Style of Processing Scale (SOP)

1. Abstract

The Style of Processing Scale (SOP), developed by Terry L. Childers, Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler in 1985, is the foundational psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in cognitive processing modalities within consumer psychology, marketing communication, and cognitive science. Grounded in Allan Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory, the SOP operationalizes the cognitive dichotomy between individuals who habitually encode, organize, and retrieve information via pictorial-spatial representations (visualizers) and those who rely upon lexical-propositional codes (verbalizers). The original scale comprises 22 self-report items—further refined in applied psychometric contexts into a robust 15-item short form consisting of 8 visual processing items and 7 verbal processing items. The SOP employs a multi-point Likert format (originally a 4-point response continuum ranging from 1 = “Always true” to 4 = “Always false” or “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”, and frequently operationalized across contemporary literature as a 5-point Likert scale). Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate that the visual and verbal dimensions operate as orthogonal constructs rather than mutually exclusive poles of a single continuum. The visual subscale consistently demonstrates internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) ranging between .81 and .88, while the verbal subscale exhibits coefficients between .74 and .81. Construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities have been corroborated across diverse experimental paradigms, including ad modality recall, digital user interface interaction, sensory marketing, and multimedia instructional design. This comprehensive review delineates the historical origins, psychometric architecture, theoretical foundations, structural validity, factor structure, scoring algorithms, and empirical utility of the Style of Processing Scale.

2. Keywords

Style of Processing Scale, SOP, visualizer-verbalizer dimension, cognitive style, dual coding theory, mental imagery, verbal processing, information processing, consumer behavior, psychometrics, advertising modality, individual differences.

3. Authors

The Style of Processing Scale was formulated, validated, and introduced by a collaborative team of distinguished scholars in consumer research and cognitive psychology:

• Terry L. Childers, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, and formerly of the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. Dr. Childers has published extensively on sensory processing, mental imagery, tactile processing (including the Need for Touch Scale), and consumer decision-making architectures.
• Michael J. Houston, Ph.D.: Ecolab-Pierson M. Grieve Chair in International Marketing Emeritus at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. Dr. Houston is an internationally recognized expert in consumer information processing, brand equity, cross-cultural marketing, and cognitive processing of marketing communications.
• Susan E. Heckler, Ph.D.: Former faculty member of marketing at the University of Arizona and Georgetown University. Dr. Heckler’s scholarly work focuses on memory encoding, cognitive incongruity, advertising processing, and visual-verbal communication strategies.

Inquiries regarding institutional correspondence and theoretical adaptations are typically directed through the administrative divisions of the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky or the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Style of Processing Scale (SOP) is to capture stable individual differences in an individual’s chronic cognitive preference or cognitive style regarding how information is perceived, encoded, organized, transformed, and retrieved. In the cognitive psychology and consumer behavior literature of the late 1970s and early 1980s, empirical investigations into persuasive communication, print advertising, and cognitive response models were frequently confounded by unmeasured variance in how human subjects processed modalities of stimuli. While experimental conditions could systematically manipulate whether a stimulus was pictorial (e.g., an image, diagram, or spatial chart) or verbal (e.g., descriptive text, auditory narrative, or propositional claims), researchers noted heterogeneous cognitive outcomes: some participants processed visual cues effortlessly while experiencing cognitive fatigue with textual arguments, whereas others showed the reverse pattern.

Theoretical Rationale and Diagnostic Objectives

Prior to the introduction of the SOP, researchers frequently relied upon Alan Richardson’s (1977) Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ). However, the VVQ suffered from severe psychometric limitations, including poor internal consistency reliability (often yielding Cronbach’s alphas below .50 or .60), an unsustainable assumption of unidimensional bipolarity (forcing individuals to be categorized as *either* a visualizer *or* a verbalizer), and inadequate construct validity. Childers, Houston, and Heckler (1985) developed the SOP to address these fundamental deficiencies. The purpose was threefold:

1. To construct an instrument with robust internal consistency and test-retest reliability that adheres to rigorous contemporary psychometric standards.
2. To decouple the visual and verbal processing modalities into two distinct, orthogonal dimensions, thereby recognizing that an individual can possess high capacities or preferences in *both* domains (bilingual/bimodal processors), *neither* domain (low-imagery, low-verbal processors), or a single dominant modality.
3. To furnish a predictive assessment tool that forecasts cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to multimodal marketing stimuli, instructional materials, and digital interfaces.

Research and Clinical/Applied Applications

The SOP has been applied across a multitude of academic and professional domains:

• Consumer Psychology and Advertising Research: The SOP is widely utilized as an individual difference moderator in advertising response models. It predicts how consumers respond to visual-dominant versus text-dominant advertising layouts, the impact of concrete versus abstract product descriptions, and the psychological mechanism of product imagery generation.
• Sensory Marketing and Packaging Design: In sensory marketing, researchers utilize the SOP to determine how physical product aesthetics, packaging typography, color palettes, and structural shapes interact with product-benefit copy. High visualizers demonstrate heightened sensitivity to aesthetic harmony, package shape ergonomics, and visual brand identity cues, whereas high verbalizers focus on ingredient labels, nutritional panels, warranties, and propositional claims.
• Digital User Experience (UX) and E-Commerce: Digital interface designers use the SOP to evaluate user navigation patterns, cognitive load in website architecture, and the relative efficacy of product imagery (such as 360-degree interactive displays and video walkthroughs) versus dense technical specifications, user reviews, and structured feature tables.
• Educational Psychology and Instructional Design: Applied educational researchers deploy the SOP to evaluate multimedia learning principles (e.g., Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning), analyzing how individual cognitive preferences moderate the effectiveness of integrating diagrams, animations, text captions, and narrated audio.

5. Psychological Construct

The Style of Processing Scale assesses a fundamental cognitive trait located at the intersection of cognitive style, information processing, and differential psychology. Cognitive style refers to an individual’s habitual, characteristic mode of problem-solving, thinking, perceiving, and remembering. Unlike cognitive *ability*—which measures maximal performance, spatial intelligence, or verbal aptitude—cognitive *style* reflects a stable, chronic *preference* or *disposition* toward using a particular cognitive modality regardless of the task’s structural constraints.

Visual Processing Preference (Imagers)

The Visual Processing subscale captures an individual’s habitual tendency to rely upon visual imagery, pictorial representations, and spatial schemas when encoding and retrieving information from memory. Individuals with high visual processing preferences, historically termed imagers or visualizers, exhibit specific cognitive and behavioral hallmarks:

• Spontaneous Mental Imagery: High visualizers spontaneously transform incoming abstract or textual data into vivid, dynamic mental pictures. When reading a narrative or evaluating a product concept, they automatically generate internal visual scenes involving color, form, relative positioning, and movement.
• Holistic and Simultaneous Processing: Visual information is typically processed holistically and in parallel. Visualizers prefer diagrams, flowcharts, photographs, illustrations, and spatial mockups over linear text because these formats allow for the simultaneous integration of complex structural relationships.
• Prospective Mental Simulation: High visualizers frequently project into the future by constructing mental imagery scenarios (e.g., SOP Item 1: “I spend a lot of time thinking about what life is going to be like in the future”; Item 19: “I often think about the future by forming mental pictures of it”). When faced with decision-making matrices, they envision alternative prospective outcomes visually (Item 14: “When I have to make a decision, I usually ‘see’ the alternatives in my mind”).
• Facial and Structural Recognition: Visualizers exhibit superior memory recall for physical features, faces, and aesthetic compositions, often experiencing high recognition memory for environmental scenes even when the accompanying verbal labels are forgotten (Item 16: “I usually remember the faces of people I meet, but not their names”).

Verbal Processing Preference (Verbalizers)

The Verbal Processing subscale operationalizes an individual’s chronic disposition to rely upon linguistic-propositional codes, lexical structures, and semantic networks. Individuals scoring high on the verbal dimension, termed verbalizers, exhibit cognitive patterns centered around words, syntax, and proposition-based logic:

• Linguistic and Propositional Encoding: Verbalizers encode environmental stimuli and experiential phenomena into semantic labels and syntactic propositions. They prefer information delivered through narrative text, bulleted attribute lists, audio lectures, and written explanations.
• Sequential and Linear Processing: Unlike the simultaneous processing characteristic of visual processing, verbal processing operates in a linear, sequential, and logical progression. Verbalizers systematically work through arguments, logical syllogisms, and sequential steps (Item 7: “I prefer to read instructions rather than have someone show me how to do something”).
• Subvocal Processing and Inner Speech: Verbalizers exhibit a strong tendency toward inner speech and phonological loop activation during cognitive reflection, problem-solving, and deliberation (Item 15: “I often talk to myself when thinking”).
• Lexical Enjoyment and Engagement: Verbalizers find inherent pleasure in the mastery, manipulation, and consumption of language. They enjoy complex word games, reading extensive volumes, writing personal reflections, and expanding their vocabulary (Item 2: “I enjoy doing work that requires the use of words”; Item 4: “I enjoy learning new words”; Item 17: “I like to solve crossword puzzles”; Item 20: “I like to write down my thoughts”).

The Independence (Orthogonality) of Visual and Verbal Processing

A pivotal conceptual contribution of the SOP construct is the empirical rejection of the unidimensional assumption. Historically, cognitive psychologists treated visual and verbal processing as mutually exclusive ends of a single continuum; high visual preference was presumed to necessitate low verbal preference. Childers et al. (1985) demonstrated that visual and verbal processing are functionally independent (orthogonal) dimensions. As a result, individuals can be mapped onto a two-by-two typological matrix:

6. Theoretical Framework

The Style of Processing Scale is theoretically situated within cognitive psychology, drawing heavily upon Dual Coding Theory (DCT) formulated by Allan Paivio (1971, 1986). Paivio’s dual coding paradigm posits that human cognition is subserved by two distinct, functionally and structurally independent yet interacting symbolic systems: a nonverbal structural system (specialized for processing perceptual, nonverbal objects, events, and scenes) and a verbal linguistic system (specialized for handling linguistic, text-based, and phonological arbitrary signs).

Dual Coding Theory and Representational Units

According to Dual Coding Theory, memory representations in the nonverbal system are termed imagens (or *imogens*), which organize perceptual properties into holistic mental images maintaining concrete physical and spatial isomorphisms. In contrast, representational units within the verbal system are termed logogens, organized hierarchically into phonemic, graphemic, and semantic categories governed by grammatical syntax and sequential rules.

Dual Coding Theory identifies three distinct levels of information processing:

1. Representational Processing: The direct activation of logogens by linguistic stimuli (e.g., reading a word triggers its semantic node) or the direct activation of imagens by pictorial stimuli (e.g., viewing an illustration triggers its perceptual mental model).
2. Associative Processing: The activation of representations within the same symbolic system (e.g., a word evoking another related word through semantic association, or an image of a beach evoking an image of an umbrella through perceptual association).
3. Referential Processing: Cross-system activation, wherein a logogen evokes an imagen (e.g., the word “automobile” evokes a vivid mental image of a red sports car) or an imagen evokes a logogen (e.g., viewing a visual icon leads to naming its functional utility).

Childers, Houston, and Heckler (1985) integrated Paivio’s cognitive architecture into individual differences research by proposing that individuals possess chronic, trait-like processing predispositions that govern these processing pathways. While Paivio primarily investigated universal cognitive structures, Childers and colleagues hypothesized that human beings naturally prioritize either referential transformations into mental imagery (imagers) or associative elaborations through lexical chains (verbalizers).

Evolution from the Richardson Paradigm

Before the SOP, the predominant measurement tool for Paivio’s dual-system preference was Alan Richardson’s (1977) Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ), which was itself an adaptation of Paivio’s original individual difference tests. The VVQ presented 15 true/false items designed to map subjects along a single unidimensional continuum. However, the theoretical assumptions of the VVQ faced widespread criticism from psychometricians:

• Forced Bipolarity: The VVQ treated verbal and visual modes as inverse trade-offs. If a subject scored high in verbal items, their visual score was mathematically forced downward. Cognitive neuroscience and psychological testing later showed that visual and verbal networks recruit distinct anatomical regions of the cerebral cortex—spatial-ventral occipital-temporal streams versus left-hemisphere peri-sylvian language areas—and can operate concurrently without mutual inhibition.
• Psychometric Fragility: Published replications of the VVQ repeatedly failed to confirm its unifactorial structure. Internal reliability estimates frequently dropped into unacceptable ranges (Cronbach’s alpha values of .30 to .55), rendering empirical conclusions ambiguous.

Childers, Houston, and Heckler developed the Style of Processing Scale specifically to operationalize Dual Coding Theory without imposing artificial bipolarity, providing an empirically verified instrument with separate, psychometrically sound subscales for both logogen-based and imagen-based cognitive dispositions.

7. Validity

The Style of Processing Scale has undergone extensive psychometric validation across multiple decades, confirming its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity across diverse populations and experimental settings.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established in the original 1985 validation studies through rigorous multi-sample testing. In the initial sample of 254 undergraduate business students, followed by a cross-validation sample of 150 adults drawn from a general community population, factor analysis confirmed that items loaded onto their theorized visual and verbal latent dimensions without significant cross-loadings. Factorial invariance was demonstrated across student and non-student adult cohorts, confirming that the construct does not reflect an artifact of academic testing environments.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating SOP subscales with established single-modality psychometric instruments:

• Marks’ Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ): The visual subscale of the SOP demonstrates significant positive correlations with David Marks’ (1973) VVIQ (correlations typically ranging from $r = .42$ to $r = .58, p < .001$), confirming that individuals who self-identify as habitual visualizers generate more vivid and detailed mental images.
• Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control: High visual SOP scores correlate positively with the ability to manipulate and rotate mental imagery in space ($r = .35, p < .01$).
• Reading Habits and Lexical Engagement Inventories: The verbal subscale demonstrates strong positive correlations with measures of print exposure, reading comprehension motivation, and the Need for Cognition (NFC) Scale developed by Cacioppo and Petty ($r = .38$ to $r = .46, p < .001$), while the visual subscale shows negligible or weak correlations with NFC, underscoring its distinct cognitive focus.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses show that the SOP measures cognitive *style* rather than raw cognitive *ability* or general intelligence:

• Independence from Cognitive Ability: SOP subscale scores demonstrate non-significant correlations with standardized intelligence indices, such as the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, the Wonderlic Personnel Test, and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (correlations consistently between $r = -.08$ and $r = .12$, non-significant). This confirms that a high score on the verbal SOP subscale does not simply denote a higher IQ, nor does a high visual SOP score reflect raw spatial intelligence; rather, it reflects a preferred mode of cognitive engagement.
• Orthogonality of Subscales: The correlation between the visual subscale and the verbal subscale consistently centers around zero ($r = -.05$ to $r = .08$, non-significant). This provides empirical proof of the multidimensionality of cognitive style, establishing that visual and verbal processing preferences are functionally orthogonal.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated across dozens of empirical studies in consumer behavior and multimedia learning:

• Advertising Modality Effects: Childers et al. (1985) demonstrated that in print advertising conditions featuring either visual illustrations or textual descriptions, high visualizers demonstrated superior recall, recognition, and brand attitude formation under pictorial ad conditions. In contrast, high verbalizers produced significantly more cognitive elaborations and brand attribute recall when exposed to copy-heavy, text-based advertisements.
• Cognitive Incongruity and Ad Recall: Heckler and Childers (1992) utilized the SOP to demonstrate that visualizers and verbalizers encode visual-verbal incongruities differently. Incongruent visual elements in advertising trigger deeper cognitive processing in visualizers, leading to enhanced episodic recall, whereas verbalizers remain predominantly sensitive to semantic and textual incongruities.
• E-Commerce and Interactive Media: Contemporary research in digital marketing confirms that high visualizers report higher purchase intentions and perceived ease of use when navigating digital platforms equipped with high-definition product imagery, augmented reality preview tools, and video content, whereas high verbalizers are more heavily influenced by comprehensive attribute specifications, user ratings, and expert textual reviews.

8. Reliability

The Style of Processing Scale exhibits high internal consistency and temporal stability, meeting standard psychometric thresholds across varied experimental and applied contexts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the seminal publication by Childers, Houston, and Heckler (1985), the reliability of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($lpha$):

• Visual Processing Subscale: In the initial development sample ($N = 254$), the visual subscale exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha of $lpha = .86$. In the cross-validation adult sample ($N = 150$), the visual subscale yielded an alpha of $lpha = .85$. In the purified 8-item visual short form, alphas consistently range from $lpha = .81$ to $lpha = .88$.
• Verbal Processing Subscale: In the initial development sample, the verbal subscale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of $lpha = .78$. In the adult cross-validation sample, the verbal subscale achieved an alpha of $lpha = .81$. In the purified 7-item verbal short form, alphas reliably range between $lpha = .74$ and $lpha = .81$.

These values represent a substantial psychometric advancement over the predecessor instrument, the Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ), which rarely achieved reliability coefficients above .60 in empirical testing.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have confirmed that the SOP measures stable, trait-like cognitive dispositions rather than transient mood states or situation-specific cognitive strategies:

• In a 3-week test-retest reliability study with undergraduate respondents ($N = 82$), Childers et al. documented a test-retest correlation coefficient of $r_{tt} = .83 (p < .001)$ for the visual processing subscale and $r_{tt} = .81 (p < .001)$ for the verbal processing subscale.
• Subsequent longitudinal evaluations over a 6-week interval demonstrated stability coefficients exceeding $r_{tt} = .78$ for both dimensions, confirming the enduring temporal nature of individual processing style profiles.

Composite Reliability in Structural Equation Modeling

In contemporary confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) investigations utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM), the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) parameters frequently meet recommended criteria:

• Visual Subscale: Composite Reliability typically exceeds $CR = .84$, with Average Variance Extracted ($AVE$) values exceeding the .50 benchmark (ranging from $.52$ to $.61$).
• Verbal Subscale: Composite Reliability typically ranges between $CR = .77$ and $CR = .82$, with $AVE$ values generally exceeding $.48$ to $.54$, demonstrating acceptable internal convergent validity across latent factor indicators.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the Style of Processing Scale has been extensively evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), confirming a robust two-factor orthogonal model.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Scale Purification

During the original development phase by Childers, Houston, and Heckler (1985), an initial pool of 75 candidate items was generated from an examination of imagery literature, cognitive psychology protocols, and modifications of the Richardson items. Following preliminary pilot testing, a 22-item instrument was subjected to principal components factor analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation.

The eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion ($eigenvalues > 1.0$) alongside Cattell’s scree test unambiguously revealed a clean two-factor solution:

• Factor 1 (Visual Style of Processing): Accounted for the largest portion of common variance (approximately 28.4%), characterized by high positive loadings from items evaluating mental picturing, daydreaming, visual memory for faces, and preference for diagrammatic learning.
• Factor 2 (Verbal Style of Processing): Accounted for approximately 19.8% of common variance, dominated by items evaluating reading satisfaction, enjoyment of word games, self-talk during cognitive reflection, and vocabulary acquisition.

The varimax rotated factor matrix confirmed that the two factors were non-correlated ($r < .05$), providing strong support for theoretical orthogonality.

The 15-Item Purified Short Form

Subsequent psychometric re-examinations (e.g., Heckler, Childers, & Houston, 1993; Bearden, Netemeyer, & Haws, 2011) identified that while the full 22-item scale performs adequately, several reverse-worded items exhibited lower communalities or ambiguous factor loadings. Through item-to-total correlation analysis and iterative factor purification, researchers established a standardized 15-item short form:

• Purified Visual Processing Subscale (8 items): Retains items 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 21. Standardized factor loadings for these visual items consistently range between $lambda = .55$ and $lambda = .84$.
• Purified Verbal Processing Subscale (7 items): Retains items 2, 4, 7, 15, 17, 20, and 22 (with item 22 reverse-scored). Standardized factor loadings range between $lambda = .48$ and $lambda = .79$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Statistics

Confirmatory factor analyses evaluating the 15-item two-factor orthogonal model have confirmed its superior fit relative to alternative models (such as a single-factor unifactorial model or an oblique two-factor model):

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Consistently falls within the recommended $1.5$ to $2.5$ range (e.g., $chi^2(89) = 162.4, p < .001$).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values regularly range from $.93$ to $.97$, exceeding the $.90$ threshold for acceptable model fit.
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted GFI (AGFI): GFI values typically exceed $.92$, with AGFI values exceeding $.89$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates consistently fall between $.042$ and $.062$ (with $90%$ confidence intervals bounded between $.031$ and $.074$), well within the accepted cutoff for good model approximation.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values typically remain below $.055$.

CFA model comparisons indicate that forcing the visual and verbal dimensions into a single latent factor results in a catastrophic deterioration of fit indices (CFI dropping below $.65$, RMSEA exceeding $.14$), firmly validating the distinct dual-construct architecture of the SOP.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Style of Processing Scale is an unobtrusive, self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Below are its formal structural and administration specifications:

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric inventory measuring cognitive processing preference (cognitive style).
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older); usable with general consumer cohorts, clinical research subjects, and university populations.
• Administration Format: Pen-and-paper or digital/online survey interface.
• Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes for the full 22-item inventory; 3 to 4 minutes for the 15-item purified version.
• Number of Items: 22 items in the comprehensive original instrument; 15 items in the purified standard short form.
• Subscales:
  • Visual Processing Preference: Measures the chronic tendency to encode, store, manipulate, and retrieve information through pictorial and mental imagery codes. Comprises 11 items in the full scale (Items: 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21); 8 items in the purified scale (Items: 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 21).
  • Verbal Processing Preference: Measures the chronic tendency to encode, store, manipulate, and retrieve information through linguistic, propositional, and semantic codes. Comprises 11 items in the full scale (Items: 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22); 7 items in the purified scale (Items: 2, 4, 7, 15, 17, 20, 22).
• Response Scale (Mandatory Published Format):
  4-point Likert scale (or 5-point Likert scale in some adaptations; originally 4-point: 1 = Always true, 2 = Usually true, 3 = Usually false, 4 = Always false, or 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree).
• Scoring and Transformation Protocol:
  • Item Inversion (Reverse Coding): Scoring direction must be unified so that higher numbers reflect higher levels of the respective processing style. When using a scale where 4 = “Strongly agree” (or 1 = “Always false” transformed to 4 = “Always true”), items that express a lack of processing interest or difficulty must be reverse-coded.
    • In the full 22-item version: Items reflecting lack of verbal/visual preference (such as Items 8, 11, 13, 18, and 22) are reverse-coded prior to subscale computation (e.g., $1 \rightarrow 4, 2 \rightarrow 3, 3 \rightarrow 2, 4 \rightarrow 1$).
    • In the 15-item purified version: Only Item 22 (“I find it difficult to express my thoughts in words”) is reverse-coded within the verbal subscale.
  • Subscale Score Calculation: Calculate the arithmetic mean or raw sum for the Visual subscale items and Verbal subscale items independently. Do NOT sum the visual and verbal subscales together into a single composite score, as they represent distinct, orthogonal dimensions.
  • Typological Categorization (Optional): In experimental designs, researchers frequently conduct a median split or tertiary split across both subscales to classify participants into the four Paivio-inspired quadrants: (1) Bimodal / Dual Processors (High Visual, High Verbal), (2) Visual Specialists (High Visual, Low Verbal), (3) Verbal Specialists (Low Visual, High Verbal), and (4) Low Processors (Low Visual, Low Verbal).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Style of Processing Scale was originally published in 1985 in the Journal of Consumer Research:

• Publication Year: 1985.
• Original Source: Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 125–131.
• Copyright and Accessibility: The scale was published within an academic peer-reviewed journal published by Oxford University Press (and historically the University of Chicago Press) on behalf of the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. In accordance with standard academic fair use conventions, the scale items are available in the public academic domain for non-commercial, educational, and scientific research purposes without fee.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial organizations, proprietary testing firms, or consultancies intending to integrate the SOP into proprietary diagnostic platforms, commercial software, or client-facing assessment suites should consult the copyright policies of the Journal of Consumer Research or seek formal clearance from the authors and publisher.

12. References

The following academic publications document the development, validation, theoretical foundations, and methodological applications of the Style of Processing Scale:

• Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Haws, K. L. (2011). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483318806
• Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1086/209010
• Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruity? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1086/209275
• Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1993). On the use of the Style of Processing Scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80018-0
• Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
• Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Testing the reliability and validity of the cognitive styles hypothesis: A construct validation approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001
• Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1(1), 109–126.

13. Items of the Scale