recall of stimuli used in the incidental task was
a
difference in
accuracy observed. ‘High imagers’ were more accurate in incidental recall,
a
result
which has been confirmed by Ernest
&
Paivio
(1969, 1971).
Somewhat paradoxically,
in the light of the negative bebween-subjects results,
a
signscant within-subjects
relationship between accuracy and vividness was obtained
:
stimuli recalled with the
highest accuracy produced ratings of greater vividness than stimuli which gave
lowest accuracy.
It
should be noted, however, that Sheehan
&
Neisser
(1969)
obtained the vividness rating on each trial
after
recall. There is evidence (Marks,
1972
a)
that the rating-after-recall paradigm provides an artifactual basis for an
accuracy-vividness relationship. In this paradigm the subject can use
his
recall
performance
as
a
cue for the value
of
the vividness rating. If ratings are obtained
prior to recall, the within-subjects relationship between accuracy and vividness
disappears (Marks,
1972a).
The absence of
a
between-subjects effect on accuracy in the Sheehan
&
Neisser
(1969)
study encourages the view that verbal reports
of
image vividness are of little
predictive value,
a
conclusion reached by Neisser
(1970).
There are two reasons,
however, for not expecting (in retrospect)
a
large bebween-subjects dif€erence
in
the
Sheehan
&
Neisser study.
Firsb,
the ‘high’ and ‘low’ imagers were selected on the
basis of their vividness ratings for seven sensory modalities. While there
is
a
moder-
ately high correlation between ratings for different modalities (Betts,
1909),
Sheehan
2
PSY
64

18
DAVID
F.
MARKS
Table
1.
The rating scale used in the Vividness
of
Visual
Imagery Questionnaire
Rating Description
1
‘
Perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision’
2
‘Clear and reasonably vivid’
3
‘
Moderately clear and vivid’
4
‘
Vague and dim’
5
‘No
image at all,
you
only
“
know”
that
you
are thinking
of
the object’
&
Neisser’s
(1969)
task involved visual stimuli. Ratings of visual images would there-
fore have been
a
more relevanb basis for the selection of subjects. Secondly, while
little
is
known
aboub image vividness for different classes of stimuli,
it
is
not
un-
reasonable
to
suppose thab vividness will be related to the level of interest, meaning-
fulness and affect evoked by the stimulus which
is
imaged. Geometric designs probably
have rather low values along these variables, and recall differences beheen ‘high’
and ‘low
’
imagers could consequently be less marked for these stimuli than differences
in accuracy Chab might be obtained when other kinds of stimuli are presented.
16
is the purpose of this paper to describe three experiments which avoided these
bwo possible pitfalls of the Sheehan
&
Neisser
(1969)
study. Subjects for these
experiments, designated ‘good’ and ‘poor’ visualizers, were selected on the basis of
their ratings of visual imagery on
a
new questionnaire, the Vividness of Visual
Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). The stimuli were coloured photographs, either of
complete scenes
or
of groups of unrelated objects, and recall was tested using
a
multiple-choice question procedure.
EXPER~ENT
I
MetW
Subjecta
Seventy-four introductory psychology students completed the
VVIQ.
This is
a
brief 16-item
questionnaire with
a
test-retest reliability coefficient of
0.74
(n
=
68),
and
a
split-half reliability
coefficient of
0.85
(n
=
150).
The sixteen items of the
VVIQ
are
presented in the Appendix. The
image summoned for each item is rated along
a
five-point scale of vividness (see Table
l),
once
with the eyes open, and once with the eyes closed. On the basis of total scores on the
VVIQ,
the
18
lowest scorers (mean rating
1.64)
and the
18
highest scorers (mean rating
3.25)
were selected
to form two experimental groups: ‘good’ and ‘poor’ visualizers respectively. Nine females and
nine
males were placed in each group.
Stimulzcs
materials
The stimuli were
15
coloured photographs. Seven of these were photographs of sets of
16
unrelated objects in
a
random arrangement,
as
illustrated in Fig.
1.
The remaining eight stimuli
were photographs of complete scenes, e.g.
a
Venice canal,
a
New
York street scene,
a
group of
bathers,
a
market place, and
a
Turkish pavement scene. The stimuli were reproduced
as
colour
transparencies and
a
35
mm slide projector was used to project the stimuli on to
a
1.8
x 1.2
m.
screen at an average distance of about
5
m in front of the subjects.

Visual imagery differences in the recall
of
pictures
19
Fig.
1.
A
schematic version
of
one
of
the stimuli.
Procedure
Each trial consisted of three stages: stimulus presentation
(20
sec.),
a
delay
(40
sec.) and
questioning
(75
sec.). During the
fbt
30
sec. of the delay
a
subtraction task was performed. The
delay allowed after-images to disappear and the subtraction task provided
a
method for pre-
venting verbal rehearsal (cf. Peterson
&
Peterson,
1959).
After the delay the first of five
questions was read to the subjects and further questions were asked
at
the rate of one every
15
sec. To illustrate the type of questions, those employed for the stimulus of Fig.
1
were:
(1)
‘What number was written on the golf ball:
four,$ve,
or
six?’
(2)
‘What was in the bottom
right-hand corner:
clock, scissors,
or
qyphon?’
(3)
‘What was the time on the clock:
ten
to
seven,
ten
to
ten,
or
ten to four?’
(4)
‘Was the ballerina standing:
on
tiptoes, with one foot on the floor,
or
with both feet on the floor?’
(5)
‘What was directly below the suitcase:
bicycle, candle,
or
books?’
Subjects choso onc answer from the three provided, and wrote this on
a
rcsponse sheet.
The following instructions were read to the subjects:
‘You
will be shown
a
numbor of colour
slides. These display either groups of more
or
less unrelated objects
or
complete scenes.
Em11
trial
has three phases: presentation, counting, and questioning. After each slide has been
presented for
a
short period
of
time,
a
three-figure number will be read to you.
As
soon
as
you
2-2

20
DAVID
F.
~KS
Table
2.
Mean number
of
correct answers per trial
for
‘good’
and
‘poor’ visualizers
of
each sex (Expt. I)
Females Males Mean
Good
visualizers
3.24 3.11 3.17
Poor
visuelizers
3.02 2.68
2.85
Mean
3.13
2.89
3.01
hear this number, count silently back from it in threes until you hear the word “Stop”.
For
example, if you hear
“794”
start
counting to yourself “seven-hundred and ninety-four, seven-
hundred and ninety-one, seven-hundred and eighty-eight”, etc.
A
metronome
will
count time
for you and you have to try
to
keep up with its beat.’ [The subtraction task was then demon-
strated with the metronome set at
0.5
beat per sec.] ‘When you
are
told
to
stop counting, write
down on the response sheet the number you have arrived at. During
this
counting period you
should try to keep in mind
a
“picture” of the displayed slide. This should include,
as
far
as
possible, details of the shape, colour, and relative positions of different aspects and components
of the pictorial display. After the counting period is over, the questioning phase
will
begin.
During this you
will
be asked
to
answer a number of questions concerning details of the slide you
have just seen. Three alternative answers are provided for each question. Don’t give your
answer until you have head
all
three possibilities. If you are unsure, just guess. You
write
down
the answer
to
each question in the appropriate box of the response sheet. There
will
be five
questions for each slide. After the five questions for one slide have been asked,
a
new slide is
presented, and
so
on.
’
Before the
14
experimental trials, there were two practice trials, one to practise the subtraction
task, the other to practise the complete procedure. The experiment was conducted in two large
group sessions with approximately equal numbers of male and female subjects of each imagery
level
at
each session.
Results
The dependent variable was the mean number of correct answers per
trial.
The
maximum score therefore was
5.00
and the level of accuracy obtainable by chance
was
1.67.
A
2x2
analysis of variance revealed signscant effects for ‘visualizing
ability’
(P
=
8-72;
d.f.
=
1’32;
P
<
0.01)
and sex
(P
=
4-63;
d.f.
=
1, 32;
P
<
0.05).
The ‘visualizing ability’ by sex inberaction was not significant
(P
<
1.00).
Table
2
gives the mean accuracy scores for the four categories of subjects. ‘Good visualizers’
answered more questions correctly than
‘
poor visualizers
’,
and females were more
accurate than males.
EXPEREVENT
I1
Nethod
Subjects
One hundred and sixteen school children aged
16-18
years completed the
VVIQ.
Eight of the
lowest scorers (mean rating
1-63)
and eight of the highest scorers (mean rating
3.16)
were selected
for the experiment, and designated ‘good’ and ‘poor’ visualizers respectively. There were four
males and four females in each group.
Stimulwr
llaateriala
Eleven of the transparencies used in Expt.
I
were presented, six which displayed complete
scenes, and five which displayed unrelated objects.
A
35
mm
slide projector was used to project
stimuli on to
a
display area of
93
x
65
cm at
a
distance of
1
m from the subject’s eyes.

Visual imagery differences in
the
recall
of
pictures
21
Table
3.
Mean number
of
correct answers per trial
for
‘good’
and
‘poor’ visualizers
of
each sex (Expt.
11)
Females Males Mean
Good
visualizers
3.80 3-35 3.57
Poor
visualizers
3.22 2.87 3.05
Mean
3.51
3.11
3.31
Procedure
A
few changes were
made
to the procedure of Expt.
I.
The total delay between stimulus offset
and questioning was increased to
50
sec.
and in
a
10-sec.
interval prior to questioning subjects
were asked to rate the vividness of their image of the stimulus display along the five-point scale
of Table
1.
Subjects were tested individually to allow
a
recording of eye movements
(Marks,
1972a,
b)
and the subtraction task was performed aloud. The metronome was not used to pace
subjects’ subtractions and subjects were told: ‘Count aloud and count
as
quickly
as
you can.’
The
only
other change
in
the instructions used for Expt.
I
was with regard
to
the vividness
rating. The following extra instruction was given: ‘After the counting period is over, there
will
be
a
short delay and then
I
would like you to give
a
rating from
1
to
5
of how vivid and clear
your image was.
’
The vividness scale of Table
1
was then presented verbally. After two practice
trials, ten experimental trials were presented.
Results
Accuracy.
A
2
x
2
analysis of variance was conducted on the mean numbers of
correct answers. The results replicated the findings of Expt.
I
at
higher levels of
significance. Significant effects were obtained for ‘visualizing ability’
(F
=
14.62;
d.f.
=
1,12;
P
<
0.005)
and sex
(F
=
8.49;
d.f.
=
1,12;
P
<
0.025).
As
before, the
interaction was not significant
(F
<
1.0).
As
shown in Table
3,
‘good visualizers’
were superior
to
‘poor visualizers’, and females were superior to males.
Vividness.
Each subject rated the vividness of the image he had
on
each trial,
using the five-point scale of Table
1.
The ten such ratings given by each subject were
averaged. The mean results appear in Table
4.
A
2
x
2
analysis of variance showed
‘visualizing ability’ to be the only significant effect
(F
=
6.75;
d.f.
=
1’12;
P
<
0.025).
Not surprisingly, given the subject selection procedures, ‘good visualizers
’
reported having more vivid imagery than ‘poor visualizers’.
Accuracy related
to
vividness.
As
indicated by Table
3,
the between-groups relation-
ship between accuracy and vividness was strong. The within-subjects results were
analysed
as
follows.
For
each subject the rating on the trial with the fewest errors
was compared to that obtained on the trial with most errors. If more than one
trial
gave best
or
worst recall, the mean vividness rating for such trials was calculated.
The mean rating of
2-79
for best recall did not differ significantly from the mean of
2-70
obtained for worst recall
(t
<
1.0).
The absence of
a
signscant accuracy-
vividness relationship, within-subjects, may be attributed
to
the small within-subject
variation in the ratings (mean range
2.0).
Such homogeneiby in the experimental
ratings was to be expected since subjects had been selected for their giving either
consistently high
or
consistently low ratings on the
WIQ.
The present results
contrast with those obtained using the rabing-after-recall paradigm (Bowers,
1931;
Sheehan
&
Neisser,
1969).

22
DAVID
F.
MARKS
Table
4.
Mean vividness ratings
for
‘good’
and
’poor’
visualizers
of
each sex
Females Males Mean
Good
visualizers 2.63 2.73 2.68
Poor
visualizers 3.48 3.05 3.26
Mean
3.05
2.89 2.97
EXPERIMENT
I11
In Expts.
I
and
I1
it
was demonstrated that verbal reports of visual-image vivid-
ness can be reliable predictors of recall-accuracy of information contained in pictures.
In addition, female subjects, matched in terms of their image-vividness ratings with
a
group of males, recalled more accurately pictorially presented information.
An
analysis of the difficulty of the questions used in Expts.
I
and
I1
revealed that only
about half the questions actually discriminated between subjects. The remainder
were answered either correctly
or
incorrectly by nearly everybody. These questions
were therefore replaced by others which were more discriminating.
Method
Subjecta
Seventy-five introductory psychology students completed the
VVIQ.
The
18
lowest scorers
(mean rating
1-48)
and the
18
highest scorers (mean rating
3.20)
were selected to participate in
the experiment. These formed two experimental groups, ‘good visualizers’ and
‘poor
visualizers’
respectively.
Nine
females and nine males were placed in each group.
Stimulus lnaterials
1.2
m screen at an average distance of about
5
m in front
of
the subjects.
The same stimuli were used
as
those employed
in
Expt.
11.
These were projected on to
a
1.8 x
Procedure
The procedure was the same
as
that used for Expt.
I
except that the questions were recorded
in
a
female voice and presented to the subjects from
a
tape-recorder at the
rate
of one every
20
sec. The subtraction task was performed silently and at each subject’s
own
rate.
Results
A
2
x
2
analysis of variance revealed that ‘visualizing ability’ was the only signifi-
cant effect
(F
=
7.52; d.f.
=
1’32; P
<
0.01).
Both the sex and the interaction
effects gave
F
values lower than
1.0.
Table
5
shows the mean accuracy scores for Che
various categories of subject.
As
in Expts.
I
and
11,
‘good visualizers’ answered more
questions correctly than ‘poor visualizers
’.
A
comparison with the data of Expt.
I
(see Table 2) shows that while the average
accuracy of females in the two studies is nearly identical, males gave more accurate
recall in Expt.
111.
This improvement in accuracy was not statistically significant
(t
<
I-O),
but
it
substantially reduced the male-female accuracy difference obtained
in Expts.
I
and
11.
Further studies may determine which of the procedural differences
could have led to
this
improvement in the males’ accuracy of recall.

Visual imagery digerences in the recall
of
pictures
23
Table
5.
Mean number
of
correct answers per trial
for
‘good’
and
‘poor’ visualizers
of
each
sex (Expt.
III)
Females Males
Mean
Good
visualizers
3.35 3.25 3.30
Poor
visualizers
2.89 2.81 2.85
Mean
3.12 3.03 3.08
DISCUSSION
Am
unexpected result in Expts.
I
and
I1
was the superiority of females over males
in the accuracy of recall. Ernest
&
Paivio
(1971)
obtained the same finding in both
free recall and incidental recall of verbal and pictorial stimuli and Expts.
I
and
I1
support Ernest
&
Paivio’s
(1971,
p.
71)
conclusion that ‘in some tasks, females “use”
imaginal processes to facilitate recall whereas males do not
’.
In all three of the experiments described, verbal reports of visual image vividness
were found to be reliable predictors of accuracy in the recall of information contained
in pictures. The differences in accuracy observed between ‘good’ and ‘poor visu-
alizers
’,
operationally defined in terms of their average vividness ratings, have
a
combined probability of occurring by chance
of
much lower than
0.001.
These
results contradict therefore the data of Sheehan
&
Neisser
(1969)
and the conclusions
drawn from these data by Neisser
(1970).
On the assumption that vividness ratings
and recall are both mediated by the same coverb evenb
-
a
visual image -these
results can be interpreted as providing further evidence that images have an import-
ant function in memory. Image vividness, these data suggest, facilitates accurate
recall.
REFERENCES
BETTS,
G.
H.
(1909).
The distribution and functions of mental imagery.
Columb. Univ. Contrib.
BOWERS,
H.
(1931).
Memory and mental imagery.
Br.
J.
Psychol.
21, 271-282.
BUGELSKI, B.
R.
(1970).
Words and things and images.
Am.
Psychol.
25, 1002-1012.
ERNEST,
C.
H.
&
PAIVIO, A.
(1969).
Imagery ability in paired-associate and incidental learning.
ERNEST,
C.
H.
&
PAIVIO, A.
(1971).
Imagery and sex differences in incidental recall.
Br.
J.
MAFCES,
D.
F.
(1972~).
Individual differences in the vividness of visual imagery and their effect
on function. In
P.
W.
Sheehan (ed.),
The Function
and
Nature
of
Imagery.
New
York:
Academic
Press.
MARKS,
D.
F.
(19723).
Visual imagery differences and eye movements in the recall of pictures.
(In preparation.)
NEISSER, U.
(1970).
Visual imagery
aa
process and experience. In
J.
S.
Antrobus (ed.),
Cognition
and
Affect.
Boston: Little, Brown.
PAMO, A.
(1969).
Mental imagery in associative learning and memory.
Psychol. Rev.
76,241-263.
PAIVIO, A.
(1970).
On the functional significance
of
imagery.
Psychol. Bull.
73,385-392.
PETERSON,
L.
R.
&
PETERSON,
M.
J.
(1959).
Short-term retention of individual verbal items.
SHEEHAN,
P.
W.
(1967).
A
shortened form
of
Betts’ Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery.
J.
SHEEHAN,
P.
W.
&
NEISSER,
U.
(1969).
Some variables affecting the vividness
of
imagery in
(Manuscript received
23
November
1971)
Educ.
26,l-99.
Psychon. Sci.
15, 181-182.
Pwchol.
62, 67-72.
J.
exp. Psychol.
58, 193-198.
clin. Psychol.
23,386-389.
recall.
Br.
J.
Psychol.
60, 71-80.

24
DAVID
F.
MARKS
APPENDIX
Items contained in the Vividness
of
Visual Imagery Questionnaire
For
items
1-4,
think of some relative
or
friend whom you frequently see (but who
is
not with you
at
present) and consider carefully the picture thab comes before your
mind’s eye.
Item
1.
The exact contour
of
face, head, shoulders and body.
2.
Characteristic poses
of
head, attitudes of body, etc.
3.
The precise carriage, length of step, etc., in walking.
4.
The Merent colours worn in some familiar clothes.
Visualize
a
rising sun. Consider carefully the picture that comes before your mind’s
eye.
Item
5.
The sun is rising above the horizon into
a
hazy sky.
6.
The sky clears and surrounds the sun with blueness.
7.
Clouds.
A
storm blows up, with flashes of lightning.
8.
A
rainbow appears.
Think of the front
of
a
shop which
you
often go to. Consider the picture that comes
before your mind’s eye.
Item
9.
The overall appearance
of
the shop from the opposite side of the road.
10.
A
window display including colours, shapes and details
of
individual items for
11.
You are near the entrance. The colour, shape and details
of
the door.
12.
You enter the shop and go to the counter. The counter assistant serves you.
Finally, think of
a
country scene which involves trees, mountains and
a
lake.
sale.
Money changes hands.
Consider the picture that comes before your mind’s eye.
Item
13.
The contours
of
the landscape.
14.
The colour and shape
of
the trees.
15.
The colour and shape
of
the lake.
16.
A
strong wind blows on the trees and on the lake causing waves.