Affective Signals of Threat Increase Perceived Proximity

Cole, Shana; Balcetis, Emily; Dunning, David

doi:10.1177/0956797612446953

Cited by 170 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…shovel) seem larger compared to when no such goal is evoked. Other goals that have been found to influence the perception of size and distance are avoiding physical threat (Cole, Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013) or identity threat (Xiao & Van Bavel, 2012; see also Cesario & Navarrete, 2014), attaining social affiliation (Fay, & Maner, 2012), doing puzzles (Aarts, Custers, & Veltkamp, 2008), and pursuing the enjoyment of eating (Van Koningsbruggen, Stroebe, & Aarts, 2011).…”

Section: Physiological and Psychological Influences Onmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception.

Krpan¹,

Schnall²

2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Physiological and Psychological Influences Onmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, if the goal is to escape from a threatening stimulus (e.g. a spider), seeing the stimulus as closer may energize an immediate escape response (Cole, Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013). When it comes to more cognitive goals, however, the functional role of visual perception is less clearly defined.…”

Section: Physiological and Psychological Influences Onmentioning

confidence: 99%

Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception.

Krpan¹,

Schnall²

2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Visual perception of the physical environment is scaled by a person's capacity for action (Witt, 2011), modified by fear or threat (Cole et al, 2013;Stefanucci et al, 2008;Teachman et al, 2008), and shaped by the presence of a supportive friend (Schnall et al, 2008) or capable co-actor (Doerrfeld et al, 2012). Here, we have shown for the first time that the dynamics of social interactions can also impact perception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Competitive Interaction Leads to Perceptual Distancing Between Actors

Thomas¹,

Davoli²,

Brockmole³

2013

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People physically distance themselves from competitors and the disliked and cooperate less with those who are further away. We examine whether social interaction can also impact the space people perceive between themselves and others by measuring the influence of competitive dynamics on visual perception. In two experiments, participants played a ball toss game until they reached a target score. In Experiment 1, a confederate stood across the room from the participant and either a) played the same game competitively, b) played the same game cooperatively, or c) observed the participant without playing, while in Experiment 2, two participants played the same versions of the game with each other. After the game, participants provided an estimate of the distance between themselves and the other player. Participants in Experiment 1 who competed with the confederate consistently judged her to be more distant than participants who cooperated with the confederate or played alone. In Experiment 2, players who lost the competition perceived more distance between themselves and their opponents than did players who won, suggesting that the experience of losing a competition drives this perceptual distancing. These findings demonstrate the power of a socially distancing interaction to create perceptual distance between people.People frequently use distance metaphors to characterize social relationships: friends who were once close can drift apart, while an unpleasant colleague should be kept at arm's length (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980;1999). These metaphors reflect the power of spatial relationships to influence, and be influenced by, social interactions. For example, people physically distance themselves from competitors and the disliked (e.g., Kleck et al., 1968; Sommer, 1969;Tedesco & Fromme, 1974) and cooperate less with those who are further away (Bradner & Mark, 2002;Sensenig & Reed, 1972). Here, we examine whether social interactions can also impact the space people perceive between themselves and others.Our work is grounded in the theory of embodied perception, which proposes that perception is related to actions within, and thoughts and feelings about, the environment (e.g., Glenberg, et al., 2013 , Doerrfeld, et al., 2012), and success (e.g., Witt & Proffitt, 2005) can influence many psychophysical judgments including estimates of size, distance, speed, and weight (see Witt, 2011). The vast majority of these studies focus on a single individual's perception during an isolated activity. However, people commonly perform actions in social contexts where others are present and interacting in some manner. Social contexts are important determinants of one's expectations, actions, and attitudes that may also affect perception in systematic ways. Here, we consider the effects of two contrasting scenarioscompetition and cooperation-in order to establish the existence of socio-perceptual effects and to investigate the mechanisms that govern their emergence.How might social contexts influence perception? One intriguing ...

show abstract

“…And there is certainly suggestive research in perceptual psychology. For a few recent examples, see Cole et al 2013;Stefanucci et al 2012;Stefanucci et al 2011;Stefanucci 2010;Stefanucci and Proffitt 2009. In spite of this important caveat, and area for new philosophical research, our focus will largely be on belief as the relevant candidate penetrating state.…”

Section: Predictive Coding and Cognitive Penetrabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise, uncertainty, and interest: Predictive coding and cognitive penetration

Vance

Stokes

2017

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the various contributions to this special volume will no doubt attest, the predictive coding model of the mind and brain is remarkably ambitious in scope of explanation. For one, its central proponents allege that it offers a single, unified mechanism for phenomena that are traditionally treated as distinct and, accordingly, explained in disparate ways. As Jakob Hohwy writes, Perception, action, and attention are but three different ways of doing the very same thing. All three ways must be balanced carefully with each other in order to get the world right. The unity of conscious perception, the nature of the self, and our knowledge of our private mental world is at heart grounded in our attempts to optimize predictions about our ongoing sensory input. (Hohwy 2013: 2).The mechanism that allegedly unifies these phenomena-prediction error minimization-is also supposed to promise unity across the cognitive sciences. As Andy Clark writes, this framework makes rich and illuminating contact with work in cognitive neuroscience while boasting a firm foundation in computational modeling and Bayesian theory. It thus offers what is arguably the first truly systematic bridge linking three of our most promising tools for understanding mind and reason: cognitive neuroscience, computational modelling, and probabilistic Bayesian approaches to dealing with evidence and uncertainty (Clark, 2013 190-1).Ambition such as this begets excitement, but it should also encourage careful scrutiny. Our general interest is at the interface of two standardly distinguished mental kinds or processescognition and sense perception. Both of the above theorists, as well as others, embrace to some degree a radical consequence of the predictive coding framework, namely, that the cognition/perception distinction will have to be revised in some important ways, if not abandoned outright. An important way to test this feature of the framework, as well as use it to shed new insight 1 This work was thoroughly collaborative and the paper thoroughly co-authored--the order of authors was chosen randomly.

show abstract

Affective Signals of Threat Increase Perceived Proximity

Cited by 170 publications

References 38 publications

Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception.

Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception.

Competitive Interaction Leads to Perceptual Distancing Between Actors

Noise, uncertainty, and interest: Predictive coding and cognitive penetration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About