RUNNING HEAD: IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Imagined Personal Experience Lanny M. Hackney Northeastern State University

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE Abstract

The purpose of study was to understand the nature of imagined interactions as procedural record creation. I sought to discover if an imagined interaction can be used to describe a situation in which an individual has never been. If imagined interactions contribute to procedural record creation, then how do they do it? This study also, sought to understand how likely or plausible the individuals perceived the situation in which they have imagined to be useful in a similar future interaction. The participants were from the local community surrounding the university and the university itself and interviewed face to face proposing hypothetical scenarios. Participants were asked to cognitively role play some situations in order to accurately respond, perform an Imagined Interaction. Even though, the imagined interaction is the only basis for comparison that the participant has of the interaction or situation, participants we were able to, go into great detail describing their imagined events and explained some plausibility or likelihood of relying on the experience in the future. The reactions to the HS were perceived to be procedural records for the participants. Some further understanding of how imagined interactions contribute to procedural record creation was gained, although future research is expected to be necessary. Methodology In order to understand if an imagined interaction creates a procedural record, participants must be presented with a situation in which no reference point is available, no procedural record. The participants lacking a reference point in which to respond to the hypothetical situation will then be inclined to imagine the interaction in order to best describe how they would respond. After the participant describes how they would respond, they will be asked to report how plausible the imagined interaction is perceived to be a procedural record. I will examine if the

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

procedural record is created from the imagined interaction by nature of the participants response. I posit that in responding to the hypothetical situation, the thicker the description from the participant. The variables being tested are what John Greene termed, procedural records created from the imagined interaction of James Honeycutts Theory and the output representations Greene refers to as the behaviors described by the participant from taking action as a result of imagining the interaction (2010). The overall research goal is to learn how the experience of the imagined interaction is perceived by the participant to create a procedural record. The participants will be proposed a series of three hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios presented will be eliciting communication goals, strategies for procedure, and utterance-language strategies, from the imagined interactions. There is ample contemporary rhetoric about gun violence in the media recently and a hypothetical situation exists as to what one would do if the legislation leads to relinquishing personal firearms. This is easily arguable a situation in which a participant or anyone in this country has never been party to. This would be the first scenario proposed to participants (see Appendix A). Each scenario, the participant will be asked for 5-10 minutes to imagine the scenario and then to respond. Afterwards, the participant will be asked how useful in the future do they perceive the experience from the imagined interaction to be. Participants will be recruited in various communications. Initially, I will email instructors asking to visit their classes before or after to ask for volunteers. The next form of communication to recruit participants will be in the form of face to face communication. The participants will be recruited via posters placed at the University Center. Lastly, participants from an alternative study being conducted by this investigator will be asked to participate. The study will be anonymous and the privacy of the individuals who participate will be protected.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

The participants will be asked for a face to face interview, consisting of 4 hypothetical scenarios to which they will respond. Informed consent form protecting anonymity and a face sheet for each participant will be attached to each consent form and protocol. Interview transcripts will be sent to Participants for review of accuracy in their responses. Imagined Personal Experience Have you ever second guessed a decision after having made it hours ago? Most of us, if not all of us, have at one time or another yearned to make a(n) alternative choice(s) in a previous situation after having thought about it later. Likewise, we have rehearsed for speeches or meeting someone for the first time, in a very specific form of intrapersonal communication. James Honeycutt (et al. 1989) calls these cognitive rehearsals Imagined Interactions. These imagined cognitive experiences allow for indirect reliving or anticipating of, an event within ones mind (Honeycutt, et al. 1989). Cognition about talk also influences language and message production. (Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999, p.402). The pervasiveness of this type of cognitive process contends throughout our lifespan and is a seemingly natural occurrence. If we create mental imagery of an interaction, proactively or retroactively (Honeycutt, 1999), can the imagined experience be called upon in future situations as a reference? Three of the key functions of Imagined Interactions is to: compensate for the lack of real interaction, managing conflict, and aiding people in self-understanding through clarifying thought and feelings (Honeycutt, 2010). It is within these functions that past or future interactions are recalled upon or anticipated in order to take action from, or a different action next time. How we produce messages in interactions dictates the outcomes of our interactions, and the same is with the actions we take (Greene, et al., 2010). John Greenes action Assembly theory argues that we produce messages or actions by combining smaller action units to make up procedural records, coalitions of units of actions/messages for use in specific situations

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (Greene, 2010). This coalition of smaller units can be combined or assembled, to create any

number of coalitions of procedures in which to apply in a circumstance or messages to convey in an interaction. Greene argues that we have two types of procedural records (past experiences) to know what to do or say or take actions, Habits and Symbolic records. Habits are those actions to take that have been picked up from repeat situations requiring them, making sounds, greetings, walking, ducking, etc. Whereas, symbolic procedural records/coalitions of actions consist of those that correspond to lessons from parents or arbitrary assigned meanings to observed actions, i.e. facial expressions, paralinguistic attributes of voice (Greene, et al., 2010). The theory insists that a procedural record is that which we can reference for the current situation, Greene (Baxter & Braithwaitem, 2008). These are just personal experiences we have that we reference to make decisions on the situation now. Having a flat tire, one does not just manually look for what to do, it happens via referencing having done it, seen it done, heard about it being done and conceptualizing it. Three types of information are stored in Procedural records: Information about the action, possible outcomes of the action, and context of the action, Greene (Baxter & Brathewaithem, 2008). I will be looking closely at the possible outcomes information in procedural record, the mentally rehearsed outcomes in imagined interaction more closely. Humans learn to know what do to by past experiences or know what to do because it is habitual. Lastly, the theory assembles the action units, into courses of action that has behaviors that come with them. These behaviors of the procedural record are the output representations of referencing that past experience and taking it in to the current context as an action (Greene, et al., 2010). How these imagined situations can be perceived for reacting to the situation as personal experiences, will potentially line up with both Honeycutt and Greenes Theories. If one has no procedural record, personal experiences to draw upon can imagining it sufficiently create ability

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE to respond? Greens Action Assembly Theory seeks to explain how and why we produce

messages or nonverbal actions, as well as how we choose to not say or do some action (Baxter & Braithwaitem, 2006). Alternatively, Honeycutts idea of replaying a previous interaction or anticipating a future one within our minds, whether verbally or nonverbally, adds to that explanation. It adds insight as to how we make decisions to react to situations, or how to change a reaction to a past situation. There is some foresight to be gained from imagined interactions. Foresight as to how one can imagine a situation in which they have been that did not turn out as expected, and by cognitively rehearsing it, make an alternate decision in a future interaction that is similar. This foresight leads to the research question. How do imagined interactions contribute to the creation of procedural records? Vincent van Veens research into cognitive psychology puts some context to imagining an interaction. Research in psychology suggests that there are mechanisms in place that control task performance. Psychologists have outlined an evaluative component as well as an executive component that influence performing a task (Veen & Carter, 2006). When we approach a task of any degree, the stimuli are relevant to the actions possible, as are the distractive elements of the stimulus and the thoughts being carried out about the stimuli (Veen & Carter, 2006). In understanding how we imagine an interaction to make a judgment for an action to take, we must separate those things that are habit from those which are creative in our mind. If the task has not been experienced before, the reaction cannot be habitual, but must rely on the creative processes of the brain. Out of all the stimuli encountered only a portion of it is relevant to the particular task at one time, although relevant and irrelevant stimuli compete for access to the response systems in our brain (Veen & Carter, 2006). When a situation arises in which no personal experience exists to there is a cognitive conflict in the stimuli, those relevant to a decision and

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that which is not. When these conflicts occur, paying careful attention to overcome the stimuli of the situation that have no relevance to a decision is critical (Veen & Carter, 2006). This is where the evaluative component comes into play in responding to the stimuli. Once the stimuli is evaluated, irrelevant information is filtered, and an action is executed. The prefrontal cortex

has control of this evaluative function whereas, the Anterior Cingulate cortex of the brain delves into depicting for us conflicts in information processing, filtering it in order to make an execution or action (Veen & Carter, 2006). In the proposed imagined interactions of this study very little external stimuli will be present, although within the cognitive processes of the respondents it is likely there will be some irrelevant stimuli when the proposition is presented. Inferences are understood in psychology as, the product of new mental representations on the basis of previously held representations, the production of expectations on the basis of perception, or the production of plans on the basis of preferences and beliefs (Mercier & Sperber, 2011, p. 57). A process of inference is a process, the representational output of which necessarily or probabilistically follows from its representational input. The function of an inferential process is to augment and correct the information available to the cognitive system (Mercier & Sperber, 2011, p. 57). It is within this psychological vernacular that will explain how the participants will presumably take the scenarios proposed and allow them to logically reason outcomes. The imagining of the hypothetic scenarios will allow the participants an opportunity to reason particular approaches, strategies or tactics during the interactions to create output representations, a perceptual or imagined experience, from them. They can then infer the plausibility of their usefulness in the future as procedural records from that reasoning.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Findings/Results Participant Responses In the wake of the participant interviews, HS1 was only responded to by one participant, P1 Cid. HS2 was responded to twice, by P1 and P2 and disregarded my P3. Alternatively, P2 and P3 responded to HS3 and HS4. All responses were conducted as separate interviews in order to conduct the follow up questionnaire concluding their narratives. Furthermore, all HS were responded to and examined for likelihood and plausibility of usefulness. P1 imagined that the military would be the party seeking for relinquishment of his firearms. He imagined negative consequences would occur regardless of his efforts or resistance. He perceived that there would be an imminent danger to his life whether it be from the military at the time of disarming, or a criminal with illegal access to firearms. He affirmed that he would debate with them at the door how he would be protected by them if he was without his weapons. He went to great detail in describing that the military would not hear his requests and that he would be threatened for his life or imprisoned. His confidence was apparent in his choice to resist even though it was a futile effort. Lastly, he assure me he would accept the negative consequences for resisting and defending his 2nd amendment right; Accepting prison as a safer choice than his own freedom without firearms. Concluding that, his life would be in jeopardy unless he just went to prison keeping him away from the government, which he now perceived to be a domestic enemy. P1 imagined that marriage would go a particular was in comparison to a traditional setting. He would take her to her favorite eating establishment and then subsequently to an

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE activity in the same respect. He concluded by minimal description of the activity as the tool for asking the question. He could not describe any specific details of the activity or the restaurant, although he did include he would take one knee as per traditional settings. He was not certain if she would say yes to him but assumed she would. When engaged in further inquiry as to

specifics he added that, she would say yes as a result of their relationship status. A status earned by talking about their finances and agreements upon who has what level of successful career. In terms of her rejecting his marriage proposal he perceived that if he embarrassed her by the situation she may say no due the nature of the embarrassment that she may or may not incur. When asked if he expected any of the HS imagined to be useful in the future, he stated that he thought them to be quite useful, reasoning that he could make different decisions if necessary. That he would be able to make a decision as a result of having imagined it at a time before. In response to the likelihood of recalling one of the IIs retrospectively in the future he would be more likely to recall HS2 over HS1 but still likely to recall either. The risk to his life would be the reason for recalling HS1, but perceives the duress or stress from the actual situation to cause different decisions. In HS2 he would more likely to recall as he never had any intimate relationships with anyone before, so perceived it a good point of reference. When asked if he had experiences outside the study where he recalled a past situation to make a decision for a current one, he could not recall any to discuss. In turn, he also affirmed of no situation where he preemptively planned or imagined a future course of action during an interaction or situation. Finally, when asked if he had a better understanding of the context in any of the HSs, he said that HS2 gave him more understanding due to his lacking of intimate relationships. He concluded that he had never thought of giving up his guns, even though that HS context was not better understood.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE P2 imagined a short but similar to P1s response to HS2. She imagined that she would invite her other to dinner, elaborating on the scene unlike P1. She would cook the dinner and have a room filled with aesthetically pleasing props. During the dinner activity she would

10

proposes in just the traditional manner as spoken by P1, perceiving a yes answer. Her reasoning that they would say yes was similar to P1 in that, the duration of the relationship and its nature of its status would dictate the answer. Her imagining that he and her were ready and that financially it was feasible to move on to the next step in the relationship. no more elaborations was given in conveying this HS response. P2 was more elaborate in detailing the interactions in HS4 to include many specifics such as, emotions, nonverbal, beliefs and attitudes and other employees in the workplace as well as the actual names of those being hired or fired. She imagined great detail in this HS to include the pre-warnings, spread out over specified time frame, given by the employees manager before he deferred to her the boss for punishment. Fired was given 3 warnings specifics being, lack of motivation, gossiping, face-booking, and tardiness and task dereliction. She sympathized with the fired specifically going over the reasons why she is getting fired. In turn she described how the fired responded apologetically and acceptingly to her decision. She concluded that fired, Sarah, sent in office by secretary, Nancy did not cause a scene, but affirmed by her nonverbal actions knew she was in trouble. Finally, she affirmed that the fired thanked her for the opportunity to work there. P2s imagined hiring experience was just as detailed and the fired. She described the hired by name and that she was interviewing 2 applicants before selecting the 3rd as the candidate for hire. She details greetings and physical gestures exchanged between herself and the hired, i.e. handshakes and hellos. She conversationally role plays both parts as if acting out a script

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE she has dialogue in an iterative conversation s if it was actually happening. P2 details the

11

interview and its questions as well as the hired individuals responses to them. In describing the acceptance of the hired for the positions she elaborates on the affective and physical responses of hired in conclusion to the interview. P2 describe hiring and firing on different ends of the week, hired on Friday and fired on Monday before. P2 was able to detail the qualifications of the hired over that of the fired elaborately. She recruited externally for a new employee and had no reasons why just perceived it to happen so. The discrepancy in why she fired earlier in the week was elaborately described by detailing exchanges between herself and the managing supervisor. She talked about spending the weekend at home looking over applicants before the firing on Monday. She expressed confidence in her choices to hire and fire and ensured that she protected the confidentiality of both the hired and fired in the process. This is the type of response that was expected in the hypothesis that the output representations would have this level of reasoning during the II. Moreover, P2 had elaborate details in her deception of another during her II response to HS3. She was able to describe the details surrounding the deception, the length of time it transgressed, suspicions of the deceived, verbal and nonverbal gestures with warrant. The personal gain was easily conveyed with just as great detail, her desires surrounding it and the emotions of both parties. Using her femininity to her advantaged for gain over a male and then allowing time to pass for reducing non-destructive emotional responses from the deceived before breaking off the relationship was within the core of the deceptions elaborateness. During the replay of the II detailed answers were available to probes. She insisted that deceptions didnt necessarily have to occur, but was the easiest course of action. She was able to elaborate how the deceived did not find out or become suspicious. P2 prided herself on her

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

12

ability to pretend as the reason being. She was very satisfied with the results of the deception yet felt a little guilt and had few regrets. She concluded saying that she had no more interactions with him after the softened let down more than a week after the deception had occurred. In follow up examination interview P2 expects that HS4 would be the most useful and that she would reflect back on this II in the future should she be in an actual similar situation. She exclaimed that she felt that HS4 is how it would actually play out, and the fired one would be more extensive than her description. In response to having any experience where P2 recalled a past interaction and then made a different choice for a present situation from its context she confirmed she had. She looked back at a failed relationship, her most recent, and related it to her actual current in order to not repeat the last ones mistakes. There was an affective nature in tone to this response. She confirmed that she had imagined a situation like this before proactively. That the HS2 was imagined with her last relationship, but the other way around with the interactions. When asked how useful the interaction was at another time she responded very useful. Results Summary It was conclusive that the participants were able to perceive looking back on the II during the study and reference it for the actual event should it occur. The most useful II was the hiring or firing of an employee, because the details of the interaction were more precise. The participants were able to confirm that they had gained a better understanding of the context of the proposed situations from having imagined it. The participants were able to confirm that there were other situations in which were reflected upon in retrospect to make a different set of decisions. These situations were outside of the study, and were affirmed to be similar to procedural records for them. Each of the participants except for 1, was able to affirm that they

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

13

had thought of future interactions by imagining them in order to be more prepared for them, i.e. interviews, presentations, asking for dates. Finally, the participants were able to confirm that they would expect to be able to make use of these imagined situations as experiences to reference in the future. The likelihood was from fairly to highly in likelihood. Analysis It was conclusive that if a procedural record was created, so as to how it was created is the counterpart of the research question itself. There was a significant amount of compensation for the lack of a real interaction in the scenarios as Honeycutt Imagined interaction states as a benefit. The participants agreed that the II would be able to be used for reference should it actually come to pass. Therefore, the II itself can be thought of as a procedural record, a record for action when there is no previous experience in which to rely on for decision making. The procedural records or past experiences created by the participants were of a symbolic nature in line with Greenes Theory. The II was able to create a symbolic procedural record of the scenario in order to be an experience that is somewhat versatile. Such versatility of a symbolic procedural record can be adapted to the actual situation and acted upon according to its context. The action units of these particular IIs are able to be adapted, interchanged or reconstructed within the procedural records created by the participants. The participants IIs produced Procedural records having all three types of information are stored in them. They affirmed that the Imagined Personal Experiences produced PRs with: information about the action, possible outcomes of the action, and context of the action. The procedural records were created by the participants inferential reasoning processes allowing them to conclude that the Imagined experiences had elicited or bestowed those three elements.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

14

Discussion I was able to make the connection between imagining a situation never before proposed and how useful it would be. Whether it was very or greatly useful it created some amount of context and therefore, a procedural record or an Imagined Personal Experience. The IIs can be considered Imagined experiences for the reason that they the participants did in fact gain insight into the situations context like I expected and the theories stated. I did not think that the connections would be so evident, the participants would actually take it that serious, or I would have such a low turnout in interviews and still get an answer to my research questions. If the II created a PR was its first part and how it created a PR was more important. Even though I got 3 separate interviews from each participant per HS, I believe better results if I would have had more participants with greater number of imagined experiences. That is, even though I got a lot of detail from one HS and minimal detail from another, the result was still the same; contextual understanding of a never before proposed scenario with perceived usefulness. The studys major limitations were the lacking of participation all together. I think that it would have been far more conclusive had there been a greater participation, but the time constraints for the semester were in place and volunteers were minimal. This study can be considered a Pilot study in that the hypothesis was supported, but limited in participation. Even though there was cognitive conflict created within the stimuli of the HS, the participants creative processes engaged in a manner I did not expect. There was a kind of decisiveness to the extent of the responses all but one participant. This decisiveness is a product of their creativity and perceptions of how the HS played out. Had there been a lack of creativity or decisiveness in the responses, there would have been far less conclusive results. Furthermore, if a future study were to investigate Imagined

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE Personal Experiences, it could look at the cognitive processes and how the creative portions of

15

the mind produce the reactions to the unknown stimuli and how decisive or apprehensive are the responses the HS.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE References Baxter, L. A. & Braithwaitem D. O. (2008). Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: multiple perspectives. Sage. Los Angeles, CA.

16

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can Imagined Interactions Produce Positive Perceptions?: Reducing Prejudice Through Simulated Social Contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231-240. doi:10.1037/a0014718 Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public mural argument. Communication Monographs, 51,1-22. Greene, J. O., Morgan, M., McCullough, J., Gill, E., & Graves, A. R. (2010). A Phrase Well Turned: Creative Facility in Narrative Production. Communication Studies, 61(1), 118134. doi:10.1080/10510970903400329 Engen, D. E. (2002). The Communicative Imagination and Its Cultivation. Communication Quarterly, 50(1), 41-57. Honeycutt, J. M. (2010). Imagined Interactions. American Psychologist, 65(2), 129-130. doi:10.1037/a0018052 Honeycutt, J. M., & Wiemann, J. M. (1999). Analysis of Functions of Talk and Reports of Imagined Interactions (IIs) During Engagement and Marriage. Human Communication Research, 25(3), (pp. 399-419). Honeycutt, J.M., Zagacki, K.S., Edwards R. (1990). Imagined Interaction and Interpersonal Communication. Communication Reports, 3(1). Honeycutt, J. M., Zagacki, K. S., & Ed'wards, R. (1989). Intrapersonal communication, social cognition and imagined interactions. In Roberts, C. V., & Watson, K. W. (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes: Original essays (pp. 166-184). New Orleans: Spectra.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

17

Honeycutt, J. M. (2010). Imagined interactions. American Psychologist, 65(2), 129-130. doi:10.1037/a0018052 Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57-74. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968 Schrader, D. C., & Dillard, J. (1998). Goal Structures and Interpersonal Influence. Communication Studies, 49(4), 276. Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2006). Conflict and Cognitive Control in the Brain. Current Directions In Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 15(5), 237-240. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00443.x

APPENDIX A: Interview Schedule Protocol My name is Lanny Hackney and I am interviewing students who participate in three hypothetical scenarios to understand how they would react to an experience that they have never been part of. I want to understand how playing the interaction out by imagining it might create a personal experienced in absence of the actual situation. I am doing this study for a course requirement at Northeastern State University. I chose this topic because it has some grounding in reality of how we mentally rehearse situations after or before they happen. There are very few situations in which we have no reference point to make a decision from. How do students like you respond to imagined experiences? You can choose to not answer or participate at any point in time during our conversation. I will be writing information down and may ask you to repeat yourself from time to time as to accurately record your experience. You will be asked to sign a Consent form before we begin making you aware of the entire process. Tell me a little about yourself before we begin.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE Ok, Pseudonym, I will present you with a set of scenarios in which you will respond as best as you can to them. This will take place in two steps. Would you mind if I recorded our conversation in order to get a full scope of your responses, it will not be shared with anyone?

18

First, I will propose the situation and ask you to think about it for 5-10 minutes playing it out in your head as if it were actually happening. Second, I will ask you to respond to the situation. Lastly, I will ask you a few questions in review of your responses. Do you understand? HS1: There is ample contemporary rhetoric about gun violence in the media recently. How would you respond if the legislation leads to relinquishing personal firearms and those collecting the guns came for yours? HS2: You are dating the person of your dreams, and wish to pose the question of marriage to this person. You can reference your current romantic relationship if you are in one. How would you propose marriage to this person of your dreams and how do they respond? HS3: You are in a situation where you must deceive an individual for some personal gain. The individual and the personal gain are up to you. How do you do it? HS4: You must hire one individual for a job that you are also going to fire another from. Both have been called into your office on separate occasions for these conversations. How do the conversations proceed: The Fired individual? The hired individual?

Do you expect any of the situations that you imagined to be useful in the future? How likely are you to recall one of the imagined interactions in the future for reference? Do you have an experience where you recalled a past interaction and then made a choice for a present situation from its context? Have you ever imagined a future interaction or scenario like this before? Care to elaborate? How useful was the imagined experience at another point in time? Do any of the proposed scenarios give you better understanding of their context even though you have not physically experienced it? Please elaborate.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

19

Thank you for your time today. I would like to give you my contact information and ask if you have any questions of me to feel free to call. If I had a follow up question could I call you? Once again thank you again for your time.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE APPENDIX D: Informed Consent CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY Title of Project: Imagined Personal Experience Principal Investigator: Lanny Hackney; Northeastern State University, 609 N. Grand Ave., Tahlequah, OK 74464; Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the study is to discover how imagined interactions create procedural records, experiences we drawn upon to react to situations or messages You have been chosen to participate because you fit the research criteria.

20

Procedures & Duration: The students will be asked to volunteer approximately 1 hour of their time for a face to face interview with the primary investigator. If you participate in the study, you will be proposed hypothetical scenarios eliciting responses. Both, the participant and investigator, will receive a copy of this consent form and protocol after signing it. The interviews will be held in an environment most comforting to the participants. The Library second floor room 211 or the Kiwanis Room behind the mural in Seminary Hall 1st floor. The interviews will elicit a discussion for approximately 50 minutes. If the participant wishes to quit during the interview it is permissible to do so. Discomforts and Risks: No major risks are perceived for the participants in this study that one cannot meet in regular daily activities. Some effects will be present as a result of discussing emergent emotions during conversations about personal experiences. No negative service or action will be taken upon the participants in this study for not wishing to participate. Participation is solely at the discretion of the participant. Benefits: There are no direct benefits for the participant from this study. The participants gain possible insight, indirectly, into possible outcomes of an experience they are unfamiliar with. Society and this researcher benefits by better understanding of how we rely on personal experiences in order to take action and what we do when we have no personal experience to rely on. The participant gives their consent voluntarily to participate. This study seeks conveyance of better understanding of how we rely on personal experiences to make decisions. Costs or Compensation: There are no costs to or compensations for participants in this study. Statement of Confidentiality: The identities of the participants will remain confidential unless the participant indicates on the survey that s/he is OK with being identified by name in any and all write ups of this research. No information that can identify the participants will be written or published about the participants. Participants will be asked to use pseudonyms for any referencing of them in field notes or otherwise, so as to protect their anonymity. Audio recording of this interview will be kept secured in 256bit encryption and locked in a safe until study is complete for participant protection.

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

21

Right to Ask Questions: Participants have the right to ask questions of the researcher about the study and have them answered. For questions about your rights while participating in this study, you may contact the researcher listed above or the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern State University at 918-444-2965 or visit their web site at http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~irb . Voluntary Participation and Right to Withdraw: Participants have the right to leave a study at any time and may also decline to answer any questions that they do not want to answer. If the participant wishes to withdraw from the study or any part of the study at any points in time during the study, the participant is freely able to.

My signature below indicates that I have read the information above and that I agree to participate in this study. I can ask for a copy of this consent form.

_______________________________________ Signature of Participant _______________________________________ Printed Name of Participant _______________________________________ Investigators Signature

_____________ Date

_____________ Date

IMAGINED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE APPENDIX E: Recruitment Scripts Flyer text: SEEKING ANONYMOUS VOLUNTEERS Do you own GUNS? Want them to take them away? How would you respond? Ever wonder what it would be like to ask that special someone to GET MARRIED? Have you ever had to Fire or Lay off an employee? Have you ever deceived anyone for personal gain?
Contact information will be located at the bottom of each flyer.

22

Students signing up via email contact that do participate will have the email deleted after making contact with the information from the volunteers sign up posting. Only this investigator will approach individuals for participation in the study. Scripts for Interpersonal interaction (face-to-face) request would be as follows: Hi my name is Lanny its nice to meet you. Inquire prospects name. What is your major, Im in Communication? Wow, thats cool I can imagine the possibilities in that field for you. How did you choose that major? Do you have to do a research project in that major or a capstone? I do in mine, which is why I have decided to talk to you. I am looking for volunteers to react to situations that they have never been in before. Have you ever asked someone to marry you? Or. Have you ever had to steal to survive? Or. Do you own Guns?: Do you think you would be interested in role playing one or all of these situations where you describe how you would react to them? Your identity will be anonymous and it wont take much of your time at all. Ok thank you. Email to instructors: Dear instructor name, My name is Lanny Hackney and I am doing an research study seeking to understand how imagined interactions, mentally rehearsing, a situation creates a procedural record, a personal experience in which to refer for an action to take. I am seeking participants and am wishing to impose upon a visit to your class in order to ask for participants. I am in the Perspectives of Interpersonal Communication Course with Dr. Bill Wallace, and respectfully await your answer. I would come at the end or beginning and ask a few questions to your class. If I am unable to visit for any reason, would there be the chance of mentioning my study and giving my contact information to them? If so, I am attaching my proposal so you have the necessary information to describe my study to would be participants. I look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you Lanny
Presentation to Classes: Hey class thank you for having me here for this announcement. My name is Lanny and I am conducting research into how students respond to situations they have never been in before, i.e. proposal for marriage, stealing or relinquishing your guns if you have any. There are no specific requirements to participate in this study. Anyone can participate that has not been in any of these situations. I am asking for volunteers for a simple face to face interview that will take about 30 minutes of your time. Those of you willing to participate, one of two things: you can contact me via my information from the dry erase board, or you can approach me out side of class time. This Study will be anonymous and no one other than me will have any personal information about you. I feel this study will allow us some better understand how we make decisions in unknown situations, situations where we have little or no experiences to look back on. So who thinks they might like to participate? Thank you for your time.