Affordances: Four Points of Debate
By Claire F. Michaels. How Shall Affordances be Refined? Four Perspectives, 2003
116 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In this article, attention is given to 4 issues regarding affordances. The first relates to the ontological status of affordances: Affordances do not have to be perceived to exist. The second concerns whether affordances are necessarily related to (one's own) actions. The third considers the relation between affordances and effectivities. Finally, the nesting of affordances is addressed, as is whether some particular level of description should be considered privileged. Some issues seem settled; others require more theory and experimentation.
Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Management Science and Operations Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0aad011fea8d6adb96d20d727959592b8b095c68
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cognitive Neuroscience
In Computational Theory and Mathematics
In Management Science and Operations Research
Citations in the corpus
- A Rich Landscape of Affordances (2014, background): “…is nevertheless widespread agreement that affordances are to be understood as possibilities for action provided to an animal by the environment—by the substances, surfaces, objects, and other living creatures that surround the animal (Chemero, 2003, 2009; Heft, 2001; Michaels, 2003; Reed, 1996).”
- The Needs-Affordances-Features Perspective for the Use of Social Media (2018, unknown): “Fourth, some affordances were not necessarily action affordances (i.e., action possibilities) but rather general affordances (Gibson 1979; for a discussion, see Michaels 2003) where actions are absent.”
- Ecological-Enactive Cognition as engaging with a field of relevant affordances (2018, background): “By ‘affordances’ we mean the possibilities for action provided to us by the environment (Gibson 1979; Chemero 2003; Chemero 2009; Michaels 2003; Reed 1996; Costall 1995; Heft 2001; Rietveld and 1 The words “action” and “skill” should be understood in a very broad sense in this chapter.”
- Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research (2017, background): “An outcome need not be an action (Michaels, 2003) but needs to be connected with the goals of the actor (Gibson, 1979).”