title: Exploring effects of different pictorial stimuli on written expression.
abstract: This study explored how the type of pictorial stimulus affects the quality of an individual's written expression. Cole, Muenz, Ouchi, Kaufman, and Kaufman in 1997 furnished initial evidence supporting Hooper, et al.'s 1994 theory. A pictorial stimulus different from that used by Cole, et al. was developed from Hooper, et al.'s specifications, i.e., pictorial stimuli should be photographs rather than line drawings, should have a clear protagonist and should present a novel problem-situation that can be solved in a stepwise manner and compared to a conventional line drawing stimulus (from PIAT-R Written Expression) in its ability to evoke writing samples. It was hypothesized that the "Hooper" stimulus would yield higher scores than an atheoretical stimulus on items assessing structure and cohesiveness of the story, but not on items that assess writing mechanics. Participants comprised 25 men and women aged 17 to 46 years. Results indicate that Hooper, et al.'s theory is more plausible than a conventional line-drawing stimulus.
authors.affiliation: California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, USA.
authors.forename: J S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: McLeod
authors.forename: K M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Boyer
authors.forename: B Y
authors.initials: BY
authors.lastname: Ouchi
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Cole
authors.forename: R L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Callaghan
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D003405:Creativity; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009042:Motivation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D014956:Writing