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.
AmbrosecchiaM.MarinoB. F.GawryszewskiL. G.RiggioL. (2015). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 283. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00283
2.
AreshenkoffC. N.BubD. N.MassonM. E. J. (2017). Task-dependent motor representations evoked by spatial words: Implications for embodied accounts of word meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 158–169.
3.
BarsingerhornA. D.ZaalF. T. J. M.SmithJ.PeppingG.-J. (2012). On possibilities for action: The past, present and future of affordance research. Avant: The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 3, 54–69.
4.
BlakeR.ShiffrarM. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47–73.
5.
BubD. N.MassonM. E. J. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341–358.
6.
BubD. N.MassonM. E. J.CreeG. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106, 27–58.
7.
BubD. N.MassonM. E. J.KumarR. (2018). Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 56–83.
8.
BubD. N.MassonM. E. J.LinT. (2015). Components of action representations evoked when identifying manipulable objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 42. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00042
9.
CabreraF.SanabriaF.JiménezÁ. A.CovarrubiasP. (2013). An affordance analysis of unconditioned lever pressing in rats and hamsters. Behavioural Processes, 92, 36–46.
10.
ChaoL. L.MartinA. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.
11.
ChemeroA. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15, 181–195.
12.
ChemeroA.TurveyM. T. (2007). Complexity, hypersets, and the ecological perspective on perception-action. Biological Theory, 2, 23–36.
13.
ChoD. T.ProctorR. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853–861.
14.
CisekP. (2007). Cortical mechanisms of action selection: The affordance competition hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 1585–1599.
15.
CisekP.KalaskaJ. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 269–298.
16.
CooperL. A.HochbergJ. (1994). Objects of the mind: Mental representations in visual perception and cognition. In BallesterosS. (Ed.), Cognitive approaches to human perception (pp. 223–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
CostallA. (2017). 1966 and all that: James Gibson and bottom-down theory. Ecological Psychology, 29, 221–230.
18.
CostallA.MorrisP. (2015). The “textbook Gibson”: The assimilation of dissidence. History of Psychology, 18, 1–14.
19.
CostantiniM.AmbrosiniE.TieriG.SinigagliaC.CommitteriG. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207, 95–103.
20.
Creem-RegehrS. H.KunzB. R. (2010). Perception and action. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 800–810.
21.
CuttingJ. E. (1982). Two ecological perspectives: Gibson vs. Shaw and Turvey. American Journal of Psychology, 95, 199–222.
22.
CuttingJ. E. (1998). Information from the world around us. In HochbergJ. (Ed.), Perception and cognition at century’s end: History, philosophy, theory (pp. 71–97). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
de WitM. M.de VriesS.van der KampJ.WithagenR. (2017). Affordances and neuroscience: Steps towards a successful marriage. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 622–629.
24.
DotovD. G.NieL.de WitM. M. (2012). Understanding affordances: History and contemporary development of Gibson’s central concept. Avant: The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 3, 28–39.
25.
EllisR.TuckerM. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.
26.
ElsnerB.HommelB. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.
FittsP. M. (1958). Engineering psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 9, 267–294.
29.
FlachJ. M.HancockP. A. (1992). An ecological approach to human-machine systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 36, 1056–1058. doi:10.1177/154193129203601409
30.
FranchakJ. M. (2019). Development of affordance perception and recalibration in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 183, 100–114.
31.
FrithC. D.BlakemoreS. J.WolpertD. M. (2000). Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 355, 1771–1788.
32.
GaverW. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In RobertsonS. P.OlsonG. M.OlsonJ. S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 79–84). New Orleans, LA: ACM Press.
33.
GeussM.StefanucciJ.Creem-RegehrS.ThompsonW. B. (2010). Can I pass? Using affordances to measure perceived size in virtual environments. In APGV ’10Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (pp. 61–64). New York, NY: ACM.
34.
GibsonE. J. (2000). Where is the information for affordances?Ecological Psychology, 12, 53–56.
35.
GibsonE. J. (2002). Perceiving the affordances: A portrait of two psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
GibsonJ. J. (1941). A critical review of the concept of set in contemporary experimental psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 781–817.
37.
GibsonJ. J. (1960). Perception as a function of stimulation. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology a study of science (Vol. 1, pp. 456–501). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38.
GibsonJ. J. (1967). James J. Gibson. In BoringE. G.LinzeyG. (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 5, pp. 125–143). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
39.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
GibsonJ. J.CrooksL. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. The American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453–471.
42.
GolonkaS.WilsonA. D. (2012). Gibson’s ecological approach—A model for the benefits of a theory driven psychology. Avant: The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 3, 40–53.
43.
GomezM. A.SkibaR. M.SnowJ. C. (2018). Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science, 29, 206–218.
44.
GreenoJ. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336–342.
45.
GrèzesJ.TuckerM.ArmonyJ.EllisR.PassinghamR. E. (2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMRI study of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 2735–2740.
46.
GuinoteA. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 237–252.
47.
HeftH. (2001). Ecological psychology in context. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
HelmholtzH. (1971). The facts of perception. In KahlR. (Ed.), Selected writings of Hermann von Helmholtz (pp. 366–408). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. (Original work published 1878)
49.
HochbergJ. (1981). On cognition in perception: Perceptual coupling and unconscious inference. Cognition, 10, 127–134.
50.
HochbergJ. (1994). Perceptual theory and visual cognition. In BallesterosS. (Ed.), Cognitive approaches to human perception (pp. 223–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
HommelB. (2019). Theory of event coding (TEC) V2.0: Representing and controlling perception and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01779-4
52.
HommelB.BrownS. B.NattkemperD. (2016). Human action control: From intentions to movements. New York, NY: Springer.
53.
HommelB.MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
54.
IslindA. S.SnisU. L.LindrothT.LundinJ.CernaK.SteineckG. (2019). The virtual clinic: Two-sided affordances in consultation practice. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28, 435–468. doi:10.1007/s10606-019-09350-3
55.
JaxS. A.BuxbaumL. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115, 350–355.
56.
KoenderinkJ. J. (1980). Why argue about direct perception?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 3, 390–391.
57.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT.OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
58.
KourtisD.VingerhoetsG. (2015). Perceiving objects by their function: An EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances. Biological Psychology, 110, 138–147.
LinQ.RieserJ.BodenheimerB. (2015). Affordance judgments in HMD-based virtual environments: Stepping over a pole and stepping off a ledge. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 12, 61–21.
61.
LindsayP. H.NormanD. A. (1977). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.
62.
LoboL.Heras-EscribanoM.TraviesoD. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2228. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228
63.
MaceW. M. (1977). James J. Gibson’s strategy for perceiving: Ask not what’s inside your head, but what your head’s inside of. In ShawR.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 43–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64.
MakrisS.HadarA. A.YarrowK. (2013). Are object affordances fully automatic? A case of covert attention. Behavioral Neuroscience, 127, 797–802.
65.
MassonM. E. J. (2018). Intentions and actions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 72, 219–228.
66.
MeisterD. (1999). The history of human factors and ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67.
MillerG. A.GalanterE.PribramK. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
68.
MossioM.TaraborelliD. (2008). Action-dependent perceptual invariants: From ecological to sensorimotor approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1324–1340.
69.
NakayamaK. (1994). James J. Gibson—An appreciation. Psychological Review, 101, 329–335.
NormanD. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
72.
NormanD. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6, 38–41.
73.
NormanD. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
74.
NormanD. A. (2008). Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions, 15, 18–19.
75.
NormanD. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.
76.
NormanD. A. (2015). Affordances: Commentary on the special issue of AI EDAM. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 29, 235–238.
77.
PetrucciM. N.HornG. P.RosengrenK. S.Hsiao-WeckslerE. T. (2016). Inaccuracy of affordance judgments for firefighters wearing personal protective equipment. Ecological Psychology, 28, 108–126.
78.
PhillipsJ. C.WardR. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9, 540–558.
79.
ProctorR. W.MilesJ. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? In RossB. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 60, pp. 227–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
80.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2006a). The cognitive revolution at age 50: Has the promise of the human information-processing approach been fulfilled?International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 21, 253–284.
81.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2006b). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
82.
ReedE. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
83.
ReedE. S.JonesR. K. (1979). James Gibson’s ecological revolution in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 9, 189–204.
84.
RobertsK. L.HumphreysG. W. (2011). Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 597–612.
85.
RogersD. L. (2000). Genotypic diversity and clone size in old-growth populations of coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Canadian Journal of Botany, 78, 1408–1419.
86.
RounisE.van PolanenV.DavareM. (2018). A direct effect of perception on action when grasping a cup. Scientific Reports, 8, 1–11.
87.
RounisE.ZhangZ.PizzamiglioG.DutaM.HumphreysG. (2017). Factors influencing planning of a familiar grasp to an object: What it is to pick a cup. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 1281–1296.
88.
ShawR. E.BransfordJ. (1977). Introduction: Psychological approaches to the problem of knowledge. In ShawR.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 1–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
89.
ShawR. E.Kinsella-ShawJ. M.MaceW. M. (2019). Affordance types and affordance tokens: Are Gibson’s affordances trustworthy?Ecological Psychology, 31, 49–75.
90.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G. (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
91.
SkibaR. M.SnowJ. C. (2016). Attentional capture for tool images is driven by the head end of the tool, not the handle. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2500–2514.
92.
SongX.ChenJ.ProctorR. W. (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: Grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 665–675.
93.
SquiresS. D.MacdonaldS. N.CulhamJ. C.SnowJ. C. (2016). Priming tool actions: Are real objects more effective primes than pictures?Experimental Brain Research, 234, 963–976.
94.
SuzukiT.TakagiM.SugawaraK. (2012). Affordance effects in grasping actions for graspable objects: Electromyographic reaction time study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115, 881–890.
TuckerM.EllisR. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.
97.
TurnerP. (2005). Affordance as context. Interacting With Computers, 17, 787–800.
98.
TurveyM. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173–187.
99.
UmiltàM. A.KohlerE.GalleseV.FogassiL.FadigaL.KeysersC.RizzolattiG. (2001). I know what you are doing: A neurophysiological study. Neuron, 31, 155–165.
100.
UrcuioliP. J. (1990). Some relationships between outcome expectancies and sample stimuli in pigeons’ delayed matching. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 302–314.
101.
VeraA. H.SimonH. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17, 7–48.
102.
WagmanJ. B.LangleyM. D.Farmer-DouganV. (2017). Doggone affordances: Canine perception of affordances for reaching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1097–1103.
103.
WangH.LauN.GerdesR. M. (2018). Examining cybersecurity of cyberphysical systems for critical infrastructures through work domain analysis. Human Factors, 60, 699–718.
104.
WarrenW.Jr. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683–703.
105.
WeimerW. B. (1977). A conceptual framework for cognitive psychology: Motor theories of the mind. In ShawR.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 267–311). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106.
WithagenR.de PoelH. J.AraújoD.PeppingG. J. (2012). Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 250–258.
107.
XiongA.ProctorR. W.ZelaznikH. N. (2019). Visual salience, not the graspable part of a pictured eating utensil, grabs attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 1454–1463. doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01679-7
108.
YeL.CardwellW.MarkL. S. (2009). Perceiving multiple affordances for objects. Ecological Psychology, 21, 185–217.
