Running head: LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION 1 Word Count: 6164 How Locomotion Concerns Influence Perceptual Judgments Abigail A. Scholer University of Waterloo Baruch Eitam University of Haifa Gertraud Stadler University of Aberdeen E. Tory Higgins Columbia University 2 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION Abstract Successful self-regulation involves both assessment (e.g., making the right choices) and locomotion (e.g., managing change and movement). Regulatory mode theory is a motivational framework that highlights the ways in which these locomotion versus assessment concerns can receive differential emphasis across both individuals and situations. Although we know that locomotion motivation modulates goal-related movement, it is unclear whether these rather high-level concerns influence perceptual judgments of physical movement. Four studies investigated whether locomotion motivation also increases individuals’ perceptual judgments of movement. Across studies, whether locomotion motivation was measured (Studies 1a and 1b) or manipulated (Studies 2 and 3), individuals high in locomotion motivation judged more movement in static images relative to individuals chronically low in locomotion (Study 1a and 1b) and to individuals in an assessment motivational state (Studies 2 and 3). Implications for understanding the nature of locomotion motivation, and motivated perceptual judgments more generally, are discussed. Keywords: regulatory mode, locomotion, assessment, movement, perception, self- regulation 3 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION Successful self-regulation involves both choosing the ends and means of goal pursuit (assessing) and then actually pursuing the goal (locomoting; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Gollwitzer, 1990; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960). Not surprisingly, distinguishing between these two critical tasks has been a hallmark of many models in self-regulation, in particular stage models that differentiate between an initial deliberation stage followed by a goal pursuit stage (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1990). Although stage models suggest that these two tasks are both interdependent and sequential (i.e., individuals assess in order to locomote), recent research provides evidence that individuals and situations can also differ in the extent to which they emphasize self-regulatory concerns with establishing what is the right choice (assessment) versus managing change and movement from state to state (locomotion) (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000). In the current studies, we examine whether and how these locomotion concerns with psychological change and movement within goal pursuit may influence perceptual judgments. Specifically, we test the idea that locomotion motivation is not only about being motivated to change and move but also about being more likely to judge that movement has occurred in the world—a motivated perceptual judgment effect. Motivation and Perceptual Judgments Theorizing and evidence suggests that active goals and values influence perceptual representations, presumably even at very early stages of perception (e.g., Balcetis & Dunning, 2010, 2006; Balcetis, Dunning, & Granot, 2012; Bruner & Postman, 1949; Riccio, Cole, & Balcetis, 2013). Active goals influence perceptual judgments and perception in ways that facilitate goal fulfillment: participants are more likely to see ambiguous figures in ways that promote positive, not negative, personal outcomes 4 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION (Balcetis & Dunning, 2006) and perceive distances as shorter when they know they will have to traverse them in socially uncomfortable ways (Balcetis & Dunning, 2007). Valued objects and goal-relevant objects (whether positive or negative) are seen as closer (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Xiao & Van Bavel, 2012) and achieve perceptual dominance in a binocular rivalry task (Balcetis et al., 2012), whereas even highly salient but goal irrelevant stimuli are often missed (Bruner & Postman, 1949; Eitam, Yeshurun, & Hassan, 2013). This work suggests that people are likely to see the world around them in ways that facilitate their active and valued goals. The mountain is less steep when people are at the bottom versus at the top; the food is closer when people are hungry versus not. In the absence of clear goal facilitation, however, it is not well understood if fundamental motivations will influence perceptual judgments. Thus, rather than examining whether a discrete, proximal goal influences perception, the current studies examine whether a general motivational concern influences perceptual judgments. Under conditions in which situational signals are weak versus strong, an individual’s chronically or temporarily accessible constructs may be particularly likely to influence the “blips of meaning” that individuals extract from situational input (Kelly, 1955, p. 145; see also Higgins, 1996; Higgins, King, & Mavin, 1982; Higgins & Scholer, 2008; McClelland & Atkinson, 1948). Indeed, research in cultural psychology supports the idea that broad cultural differences influence the ways in which people attend to and parse their environments (e.g., Masuda & Nisbett, 2001). We propose that differences in fundamental motivational orientations—specifically, locomotion motivation—also have the potential to shape in quite general ways how people make perceptual judgments about 5 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION the world. Specifically, we test whether locomotion motivation leads individuals to be more likely to make judgments of movement—a perceptual feature that is likely to be modulated by experience and expectations (e.g., Allport & Pettigrew, 1957; Whiteside, 1963; but see Gibson, 1954). Locomotion Motivation Regulatory mode theory distinguishes between two motivational functions, locomotion and assessment, highlighting the ways in which these functions can operate independently (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000). The assessment function is concerned with establishing what is the right thing to do through critical evaluation and comparisons of options; “should I choose goal X or goal Y?”, “should I implement my plan in this way or that way?” Assessment, whether measured or manipulated, is associated with prioritizing full evaluation and comparison of the alternative options (Avnet & Higgins, 2003) and desiring to do what is right (Appelt, Zou, & Higgins, 2010), even if that means delaying action (Scholer & Higgins, 2012). In contrast, the locomotion function is concerned with managing movement from state to state, with effecting change. Locomotion, whether measured or manipulated, is associated with valuing action over inaction (Avnet & Higgins, 2003; Scholer & Higgins, 2012), even if the action is impulsive (Mannetti et al., 2009) or does not clearly advance one’s goals (Higgins et al., 2003). Recent work provides support for the idea that when individuals are in a locomotion state, movement and change are highly valued. Individuals in a locomotion orientation are more persuaded by advertisements that use dynamic, not static images (Mannetti, Giacomantonio, Higgins, Pierro, & Kruglanski, 2010) and report change in 6 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION general as valuable (Scholer & Higgins, 2012). Furthermore, individuals high in locomotion motivation not only value mental movement, but are actually more active (i.e., take more steps each day) than individuals low in locomotion motivation (Stadler, Eitam, Scholer, & Higgins, 2016). We propose that the value placed on movement and change that is generated by the locomotion system may motivate not only movement-related goal pursuit processes, but may also influence perceptual judgments of movement in the world, especially in ambiguous or vague stimuli (Higgins, 1996; Higgins & Scholer, 2008). While the primary goal of the current paper is to establish whether there is a link between locomotion and perceptual judgments of movement, we also tested one possible mechanism—increased activation of the motor system—in one study. To preview our findings, the proposed link between locomotion and perceptual judgments of movement received support; however, we did not find evidence to support the mechanism of increased activation of the motor system. Below we introduce the rationale for testing this particular mechanism, and in the General Discussion this mechanism, as well as other possible mechanisms, are discussed in light of our findings. Motor Resonance Hypothesis One unique route through which locomotion motivation could influence perception—increased activation of the motor system—was tested in Study 3. There were a number of reasons that it was plausible to test this mechanism, which we label the motor resonance hypothesis. Stronger locomotion motivation is associated with substantially more physical locomotion as measured by a pedometer (Stadler et al., 2016), which may suggest that locomotors have a higher tonic (or “baseline”) activity in 7 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION areas related to motor movement. Second, multiple experiments driven by the discovery of ‘mirror neurons’ in monkeys (di Pellegrino, Fadiga, Fogassi, Gallese, & Rizzolatti, 1992; Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti, 1996) as well as by other frameworks (Theory of Event Coding; Hommel, 2009; Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001a), have demonstrated that the perception (judgment) of one’s own as well as other’s movements is associated with activation in relevant motor brain regions/”motor codes” (for a recent example see Orgs et al., 2016). Taken together, it is possible that if the motor regions of individuals with stronger locomotion concerns are more active, they would be more likely to produce perceptual judgments of increased movement.1 Overview of Studies Building on work on motivation and perceptual judgments, the goal of this paper is to conduct an initial foray into whether locomotion motivation leads to increased judgments of movement. If detected, this relation may have important implications for goal engagement. For instance, it may explain prior work showing that locomotors are more engaged by dynamic versus static images (Mannetti et al., 2010). Specifically, it is possible that increased perceptual judgments of movement are making the environments more engaging in the eyes of locomotors (Higgins, 2000, 2006). In other words, if individuals in a locomotion state do have increased perceptual judgments of movement in the world, this may be one of the ways in which they keep their eyes focused on the prize (Kruglanski et al., 2000). It may contribute to their ability to move on and put past wrongs behind them (Pierro et al., 2008). It may make deadlines feel closer, leading to 1 One may think that this hypothetical mechanism is not related to motivation. However, evidence from our lab (Mark & Eitam, 2016) shows that ‘automatic imitation,’ hypothesized to rest on the same mechanisms described above, disappears completely when the movements are (task) irrelevant. Hence motivational relevance may play a key role in modulating these seemingly passive effects. 8 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION less procrastination (Pierro, Giacomantonio, Pica, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2011). Such implications are further explored in the General Discussion. Four studies tested the prediction that locomotion motivation is associated with increased perceptual judgments of movement, using both a chronic measure of locomotion (Study 1a and 1b) and a state induction (Studies 2 and 3). Study 3 built on the earlier studies to explore one potential mechanism of the effect (the motor resonance hypothesis): whether a marker of motor activation (performance on a go/no-go task) would serve as a mediator of the locomotion-induced change in movement perceptual judgments. Study 1a Method Participants. Undergraduate students (86, 48 females) at a small liberal arts college in the United States completed this study for credit or payment. The goal was to collect data from as many participants as possible during the semester; given the small subject pool we knew the sample would not exceed 100 participants. Materials and Procedure. A few weeks prior to coming into the lab, participants completed the 24-item regulatory mode scale (Kruglanski et al., 2000) online as part of a battery of questionnaires unrelated to the current study. Participants indicated their agreement with statements reflecting both locomotion and assessment on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Assessment was measured with 12 items such as ‘‘I often compare myself with other people’’ and ‘‘I like evaluating other people’s plans.’’ Locomotion was measured with 12 items such as ‘‘I am a doer’’ and ‘‘When I decide to do something, I can’t wait to get started.’’ The two scales showed a small but 9 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION nonsignificant correlation, r=.15, p=.15, consistent with earlier findings. Both scales showed satisfactory reliability as in earlier research (Cronbach’s α=.74 for locomotion, α =.81 for assessment). In the lab session, participants first completed a number of tasks unrelated to the current study.2 At the end of the experimental session, participants were asked to view a series of four pictures and rate how much movement they saw in the pictures across six items adapted from Mannetti et al. (2010). Specifically, participants were told, “In this pilot study, you will be asked to make ratings about a series of pictures. There are no right or wrong answers. We are simply interested in how people evaluate these pictures. This info will help us decide what images to use in a future study.” For each picture, participants were asked how much of a movement-related attribute was represented in the picture on a scale ranging from 1 (none) to 7 (a lot) for 6 attributes (movement, energy, change, stability, stillness, and slowness, with the last 3 reverse-scored). All pictures contained a solitary target running or walking against a different background (see Appendix A for pictures). Results and Discussion To create an index of perceived movement, movement ratings were averaged across all four pictures (α=.72). This movement index was then simultaneously regressed on locomotion and assessment. The mean rating on the movement index was 4.64 (SD =.52). As predicted, participants higher in locomotion reported more movement (for each additional point in locomotion they perceived b=.23 more movement, SE=.10, 95% CI: 2 Because the participant pool at this small college was very limited in size, participants were often asked to complete multiple unrelated studies during a single session. 10 LOCOMOTION AND PERCEPTION [.02, .43], t(84)=2.20, p=.03).3 There was no significant relationship between assessment and movement judgments, b=-.012, SE=.08, CI: [-.17, .14], t(84)<1, p=.88. This study provided preliminary evidence that locomotion motivation may affect perceptual judgments. Notably, this relationship was observed even when locomotion motivation was assessed weeks before the experimental session. It is interesting to note that the perceptual judgment was not negatively correlated with assessment motivation (r=.009, p=.93), providing further support for the independence of the two motivational systems. Study 1b Given the constraints for our sample size in Study 1a, Study 1b was designed to replicate Study 1a using a large online sample. By collecting the data on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we were also able to examine if the effect would replicate in a community sample. Method Participants. Participants (668, 296 females, 354 males, 2 other, 16 did not report gender, M =25.67 years, SD=10.94) completed this short online study on Amazon’s age Mechanical Turk for US$0.75. Sample size was determined by sensitivity. Specifically, given our previous studies, we wanted the study to be sensitive enough to differentiate between a lack of an effect and a beta coefficient of ~.20 for regressing the perception of movement on locomotion score. As such we ran the study until the width of the 95% confidence interval (using ‘attentive’ participants only, see below for more detail) was 3 This result was replicated in a study using an Israeli Hebrew speaking sample (N=50) with a Hebrew translation of the locomotion scale instrument. In this sample also, as locomotion increased, perception of movement increased, b=.25 (se=.12, 95% CI: .02, .49), t(47)=2.15, p=.04.