Affective stimulus properties influence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion
In the New Look literature of the 1950s, it has been suggested that size judgments are dependent on the affective content of stimuli. This suggestion, however, has been ‘discredited’ due to contradictory findings and methodological problems. In the present study, we revisited this forgotten issue in two experiments. The first experiment investigated the influence of affective content on size perception by examining judgments of the size of target circles with and without affectively loaded (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative) pictures. Circles with a picture were estimated to be smaller than circles without a picture, and circles with a negative picture were estimated to be larger than circles with a positive or a neutral picture confirming the suggestion from the 1950s that size perception is influenced by affective content, an effect notably confined to negatively loaded stimuli. In a second experiment, we examined whether affective content influenced the Ebbinghaus illusion. Participants judged the size of a target circle whereby target and flanker circles differed in affective loading. The results replicated the first experiment. Additionally, the Ebbinghaus illusion was shown to be weakest for a negatively loaded target with positively loaded and blank flankers. A plausible explanation for both sets of experimental findings is that negatively loaded stimuli are more attention demanding than positively loaded or neutral stimuli.
- Badcock, D. R., & Westheimer, G. (1985). Spatial location and hyperacuity—the center-surround localization contribution function has 2 substrates. Vision Research, 25, 1259–1267. CrossRef
- Bondarko, V. M., & Danilova, M. V. (1999). Spatial interval discrimination in the presence of flanking lines. Spatial Vision, 12, 239–253.
- Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44. CrossRef
- Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1948). Symbolic value as an organizing factor in perception. Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 203–208. CrossRef
- Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention (CSEA-NIMH) (1995). The international affective picture system: Digitized photographs. Gainsville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
- Coren, S., & Enns, J. T. (1993). Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 579–588.
- Fox, E., Russo, R., & Dutton, K. (2002). Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 355–379. CrossRef
- Georgiou, G. A., Bleakley, C., Hayward, J., Russo, R., Dutton, K., Eltiti, S., et al. (2005). Focusing on fear: Attentional disengagement from emotional faces. Visual Cognition, 12, 145–158. CrossRef
- Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd—an anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 917–924. CrossRef
- Jaeger, T. (1978). Ebbinghaus illusions—size contrast or contour interaction phenomena. Perception and Psychophysics, 24, 337–342.
- Jenkin, N. (1957). Affective processes in perception. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 100–127. CrossRef
- Klein, G. S., Schlesinger, H. J., & Meister, D. E. (1951). The effect of personal values on perception—an experimental critique. Psychological Review, 58, 96–112. CrossRef
- Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2001). International affective picture system (IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report A-5. The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
- Muise, J. G., Brun, V., & Porelle, M. (1997). Salience of central figure in the Ebbinghaus illusion: The Oreo cookie effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1203–1208.
- Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 466–478. CrossRef
- Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001). The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 381–396. CrossRef
- Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122. CrossRef
- Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in distance perception. Psychological Science, 14, 106–113. CrossRef
- Pufall, P. B., & Dunbar, C. (1992). Perceiving whether or not the world affords stepping onto and over: A developmental study. Ecological Psychology, 4, 17–38.
- Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrast and effect sizes in behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press
- Shulman, G. L. (1992). Attentional modulation of size contrast. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A-Human Experimental Psychology, 45, 529–546.
- Smith, H. V., Fuller, R. G. C., & Forrest, D. W. (1975). Coin value and perceived size: a longitudinal study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 227–232.
- Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (1997). Social categorization and perceptual judgment of size: When perception is social. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1177–1190. CrossRef
- Tajfel, H. (1957). Value and the perceptual judgment of magnitude. Psychological Review, 64, 192–204. CrossRef
- Affective stimulus properties influence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Volume 72, Issue 3 , pp 304-310
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links