Affective stimulus properties influence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion

Abstract

In the New Look literature of the 1950s, it has been suggested that size judgments are dependent on the aVective content of stimuli. This suggestion, however, has been 'discredited' due to contradictory Wndings and methodological problems. In the present study, we revisited this forgotten issue in two experiments. The Wrst experiment investigated the inXuence of aVective content on size perception by examining judgments of the size of target circles with and without aVectively 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 conWrming the suggestion from the 1950s that size perception is inXuenced by aVective content, an eVect notably conWned to negatively loaded stimuli. In a second experiment, we examined whether aVective content inXuenced the Ebbinghaus illusion. Participants judged the size of a target circle whereby target and Xanker circles diVered in aVective loading. The results replicated the Wrst experiment. Additionally, the Ebbinghaus illusion was shown to be weakest for a negatively loaded target with positively loaded and blank Xankers. A plausible explanation for both sets of experimental Wndings is that negatively loaded stimuli are more attention demanding than positively loaded or neutral stimuli.

The influence of attention toward facial expressions on size perception

“…This phenomenon occurs despite the fact that the size of the central target circle never changes (Stapel & Koomen, 1997). Studies that have measured size perception with the Ebbinghaus illusion have used illustrations, figures, and pictures of objects or animals as stimuli (Coren, 1971;Coren & Enns, 1993;Coren & Girgus, 1978;Stapel & Koomen, 1997;van Ulzen et al, 2008).…”

“…Emotional stimuli are perceived as larger than neutral stimuli due to embodied cognition. In embodied cognition, our visual system is affected by various factors, especially emotional states, intention of behavior and biological needs, depending on the context (Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, & Epstein, 2003;van Ulzen et al, 2008). However, although the New Look theory has identified the effect of emotional factors on size perception, it could not explain the direction of the perception of positive stimuli (i.e., whether it is perceived as large or small) or the result for negative stimuli.…”

“…Size perception is known to be affected by physical factors, such as length, height, and volume, as well as psychological factors, including emotion and motivation. The New Look theory describes the effect of emotional factors on size perception and suggests that perceptual processing, such as the judgment of size, depends on whether the stimulus is effectively loaded and other emotional variables (van Ulzen, Semin, Oudejans, & Beek, 2008). For example, poor children were more likely to perceive coins as being larger than cardboard discs of the same size than rich children were (Bruner & Danilova, 1947).…”

Distinguishing Top-Down from Bottom-Up Effects

“…But it seems unlikely on the current state of the evidence. There are many putative examples of top-down effects even on relatively early processing of sensory input (Di Lollo et al, 2000;Summerfield & Koechlin, 2008;Ulzen et al, 2008). There appear to be many parallel processes at a level, connections across levels, and loops back from later to earlier processing.…”

“…By contrast, in other cases there is evidence that relatively early cortical systems processing sensory input are affected by information antecedently represented beyond those systems (Di Lollo, Enns, & Rensink, 2000;Summerfield & Koechlin, 2008;Ulzen et al, 2008) -although such claims remain controversial. Of course, it is by no means settled that all, or even any, of the effects described in the large literatures on perceptual learning and sensorimotor adaptation are definitely the result of changes to the dispositions embodied in a psychological process, rather than being mediated by top-down influences from other parts of the system.…”