, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 633–643 | Cite as

Launching, Entraining, and Representational Momentum: Evidence Consistent with an Impetus Heuristic in Perception of Causality

  • Timothy L. HubbardEmail author
Original Paper


Displacements in the remembered location of stimuli in displays based on Michotte’s (1946/1963) launching effect and entraining effect were examined. A moving object contacted an initially stationary target, and the target began moving. After contacting the target, the mover became stationary (launching trials) or continued moving in the same direction and remained adjacent to the target (entraining trials). In launching trials, forward displacement was smaller for targets than for movers; in entraining trials, forward displacement was smaller for movers than for targets. Also, forward displacement was smaller for targets in launching trials than for targets in entraining trials. Data are consistent with a hypothesis that the launching effect involves an attribution that the mover imparted to the target a dissipating impetus that was responsible for target motion. Introspective experience of a perception of physical causality in the launching effect might result because behavior of movers and targets is consistent with that predicted by an impetus heuristic.


Causal perception Launching effect Entraining effect Representational momentum Impetus Heuristics Spatial representation 


  1. Choi H, Scholl BJ (2006) Measuring causal perception: connections to representational momentum? Acta Psychol 123:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Finke RA, Freyd JJ, Shyi GCW (1986) Implied velocity and acceleration induce transformations of visual memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 115:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Freyd JJ, Johnson JQ (1987) Probing the time course of representational momentum. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hubbard TL (1990) Cognitive representation of linear motion: possible direction and gravity effects in judged displacement. Mem Cogn 18:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hubbard TL (1995) Cognitive representation of motion: evidence for friction and gravity analogues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hubbard TL (1997) Target size and displacement along the axis of implied gravitational attraction: effects of implied weight and evidence of representational gravity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 23:1484–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hubbard TL (1998) Some effects of representational friction, target size, and memory averaging on memory for vertically moving targets. Can J Exp Psychol 52:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hubbard TL (2004) The perception of causality: insights from Michotte’s launching effect, naive impetus theory, and representational momentum. In: Oliveira AM, Teixeira MP, Borges GF, Ferro MJ (eds) Fechner Day 2004. The International Society for Psychophysics, Coimbra, Portugal, pp 116–121Google Scholar
  9. Hubbard TL (2005) Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: a review of the findings. Psychon Bull Rev 12:822–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubbard TL (2006) Bridging the gap: possible roles and contributions of representational momentum. Psicologica 27:1–34Google Scholar
  11. Hubbard TL, Favretto A (2003) Naive impetus and Michotte’s “Tool Effect:” evidence from representational momentum. Psychol Res/Psychologische Forschung 67:134–152Google Scholar
  12. Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (1999) Representational momentum and the landmark attraction effect. Can J Exp Psychol 53:242–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (2002) A possible role of naive impetus in Michotte’s “launching effect”: evidence from representational momentum. Vis Cogn 9:153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hubbard TL, Blessum JA, Ruppel SE (2001) Representational momentum and Michotte’s (1946/1963) “Launching Effect” paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerzel D (2000) Eye movements and visible persistence explain the mislocalization of the final position of a moving target. Vis Res 40:3703–3715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerzel D (2002) The locus of “memory displacement” is at least partly perceptual: effects of velocity, expectation, friction, memory averaging, and weight. Percept Psychophys 64:680–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levelt WJM (1962) Motion braking and the perception of causality. In: Michotte A et al (eds) Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales [Phenomenal causality, permanence and reality]. Publications Universitaires de Louvain, Studia Psychologica, Louvain, pp 244–258Google Scholar
  18. McCloskey M (1983) Naive theories of motion. In: Gentner D, Stevens AL (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 299–324Google Scholar
  19. Michotte A (1963) The perception of causality (trans: Miles TR, Miles E). New York: Basic Books (Original published in 1946)Google Scholar
  20. Nakatani K (1989) Fixed set in the perception of size in relation to lightness. Percept Mot Skills 68:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schlottmann A, Shanks DR (1992) Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Q J Exp Psychol 44A:321–342Google Scholar
  22. Scholl BJ, Nakayama K (2002) Causal capture: contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychol Sci 13:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thinès G, Costall A, Butterworth G (eds) (1991) Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  25. White PA (1988) Causal processing: origins and development. Psychol Bull 104:36–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White PA (2007) Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: a test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev 14:647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. White PA (2009) Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychol Rev 116:580–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Young ME (1995) On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychon Bull Rev 2:83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young ME, Falmier O (2008) Launching at a distance: the effect of spatial markers. Q J Exp Psychol 61:1356–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations