Why is there so much more research on vision than on any other sensory modality? There is a seemingly easy answer to this question: It is because vision is our most important and most complex sense. Although there are arguments in favor of this explanation, it can be challenged in two ways: by showing that the arguments regarding the importance and complexity of vision are debatable and by demonstrating that there are other aspects that need to be taken into account. Here, I argue that the explanation is debatable, as there are various ways of defining “importance” and “complexity” and, as there is no clear consensus that vision is indeed the most important and most complex of our senses. Hence, I propose two additional explanations: According to the methodological-structural explanation, there is more research on vision because the available, present-day technology is better suited for studying vision than for studying other modalities – an advantage which most likely is the result of an initial bias toward vision, which reinforces itself. Possible reasons for such an initial bias are discussed. The cultural explanation emphasizes that the dominance of the visual is not an unchangeable constant, but rather the result of the way our societies are designed and thus heavily influenced by human decision-making. As it turns out, there is no universal hierarchy of the senses, but great historical and cross-cultural variation. Realizing that the dominance of the visual is socially and culturally reinforced and not simply a law of nature, gives us the opportunity to take a step back and to think about the kind of sensory environments we want to create and about the kinds of theories that need to be developed in research.

The question of how many of our perceptual experiences are stored in long-term memory has received considerable attention. The present study examined long-term memory for haptic experiences. Blindfolded participants haptically explored 168 everyday objects (e.g., a pen) for 10 s each. In a blindfolded memory test, they indicated which of two objects from the same basic-level category (e.g., two different pens) had been touched before. As shown in Experiment 1 ( N = 26), memory was nearly perfect when tested immediately after exploration (94%) and still high when tested after 1 week (85%). As shown in Experiment 2 ( N = 43), when participants explored the objects without the intention to memorize them, memory in a 1-week delayed surprise test was still high (79%), even when assessed with a cross-modal visual memory test (73%). These results indicate that detailed, durable, long-term memory representations are stored as a natural product of haptic perception.

It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that scientists and Western societies began to label the combination of physiological and psychological responses that people display when things are getting too much and out of balance as “stress.” However, stress is commonly understood as a universal mechanism that exists across times and cultures. In a certain sense, this universality claim is correct: the physiological and endocrinological mechanisms underlying the stress response are not a modern invention of our body. In another sense, the universality claim is potentially problematic: stress has become, but has not always been, a way to be a person. That is, the social practices, in which the physiological and endocrinological stress mechanisms are embedded, are not the same across times and cultures. Crucially, these social practices are not a negligible by-product, but form an essential part of the way stress is commonly understood and experienced. Against this background, one may still decide to use the word “stress” when speaking about other times and cultures. Nevertheless, one should at least be cautious when doing so for three reasons. First, using the word “stress” when referring to societies different from our own may create the impression of a similarity between then and now, which does not actually exist. Second, it may blind us to the nature of the differences between times and cultures. Third, it naturalizes a contemporary scientific concept, which is more adequately viewed as the result of complex social, historical, and societal processes. Putting the stress concept in historical context and acknowledging that its use emerged in a specific historical environment enables us to take a step back and to think about the ways that stress shapes our lives. In other words, viewing stress as a culture-bound concept can give us the possibility to reflect upon our modern societies, in which the concept emerged.

The successful management of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on individuals accepting the current state of research and adhering to the preventive behaviors that follow from it. However, the processing of scientific results is not always rational, but influenced by prior attitudes as well as the ability to understand statistical data. Against this background, this study investigated the role of motivated reasoning and numeracy in the context of the current pandemic. To this end, participants ( N = 417; US sample) evaluated two fictitious studies, one indicating that mask mandates in schools are an effective intervention to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and one indicating that mask mandates in schools are counterproductive. Participants evaluated the studies in line with their prior attitude toward mask mandates. In addition, higher numeracy was associated with decreased bias, demonstrating that the ability to reason with numbers can lead to more accurate processing of statistical information.