Abstract
Several individual differences including age have been suggested to affect the perception of slant. A cross-sectional study of outdoor hill estimation (N = 106) was analyzed using individual difference measures of age, experiential knowledge, fitness, personality traits, and sex. Of particular note, it was found that for participants who reported any experiential knowledge about slant, estimates decreased (i.e., became more accurate) as conscientiousness increased, suggesting that more conscientious individuals were more deliberate about taking their experiential knowledge (rather than perception) into account. Effects of fitness were limited to those without experiential knowledge, suggesting that they, too, may be cognitive rather than perceptual. The observed effects of age, which tended to produce lower, more accurate estimates of hill slant, provide more evidence that older adults do not see hills as steeper. The main effect of age was to lower slant estimates; such effects may be due to implicit experiential knowledge acquired over a lifetime. The results indicate the impact of cognitive, rather than perceptual factors on individual differences in slant estimation.
Highlights
Several individual differences including age have been suggested to affect the perception of slant
It appears possible that because action is calibrated to perception, stable distortions in perception can effectively support the control of action without requiring accuracy (e.g., Durgin, 2009, 2014)
A simultaneous multiple linear regression model was tested that included knowledge, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, age, sex, and BMISR as predictors, as well as all two-way interactions between them
Summary
Several individual differences including age have been suggested to affect the perception of slant. A preponderance of evidence suggests that haptic perception of slant is just as exaggerated as visual perception (Durgin, Hajnal et al, 2010; Durgin & Li, 2012; Hajnal, Abdul-Malak, & Durgin, 2011) Systematic measurement biases such as anchoring (Feresin, Agostini, & Negrin-Salviolo, 1998; Shaffer, McManama, & Durgin, 2015; Shaffer, McManama, Swank, Williams & Durgin, 2014), postural effects (Li & Durgin, 2011), and reference frame bias (Coleman & Durgin, 2014) may all contribute to the cognitive illusion that manual measures (e.g., palm boards) tap into an accurate representation of hill slant (Durgin, Hajnal et al, 2010). The exaggeration of perceived slant relative to horizontal may be an adaptive coding strategy that is useful even in the control of action (Durgin, 2009; Durgin & Li, in press)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
