Behavioral Sensitivity to Reward Is Reduced for Far Objects

O’Connor, David; Meade, Bernard; Carter, Olivia; Rossiter, Sarah; Hester, Robert

doi:10.1177/0956797613503663

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results suggest that real-exposure effects on food decisions operate independently of other factors that drive valuation, such as food preference and caloric density, although future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine whether there may be meaningful relationships between these factors. Together with previous studies (Bushong et al, 2010; Gross et al, 2015; Müller, 2013; O’Connor, Meade, Carter, Rossiter, & Hester, 2014), the results have translational implications that could inform public health approaches to diet and obesity (Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005; Marteau et al, 2012; Neal et al, 2006). Specifically, we predict that that if proximity to real tangible foods has a powerful influence on dietary decisions and expectations about satiety, changes in the way foods are positioned in cafeterias and other food outlets, such as limiting the accessibility of high-calorie foods, or making low-calorie healthy foods easier to reach, should have a measurable influence on buyer behavior and long-term health outcomes (Hunter et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

Romero

Compton

Yang

et al. 2018

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory studies of human dietary choice have relied on computerized two-dimensional (2D) images as stimuli, whereas in everyday life, consumers make decisions in the context of real foods that have actual caloric content and afford grasping and consumption. Surprisingly, few studies have compared whether real foods are valued more than 2D images of foods, and in the studies that have, differences in the stimuli and testing conditions could have resulted in inflated bids for the real foods. Moreover, although the caloric content of food images has been shown to influence valuation, no studies to date have investigated whether 'real food exposure effects' on valuation reflect greater sensitivity to the caloric content of real foods versus images. Here, we compared willingness-to-pay (WTP) for, and expectations about satiety after consuming, everyday snack foods that were displayed as real foods versus 2D images. Critically, our 2D images were matched closely to the real foods for size, background, illumination, and apparent distance, and trial presentation and stimulus timing were identical across conditions. We used linear mixed effects modeling to determine whether effects of display format were modulated by food preference and the caloric content of the foods. Compared to food images, observers were willing to pay 6.62% more for (Experiment 1) and believed that they would feel more satiated after consuming (Experiment 2), foods displayed as real objects. Moreover, these effects appeared to be consistent across food preference, caloric content, as well as observers' estimates of the caloric content of the foods. Together, our results confirm that consumers' perception and valuation of everyday foods is influenced by the format in which they are displayed. Our findings raise important new insights into the factors that shape dietary choice in real-world contexts and highlight potential avenues for improving public health approaches to diet and obesity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

Romero

Compton

Yang

et al. 2018

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We adapted the task designed by O’Connor, Meade, Carter, Rossiter, and Hester (2014) , which was originally employed to test spatial sensitivity to reward, reported to be reduced in far relative to near space. In Experiments 1, 3, 4, and 5, participants wore a virtual-reality headset (Oculus Rift; https://www.oculus.com ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

We regret having omitted reference in our article to a study by O'Connor, Meade, Carter, Rossiter, and Hester (2014). The experiments we presented were designed by adapting the task O'Connor et al originally used to test spatial sensitivity to reward.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the Depth: Visual Perception of Shapes Is Better in Peripersonal Space

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Closer objects are invariably perceived as bigger than farther ones and are therefore easier to detect and discriminate. This is so deeply grounded in our daily experience that no question has been raised as to whether the advantage for near objects depends on other features (e.g., depth itself). In a series of five experiments (N = 114), we exploited immersive virtual environments and visual illusions (i.e., Ponzo) to probe humans’ perceptual abilities in depth and, specifically, in the space closely surrounding our body, termed peripersonal space. We reversed the natural distance scaling of size in favor of the farther object, which thus appeared bigger, to demonstrate a persistent shape-discrimination advantage for close objects. Psychophysical modeling further suggested a sigmoidal trend for this benefit, mirroring that found for multisensory estimates of peripersonal space. We argue that depth is a fundamental, yet overlooked, dimension of human perception and that future studies in vision and perception should be depth aware.

show abstract

“…That is, things are experienced to be "far away" in time as well as in space, important others feel "close," and so on (Saj, Fuhrman, Vuilleumier, & Boroditsky, 2014). O'Connor, Meade, Carter, Rossiter, and Hester (2014) offer another illustration of the fundamentality of spatial distance and show that even sensitivity to rewards and punishment is reduced over spatial distance. Thus, even the influence of the most fundamental cues for behavior is less pronounced over distances.…”

Section: Spatial Distance and Relational-interdependent Self-construalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness Enactment as Response to Higher Level Unfairness

Houwelingen

Dijke

Cremer

2016

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to the abundance of evidence on employee reactions to manager unfairness, we know very little about factors that predict whether managers will act fairly or not. This paper explores the effect of procedural unfairness that emanates from higher level managers on procedural fairness enactment at lower levels in the organization. We argue that lower level managers can enact both more and less fair procedures in response to higher level unfairness and that this depends on the extent to which lower level managers define the self in terms of their relation with their higher level manager (i.e., relationalinterdependent self-construal). We study both the moderating role of self-construal and how it is embedded in the physical environment of the organization. We pay particular attention to how spatial distance between higher and lower management affects selfconstrual at lower levels and -because of this relationship -the enactment of fair procedures within the organization. We conduct four studies (in two of which we study spatial distance as an antecedent for self-construal) and show that relatively high levels of relational-interdependent self-construal lead to assimilation in terms of procedural fairness enactment, whereas relatively low levels lead to contrast. FAIRNESS ENACTMENT AS RESPONSE TO HIGHER LEVEL UNFAIRNESS: THE ROLES OF SELF-CONSTRUAL AND SPATIAL DISTANCEIf one conclusion is warranted after four decades of research, it would be that procedural fairness matters (Colquitt et al., 2013). Employees care strongly about fairly enacted procedures (Rupp, 2011) and, in particular, the experience of unfair procedures generally motivates strong negative responses (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; De Cremer, 2004). Indeed, procedural fairness has been shown to have substantial effects on virtually all important organizational outcomes (Cropanzano & Stein, 2009).Given these pervasive effects, it is surprising that research addressing factors that influence whether managers enact fair procedures (or not) is still in its infancy (Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). For instance, there is some evidence that aspects of the manager-employee relationship and characteristics of individual managers predict whether procedures will be enacted fairly (Scott, Colquitt, & Zapata, 2007; Seppälä, Lipponen, Pirttilä-Backman, & Lipsanen, 2012). However, research has yet to go beyond the manager-employee dyad and take the broader context of the organization into account. In the present paper, we focus on procedural fairness enactment of lower level managers who interact with employees and consider whether the fairness of procedures enacted at higher levels influences fairness enactment down the line.We will argue that fairness enactment at lower levels may be influenced by higher level fairness in two different ways. First, lower level managers may assimilate higher level behavior, thus enacting procedures in an unfair manner after experiencing unfairness themselves. Alternatively, lower level manag...

show abstract

Behavioral Sensitivity to Reward Is Reduced for Far Objects

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

Mind the Depth: Visual Perception of Shapes Is Better in Peripersonal Space

Fairness Enactment as Response to Higher Level Unfairness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About