Psychological Science 21(1) 147 –152 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www .sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797609356283 http://pss.sagepub.com

Do people see their surrounding environments the way those environments really are? People tend to assume that their con- scious representations of the outside world reflect reality com- pletely and accurately. For psychologists, however, whether or not this assumption is true has proved an enduring question. Is vision instead influenced by psychological states internal to the perceiver?

We explored whether perceivers’ desires serve as internal psychological states that shape perception of the physical environment. We hypothesized that objects serving current goals seem more desirable than other objects and appear phys- ically closer to the perceiver. Why would perceivers see desir- able objects as closer? Classic research and theory suggest that desirable objects activate and energize behaviors toward those objects to the extent that the objects are in close proximity to the perceiver (Dollard & Miller, 1950). Movement toward an object in physical space leads perceivers to see an object as closer than it actually is, and this misperception then activates approach tendencies that serve needs (Lewin, 1935). We extended this classic argument by suggesting that, just as physically close objects encourage approach behaviors, biased subjective perceptions of distance can similarly energize approach behaviors toward objects that assist perceivers in fulfilling active goals. In other words, perceivers might see a desirable object (food, money, or a friend) as closer than it really is because this perception encourages approach behav- iors that will assist in the object’s acquisition.

We should note that this issue lay at the heart of the New Look approach to perception, which arose in the 1940s and 1950s, led by Bruner and others (e.g., Bruner & Minturn, 1955). According to New Look theorists, perception is a con- structive process influenced by the individual’s desires, needs, and values (Bruner & Goodman, 1947). The New Look per- spective initially engendered much support, but methodologi- cal and conceptual problems later emerged, leading to a barrage of criticism that undermined the enterprise (Goldia- mond, 1958; McCurdy, 1956; Wohlwill, 1966). For instance, the empirical methodologies used to test perceptual process- ing, although state-of-the-art at the time, allowed for too many alternative explanations, including those implicating memory (McCurdy, 1956) and response bias (Erdelyi, 1974). As a result, the New Look perspective was largely abandoned in the early 1960s, and its findings generally dismissed. The influ- ence of desire on visual perception was never firmly estab- lished, leaving unanswered a number of questions about whether desire plays any role in visual perception (Dunning, 2001; Jones, 1985).

With improved technologies and a deeper understanding of cognitive and perceptual processes, recent research has

Corresponding Author: Emily Balcetis, New York University, Department of Psychology, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003 E-mail: [email protected]

Wishful Seeing: More Desired Objects Are Seen as Closer

Emily Balcetis1,2 and David Dunning3 1Ohio University, 2New York University, and 3Cornell University

Abstract

Although people assume that they see the surrounding environment as it truly is, we suggest that perception of the natural environment is dependent upon the internal goal states of perceivers. Five experiments demonstrated that perceivers tend to see desirable objects (i.e., those that can fulfill immediate goals—a water bottle to assuage their thirst, money they can win, a personality test providing favorable feedback) as physically closer to them than less desirable objects. Biased distance perception was revealed through verbal reports and through actions toward the object (e.g., underthrowing a beanbag at a desirable object). We suggest that seeing desirable objects as closer than less desirable objects serves the self-regulatory function of energizing the perceiver to approach objects that fulfill needs and goals.

Keywords

motivation, perception, vision, distance perception, New Look

Received 1/28/09; Revision accepted 6/1/09

Research Article

at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on March 19, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

148 Balcetis, Dunning

reopened the investigation into whether desire influences visual perception, particularly when the stimuli are perceptu- ally ambiguous (Balcetis & Dunning, 2006, 2007). For exam- ple, we discovered that people typically interpret bistable ambiguous figures (e.g., a figure that can be seen as the head of a horse or the body of a seal—but not as both at the same time) in a way that is congenial to their self-interest. The fol- lowing experiments investigated whether desires could also influence perception of naturally occurring ambiguities that perceivers confront in everyday environments.

One particular type of natural ambiguity is distance to an object (Proffitt, 2006). In five experiments, we examined whether perceivers resolve visually ambiguous distances as a function of objects’ desirability. Would participants perceive a desirable object as closer than a less desirable one?

Extant evidence lends credence to the assertion that higher- order psychological states influence distance perception in order to regulate the perceiver’s behavior toward optimal out- comes (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999). For example, being fatigued, being older, or being heavily laden (i.e., carrying a heavy backpack) causes people to see hills as steeper and distances to some locations as farther (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999; Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, & Epstein, 2003). Such perceptual errors arise, arguably, to efficiently guide the actions of the perceiver. For instance, exaggerated estimates of distance might lead perceivers to avoid physical challenges and conserve energy. Indeed, it has been argued that distance perception and regula- tion of physiological energy reserves interact in order to pro- mote optimal functioning in one’s environment (Esteve-Lanao, Lucia, deKoning, & Foster, 2008). We wondered if object desirability would also bias perception, but produce a reverse effect. Would desirability cause people to see the environment in a way that energizes their behavior?

Overview Across these five studies, participants estimated the distance to either a desirable object or a less desirable object. We manipu- lated object desirability by altering the visceral state of the per- ceiver (Study 1) or the objects’ social value (Studies 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b). We expected that perceivers would see desirable objects as closer than less desirable objects. In addition, we tested the effects of mood on distance perception (Studies 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b). We also controlled for the strength of participants’ attitudes, independent of valence, by exposing participants to an object about which they had a strong, but negative, attitude (Study 3b).

Finally, we also used several dependent measures to assess distance perception. In some studies, participants provided a verbal, numeric estimate of the distance between themselves and the object, using a 1-in. line as a reference (Studies 1, 2a, and 2b). In other studies, participants provided action-based measures (Study 3a) or visual matching measures (Study 3b). Both of these measures are standard means of assessing dis- tance perception, and both eliminate potential biases that can arise when converting visual phenomena to numeric reports.

Study 1

Ninety undergraduates from Ohio University participated in exchange for course credit. Participants were asked to esti- mate the distance from their own position to a bottle of water. To manipulate the water’s desirability, we either induced or quenched participants’ thirst. We expected that thirsty participants would rate the bottle of water as more desirable, and perceive it as closer, than quenched partici- pants would.

Participants and procedure Participants sat across from a full water bottle at a distance of 36 in. Those randomly assigned to the thirsty condition (n = 47) consumed a serving of pretzels that constituted 40% of their daily intake of sodium; those randomly assigned to the quenched condition (n = 43) consumed as much as they wanted from four 8-oz glasses of water.

While eating or drinking, participants indicated how long it had been since they last drank a beverage. After consuming the pretzels or water, participants indicated their thirst on a 7-point scale, with higher numbers representing greater thirst. Participants also indicated on a 7-point Likert scale how appealing the bottle of water was. Finally, to measure percep- tions of distance, we showed participants a 1-in. line as a refer- ence and asked them to write down on their survey a numeric estimate of how many inches separated them from the bottle of water.

Results Manipulation checks. Participants in the thirsty and quenched conditions did not differ in how long it had been since they drank, t(88) = 0.21, p

rep = .56, p = .83, d = 0.05. Participants

who ate pretzels experienced more thirst (M = 6.1) than par- ticipants who drank water (M = 1.4), t(88) = 21.99, p

rep = .99,

p < .001, d = 4.69.

Objects’ desirability and distance estimates. Ratings of the objects’ desirability depended on participants’ visceral state of thirst, t(88) = 8.80, p

rep = .99, p < .001, d = 1.88. Thirsty par-

ticipants rated the bottle of water as more appealing (M = 4.1) than quenched participants did (M = 2.1). Distance estimates also depended on participants’ visceral state of thirst, t(88) = 2.00, p

rep = .92, p = .05, d = 0.43. Thirsty participants per-

ceived the water bottle as closer (M = 25.1 in., SD = 7.3) than quenched participants did (M = 28.0 in., SD = 6.2).

Study 2a Study 1 exposed participants to an object that was desirable because it provided immediate physiological benefits. By con- trast, Studies 2a and 2b exposed participants to objects that were desirable because of their social value. In Study 2a,

at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on March 19, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

Wishful Seeing 149

participants estimated the distance to a $100 bill they had a chance to win or to a $100 bill they knew belonged to the experimenter. In Study 2b, participants estimated the distance to a survey that provided either positive or negative self-rele- vant feedback. In both studies, we expected the more desirable object—the $100 participants could win, the survey offering positive feedback—to be perceived as closer than the less desirable object.

In addition, we assessed mood. Environments can be seen in less extreme ways when the perceiver is in a positive mood (Riener, Stefanucci, Proffitt, & Clore, 2003). To rule out the possibility that desirable objects influenced mood, which in turn affected perceptions of distance, we measured the rela- tionship between mood and distance estimates. In Study 2a, we measured mood using an unobtrusive measure in which participants wrote down the first five words they thought of that begin with the letter h. Because more positive mood is associated with greater creativity (Isen, 1999), uncommon responses are more typical of participants in positive moods than of participants in neutral or negative moods (Isen, Labroo, & Durlach, 2004). A meta-analysis of 72 studies has confirmed the relationship between positive mood and creative ideation, originality, and flexibility (Davis, 2009).

Participants and procedure In the Ohio University student union, 123 participants stood 55 in. away from a table. Some participants (n = 61) received candy, whereas others (n = 62) received candy and a chance to win a $100 bill. To win the $100, participants reported their favorite card from a deck of playing cards. They then pulled a card from a deck, and if they happened to draw their favorite card, they won the $100. In a separate pretest, a $100 bill was considered more desirable when it could be won than when it could not, paired t(17) = 7.29, p

rep = .99, p < .001, d = 2.05.

Although participants learned the contest rules prior to esti- mating distance, they did not select a card until they had com- pleted all other measures.

Using a 1-in. line as a reference, participants wrote down a numeric estimate of how many inches separated them from the bill. Participants then completed the h-word creativity test, which served as an unobtrusive measure of mood (Isen et al., 2004). To code participants’ word-stem completions, our assistants entered each word into Google and recorded the number of Web pages on which this word appeared. To create an index score, we summed the number of Web page hits for each of the five words and then transformed the sum using the natural log. Uncommonness served as a proxy for positive mood (Isen, 1999; Isen et al., 2004).

Results Data exclusions. Data from 2 participants (1 in each condi- tion) were excluded because their distance estimates fell 3 standard deviations above the grand mean.

Distance estimates. Participants perceived the $100 bill as closer if they had a chance of winning it (M = 50.8 in., SD = 14.7) than if they had no chance of winning it (M = 58.9 in., SD = 16.9), t(120) = 2.84, p

rep = .98, p = .005, d = 0.52. This

difference in perceived distance was not due to mood. Partici- pants who could win the $100 bill experienced a more positive mood (i.e., generated more uncommon words; index score M = 6.4) than participants who could not win the $100 bill (index score M = 7.1), t(122) = 5.04, p

rep = .99, p < .001, d =

0.91. However, distance estimates did not correlate with mood, r(122) = –.004, p

rep = .54, p = .90.

Study 2b Participants and procedure

For course credit, 89 participants completed a survey ostensi- bly assessing sense of humor. The experimenter graded par- ticipants’ surveys in their presence. For participants randomly assigned to the negative-feedback condition (n = 47), the experimenter covered each page of the survey with six scores (two each of –1, –2, and –3), indicated that participants had earned an overall score of D, and stated that participants had a “below average” sense of humor. For participants randomly assigned to the positive-feedback condition (n = 42), the experimenter covered each page with six scores (two each of +1, +2, and +3), indicated that participants had earned an A, and stated that participants had an “above average” sense of humor.

The experimenter clipped each participant’s survey to a stand 72 in. away. Using a 1-in. line as a reference, participants then provided a numeric estimate indicating how far away their humor test was. To assess desirability, we asked partici- pants to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale how pleasant look- ing and appealing the survey was. Finally, we measured mood using the same procedures used in Study 2a.

Results Tests providing positive feedback were more desirable (M = 4.2) than tests providing negative feedback (M = 3.0), t(87) = 3.89, p < .001, p

rep = .99, d = 0.83. Distance estimates depended

on the valence of the feedback, t(87) = 2.01, p rep

= .92, p = .05, d = 0.65. Participants perceived the personality test as closer when it offered positive feedback (M = 35.8 in., SD = 14.2) than when it offered negative feedback (M = 42.7 in., SD = 17.7). Although participants tended to be in a better mood after receiving positive rather than negative feedback, t(96) = 1.77, p

rep = .89, p = .08, d = 0.36, distance estimates did not correlate

with mood, r(88) = –.04, p = .68.

Study 3a A critic could argue that “postperceptual” processes guided numeric estimates in the studies above rather than perceptual

at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on March 19, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

150 Balcetis, Dunning

ones. That is, the conscious steps needed to convert the phe- nomenological experience into a written numeric report may have influenced distance estimates. Previous research helps allay this concern. Patterns of bias emerge in the same manner and in the same proportion whether distance perception is measured through self-reported measures or through measures that do not require explicit numeric calculation, including matching measures (Witt, Proffitt, & Epstein, 2004) and action-based measures (Philbeck & Loomis, 1997). This sug- gests that self-report measures where participants supply numeric assessment of perceptual experiences reflect the same types of biases as perceptually based measures. Nonetheless, Study 3a used a dependent measure that did not require a numeric response, but instead required a behavioral interac- tion with objects. If perception is designed to guide behavior toward an object, we would expect to see evidence of percep- tual bias in physical action.

In Study 3a, participants estimated distance using an action- based measure typical of those used in past research (Rieser, Pick, Ashmead, & Garing, 1995): Participants tossed a bean- bag toward either a desirable or a less desirable object. We predicted that participants would underthrow the beanbag when they looked at the desirable object, because they would perceive that object as closer.

Participants and procedure For course credit, 40 participants completed a beanbag toss. Participants stood in a hallway 156 in. away from the target object and tossed a beanbag toward that object—a Visa gift card (3 in. × 2 in.), adhered to the floor. The person in the experiment whose toss landed closest to the gift card during the course of the experiment would win the card. Participants exposed to the desirable object (n = 20) knew the gift card had a $25 value; participants exposed to the less desirable object (n = 20) knew it had a $0 value.

Participants tossed the beanbag once. The bag was made of rubber, which prevented it from slipping from the position in which it originally landed. The distance the bag landed from the card constituted each participant’s perception of distance. Nega- tive distance scores indicate that the beanbag landed between the card and the participant; positive distance scores indicate that a toss overshot the gift card and landed beyond it. Finally, participants completed the same mood measure as in Study 2a.

Results As expected, participants perceived the desirable gift card as closer than the undesirable gift card. They underthrew the beanbag when the gift card had a $25 value (M = –9.1 in., SD = 8.9), but not when it had a $0 value (M = 1.3 in., SD = 10.2), t(38) = 3.43, p

rep = .99, p = .001, d = 1.09. Participants’

mood was not affected by whether they could win the $25 or the $0 gift card, t < 1. Distance estimates did not correlate with mood, r(40) = –.13, p

rep = .72, p = .41.

Study 3b

In Study 3b, participants estimated distance using a visual matching measure modified from previous research (Witt et al., 2004). Participants moved themselves relative to an object in order to stand a set distance away. We predicted that participants would, paradoxically, stand further from the desir- able object than from the undesirable one because they would see the desirable object as closer.

In addition, we surmised that participants might see objects as closer not because the objects are desirable, but because they evoke strong affective reactions. Thus, in Study 3b, par- ticipants estimated distance to objects that held strong affec- tive value but varied in desirability: chocolates or dog feces.

To test for mood, we used a different measure—the Self- Assessment Manikin (SAM; Bradley & Lang, 1994). We tested whether chocolates or feces affected mood, arousal, and dominance and explored the consequences for distance per- ception. We predicted that exposure to chocolates would increase positive mood, but that changes in mood would not relate to distance estimates. In addition, because chocolates and feces should evoke equally strong attitudes, we expected no differences in feelings of arousal or dominance.

Pretest In a pretest, we confirmed that chocolates were more desirable than feces. A separate group of participants (n = 20) rated how appealing, positive, likeable, attractive, and interesting both objects were. It should come as no surprise that averages across these qualities indicated that the chocolates (M = 5.5) were more desirable than the feces (M = 2.1), paired t(19) = 17.44, p

rep = .99, p < .001, d = 4.52.

To measure attitude strength, we compared desirability rat- ings with the midpoint of the scale, marked “no opinion.” We computed the absolute value of the difference between ratings and the midpoint of the scale. This value was marginally larger for feces (M = 1.9) than for chocolates (M = 1.5), paired t(19) = 1.79, p

rep = .88, p = .09, d = 0.65, suggesting that

the chocolates are not associated with a stronger attitude than the feces.

Participants and procedure Fifty-two undergraduates participated for either course credit or a nominal prize (i.e., a gift certificate for fast food). They stood opposite a wall 150 in. away; two strips of tape were positioned on the wall, separated by 90.5 in. of white space. Below the tape, against the wall, sat an object on a table. Half of the participants (n = 26) saw a package of colorfully wrapped chocolates, and the other half (n = 26) saw a plastic bag containing what they were told was a freshly collected sample of dog feces. While in the presence of either object, participants completed the SAM (Bradley & Lang, 1994), our measure of mood, arousal, and dominance.

at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on March 19, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

Wishful Seeing 151

Participants then completed a distance-matching proce- dure. Participants walked toward or away from the object until the distance between themselves and the object was equal to the distance between the two pieces of tape on the wall oppo- site them. The distance between the front of participants’ shoes and the foot of the table upon which the object sat constituted participants’ distance estimate.

Results Perceptions of distance depended on which object participants saw, t(50) = 2.29, p

rep = .92, p < .03, d = 0.65. Participants

positioned themselves further from the object when it was chocolates (M = 101.3 in.) than when it was feces (M = 88.0 in.). In addition, participants’ mood depended on which object they saw, t(50) = 3.93, p

rep = .996, p = .0003, d = 1.11. Partici-

pants circled a happier character on the SAM scale when in the presence of chocolates (M = 6.8, SD = 1.2) than when in the presence of feces (M = 5.2, SD = 1.7). Ratings of arousal and dominance did not differ between conditions, t(50) = 0.62, p

rep = .47, p = .54, d = 0.18, and t(50) = –0.94, p

rep = .60, p = .35,

d = 0.27, respectively. Although mood did vary by object condition, distance estimates were not related to participants’ mood, r = .16, p

rep = .66, p = .27. Distance estimates were also

unrelated to feelings of arousal, r = .07, p rep

= .43, p = .61, and dominance, r = .05, p

rep = .32, p = .75.

General Discussion Perceptions of distance depend in part on the desirability of the perceived object—which depends, in turn, on its capacity to satisfy a visceral or intrapsychic need. The effect of desir- ability on distance perception was observed in numeric reports, and it was also observed when we used techniques that are standard in perceptual research (action-based and visual matching measures) for measuring the behavioral conse- quences of perceptual biases. We suggest that these biases arise in order to encourage perceivers to engage in behaviors leading to the acquisition of the object.

Other researchers have noted, similarly, that biased percep- tion may serve a functional role in guiding perceivers’ behav- iors in optimal ways. The most fully developed research program exploring this idea was discussed earlier: Proffitt and his colleagues (e.g., Proffitt, 2006) have argued that percep- tion is biased to conserve precious physiological resources. For instance, when fatigued, people see a distance to run as farther and a hill to climb as steeper. By perceiving distances and slopes in more extreme ways, a perceiver is discouraged from engaging in behaviors that may prove physiologically costly.

Our studies suggest another way in which perception may assist in this type of self-regulation. Perceiving desirable objects as closer can energize actions meant to obtain those objects. That is, vision may be shaped to assist in the conserva- tion of energy, but vision may also be shaped to assist in the

expenditure of energy when such expenditure could serve pressing goals. If this analysis is correct, then our studies expand the understanding of how visual perception aids per- ceivers in regulating costly and beneficial behaviors.

Some researchers may contend that psychological pro- cesses other than motivations biased distance perception in our studies. It is possible that inducing a state of arousal by, for example, making participants exceptionally thirsty changed the way perceivers processed the visual scene (see Steblay, 1992). However, thirst and hunger are not marked by increases in the physiological markers of arousal, such as heart rate and blood pressure, that have been shown to alter visual scene pro- cessing (Engel, 1959; Hahn, Stern, & Fehr, 1964). Thus, it is unlikely that changes in physiological arousal are responsible for the biased perceptions of distance that we observed.

Our data suggest a positivity bias in distance perception, but a more nuanced perspective and additional research may be required. In some cases, being prepared to defend oneself against danger may be more important for survival than mak- ing use of opportunities for reward. Thus, undesirable objects that pose a threat and require immediate action (e.g., a coiled cobra) might be perceived as closer in order to guide effective, even essential, action. Negative objects that are less likely to call for immediate action—such as a smelly pile of garbage— might be seen as further away in order to establish a more pleasant perceptual state.

We argue that perceptual systems are sensitive to situational constraints and differential consequences. If the environment is one in which resources can be garnered and threats are mini- mal, people can proceed with an approach focus. Thus, posi- tivity biases may prevail when threats do not require immediate attention, leading people to see desirable objects as closer than undesirable ones. However, if environments contain threats that require a prompt reaction, positivity biases may be put aside temporarily to allow effective response.

Acknowledgments

We extend our thanks to Allison Balcetis, Alyssa Biederman, Cory Clark, Shana Cole, Adam Hasinki, Crystal McWhirter, Sirisha Nandipati, and Allison Rapp for their assistance in data collection. This work was supported financially by National Institute of Mental Health Grant RO1 56072 and by National Science Foundation Grant 0745806, both awarded to David Dunning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests with respect to their authorship and/or the publication of this article.

References

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Moti- vational influences on perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612–625.

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2007). Cognitive dissonance reduction and perception of the physical world. Psychological Science, 18, 917–921.

at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on March 19, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

152 Balcetis, Dunning

Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D.R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.

Bradley, M.M., & Lang, P.J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self- assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.

Bruner, J.S., & Goodman, C.C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol- ogy, 42, 33–44.

Bruner, J.S., & Minturn, A.L. (1955). Perceptual identification and per- ceptual organization. Journal of General Psychology, 53, 21–28.

Davis, M. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 25–38.

Dollard, J., & Miller, N.E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dunning, D. (2001). On the motives underlying social cognition. In N. Schwarz & A. Tesser (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1. Intraindividual processes (pp. 348–374). New York: Blackwell.

Engel, B.T. (1959). Some physiological correlates of hunger and pain. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 389–396.

Erdelyi, M.H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1–25.

Esteve-Lanao, J., Lucia, A., deKoning, J.J., & Foster, C. (2008). How do humans control physiological strain during strenuous endur- ance exercise? PLoS ONE, 3, e2943. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371 %2Fjournal .pone.0002943

Goldiamond, I. (1958). Indicators of perception: I. Subliminal per- ception, subception, unconscious perception: An analysis in terms of psychophysical indicator methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 373–411.

Hahn, W.W., Stern, J.A., & Fehr, F.S. (1964). Generalizability of heart rate as a measure of drive state. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 58, 305–309.

Isen, A. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish & J.M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521–539). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Isen, A.M., Labroo, A.A., & Durlach, P. (2004). An influence of prod- uct and brand name on positive affect: Implicit and explicit mea- sures. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 43–63.

Jones, E.E. (1985). Major developments in social psychology during the past five decades. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1 (3rd ed., pp. 47–108). New York: Random House.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill.

McCurdy, H.G. (1956). Coin perception studies and the concept of schemata. Psychological Review, 63, 160–168.

Philbeck, J.W., & Loomis, J.M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 601–612.

Proffitt, D.R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122.

Proffitt, D.R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106–112.

Riener, C., Stefanucci, J., Proffitt, D.R., & Clore, G. (2003, November). Mood and the perception of spatial layout. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Rieser, J.J., Pick, H.L., Ashmead, D.H., & Garing, A.E. (1995). Cali- bration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per- ception and Performance, 21, 480–497.

Steblay, N.M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.

Witt, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., & Epstein, W. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577–590.

Wohlwill, J.F. (1966). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 17, 201–232.

at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on March 19, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/