A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Local and Global Cross-Modal Influences Between Vision and Hearing,
Tasting, Smelling, or Touching
Jens Förster
University of Amsterdam
It is suggested that the distinction between global versus local processing styles exists across sensory
modalities. Activation of one-way of processing in one modality should affect processing styles in a
different modality. In 12 studies, auditory, haptic, gustatory or olfactory global versus local processing
was induced, and participants were tested with a measure of their global versus local visual attention; the
content of this measure was unrelated to the inductions. In a different set of 4 studies, the effect of local
versus global visual processing on the way people listen to a poem or touch, taste, and smell objects was
examined. In all experiments, global/local processing in 1 modality shifted to global/local processing in
the other modality. A final study found more pronounced shifts when compatible processing styles were
induced in 2 rather than 1 modality. Moreover, the study explored mediation by relative right versus left
hemisphere activation as measured with the line bisection task and accessibility of semantic associations.
It is concluded that the effects reflect procedural rather than semantic priming effects that occurred out
of participants’ awareness. Because global/local processing has been shown to affect higher order
processing, future research may activate processing styles in other sensory modalities to produce similar
effects. Furthermore, because global/local processing is triggered by a variety of real world variables, one
may explore effects on other sensory modalities than vision. The results are consistent with the global
versus local processing model, a systems account (GLOMO
sys
; Förster & Dannenberg, 2010).
Keywords: processing styles, procedural priming, sense modalities, multisensory interactions
People can attend to the same event in different ways. They can,
for example, attend to an object by zooming out and paying
attention to its entire figure or by zooming in and paying attention
to its details. As the proverb says, people can look at the forest or
at the trees. In psychological terms, people can use different
processing styles (Schooler, 2002). When using a global process-
ing style, people attend to the whole, or the gestalt, of a stimulus
set, whereas when using a local processing style, they attend to its
details (Navon, 1977). The distinction between holistic (i.e.,
global) and elemental (i.e., local) approaches was captured long
ago in philosophy (Kant, 1781/1969) and psychology (N. H. An-
derson, 1981; Asch, 1946; Witkin, Dyk, & Faterson, 1962).
In recent times, a more systematic investigation of global versus
local perception started with Navon’s (1977) letter task. To exam-
ine the global dominance hypothesis (predicting that people, by
default, look for the forest rather than the trees), he presented
participants with large letters that were made up of small letters
(see Figure 1) and showed that participants were faster to identify
the global target letters than the local target letters. While research-
ers have challenged the global dominance hypothesis and offered
various theoretical models explaining the effect (Kimchi, 1992;
Kinchla & Wolfe, 1979; Lamb & Robertson, 1990; Love, Rouder,
& Wisniewski, 1999), global versus local processing has generated
an abundance of research investigating both its moderators and its
effects (see Förster & Dannenberg, 2010, for a recent overview).
Global and local processing are basic types of perception that
can be triggered by a variety of variables. Those variables have
been identified across disciplines. Within personality and clinical
psychology, for example, pronounced global processing (as, e.g.,
measured with Navon’s, 1977, letter task) has been shown when
people have lower levels of chronic obsessionality (Yovel, Rev-
elle, & Mineka, 2005), lower levels of autism (Wang, Mottron,
Peng, Berthiaume, & Dawson, 2007), or lower levels of anxiety
(Mikulincer, Kedem, & Paz, 1990). Brain research suggests that
global processing is enhanced when participants’ right cerebral
hemisphere is more activated than their left hemisphere (Derry-
berry & Tucker, 1994; Mihov, Denzler, & Förster, 2010; Tucker &
Williamson, 1984; see also Ivry & Robertson, 1998). Social psy-
chologists focusing on self-regulation have shown pronounced
global processing when people think of psychologically distal
versus proximal events (Liberman & Förster, 2009), when they
think about their ideals compared with their duties or security
related issues (Förster & Higgins, 2005), when they are exposed to
unfamiliar as opposed to familiar events (Förster, 2009a; Förster,
Liberman, & Shapira, 2009), or when obstacles are standing in the
way of pursuing a goal (Marguc, Förster, & van Kleef, 2010).
This article was published Online First April 11, 2011.
I thank Jasmien Khattab, Radboud Dam, Pieter Verhoeven, Aga Bojar-
ska, Alexandra Vulpe, Anna Rebecca Sukkau, Basia Pietrawska, Elena
Tsankova, Gosia Skorek, Hana Fleissigova, Inga Schulte-Bahrenberg, Kira
Grabner, Konstantin Mihov, Laura Dannenberg, Maria Kordonowska,
Nika Yugay, Regina Bode, Rodica Damian, Rytis Vitkauskas, Janina
Marguc, Kevin Meier, and Sarah Horn, who served as experimenters and
raters in the different experiments. Special thanks go to Markus Denzler for
invaluable discussions and to Sarah Horn for editing a draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jens
Förster, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam,
Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail:
j.a.forster@uva.nl
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 140, No. 3, 364–389 0096-3445/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023175
364
RETRACTED
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN RETRACTED. SEE LAST PAGE