A Socio-Ecological Approach to Perception

Abstract

Our conscious visual experience of the environment is derived from optical information consisting of an ever-changing distribution of light specified in angular units. To transform these units into linear spatial units appropriate for the specification of spatial extents, the visual system needs geometry and a ruler to scale the information. We review the evidence that perceptual rulers derive from the body's phenotype, which is comprised of our morphology, physiology, and behavioral repertoire. We then propose that perception is also scaled relative to the socioecological environment. In this account, social resources affect perception by extending or contracting the relevant physiological ruler. Additionally, we suggest the human ecology functions to select the relevant perceptual ruler. Finally, we highlight research on individual differences as a useful method to further investigate these issues. In moving forward, a complete account of visual perception must necessarily include the socio-ecological environment.eey wodss: K visual perception, social resources, perceptual scaling, socio-ecological environmentThe information for visual perception consists of optic flow and ocular-motor adjustments, both of which consist of angular units. In order to transform these angular units into linear units appropriate for the perception of distance and size, the visual system must make use of geometry and rulers. Our embodied approach to perception contends that the body's phenotype, consisting of morphology, physiology, and behavior, provides the rulers by which spatial perceptions are scaled (Proffitt & Linkenauger, 2013). Depending on one's goals in a particular environment, different aspects of the body become relevant perceptual rulers. Picking up an object, for example, makes hand size relevant, whereas reaching to a location implicates arm's length. In the current paper, we review our embodied approach to perception, and in particular, discuss how walkable extents are scaled to the physiological resources required to traverse the extent. We then consider how social resources function to augment or deplete the resources available for locomotion, and thereby, contribute to the scaling of walkable extents. Given the inherent variability in peoples' phenotypes, we favor an individual differences approach to investigating socioecological effects in perception.

The hidden effects of recalling secrets: Assimilation, contrast, and the burdens of secrecy.

“…When people feel that they have diminished resources (e.g., cognitive, physiological, motivational), they feel that more effort is required to interact with the external environment (Cole & Balcetis, 2013; Eves, 2014; Eves, Thorpe, Lewis, & Taylor-Covill, 2014; Gross & Proffitt, 2014; Proffitt, 2006; Witt, Proffitt, & Epstein, 2004; Witt, 2011). Perceiving the external environment as requiring additional effort to interact with, then, makes that environment seem more challenging, which leads to the judgment that the environment is forbidding.…”

Editorial: Current and Future Directions of Socio-Ecological Psychology

“…Shifting to a more fine-grained account of socio-ecological influence, Gross and Proffitt (2014) explicate how our perceptions are grounded in ecology. They focus on work demonstrating that visual and olfactory perceptions are guided by various factors, such as bodily constraints, goals and motivations, and by available physical (e.g., blood glucose) and social (e.g., presence of close others) resources.…”

“…However, through the lens of socio-ecological psychology, the connections among them come into focus. For instance, the articles by Oka (2014) and by Gross and Proffitt (2014) both explored the role of geographical terrains. Murray (2014), Oka (2014), and Gross and Proffitt (2014) all explored physical environments, whereas Mizokawa and Komiya (2014) and Zimmermann and Neyer (2014) both explored interpersonal environments.…”

“…For instance, the articles by Oka (2014) and by Gross and Proffitt (2014) both explored the role of geographical terrains. Murray (2014), Oka (2014), and Gross and Proffitt (2014) all explored physical environments, whereas Mizokawa and Komiya (2014) and Zimmermann and Neyer (2014) both explored interpersonal environments. Importantly, from the socio-ecological perspective, there are many possibilities of cross-fertilization of research across traditional demarcations, such as those featured in this issue-namely, clinical, perception, developmental, personality, and evolutionary psychology.…”