Effect of food deprivation on perception-cognition.

Saugstad, Per

doi:10.1037/h0022849

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, they represent a patterned suite of responses whose function is to prioritize the detection, capture, defense and ingestion of resources in the immediate future over other activities ( Loewenstein, 1996 ; Fessler, 2002 ; Aarøe and Petersen, 2013 ; Orquin and Kurzban, 2016 ). For example, not only does hunger enhance attention to, and increase salience of, food-related stimuli compared to control stimuli ( Gilchrist and Nesberg, 1952 ; Saugstad, 1966 ); it improves perceptual sensitivity to such stimuli, and hence enhances the ability to detect them rapidly ( Radel and Clement-Guillotin, 2012 ). The suite of responses to hunger is likely to be adaptive, since failure to acquire resources soon when hungry is catastrophic in fitness terms ( Higginson et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Effects Of Hunger On Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Hunger Contribute to Socioeconomic Gradients in Behavior?

Nettle

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has uncovered many examples of socioeconomic gradients in behavior and psychological states. As yet there is no theoretical consensus on the nature of the causal processes that produce these gradients. Here, I present the hunger hypothesis, namely the claim that part of the reason that people of lower socioeconomic position behave and feel as they do is that they are relatively often hungry. The hunger hypothesis applies in particular to impulsivity-hyperactivity, irritability-aggression, anxiety, and persistent narcotic use, all of which have been found to show socioeconomic gradients. I review multiple lines of evidence showing that hunger produces strong increases in these outcomes. I also review the literatures on food insufficiency and food insecurity to show that, within affluent societies, the poor experience a substantial burden of hunger, despite obtaining sufficient or excess calories on average. This leads to the distinctive prediction that hunger is an important mediator of the relationships between socioeconomic variables and the behavioral/psychological outcomes. This approach has a number of far-reaching implications, not least that some behavioral and psychological differences between social groups, though persistent under current economic arrangements, are potentially highly reversible with changes to the distribution of financial resources and food.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Hunger On Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Hunger Contribute to Socioeconomic Gradients in Behavior?

Nettle

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See Bruner (1957) for an overview. 25 For an earlier set of desire/food-related studies, and criticism, see Epstein (1961); Lazarus et al (1953); Saugstad (1966Saugstad ( , 1967; Wolitzky (1967). 26 Keith Payne and colleagues have performed a number of important studies on racial prejudice and its apparent effect on perception.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… For an earlier set of desire/food‐related studies, and criticism, see Epstein (); Lazarus et al (); Saugstad (, ); Wolitzky ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Penetrability of Perception

Stokes

2013

Philosophy Compass

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception is typically distinguished from cognition. For example, seeing is importantly different from believing. And while what one sees clearly influences what one thinks, it is debateable whether what one believes and otherwise thinks can influence, in some direct and non-trivial way, what one sees. The latter possible relation is the cognitive penetration of perception. Cognitive penetration, if it occurs, has implications for philosophy of science, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science. This paper offers an analysis of the phenomenon, its theoretical consequences, and a variety of experimental results and possible interpretations of them. The paper concludes by proposing some constraints for analyses and definitions of cognitive penetrability.The dominant tradition in philosophy and psychology is to distinguish human perceptual experience from human cognition. Like many distinctions, this one is not readily made in an uncontroversial way. One method of distinction is to enumerate paradigmatic examples of each category. Such examples of perceiving include seeing, hearing, and touching. Examples of cognitive states or processes include believing, intending, and reasoning. Of course, we still want to know the criterion or criteria by which these mental types are put on one list rather than the other. There are at least two non-exclusive means by which this might be done: function and phenomenology.Consider vision. It functions to provide an agent with information about the colour, shape, and location features of the objects of her immediate environment. Thus we say that when one suffers a visual hallucination, vision has malfunctioned. Beliefs, by contrast, do not perform a function that is obligated to one's immediate environment. Although one can and does form beliefs about one's current surroundings, one also forms and maintains beliefs about the past and the future, and about locations removed from what is perceptually 1 Thank you to Vince Bergeron, Fiona Macpherson, and Wayne Wu for discussion of some of these issues.Special thanks to Susanna Siegel for reading and commenting on an earlier draft. And thanks finally to an anonymous referee for this journal.2 available. For instance, I can't presently see Vancouver, because I am in Toronto. But I presently have, and can reflect upon, many beliefs about Vancouver. Furthermore, one forms beliefs about things that are not perceptible at all, for example, about angels or Platonic Universals or the Gross Domestic Product of Sweden. This has a relevant physiological basis: belief states do not depend in any direct way upon current activity in one's sensory organs. One cannot see when one is completely blindfolded, but one can still have and consider one's beliefs. Add to this the observation that belief states, by contrast with visual experiences, figure directly into one's deliberative decision making. In making a decision on whether to, say, buy a new home, one considers the facts, as we say. And this is another way to say that one re...

show abstract

“…The results seem to be in agreement with the results of the studies of food deprivation on perception-cognition (cf. Saugstad, 1966). Like value, food deprivation appears to have an effect upon imaginary processes, but not upon perceptual ones.…”

Section: Value and Size Perception 1x1mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Murphy, 1947, and the two symposia, Bruner & Krech, 1950; Blake & Ramsay, 1951). I n two other articles Saugstad (1965bSaugstad ( , 1966 has reviewed the studies on the effect of learning on perception of figure-ground and the effect of food deprivation on perception. The present article is directed to the problem of perceiving the size of valued objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Value and Size Perception

Saugstad

Schioldborg

1966

Scandinavian J Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A detailed review is presented of studies related to the accentuation hypothesis of Bruner & Goodman (1947). It is found that the results from (1) coin studies, (2) symbol studies, and (3) other studies are conflicting and do not substantiate the hypothesis. Through an analysis of this hypothesis and a specification of the concept of perception, the various designs are found to be inadequate for demonstrating perceptual accentuation of size. The hypothesis is forwarded that value asserts an influence upon imaginary processes related to the experience of size.

show abstract

Effect of food deprivation on perception-cognition.

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Does Hunger Contribute to Socioeconomic Gradients in Behavior?

Does Hunger Contribute to Socioeconomic Gradients in Behavior?

Cognitive Penetrability of Perception

Value and Size Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About