Abstract
Volume 39, Issue 4 contains six articles. Topics include possible selves and self-efficacy, visual imagery, and maladaptive daydreaming. There are a pair of articles discussing the similarities and differences between inner speech and imagined interactions. The issue concludes with a research commentary on the assessment of motor research ability.
The first article is by Anne-Laure de Place and Sophie Brunot and analyzes how specificity and self-efficacy influences the motivational and behavioral impact of possible selves. They present two studies based on the classical definition of possible selves provided by Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius in which people project images of themselves in the future. Their studies reinforce the impact of autobiographical memories and possible selves on motivation and behavior. They examine scenarios in which students imagine that they were doing well in academic success or having disappointing success; referred to as the general academic success condition. Additionally, they examined the effect of an attentional task which was described as specifically predictive of academic success. The differences are intriguing.
The second study describes a study in visual imagery dealing with maps in terms of a measure of spatial orientation ability. It is by Alfredo Campos and Diego Campos-Juanatey. They describe common “you-are-here maps” which are a type of map found in most cities fixed to a pedestal, with the “you-are-here” symbol indicating the position of the map in relation to the real surroundings, which allows viewers to locate their exact position on the map, and -orient themselves to plan their routes. Many of us use GPS for navigation and sometimes must rotate the phone for better viewing. The aim of this study was to design a test to measure a person’s ability to orient themselves on a “you are-here” map. The Spatial Orientation Skills Test (SOST), a test measuring spatial orientation ability, consists of 30 items, each item contains two maps, one is positioned at 0° (the model), and the other is the same map, but amplified and rotated. The task participants were required to perform was to find their way around on the model map to get to a specific point by taking as a reference point the position indicated on the amplified and rotated map. The results are helpful in accurate navigation.
The third study by Melina Jay West and Eli Somer is a cross-cultural study from 56 countries that examines empathy, regulation of emotion, and creativity in immersive and maladaptive daydreaming. While daydreaming enhances creativity, they note how some people daydream to such an extreme degree that the behavior is dysfunctional. Hierarchical regression analyses produced powerful results including how maladaptive daydreaming predicted higher affective empathy, poorer emotional regulation abilities, and less creativity.
The next pair of articles examine similarities and differences between inner speech and imagined interactions. In the fourth article, Alain Morin briefly reviews elements of imagined interactions and inner speech. A thought-listing procedure is presented. Two intriguing conclusions are discussed in which imagined interactions consist of mental activities that include one type of inner speech, but which recruit additional components absent in the latter. Additionally, inner speech includes imagined interactions, but also encompasses many other topics and functions not present in, or served by, imagined interactions.
The fifth article by James Honeycutt compliments the Morin review. Inner speech research is reviewed in terms of its conceptualization as a stage in language acquisition and processing of thought. Aside from inner speech, it has been referred to as covert self talk, internal monologue, and internal dialogue as people talk to themselves in silence. Imagined interactions are similar, yet different in that imaginary dialogue reflects talking to another person while monologue is self-talk. Two areas for future research in terms of isomorphism are identified.
The sixth article is by Stephan Dahm and provides a research commentary on the assessment of motor research ability. He discusses the state of research regarding motor imagery which is a mental representation of an action without executing the action. He discusses the limitations of existing motor image for not being multidimensional. The measurement of motor image ability should be expanded to measure several tasks including consequences of action expertise in terms of visual, and spatial ability.