An abundance of research has investigated the effects of motivational states on size estimates, with initially a strong focus on the functionality of size overestimations. We suggest and found, however, that goal-relevant objects can be over- and underestimated, depending on which size is goal congruent. Specifically, we found that people with a throwing goal estimated (verbally and via visual matching) the size of a basketball as smaller than people without a throwing goal; hoop size estimates showed the reverse effect (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 3, sex-primed men estimated a woman’s breasts as larger than neutral-primed men; women showed the reverse effect. Finally, Experiment 4 replicated this finding for people in impulsive but not reflective cognitive states, suggesting that biased size estimation is a spontaneous process that promotes readiness for goal pursuit. We conclude that bigger is not always better; people size the world as it best suits them.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 165–178. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612
2.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147–152. doi:10.1177/0956797609356283
3.
BhallaM.ProffittD. R. (1999). Visual–motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1076–1096. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1076
4.
BrunerJ. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123–152. doi:10.1037/h0043805
5.
BrunerJ. S.GoodmanC. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44. doi:10.1037/h0058484
6.
BrunerJ. S.PostmanL. (1949). Perception, cognition, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 18, 14–31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01229.x
7.
CreemS. H.ProffittD. R. (1998). Two memories for geographical slant: Separation and interdependence of action awareness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 22–36. doi:10.3758/BF03209455
8.
EiserJ. R.StroebeW. (1972). The effects of incidental stimulus variation on absolute judgments. In Categorization and social judgment (Vol. 3, pp.
50–86). New York, NY: Academic Press.
9.
FurnhamA.DiasM.McClellandA. (1998). The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness. Sex Roles, 39, 311–326. doi:10.1023/A:1018810723493
10.
HensleyW. E. (1994). Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence, 29, 469–474.
11.
LockwoodP. L.KundaZ. (1994). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141–1157. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.1.91
12.
ManerJ. K.GailliotM. T.RoubyA.MillerS. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.389
13.
NettleD. (2002). Women’s height, reproductive success and the evoluation of sexual dimorphism in modern humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 22, 1919–1923. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2111
14.
ProffittD. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x
15.
ProffittD. R.CreemS. H.ZoshW. D. (2001). Seeing Mountains in mole hills: Geographical-slant perception. Psychological Science, 12, 418–423. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00377
16.
ProffittD. R.StefanucciJ.BantonT.EpsteinW. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106–112. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427
17.
SchnallS.ZadraJ. R.ProfittD. R. (2010). Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 39, 464–482. doi:10.1068/p6445
18.
SilveraD. H.JosephsR.GieslerB. (2002). Bigger is better: The influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 189–202. doi:10.1002/bdm.410
19.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
20.
TajfelH. (1957). Value and perceptual judgment of magnitude. Psychological Review, 64, 192–204. doi:10.1037/h0047878
21.
TajfelH. (1959). The anchoring effects of value in a scale of judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 294–304. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1959.tb00709.x
22.
VeltkampM.AartsH.CustersR. (2008).Perception in the service of goal pursuit: Motivation to attain goals enhances the perceived size of goal-instrumental objects. Social Cognition, 26, 720–736. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.720
23.
WittJ. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201–206. doi:10.1177/0963721411408770
24.
WittJ. K.LinkenaugerS. A.BakdashJ. Z.ProffittD. R. (2008). Putting to a bigger hole: Golf performance relates to perceived size. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 581–585. doi:10.3758/15.3.581
25.
WittJ. K.ProfittD. R. (2005). See the ball, hit the ball: Apparent ball size is correlated with batting average, Psychological Science, 16, 937–938. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01640
26.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 1479–1492. doi:10.1037/a0010781
27.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R.EpsteinW. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 880–888. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.880
