Evidence to support Gibson’s Theory comes from Eleanor Gibson who demonstrated how 6 month of infants would refuse to cross over an apparent cliff when their mothers called. This was also the same in day old chicks and goats too suggesting that depth perception was an innate process, supporting Gibson’s theory that perception was a direct and biological process.
However, a criticism is that the 6 month infants could have learnt perception in the early months which undermines supporting evidence.
Gibson's emphasis on direct perception provides an explanation for the fast and accurate perception of the environment. However, his theory cannot explain why perceptions are sometimes inaccurate, like in illusions. He claimed the illusions used in experimental work constituted extremely artificial perceptual situations unlikely to be encountered in the real world, however this dismissal cannot realistically be applied to all illusions. For example, Gibson's theory cannot account for perceptual errors like the general tendency for people to overestimate vertical extents relative to horizontal ones.
Neither can Gibson's theory explain naturally occurring illusions. For example if you stare for some time at a waterfall and then transfer your gaze to a stationary object, the object appears to move in the opposite direction.
Overall, Gibson’s theory positions itself with nature and the belief that our visual perception has been shaped through the process of evolution and biology very much dictating our perception,
However, this view is reductionistic as it fails to explain why when faced with an illusion people see two very different images. Some people may see one possible image while other people may see a second form suggesting higher cognitive processes, experiences and knowledge as Gregory proposed, influenced perception and may it may not be a direct processes as Gibson’s theorized. This would undermine Gibson’s theory as we should see the same things if perception was direct however this is clearly not the case and there must be a more complex process occurring which we are unaware of hence making this theory biologically reductionistic.
But, a strength is it has real world application such as in the use of road marking. The markings are painted closer and closer together when approaching junctions to give the impression of speed forcing drivers to slow down and thus save lives.
Lastly, the approach is deterministic as it assumes our biology is completely in control of our perception and that is completely a direct process. There is defiantly some top down processes influencing perception and this is proven by the fact that affordances are not always so apparent between cultures. For example someone from an African tribe wouldn’t understand a red pillar box “affords” the ability to send a letter without some cognitive process of experience dictating this.
by
ellouise1997hotmailcom (student)
