Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:38:58.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavior is multiply determined, and perception has multiple components: The case of moral perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Ana P. Gantman  and
Jay J. Van Bavel
Ana P. Gantman
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003. [email protected]@nyu.eduhttp://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/index.html
Jay J. Van Bavel
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003. [email protected]@nyu.eduhttp://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/index.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We introduce two propositions for understanding top-down effects on perception. First, perception is not a unitary construct but is composed of multiple components. Second, behavior is multiply determined by cognitive processes. We call for a process-oriented research approach to perception and use our own research on moral perception as a “case study of case studies” to examine these issues.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, A. K. & Phelps, E. A. (2001) Lesions of the human amygdala impair enhanced perception of emotionally salient events. Nature 411:305–309.Google Scholar
Egner, T. & Hirsch, J. (2005) Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience 8:1784–90.Google Scholar
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015b) Enhanced visual awareness for morality and pajamas? Perception vs. memory in ‘top-down’ effects. Cognition 136:409–16.Google Scholar
Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014) The moral pop-out effect: Enhanced perceptual awareness of morally relevant stimuli. Cognition 132:22–29.Google Scholar
Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. (2015) Moral perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19:631–33.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. D. & Li, W. (2013) Top-down influences on visual processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(5):350–63.Google Scholar
Lim, S. L., Padmala, S. & Pessoa, L. (2009) Segregating the significant from the mundane on a moment-to-moment basis via direct and indirect amygdala contributions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:16841–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radel, R. & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012) Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science 23:232–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Bavel, J. J., FeldmanHall, O. & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015) The neuroscience of moral cognition: From dual processes to dynamic systems. Current Opinion in Psychology 6:167–72.Google Scholar