You say, I only see what I want to...

Motivational Influences on Visual Perception

Isabel Acosta, 2007-49035

In an episode of How I Met Your Mother, a CBS situation comedy, Robin could not decide if she liked her co-anchor Don. The gang debates whether Robin is attracted to Don using the duck-rabbit theory. If she sees him as a Rabbit, then she doesn't like him, then if she sees him as a Duck, then she probably likes him. Don starts out as a pantsless Rabbit in Robin's eyes, but later on grows a duck bill on his face when he gets Robin a cup of coffee, apologizes for his unprofessional behavior, improves his work ethic, and decides to wear pants.

Do our motivations, wishes and preferences really influence what we see? This is what Balcetis & Dunning tried to investigate in their 2006 study. They focused mainly on the effect of motivational states --motivation to think of one’s self and one’s prospects in a favorable way, to believe that one will achieve positive outcomes while being able to avoid aversive ones, and to enhance self-worth and esteem. Synonyms of this word in literature are motivated reasoning, wishful thinking, self-affirmation, and defensive thinking. Previous studies indicate that this state shapes how people perceive their world and how they interpret information, for example, when judging people self-evaluation, predicting the future and reflecting on the past. In this study, they wanted to find out motivational states can constrain what information reaches consciousness in the first place. Does it influence the preconscious processing of visual stimulation? Do we really only see what we want to see?

Balcetis & Dunning used similar ambiguous stimuli, like the one Ted used in the picture above, for their study. They conducted five studies, each of which I will briefly describe to you. Ready, game on.

Study 1 and 2 tested whether participants would perceive the version of the stimuli that fits their wishes and preferences over the other that did not. In both experiments, they were told that they were part of a taste-testing experiment. On the table before them were two stimuli, one was a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice, the other one was a glass of gelatinous, viscous, green and foul-smelling "organic veggie smoothie". They were told to predict what each would taste like and to smell the stimuli to heighten the appeal of the orange juice and the disgust of the smoothie. A computer program will randomly select the beverage the participants had to drink, and they will know which one based on the figure flashed on the screen. The computer will select from a set of 26 letters or a set of 26 numbers. If the participants were in the number desirable condition, then they were told that if they saw a number on the screen, then they would drink the freshly squeezed orange juice, but if they saw a letter, then they would have to drink the veggie smoothie. If they were in the letter desirable condition, then seeing a letter would make them drink the freshly squeezed orange juice, and etcetera. This ambiguous figure was flashed for 400ms on the screen, while a 200ms 'computer crash' masked the image:

Study 2 employed the same concept, but used another more ambiguous stimulus. The seal-horse figure was used:

In this experiment, the participants had to predict the taste of three items: a bottle of Aquafina water, a bag of Jelly Belly candies, and a bag of gelatinous/partially liquified canned beans. A string of various images were displayed, the last one being the seal-horse figure (the determiner of the item to be consumed). Farm animals were worth positive points, and sea animals were worth negative points. If the final score was equal to zero, then the participant would consume water. If the final score was a positive number, then the participant would eat the candy, and i it were a negative number, the participant would drink the beans. In the farm animal condition, the points needed to turn the final score into a positive one would mean seeing a horse, and in the sea animal condition, the points needed to turn the final score into a positive one would mean seeing a seal.

Both studies reported that participants tended to report seeing the interpretation of an ambiguous figure that fit with their wishes and preferences. The interpretation that reached consciousness and was reported tended to be the one that placed participants in a desirable circumstance (drinking orange juice) rather than in an unwanted one (drinking foul veggie smoothie). Participants in Study 1 who recognized that the stimulus was ambiguous, were able to explain the purpose of the study during debriefing, or expressed that they actually favored the smoothie over the orange juice were excluded from the results. Study 2 was performed to account for the minority of the participants who pointed out that the stimulus was ambiguous.

Study 3 and 4 tested whether participants TRULY saw the favorable interpretation/version first by adding implicit measures. In Study 3, the participants had to categorize the stimulus into one of two boxes, Farm animal or Sea animal. The participants did not know that a camera was recording their eye movements. According to literature, initial eye movements (saccades) on presentation of a stimulus are not influenced by conscious processing. So the box to which their eyes first look at refers to the participant's interpretation of the ambiguous stimuli (which was the one that placed them in a favorable circumstance). Results showed that participants' first saccade tended to be to the favored category box than the other. In Study 4, a lexical decision task (LDT) was employed after and before the ambiguous figure was presented. Participants were presented letter strings of words related to horses (ex, cowboy) or seals (ex, blubber), and they were tasked to identify if they formed English words and complete them. The words responded to quickly by the participants indicated their interpretation of the ambiguous stimuli. After and before viewing the ambiguous figure, participants reacted in an LDT to words consistent with a preferred interpretation more quickly than to words consistent with the less preferred one. The fact that a word primed the interpretation of an ambiguous stimuli hints that a perceptual set exists, which is a preparedness to see the ambiguous figure as the desired object rather than the alternative.

Lastly, Study 5 was conducted to make sure that participants saw only the interpretation they wanted to see as they viewed the stimulus, not that they saw both interpretations and then only reported the favored one. In this study, the researcher says after the computer crash that he or she has made a mistake and that the participant would be assigned to the orange juice condition if the computer had shown him or her the other category of animal. If participants saw only one interpretation, they should be more likely to report the figure they desired at the time the figure was presented to them. However, if they saw both interpretations and just reported the one that was desired when the experimenter asked for their report, then they should more likely report the figure that ran counter to their desires at the time they viewed the figure. Results showed that participants honestly reported the stimulus that reflects their initial motivational state, regardless of the 'mistake'. Important to realize in this study is that, "wishful thinking constrains perceptual processes preconsciously, before the products of those processes become available to conscious awareness."

We do see what we want to see! This study is further evidence that perception is biased, and that we construe the realities we perceive. Our perceptions are not true replicas or accurate representations of the environment. Our perceptions are selective (ex, inattentional blindness), biased (distance is perceived to be longer when people are carrying a backpack), and malleable (affected by both top down and bottom up processing factors). This study adds evidence to the New Look theory that says that perception is an active and constructive process influenced by many top-down factors. Participants' perceptions are unconsciously affected by their needs and values, and by the context of the scene. Perception in this theory is filtered --what we perceive has some omitted information that was not relevant to us.

But you may ask, at what point is our perception influenced by our motivation and desires? The researchers point out nonconclusively that more literature proposes that it occurs during the latter part of the perception process, during the perceptual decision making part (where one categorizes the representations one has constructed). But recent evidence states that it could already have entered the process during the earlier parts. Influences are said to be detected in the V1, area of the primary visual cortex, the earliest area responsible for processing visual stimuli. We do not know when motivational states or biases enter our perception, but what is important to note is that, they are there, and they heavily affect what we see.

The study's results also note the importance of the perceptual set, and our wishes' effect on it. People's desires bias their perceptual set, such that they are more prepared to see what they hope for rather than what they fear. The perceptual set we posses contains features and concepts related to the desired stimulus over the undesired one. The cues needed in this perceptual set need not even be specific or detailed --they could be vague, abstract, and indirect, and still they can have an impact on the person's interpretation. The categories provided in the studies were very broad --letter vs number, farm vs sea, and yet people were still able to see what they wanted to see. It does not take much to influence our interpretations.

Isn't this study so amazing? The researchers really tried to correct all confounding variables and defended against debunking claims. Their methods were very thorough, and their results were very clear. The results are quite terrifying actually. This study has so many real life implications. It has implications on self-image, judgement of other people, assessments, goal formation, expectations of situations and other people and so on. When your friends tell you that your suitor is cheating on you, and you persistently disagree because you see him as a perfect knight, you must think again. It is certainly terrifying to realize how persistently stubborn our minds are to see only what it wants to see. This study is a reminder that our realities are negotiated and must be cross-checked with other observers. We must be made aware of how distorted our views of reality are. We must be aware that the reality we perceive is not an accurate or an exact replica of what is truly occurring before us. To what extent are we aware of our distortions? It is dangerous if we are not even the slightest bit aware at all, a reality that I am sure occurs, especially if biases enter and affect the perception process preconsciously, as this study represented. The only good news is that contrary to popular belief, it is easy to tell what we want, because what we want is reflected by our interpretations of reality. But if this distorted view becomes potentially harmful to ourselves or to others, then we must always remember to be critical. Remember to always be critical of your perceived realities. Be critical, and assume an objective stance. Ask yourself, what are my desires, what is my stance / what do I feel about this topic, are any of these affecting what I think I saw? Ask other people, and check if your reality overlaps with theirs.

Let us not be blind, and self-serving perceivers!

Source:

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91 (4), 612–625.