Does lacking information about your affordances impact your perception of others’ affordances? A test of the embodied simulation hypothesis


It has been argued that observers perceive actors’ affordances via embodied simulation, that is, first perceiving their own affordance, which serves as a model for the actor’s affordance, and then adjusting that model to account for differences between themselves and the actor. If so, then preventing observers from picking up information about their own affordances should cause several effects. Specifically, observers should make more errors about the actor’s affordance compared to when the observer is free to pick up information about their own affordance. In addition, judgments about the actor’s affordance should align better with the observer’s affordance than with the actor’s affordance, and increase in error as differences between the observer’s and actor’s affordances increase. The present study tested those predictions. To do so, observers (participants) made judgments about the farthest distance that an actor (a confederate) could reach. The observer’s arms were either free to move or were immobilized by having the participant hold them behind their back. The present results did not support the predictions. The present research introduces a novel means for evaluating the Embodied Simulation Hypothesis, provides initial tests of related predictions, and corroborates prior research. In addition, it motivates important questions about embodied simulation and affordance perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

  2. Creem-Regehr, S. H., Gagnon, K. T., Geuss, M. N., & Stefanucci, J. K. (2013). Relating spatial perspective taking to the perception of other's affordances: Providing a foundation for predicting the future behavior of others. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 596.

  3. Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2009). Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 79.

  4. Fischer, M. H. (2003). Can we correctly perceive the reaching range of others? British Journal of Psychology, 94(4), 487–500.

  5. Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). What is so special about embodied simulation? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 512–519.

  6. Gibson, J. J. (1979/1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  7. Heft, H. (1993). A methodological note on overestimates of reaching distance: Distinguishing between perceptual and analytical judgments. Ecological Psychology, 5(3), 255–271.

  8. Jones, K. S., & Widlus, B. P. (in press). Do exploratory arm movements contribute to reach-ability judgments? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

  9. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

  10. Mantel, B., Stoffregen, T. A., Campbell, A., & Bardy, B. G. (2015). Exploratory movement generates higher-order information that is sufficient for accurate perception of scaled egocentric distance. PLoS One, 10(4), e0120025.

  11. Mark, L. S. (2007). Perceiving the actions of other people. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 107–136.

  12. Mark, L. S., Balliett, J. A., Craver, K. D., Douglas, S. D., & Fox, T. (1990). What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance for sitting. Ecological Psychology, 2(4), 325–366.

  13. Ramenzoni, V., Riley, M. A., Davis, T., Shockley, K., & Armstrong, R. (2008a). Tuning in to another person's action capabilities: Perceiving maximal jumping-reach height from walking kinematics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 919–928.

  14. Ramenzoni, V. C., Riley, M. A., Shockley, K., & Davis, T. (2008b). Carrying the height of the world on your ankles: Encumbering observers reduces estimates of how high an actor can jump. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(10), 1487–1495.

  15. Ramenzoni, V. C., Riley, M. A., Shockley, K., & Davis, T. (2008c). An information-based approach to action understanding. Cognition, 106(2), 1059–1070.

  16. Stevens J. P. (2009). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

  17. Stoffregen, T. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115–134.

  18. Stoffregen, T. A., Gorday, K. M., Sheng, Y. Y., & Flynn, S. B. (1999). Perceiving affordances for another person's actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 120–136.

  19. Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (2011). Obtaining information by dynamic (effortful) touching. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1581), 3123–3132.

Download references

Author notes

This research was supported in part by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) under AOARD Project# 161OA071. Opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US AFOSR.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith S. Jones.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, K.S., Widlus, B.P. & Garcia, N.A. Does lacking information about your affordances impact your perception of others’ affordances? A test of the embodied simulation hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev 27, 483–489 (2020).

Download citation


  • Visual perception
  • Embodied cognition