Don\u27t Look Down: Emotional Arousal Elevates Height Perception

In a series of experiments, it was found that emotional arousal can influence height perception. In Experiment 1, participants viewed either arousing or nonarousing images before estimating the height of a 2-story balcony and the size of a target on the ground below the balcony. People who viewed arousing images overestimated height and target size more than did those who viewed nonarousing images. However, in Experiment 2, estimates of horizontal distances were not influenced by emotional arousal. In Experiment 3, both valence and arousal cues were manipulated, and it was found that arousal, but not valence, moderated height perception. In Experiment 4, participants either up-regulated or down-regulated their emotional experience while viewing emotionally arousing images, and a control group simply viewed the arousing images. Those participants who up-regulated their emotional experience overestimated height more than did the control or down-regulated participants. In sum, emotional arousal influences estimates of height, and this influence can be moderated by emotion regulation strategies

Imagery and fear influence height perception

The current study tested whether height overestimation is related to height fear and influenced by images of falling. To assess perceptual biases, participants high (n = 65) versus low (n = 64) in height fear estimated the vertical extents of two balconies using a visual matching task. On one of the balconies, participants engaged in an imagery exercise designed to enhance the subjective sense that they were acting in a dangerous environment by picturing themselves falling. As expected, we found that individuals overestimated the balcony\u27s height more after they imagined themselves falling, particularly if they were already afraid of heights. These findings suggest that height fear may serve as a vulnerability factor that leads to perceptual biases when triggered by a stressor (in this case, images of failing). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Evaluating the accuracy of size perception in real and virtual environments

ManuscriptAccurate perception of the size of 3D objects depicted on 2D desktop displays is important for many applications. Whether users perceive objects depicted on a display to be the same size as comparable real world objects is not well understood. We propose using affordances judgments as a way of measuring the perceived size of objects depicted in desktop virtual environments and the real world. The methodology involves indicating whether or not a particular action can be performed in a given environment, making it a flexible measure that can be used across different display technologies. In two studies, we test users' perceptions of size by asking them to make affordance judgments in both the real world and a geometrically matched desktop virtual environment. In the first study, users judge whether they can grasp an object and in the second study, they judge whether they can fit their hand through an opening. In both experiments we show that users perceive the size of objects in the desktop virtual environment to be smaller than in the real world

Big people, little world: The body influences size perception

Previous research has shown that changes to the body can influence the perception of distances in near space (Witt et al, 2005 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31 880-888). In this paper, we question whether changes to the body can also influence the perception of extents in extrapersonal space, namely the perception of aperture widths. In experiment 1, broad-shouldered participants visually estimated the size of apertures to be smaller than narrow-shouldered participants. In experiment 2, we questioned whether changes to the body, which included holding a large object, wearing a large object, or simply holding out the arms would influence perceived width. Surprisingly, we found that only when participants\u27 hands were widened was extrapersonal space rescaled. In experiment 3, we explored the boundaries of the effect observed in experiment 2 by asking participants to hold their arms at four different positions in order to determine the arm width at which apertures appeared smaller. We found that arm positions that were larger than the shoulder width made apertures appear smaller. The results suggest that dimensions of the body play a role in the scaling of environmental parameters in extrapersonal space

The Roles of Altitude and Fear in the Perception of Height

Previous research on perceiving spatial layout has found that people often exhibit normative biases in their perception of the environment. For instance, slant is typically overestimated and distance is usually underestimated. Surprisingly, however, the perception of height has rarely been studied. The present experiments examined the perception of height when viewed from the top (e.g., looking down) or from the bottom (e.g., looking up). Multiple measures were adapted from previous studies of horizontal extents to assess the perception of height. Across all of the measures, a large, consistent bias was found: Vertical distances were greatly overestimated, especially from the top. Secondary findings suggest that the overestimation of distance and size that occurs when looking down from a high place correlates with reports of trait- and state-level fear of heights, suggesting that height overestimation may be due, in part, to fear

Reply to Hutchison and Loomis

Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003) reported a set of studies showing that the perceived distance to a target is influenced by the effort required to walk to its location. Hutchison and Loomis (H&L) reported an experiment that failed to find a significant influence of effort on indices of apparent distance. There were numerous important differences between the design and methods of H&L’s study and those of Proffitt et al. Moreover, there are important theoretical reasons to believe that these differences were responsible for the different results. The theoretical motivation of H&L’s studies was also brought into question.Proffit, Stefanucci, Banton y Epstein (2003) proporcionan un conjunto de trabajos en los que se muestra que la distancia a la que se percibe un estímulo-objetivo depende del esfuerzo requerido para caminar hasta él. Hutchison y Loomis (H&L) presentan un experimento en el que el esfuerzo no produjo efectos significativos en los índices de distancia aparente. Existen numerosas e importantes diferencias entre el diseño y los métodos del estudio de H & L y los de Proffit et al. Más aún, existen importantes razones teóricas para pensar que tales diferencias causaron las diferencias observadas en los resultados. Se cuestiona la motivación teórica de los estudios de H&

Social support and the perception of geographical slant

The visual perception of geographical slant is influenced by physiological resources, such as physical fitness, age, and being physically refreshed. In two studies we tested whether a psychosocial resource, social support, can also affect the visual perception of slants. Participants accompanied by a friend estimated a hill to be less steep when compared to participants who were alone (Study 1). Similarly, participants who thought of a supportive friend during an imagery task saw a hill as less steep than participants who either thought of a neutral person or a disliked person (Study 2). In both studies, the effects of social relationships on visual perception appear to be mediated by relationship quality (i.e., relationship duration, interpersonal closeness, warmth). Artifacts such as mood, social desirability, and social facilitation did not account for these effects. This research demonstrates that an interpersonal phenomenon, social support, can influence visual perception

The Integrity of Motivated Vision: A Reply to Gilchrist, 2020

In the September 2020 edition of Perception, Alan Gilchrist published an editorial entitled “The Integrity of Vision” (Gilchrist, 2020). In it, Gilchrist critiques motivated perception research. His main points are as follows: (1) Motivated perception is compromised by experimental demand: Results do not actually show motivated perception but instead reflect subjects’ desires to comply with inferred predictions. (2) Motivated perception studies use designs that make predictions obvious to subjects. These transparent designs conspire with experimental demand to yield confirmatory but compromised results. (3) Motivated perception research lacks guiding theory and cannot explain what appear to be contradictory results. (4) Motivated perception presents an unsupportable assault upon the impermeability of perception. The present commentary responds to these four assertions

Plunging into the pool of death: Imagining a dangerous outcome influences distance perception

We examined whether manipulating the imagined consequences of falling would influence the perception of height, distance, and size. In experiment I, height and size perception were measured When participants stood at a short height (0.89 m) or a medium height (1.91 m) above either an empty pool or a pool filled with a bed of nails. Participants who viewed the bed of nails and imagined falling into it estimated both the height as taller and the size of the bed of nails as larger than participants who imagined falling into an empty pool. In a second experiment, participants overestimated the horizontal ground distance to and across the bed of nails after being told to imagine jumping over it. Overall, these experiments suggest that costs associated with imagined actions can influence the perception of both vertical and horizontal extents that are not inherently dangerous