Abstract
In response to comments, I repeat and further support the proposal that valence and arousal cannot serve as independent factors of motivated distance perception, but can be incorporated into the model as features of motivational direction. I articulate the importance of eliciting experiences to predict the direction of motivational direction, suggest additional ways to measure motivational direction, and direct the reader to extensive literatures that have illustrated conditions that give rise to approach and avoidance. Finally, I conjecture on how the motivated distance perception model can be further developed.
I articulated a model of the protagonistic role of approach and avoidance in perceiving distance. These expert commentaries inspired additional questions that may guide future research and for which I provide additional leads.
Incorporating Valence and Arousal
Stefanucci and Stokes (2016) advocate for the continued inclusion of valence and arousal. And my model can accept this inclusion, so long as valence and arousal are considered features of motivational orientation. The intensity and direction of motivational orientations can be predicted, in part, by object valence and the strength of the response the object elicits. However, valence and arousal are unable to serve as exclusive predictors in models of distance perception. In fact, beyond the data already presented, four new studies show no main effects of valence on distance perception (Krpan & Schnall, 2014). Valence and arousal remain important factors for predicting perceptions of distance, in so much as they assist in predicting the strength of approach or avoidance motivations.
Eliciting Experiences Matter
To predict the strength of approach or avoidance motives, researchers must consider features of eliciting experiences. When Storbeck (2016) claims that affective objects can automatically elicit motivations, he fails to note that the direction of the motivated response, be it to approach or avoid, is partially dictated by features of the eliciting situation (Shah & Kruglanski, 2008). To predict perceptual bias, one must consider the situation. For instance, aspects of the situation dictate whether a $100.00 bill activates approach or avoidance and the manner of perceptual bias; the bill is perceived as closer when the bill can be won than when it cannot (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010).
A full illustration of conditions that elicit approach or avoidance, as Storbeck (2016) requested, was beyond the purview of this manuscript, as prominent motivational theories already thoroughly fleshed out these conditions. Distance perception researchers interested in such conditions might draw inspiration from evolutionary theory (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), comparative psychology (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1988), goal gradient literatures (Brown, 1948; Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998), educational psychology (Elliot & Covington, 2001), state and trait differences in personality types (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994), and feedback systems (Carver, 2006) that explicate features of eliciting situations that shift motivational orientations.
Gathering Evidence for Mechanism
Researchers may find it difficult to measure approach and avoidance, as Stefanucci and Stokes (2016) note. If this is the case, they might test the proposed causal pathways using experimental chain designs (Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005), as manipulating motives is relatively easy using muscular movements (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, 1993) or cognitive tasks (Friedman & Förster, 2005). Recent evidence shows motivational orientations activated cognitively affected perceptions of distance; the more approach rather than inhibition/avoidance activated, the closer valenced words appeared (Krpan & Schnall, 2014).
Considering Fight, Flight, and Freezing
Storbeck (2016) suggested researchers predict perceptual bias from fight, flight, and freezing rather than from approach and avoidance. Unfortunately, his trio of behaviors merely reflects consequences of motivational orientations rather than eliciting mechanisms themselves. Organisms fight when they experience an approach orientation, they flee when they experience avoidance, and they freeze when they experience both approach and avoidance orientations simultaneously (McNaughton & Gray, 2000). Storbeck’s triadic structure lacks parsimony, as fight, flight, and freeze behaviors are consequences of motivational orientations, and not mechanism themselves.
Expanding the Model
This model best explains perceptual experiences of the current environment, rather than memories of past or anticipated experiences, as Isaacowitz and Freund (2016) suggest. If researchers choose to expand beyond immediate goals, they may find utility in motivational theories that articulate how one moves to, through, and beyond each stage of goal pursuit (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987). The manner in which motives affect perception may shift as goal pursuit evolves.
As Stefanucci and Stokes (2016) advocate, the model is most useful if it applies to perceptual experiences beyond distance, and new data support its generalizability. For instance, objects and situations that elicit approach shift perceptions of size, detectability, speed, and other qualities in ways that assist with satisfaction of active motives (Radel & Clément-Guillotin, 2012; van Koningsbruggen, Stroebe, & Aarts, 2011; van Ulzen, Semin, Oudejans, & Beek, 2008).
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity and the challenge from the commentators to propose and refine a model of motivated distance perception that synthesizes evidence, reconciles inconsistencies, and proposes falsifiable hypotheses that may spur future research but also expands the depth of processes tested.