Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T15:53:44.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The myth of pure perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Gerald L. Clore
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400. gclore@virginia.edudrp@virginia.eduwww.people.virginia.edu/~gc4qwww.people.virginia.edu/~drp
Dennis R. Proffitt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400. gclore@virginia.edudrp@virginia.eduwww.people.virginia.edu/~gc4qwww.people.virginia.edu/~drp

Abstract

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) assume that pure perception is unaffected by cognition. This assumption is untenable for definitional, anatomical, and empirical reasons. They discount research showing nonoptical influences on visual perception, pointing out possible methodological “pitfalls.” Results generated in multiple labs are immune to these “pitfalls,” suggesting that perceptions of physical layout do indeed reflect bioenergetic resources.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. (2000) The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In: Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, second edition, ed. Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M., pp. 253–85. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dulany, D. E. (1962) The place of hypotheses and intentions: An analysis of verbal control in verbal conditioning. Journal of Personality 30:102–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K. & Waymouth, S. (2009) Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16:964–69.Google Scholar
Durgin, F. H., Klein, B., Spiegel, A., Strawser, C. J. & Williams, M. (2012) The social psychology of perception experiments: Hills, backpacks, glucose, and the problem of generalizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38:1582–95.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to perception and action. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890) The principles of psychology. Holt, H..Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R. (2006) Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1:110–22.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R. (2009) Affordances matter in geographical slant perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16:970–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, D. R. (2013) An embodied approach to perception: By what units are Visual perceptions scaled? Perspectives on Psychological Science 8:474–83.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R. & Midgett, J. (1995) Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2:409–28.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R. & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013) Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In: Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline, ed. Prinz, W., Beisert, M. & Herwig, A., pp. 171–98. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schnall, S., Zadra, J. R. & Proffitt, D. R. (2010) Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception 39:464–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, N. (2015) Metacognition. In: APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 1, Attitudes and social cognition, ed. Borgida, E. & Bargh, J. A., pp. 203–29. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Taylor-Covill, G. A. H. & Eves, F. F. (2016) Carrying a biological “backpack”: Quasi-experimental effects of weight status and body fat change on perceived steepness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(3):331–38.Google ScholarPubMed
White, E. J., Shockley, K. & Riley, M. A. (2013) Multimodally specified energy expenditure and perceived distance. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20:1371–77.Google Scholar
Zadra, J. R., Weltman, A. L. & Proffitt, D. R. (2016) Walkable distances are bioenergetically scaled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(1): 3951. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000107.Google Scholar