Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T04:46:12.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The call for ecological validity is right but missing perceptual idiosyncrasies is wrong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2022

Jennie Qu-Lee  and
Emily Balcetis Open the ORCID record for Emily Balcetis [Opens in a new window]
Jennie Qu-Lee
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA. jennie.qulee@nyu.edu; emilybalcetis@nyu.edu https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nyu-spam-lab/
Emily Balcetis
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA. jennie.qulee@nyu.edu; emilybalcetis@nyu.edu https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nyu-spam-lab/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although psychology has long professed that perception predicts action, the strength of the evidence supporting the statement depends on the ecological validity of the technologies and paradigms used, particularly those that track eye movements, supporting Cesario's argument. While right to call for ecological validity, Cesario's model fails to account for individual differences in visual experience perceivers have when presented with the same stimulus.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e88
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anwar, S., Bayer, P., & Hjalmarsson, R. (2012). The impact of jury race in criminal trials. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(2):1017–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:612–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). The selective nature of learning. In Broadbent, D. E. (Ed.), Perception and communication (pp. 244–267). Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairchild, M. D. (2005). Color appearance models (2nd Edn). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Franchak, J. M., Kretch, K. S., Soska, K. C., & Adolph, K. E. (2011). Head-mounted eye tracking: A new method to describe infant looking. Child Development 82(6):1738–1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Schneider, K. E., & Tyler, T. R. (2014). Justice is not blind: Visual attention exaggerates effects of group identification on legal punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(6):2196–2208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, E. R., Bartlett, F., Shimokochi, M., & Kleinman, D. (1973). Neural readout from memory. Journal of Neurophysiology 36(5):893–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, Y. J., Zimmerman, H. T., & Pérez-Edgar, K. (2018). A methodological case study with mobile eye-tracking of child interaction in a science museum. TechTrends 62(5):509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, E. H., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2004). Does imminent threat capture and hold attention?. Emotion, 4(3), 312–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, W. C., Chiu, F. C., Kuo, Y. S., & Wu, K. J. (2013). The investigation of visual attention and workload by experts and novices in the cockpit. In International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 167–176). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness: Perception without attention. In Wright, R. (Ed.), Visual attention (pp. 112–189). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of Mock Jurors: A meta-analysis 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24(15):1315–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowen, R., & King, G. D. (1982). Effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and egalitarian legal attitudes on mock juror and jury decisions. Psychological Reports 51(3_suppl):1067–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Edgar, K., MacNeill, L. A., & Fu, X. (2020). Navigating through the experienced environment: Insights from mobile eye tracking. Current Directions in Psychological Science 29(3):286–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soska, K. C., Adolph, K. E., & Johnson, S. P. (2010). Systems in development: Motor skill acquisition facilitates three-dimensional object completion. Developmental Psychology 46(1):129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternisko, A., Granot, Y., & Balcetis, E. (2017). One-sighted: How visual attention biases legal decision-making. In New Developments in Visual Attention Research (pp. 105–139). Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Sulzer, R. L., & Skelton, G. E. (1976). Visual Attention of Private Pilots, the Proportion of Time Devoted to Outside the Cockpit. National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, Atlantic City, NJ.Google Scholar