1. PUTTING TO A BIGGER HOLE: GOLF PERFORMANCE RELATES TO PERCEIVED SIZE Erika Larose CLPS 1500 Jessica Witt, 2008

2. Challenging Perception  Most theories of perception describe it as an enclosed process whose information comes only from optical data and oculomotor adjustments (i.e., lens power accommodation, angle convergence of visual axes, and pupil dilation and contraction) But what if that’s not all? What if how you perform affects how you perceive ?

3. Hmmmmm…. TELL ME MORE.  Indeed, a growing body of research supports the possible theory that action abilities also affect perception of distance, size, and slant.  FOR EXAMPLE: Hills were judged as steeper and distances as longer when perceivers carried heavy backpacks (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999 & 2003). Targets looked further away to people throwing a heavy ball compared with a light ball (Witt et al., 2004). And the experiment off of which this study was based: softball players who hit well judged the ball as bigger than players who hit… “less well” (Witt & Proffitt, 2005).

4. WHAT IS GOING ON?  This study experiments with golf to try and explain what’s happening. 1. Do golfers really see the hole differently depending on their performance? 2. If they do, is the effect due to their performance on that day, or their general abilities?

5. Experiment 1  46 participants at Providence Golf Club* having just completed 18- hole round of golf. 45 male, 1 female Mean age: 45.9  Shown a board with nine black circles increasing in size form 9-13 cm, asked to select circle equal in size to actual golf hole (actual size 10.8 cm)  Next, information collected:  Score of round  Handicap  Putts on 18 th hole  Score on 18 th hole  Last, subjective self-report  Putting abilities compared to others of same handicap  Day’s putting compared to average performance  Day’s playing compared to average performance *(Ironically in Richmond, Virginia)

6. Results  Significant correlation between:  Score of round and perceived hole size  Number of putts on 18 th hole and perceived hole size  NO significant correlation between:  Handicap and perceived hole size  Score on 18 th hole and perceived hole size  Subjective reports and perceived hole size

7.  18 th hole – representative sample of course?  What do you think about subjective self-reporting? The lack of correlation?  Influenced by self-perception (not that kind of perception!) Confidence, Optimism, Self-Attitude  Seemingly independent of personal traits [Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island]. Discuss.

8. On to Experiment 2  40 Participants aged 18-34  Performed Two Tasks  First Task: 10 putts on putting mat to hole from either easy distance (.4 m) or hard distance (2.15) Asked to first predict successful putts 2 minutes of practice, choice of 2 putters  Second Task: Led into separate room, asked to replicate exact size of hole on Microsoft Paint Allowed to adjust as often as needed until satisfied with result

9. Results  First things first:  As you would expect, the ‘easy’-condition participants predicted a greater success rate than ‘hard’-condition participants. Easy: m = 60% Hard: m = 38.3%  They were right, too. Easy: m = 73.5% Hard: m = 24.5%  Participants in easy condition drew larger circles than did those in hard condition

10. The Thighmaster is neither a thigh nor a master. Discuss.  Thus, participants in easy condition perceived the hole to be larger than those in hard condition Suggests that putting from 2.15 m is more difficult than from.4 m, and that as a result, subjects performed worse, which influenced perceived hole. What do you think about this? Two problems: 1. Participants in the easy condition were closer to the hole 1. Larger visual angle, less projected compression 2. Participants couldn’t see hole when size was estimated 1. Using memory, not perception. So… Let’s fix this in Experiment 3!

11. Experiment 3  50 participants aged 17-34  Method identical to Experiment 2 EXCEPT:  Participants kept in same room as putting mat when drawing circle. Approximately 1 meter right of mat, with hole visible. Allowed to look at hole while creating circle.

12. Results  First things first, again:  As you would expect, again, the ‘easy’-condition participants predicted a greater success rate than ‘hard’-condition participants. Easy: m = 60% Hard: m = 36.8%  They were right, again. Easy: m = 68.8% Hard: m = 28%  Participants in easy condition still drew circle bigger than did participants in hard condition  Even while looking at hole, perceived size differently Thus, performance influences perceived hole size, not just remembered hole size.

13. A chickpea is neither a chick nor a pea. Discuss.  Possible concern of varying viewing distances during putting task?  However, circle made from same distance, so differences in drawn circle size still likely attributed to degree of success in putting task, not viewing distance.  According to study, additional evidence for this reasoning found in Experiment 1. If viewing distance were the cause for perception differences, then golfers in Experiment 1 who played better wouldn’t have judged hole as bigger  Greater skill means able to make putts from farther distances, thus putting would have come from farther viewing distance.  But, this implies that golfers who can make long putts are doing so in the round! Is this true?

14. SO.  Results show that golfers perceive size of the hole in relation to their performance.  Suggesting that perception of target size is correlated with current abilities to effectively act on target  Is this Correlation or Causation?  Do golfers putt better, and therefore see the hole as bigger?  OR, do golfers who see the hole as bigger putt better as a result?  What do YOU think?

15. In sum: