factors effecting perception

• CULTURE-SOCIAL WORLD WE LIVE IN (CULTURE) AFFECTS WHAT OUR SENSES PICK UP: HUDSON'S STUDY

  Aim: to find out whether different cultures perceive depth cues in 2D images differently.

  Method: showed 2D drawings to black and white children, schooled and unschooled.

  Results: black and white schooled participants more likely to perceive depth than unschooled participants. white schooled participants more likely to perceive depth than black schooled participants.

  Conclusion: different cultures use depth cues differently, so have different perceptual sets.
• CULTURE-EVALUATION: HUDSONS STUDY

  cross-cultural research: language differences could have made method used unclear, so validity is effected :(

  problems with the method: the way the pictures were represented on paper may have confused participants, affecting findings :(

  poor design: early cross-cultural studies were poorly designed (no control group), causing findings to lack validity:(
• EMOTION-THE TENDENCY FOR OUR BRAIN TO NOTICE EXITING THINGS AND BLOCK THREATENING THINGS: MCGINNIE'S STUDY

  Aim: to know if anxiety-provoking things are noticed more than neutral things

  Method: students shown neutral and 'taboo' words. had to say word out loud. emotional arousal measured through GSR

  Results: took longer to say taboo words. taboo words gave bigger change in GSR

  Conclusion: emotional affects perceptual set, in this case perceptual defence
• EMOTION-EVALUATION: MCGINNIE'S STUDY

  objective measurements: GSR is a scientific method to measure emotion, better than rating scales :)

  embarrassment not defence: delayed recognition may just be embarrassment not perceptual defence :(

  results are contradictory: it's difficult to draw conclusions from research that is inconsistent :(
• MOTIVATION-WANTING SOMETHING INCREASES ITS ATTRACTIVENESS: GILCHRIST AND NESBERG'S STUDY

  Aim: to find out if food deprivation affects the perception of food

  Method: hungry (no food for 20 hours) and not hungry participants shown a slide of a meal. had to addict light level of slide shown

  Results: perceived food as brighter that longer deprived of food

  Conclusion: sensitivity greater when food deprived. hunger is a motivating factor that affects perception of food.
• EXPECTATION-BELIFS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCES CAN AFFECT HOW MUCH WE ATTEND TO THINGS: BRUNER AND MINTURN'S

  Aim: to find out if an ambiguous figure is seen differently if context is changed

  Method: participants shown as a sequence of letters or numbers with an ambiguous figure in the middle

  Results: those who saw letters said B. those who saw numbers saw 13

  Conclusion: shows expectation is affected by the context the figure is presented
• MOTIVATION-EVALUATION: GILCHRIST AND NESBERG'S STUDY

  support from similar studies: Stanford's study found similar results which strengthens the validity of the conclusion :)

  ethical issues: depriving people of food causes discomfort, a case of physical harm :(

  not like everyday life: participants judged pictures rather than real food so it may not apply to real word :(
• EXPECTATION-EVALUATION: BRUNER AND MINTURN'S

  artificial task: ambiguous figures are designed to trick perception, so lacks validity :(

  independent groups design: participant variables may have caused the difference in results not expectation :(

  real-world application: the study can explain the sometimes serious mistakes people make In the real world :)