Gibson's Direct theory of Perception (nature) (AQA GCSE Psychology)
Revision Note
Written by: Claire Neeson
Reviewed by: Lucy Vinson
Sufficient information for direct perception
Gibson’s direct theory of perception is a theory which claims that perception is based on what a human can see right in front of their eyes
Gibson claimed that human perception ‘feeds’ off the immediate surroundings in which someone finds themselves
There is no need for prior experience or learning to fill in any perceptual gaps
Humans start perceiving the world from birth
The above point makes it clear that Gibson’s theory falls on the side of nature in the Nature (nurture) debate i.e. people are born ready to perceive their world (in this regard Gibson did not distinguish between sensation and perception)
Gibson & Walk (1960) conducted a groundbreaking study in which they demonstrated their theory that very young infants show evidence of innate depth perception as follows:
The researchers built a structure which was designed so that if a baby crawled on a raised glass top they would see the ground suddenly drop away from them (see the image below):
The baby would be able to see that the ground beneath them appeared to have disappeared when in fact it was covered in the glass sheet and was safe to cross
The researchers hypothesised that each baby would stop at the ‘edge’ of the patterned table top and would refuse to continue across the transparent glass - even when their mother was standing at the other side of the table encouraging them to move forward
92% of the babies stopped at the ‘edge’ and refused to cross the transparent glass tabletop
The researchers concluded that this was evidence that humans are born with depth perception as very young babies cannot have learned an aversion for sheer drops or steep edges
Gibson & Walk Cliff Walk Diagram
Gibson & Walk’s (1960) ‘cliff walk’ structure.
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Gibson & Walk (1960) is not a named study in the AQA specification but it is a good one to use in a higher-value exam question as it shows that you have a broad understanding of and interest in the topic.
Motion parallax & everyday perception
Motion parallax describes what happens when a human moves through a space (not outer-space)
Either on foot, by bicycle, car, train etc.
Moving through a space involves the sensation that objects are coming towards the person as they pass them while at the same time the destination point remains stationary e.g. ‘All the houses in my street pass before me in the opposite direction as I drive towards the park at the end of my road’
What is described above is a form of visual streaming: continuous movement in one direction means that the retina is being continuously stimulated by changing images which tell the brain ‘I am in motion’: in other words - optic flow
Motion parallax involves the cues the brain receives from optical flow and transmits them in the following ways:
Objects closest in the visual field appear to be moving faster than objects which are further away in the visual field
Objects which are close to mid-range in the visual field move in the opposite direction to the person
In contrast, objects further away from the visual field move in the same direction as the person who is moving (test this the next time you are in a car or a train - as long as you’re not driving!)
Motion Parallax Diagram
Motion parallax can be observed in a moving vehicle such as a train.
Gibson’s theory applies very well to the experience of pilots - particularly during the crucial minutes they spend landing the plane (in fact he developed his theory using actual pilots during the Second World War)
Optical flow is used by pilots to provide them with information about:
the distance between the plane and the ground
any obstacles they might need to factor in
the landing surface
the speed and deceleration of the approach
the outline of the runway
Gibson claimed that all of the above is sufficient to land a plane, determined by the patterns made by the light hitting the retina of the pilot
Gibson's Optical Flow Diagram
An example of a pilot’s optic flow.
Evaluation of Gibson’s direct theory of perception
Strengths
The theory has been used (see above) to train pilots so it has good validity
Gibson & Walk’s (1960) study shows good support for the idea that perception is innate as young babies cannot ‘fake’ their response in an experiment i.e. the study has validity
Weaknesses
Gibson’s theory cannot explain visual illusions as these are examples of our eyes (and brain) playing ‘tricks’ on our perception of what we see in front of us
Any research using very young babies is bound to have some issues:
Babies cannot explain why they behaved the way they did in the experiment;
Babies tend to be unpredictable;
There are ethical concerns with a procedure such as The Cliff Walk i.e. harming the child
Worked Example
Here is an example of a question you might be asked on this topic - for AO3.
AO1: You need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of key concepts, ideas, theories and research.
AO2: You need to apply your knowledge and understanding, usually referring to the ‘stem’ in order to do so (the stem is the example given before the question)
AO3: You need to analyse and evaluate key concepts, ideas, theories and research.
After each featured question there is a ‘model’ answer i.e. one which would achieve top marks in the exam.
Question: Outline two limitations of Gibson’s direct theory of perception. [4]
Model answer: (remember that you only need to use two limitations - we have presented you with a choice of several possibilities here):
AO3:
Gibson’s theory cannot explain why perception is sometimes inaccurate, for example when our brain is tricked by visual illusions.
Using a lab experiment (e.g. Gibson & Walk, 1960) to test innate depth perception lacks ecological validity i.e. it doesn’t reflect how people use depth perception in the real world.
Evidence shows that factors such as expectation and culture affect perception which challenges Gibson’s theory and suggests that nurture (knowledge and past experience) also play an important role in perception.
Gibson’s theory can be challenged by the experience of blind people who regain their sight and who have to then learn to navigate the physical world (i.e. perception cannot then be innate).
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?