The motivated distance perception theory (Balcetis, 2016) paradoxically is too parsimonious to account for a variety of findings, including those of the author. The theory poorly defines the features of eliciting situations, which fails to constrain the theory making it nonfalsifiable and allows for post hoc interpretation of the effects. Finally, the theory ignores the complexity of the motivational system and the automaticity of motivations.
BalcetisE. (2016). Approach and avoidance as organizing structures for motivated distance perception. Emotion Review. 2016: 115–128.
2.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147–152.
3.
CesarioJ.NavarreteC. D. (2014). Perceptual bias in threat distance: The critical roles of ingroup support and target evaluations in defensive threat regulation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 12–17.
4.
CesarioJ.PlaksJ. E.HagiwaraN.NavarreteC. D.HigginsE. T. (2010). The ecology of automaticity: How situational contingencies shape action semantics and social behavior. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1311–1317.
5.
CislerJ.OlatunjiB.LohrJ. (2009). Disgust, fear, and the anxiety disorders: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 34–46.
6.
ColeS.BalcetisE. (2013). Sources of resources: Bioenergetic and psychoenergetic resources influence distance perception. Social Cognition, 31(6), 721–732.
CorrP.McNaughtonN. (2012). Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two stage (valuation-motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 2339–2354.
9.
HarberK. D.YeungD.IacovelliA. (2011). Psychosocial resources, threat, and the perception of distance and height: Support for the resources and perception model. Emotion, 11(5), 1080–1090.
10.
ProffittD. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122.
