Abstract: The purpose of this study was to test experimentally the theoretical Grinder and Bandler representational system concept. Briefly, the representational system concept is that people organize their experiences into internal representational systems (which may be visual, auditory, and kinesthetic); that people specialize and one of the systems becomes the primary representational system; that one way to determine a person's primary representational system is to listen carefully to the predicates used in a person's natural language; and that people best understand communication in which the predicates are matched to the predicates of the person's primary representational system. The subjects used in this study were 108 undergraduate students at Ball State University. The subjects' primary representational systems had been identified in a previous study. Four means of identification were used in the previous study (i.e., verbalization, eye-movement, and primary and secondary self-report). Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups using the verbalization identification of the subject's primary representational system. Contrary to expectations, no subjects were identified on the basis of their verbalizations as having a visual primary representational system. The subjects in each treatment group were shown a videotaped presentation of one of three forms of a story. Each form of the story described the same 27 items in the same order, and each form contained items described with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic predicates. The predicates used to describe each item were varied across the forms of the story. The subjects were asked to list as many of the experiences described in the story as they could. The data were subjected to a multivariate and univariate analysis of variance. All major hypotheses failed to be rejected at the .05 level of confidence. The auditory and kinesthetic subjects did not respond differentially to the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic items. The data were subjected to a series of post-hoc analyses because no visual subjects were identified by verbalization, and because the more stringent definition of item masked differences in the subjects' responses. The eye-movement and primary and secondary self-report identification of subjects and the more and less stringent definitions of item were used as independent variables in the post-hoc analysis. The visual, auditory, and kinesthetic subjects did not respond differentially to the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic items. Several recommendations for further study were made.