Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In previous studies of RM of the target in the launching effect, the initial moving stimulus was referred to as the launcher. However, in the current study the term “launcher” is less appropriate (as the initially moving stimulus would not “launch” the target in an entraining effect display), and so the more neutral term “mover” is used.
Given that Choi and Scholl found RM of launched targets was decreased relative to RM of nonlaunched targets and RM of passing movers did not differ from RM of launched targets, it is possible RM of passing movers was decreased relative to RM of other types of nonlaunched targets. However, comparison of RM of passing movers and RM of other types of nonlaunched targets was not reported. There are at least two reasons why RM of passing movers might be decreased relative to RM of nonlaunched targets. First, the mover occluded the stationary target in passing displays, and contact with or resistance from the stationary target could have decreased perceived velocity of the mover (cf. braking, Levelt 1962; representational friction, Hubbard 1995, 1998). Second, the stationary target could have functioned as a landmark for judgments of the mover, and given that RM is decreased if a stimulus moves away from a landmark (Hubbard and Ruppel 1999), RM of the mover was decreased (but see Hubbard et al. 2001, for why decreases in RM in launched targets is not due to a landmark effect).
Michotte (1946/1963) reported the launching effect was maximized if the ratio of mover velocity to target velocity was 3.6:1, but a robust launching effect could still be found if the ratio of mover velocity to target velocity was 1:1. A ratio of 1:1 was chosen for the current experiment to facilitate comparisons of (a) RM of movers and RM of targets, (b) RM in the launching effect and RM in the entraining effect, and (c) the current data with the data of Choi and Scholl (2006), who also used a ratio of 1:1.
It might be argued the combined mover + target in entraining trials was perceived as a single larger object rather than two adjacent smaller objects, and so the latter portion of an entraining trial involved one object and a single motion, whereas the earlier portion of an entraining trial (and all of a launching trial) involved two objects and a single motion. However, the difference between RM of movers and RM of targets in the entraining effect does not support the idea the combined mover + target was perceived as a single object, and Michotte (1946/1963) reported that the segregation of the mover and the target as separate objects continued after contact if a period of previous separation of the mover and target had been observed.
References
Choi H, Scholl BJ (2006) Measuring causal perception: connections to representational momentum? Acta Psychol 123:91–111
Finke RA, Freyd JJ, Shyi GCW (1986) Implied velocity and acceleration induce transformations of visual memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 115:175–188
Freyd JJ, Johnson JQ (1987) Probing the time course of representational momentum. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13:259–268
Hubbard TL (1990) Cognitive representation of linear motion: possible direction and gravity effects in judged displacement. Mem Cogn 18:299–309
Hubbard TL (1995) Cognitive representation of motion: evidence for friction and gravity analogues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:241–254
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 23:1484–1493
Hubbard TL (1998) Some effects of representational friction, target size, and memory averaging on memory for vertically moving targets. Can J Exp Psychol 52:44–49
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 116–121
Hubbard TL (2005) Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: a review of the findings. Psychon Bull Rev 12:822–851
Hubbard TL (2006) Bridging the gap: possible roles and contributions of representational momentum. Psicologica 27:1–34
Hubbard TL, Favretto A (2003) Naive impetus and Michotte’s “Tool Effect:” evidence from representational momentum. Psychol Res/Psychologische Forschung 67:134–152
Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (1999) Representational momentum and the landmark attraction effect. Can J Exp Psychol 53:242–256
Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (2002) A possible role of naive impetus in Michotte’s “launching effect”: evidence from representational momentum. Vis Cogn 9:153–176
Hubbard TL, Blessum JA, Ruppel SE (2001) Representational momentum and Michotte’s (1946/1963) “Launching Effect” paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:294–301
Kerzel D (2000) Eye movements and visible persistence explain the mislocalization of the final position of a moving target. Vis Res 40:3703–3715
Kerzel D (2002) The locus of “memory displacement” is at least partly perceptual: effects of velocity, expectation, friction, memory averaging, and weight. Percept Psychophys 64:680–692
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 244–258
McCloskey M (1983) Naive theories of motion. In: Gentner D, Stevens AL (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 299–324
Michotte A (1963) The perception of causality (trans: Miles TR, Miles E). New York: Basic Books (Original published in 1946)
Nakatani K (1989) Fixed set in the perception of size in relation to lightness. Percept Mot Skills 68:415–422
Schlottmann A, Shanks DR (1992) Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Q J Exp Psychol 44A:321–342
Scholl BJ, Nakayama K (2002) Causal capture: contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychol Sci 13:493–498
Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309
Thinès G, Costall A, Butterworth G (eds) (1991) Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
White PA (1988) Causal processing: origins and development. Psychol Bull 104:36–52
White PA (2007) Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: a test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev 14:647–652
White PA (2009) Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychol Rev 116:580–601
Young ME (1995) On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychon Bull Rev 2:83–104
Young ME, Falmier O (2008) Launching at a distance: the effect of spatial markers. Q J Exp Psychol 61:1356–1370
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hubbard, T.L. Launching, Entraining, and Representational Momentum: Evidence Consistent with an Impetus Heuristic in Perception of Causality. Axiomathes 23, 633–643 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9186-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9186-z