On the Evolution of a Radical Concept: Affordances According to Gibson and Their Subsequent Use and Development

Abstract

James J. Gibson, the founder of ecological psychology, introduced a radical empiricist approach to perception and action centered on direct perception in naturalistic environments that was counter to popular representational views of his time. This direct perception approach and the associated introduction of the affordance concept have been extremely influential in several fields of study. However, since its inception, the affordance concept has evolved in a manner such that it now deviates significantly from Gibson’s original intention. This review follows use of the affordance concept by four sets of influential experimental psychologists: Gibson, Donald Norman, Mike Tucker and Rob Ellis, and Daniel Bub and Michael Masson. Particular attention is paid to the manner in which they applied the concept and the contributions provided by each set of researchers. The primary goal of this review is to determine what cognitive psychologists can take away from developments within the field and what considerations should be taken into account when using the term affordance. Having a more thorough understanding of the factors that led to the concept of affordance and its recent reformulations will better equip cognitive psychologists and, by extension, human factors researchers to further advance the study of perception–action relations.

Deconstructing Dizziness

“…Any experience involving the perception of movement is bound to exhibit a motor aspect ( 8 ). Though affordance is widely assumed to be specific to the spatial properties of objects of action ( 9 ), there are no grounds for believing it must be so limited. Indeed, if action is to be responsive to the spatiotemporal continuity of the environment, affordance must extend both to the subject, and across time ( 10 ).…”

When Affective Relation Weighs More Than the Mug Handle: Investigating Affective Affordances

“…The empirical analysis of the construct of AA certainly benefits from the progress achieved in the investigation of motor affordance and intersubjectivity, emphasizing its contextsensitiveness at the synchronic level. Laboratory research has investigated affordances using 2D, then 3D, images of objects, gradually introducing the variable context (Chong and Proctor, 2020). The kind of context scrutinized is not only physicalspatial, but also social and linguistic (Gianelli et al, 2013): (stable) affordances are in fact codified in language (Borghi, 2012;Borghi et al, 2013).…”

“…Are these "affordances"? Strictly speaking no, as these accounts clash with direct perception, but they are undoubtedly elegant approaches suitable for outlining answers (also) to most questions of ecological psychology (for a masterly, unbiased, review, Chong and Proctor, 2020).…”

Neural Correlates of Hand–Object Congruency Effects during Action Planning

“…Initial studies reported that "affordances" led to stimulus-response compatibility effects based on a correspondence between the graspable features of objects depicted in 2-D images and "independent" task-related actions (Bub & Masson, 2010;Creem & Proffitt, 2001;Craighero, Fadiga, Umiltà, & Rizzolatti, 1996;Gentilucci & Gangitano, 1998;Tucker & Ellis, 1998). However, the purported "automatic" activation of habitual actions elicited by affordances has been widely debated with recent evidence in the literature suggesting that these effects are dependent on task and stimulus sets (Kornblum & Lee, 1995), and on the type of motor response required to be executed (Bub, Masson, & van Noordenne, 2021;Chong & Proctor, 2020;Bub et al, 2018;Bub & Masson, 2010). As a result, habitual actions have been shown to be more strongly elicited with real objects than 2-D images of objects (Gomez, Skiba, & Snow, 2018;Snow et al, 2011).…”