The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Affordances: Four Points of Debate
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Bornstein, M. H., & Gibson, J. J. (1980) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429816 · Cited by 22,935
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition
Gibson, J. J. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315740218 · Cited by 12,132
Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing.
Warren, W. H. (1984) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.683 · Cited by 1,237
Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology
Turvey, M. T. (1992) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0403_3 · Cited by 933
Processes, Acts, and Experiences: Three Stances on the Problem of Intentionality
Shaw, R. (2001) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15326969eco1304_02 · Cited by 100
Cited by
A Rich Landscape of Affordances
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1080/10407413.2014.958035 · Cited by 1,160
Bentley University, U., Markus, M. L., Silver, M., & Fordham University (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00176 · Cited by 927
Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A's Framework
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029528 · Cited by 660
The Needs–Affordances–Features Perspective for the Use of Social Media1
Karahanna, E., Xu, S. X., Xu, Y., & Zhang, N. (. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/11492 · Cited by 518
(2009) · International journal of sport psychology · Cited by 488
Metadata
- Authors
- Michaels, C. F.
- Venue
- Ecological Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-148
- ISSN
- 1040-7413 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6969
- OpenAlex
- W2026855223
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 0.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Affordances: Four Points of Debate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15326969eco1502_3
- The paper
- Michaels, C. F. (2003). Affordances: Four Points of Debate. Ecological Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco1502_3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
