Perception plays an important role in life of the consumer.

Our environment including

business environment is littered with numerous stimuli trying to attract our attention. The
quality of our perception depends on the way we process and interpret the stimuli or the
information reaching our senses. Perception is the process, by which an individual
select, organizes and interpret information inputs to create meaningful picture of the
world. When we interpret a situation or events we are then in position to respond.
(Kotler, 1997). Perception, according to Gregory et al (1995), is a set of process by
which an individual becomes aware of and interpret information about the environment.
If everyone perceived everything the way, things would be a lot simpler, of course, the
reverse is true. Moreover, people often assume that, reality is objective that, we all
perceive thin the same way. According to Markin (1995), perception is concerned with
the way in which we select and recognize sensory data presented by our environment.
In other words perception may be defined as a complex process by which people select,
organized and interpret sensory stimuli into meaningful picture of the world.

Markin Continues that, a number of stimuli constantly reaching consumers sensory

organs from the environment they select certain stimuli to which they attend, they
organized these stimuli so that they become understandable, but their interpretation of
sensory stimuli involves more than just receiving and processing information by
attitudes and beliefs and their past learning as is by the character of the stimuli
themselves. And understanding of perception process is important to the producer or
the manufacturer. This is because Consumers decision to purchase a product will be
influenced to a large extent by the attribute which the successful marketer is able to give
or lend to the product through advertising, packing, Manufacturing, Country of origin and
other promotional techniques which in a way determined product quality. Psychologists
have succeeded in identifying a number of factors that are important in determining the
direction of attention. They can be broadly classified under external and internal factors
External factors relates to physical characteristics of stimuli, while internal factors
include our motives and expectations which also affect the way consumers determine
product Quality. Courtland L, Bovver and John J. Thrill (1992, P 153) have the view
about perception; before consumers can buy a product, they must be aware that it exist.
 A person’s perception of entrepreneurship will be shaped by factors endogenous and
exogenous. Endogenous factors are those that are within one’s control and relate to
issues such as character. The exogenous factors are beyond a person’s control and
relate to environmental issues such as taxation rates, inflation and recession. While
these factors may affect all, those with a positive perception of entrepreneurship will
perceive themselves as having what it takes to overcome hurdles (Moy &Wright, 2003)

An individual’s perception of self and environment determine the goals the individual
sets for him/herself and the expected outcome of actions taken. The perception of
opportunity, alongside motivation and access to means to pursue the opportunity, is
seen as a prerequisite condition to entrepreneurial behaviour. Those who take up
entrepreneurship perceive lucrative opportunities where others do not. Entrepreneurs
are also seen to perceive less risk in situations. Rather than look at disadvantages and
threats they focus on advantages and opportunities. (Palich & Bagby, 1995).

This is a process that starts with being exposed to the stimuli that represent a
particular product, attending to these stimuli and interpreting them to form an overall
perception of the objective. This perceptions is said to be the way they gather and
record information (Gilbert A. Churchill and Douglass F. Halley, 1997). It is believed
that, it is not to be satisfied and delighted as they must perceived that the product is
excellent (Larforce et al, 1995). Some have come out with the following trend affecting
Consumer behavior. Shoppers increasingly economizing or down scaling to less
expensive brands, Searching for deals, waiting longer to but, balancing quality and price
Consciousness.

Self-perception theory provides a theoretical frame work within which behavioral

influence strategies can be investigated. In essence, self- perception theory specifically
the process and conditions under which a person past behavior is used as data in
making influence upon the circumstances in which behavior is enacted. Specifically the
central preposition of buyers perception theory stated individual comes to know their
own attitude, emotions and the internal states practically by informing them from
observation of their own behavior and the situations in which the behavior occurs, when
Consumers do infer a positive relationship likely to compare the two stores dealing with
2 different products, the key point is the judgment quality based on the brand name or
the channel of distribution are necessarily comparative and perceived differences in
product, lend to relative and perceived differences in product quality varies significantly
(journal of Marketing Research 1976).
 Theories of Perception

This study relies on the following action based theories of perception viz; the early
action based theory of perception, sensorimotor contingency theories, motor component
and efferent readiness theories and skill/acquisition theories. Early action-based
theories of Perception, These theories have three dominant doctrines: the first states
that immediate objects of sight have two dimensional manifolds of light and colour which
lacks perceptible extension in depth. The second states that vision must be “educated”
by the sense of touch. The widespread acceptance of both theories owes much to the
influence of George Berkley (1709) New Theory of Vision (Action-based Theories of
Perception, 2015). These theories which started in the 19th century have two
components: The Berkeleyan theory and the Lotze, Helmholtz, and the local sign
theory.The Berkeleyan theory of perception was propounded by Berkeley in his
Berkeleyanproject of the New Theory of Vision (1709). The theory is also called the
Movement and Touch in the New theory of vision. Here, George Berkley anchored his
argument on three disparate perspectives. Firstly, George Berkeley contends that visual
experiences convey information about three-dimensional space only to the extent that
they enable perceivers to anticipate the tactile consequences of the actions directed at
surrounding objects.

This line of thought however, has an axiomatic antecedent in Locke’s essay

concerning human understanding Accordingly, Locke in the Essay maintained that the
immediate objects of sight are flat or lack outward depth; that sight must be coordinated
with touch in order to mediate judgments concerning the disposition of objects in three
dimensional space; and that visible ideas “excite” in the mind movement-based ideas of
distance through an associative process takin to that whereby words suggest their
meanings (Action-based Theories of Perception, 2015).The implication of this theory is
that, the physical previous learning experiences of the students with the business
studies student teachers carry a particular impression about the student teacher to the
level that they are even able to anticipate the physical consequences of their conduct
before the student teacher in the classroom. This also implies that the immediate or
cursory conception about the business studies student teacher by the students is
merely phenomenal as they do not really make for the true and real comprehension of
the nature, ability and personhood of the business studies student teachers. Again, it
also means that, the students must not only physically observe the business studies
student teachers but they must also critically analyze such observation in their mind’s
eye if they must make an objective judgment of the disposition of the business studies
student teachers. However, it may interest you to note that philosophers like; Cadillac,
Reid, Smith, Mill, Bain and Dewey also lend their view that touch and sight are
interrelated (Action-based Theories of Perception, 2015).

Secondly, Berkeley argues that, the notion that action plays a significant role in the
New theory is theological (having a prominent purpose). He further contended that sight
does not only derive its three-dimensional spatial significance from bodily movement, its
purpose entails enabling humans engage in such movement adaptively (Action-based
Theories of Perception, 2015). That is, the physical observation of the business studies
student teachers does not only significantly influence their conduct, it could also make
them adapt to such behaviour. If the students see the business studies student teachers
as not being intellectually mature enough to guide and supervise them as they learn,
they will lose confidence in the business studies student teachers which will in turn
affect their behaviour towards the business student teachers.

This trend may linger and eventually become the culture of the class.Thirdly,
Berkeley argued that the believe in which action is central to the New Theory is
psychological, adding that tangible ideas of distance are elicited not only by; visual or
“pictorial” depth cues such as object’s degree of blurriness, but also by kinesthetic,
muscular sensation resulting changes in the vergence angle of eyes and
accommodation of the lens.That is, the students’ inability to have a real perception or
understanding of the business studies student teachers may be influenced by the
unreasonable distant relationship between the student and the business studies student
teachers. It is worthy of note that the Berkeleyan school of thought like other plethora of
contemporary theories of spatial vision acknowledges a pertinent role for ocumulator
factors in our perception of distance (Action-based Theories of Perception,
2015).Similarly, Lotze and Helmholtz as one of the key advocates of the early action-
based theories haven concurred with the Berkeleyan theory re-affirmed the role played
by the active movement and touch in the genesis of two-dimensional visuospatial
awareness.

In their Lotze, Helmholtz and the Local Sign Doctrine, Lotze and Helmoltz attempted
to go beyond the thoughts of Berkeley to maintain that bodily movement also occupies a
crucial part in the development of the two-dimensional visual field, which has mostly
been downplayed by previous accounts of vision (Action-based Theories of Perception,
2015). Also, Helmholtz (2005), fully accepts the need for local signs in two-dimensional
spatial localization, but makes an important modification to Lotze’s theory. Particularly,
he maintained that Local Signs are not feelings that originate in the adjustment of the
ocular musculature, but rather feelings of innervations produced by the effort of the will
to move the eyes.Conversely, the early action-based theories such as the; Movement
and Touch-in-the-New theory of vision (Berkley, 1709) and the Lotze, Helmholtz, and
the local sign doctrine of Lotze (1817-1881) and Helmholtz (1821-1894) encountered
some problems and faced some criticisms respectively. The critics of the Berkeleyan
(1709) theory such as; Bain (1868), Smith (2000) and Atherton (2005) predicated their
claims on three points viz; that distance, of itself and immediately, cannot be seen, that
sight depends on learned connections with experiences of movement and touch for its
outward, spatial significance and that “habitual connexion” that is association would by
itself enable touch to “educate” vision in the required manner. This means that, if the
student must have a clear comprehension of the business studies teacher, there must
be close interaction since knowledge of the perceived come with previous experiences
of the character or personality of the perceived and hence assist in rightly sharpening
the perception of the students towards the business studies student teacher. Also, when
the students forms their perception towards the business studies student teacher from a
distant, such perception is usually devoid of the real feelings and rumination on the
character of the business studies student teacher, rather what they observe is their
physical appearance which does not really aid objective perceptual formation of the
perceived business studies student teacher. This was how Bain (1868:194) puts it in his
argument; “in perceiving distance, we are not conscious of tactual feelings or
locomotors reminiscences; what we see is a visible quality and nothing more”.b)
Sensorimotor Contingency TheoriesThe sensorimotor contingency theory focuses on
the reafference theory of Richard Held and J.Kevin O’ Regan and Alva Noe’s enactive
approach. The prominent notion of both theories is that perception and perceptually
guided action of students should depend on their abilities to anticipate the sensory
effects of bodily movements.

In these theories it is contended that for the students to be a good perceiver of the
business studies student teacher they must not be oblivious of the Laws of
Sensorimotor contingency as postulated by O’Regan and Noe (2001:941). This has
been recommended because it explicates the structure of the rules governing the
sensory changes produced by various motor actions.As one of the sensorimotor
contingency theories, the afference and Visual Direction Constancy (VOC) theory has to
do with how the students tends to perceive the attributive qualities of the business
studies student teacher as remaining the same despite the conscious attempts of the
student teacher to improve on his/her character traits. Bridgeman (2010:94) puts it this
way; “perceiving a stable visual world establishes the platform on which all other visual
functions rests, making possible judgments about the positions and motions of the self
and of other objects”. This theory raises two pertinent questions (Mackay, 1973): (1)
which sources of information are used to determine whether the observer’s relative
position of an object has changed between fixation? (2) How are relevant sources of
information by the visual system to achieve this function?This theory was deployed in
the 19th century to illuminate a varietyofexperimentalfindings by scholars like; Bell,
Purkyne and Hering, Helmholtz and Mach. However, the most influential formulation of
the theory came from Erich von Holst and Horst Mittelstadt in the early 1950s.
According to what they tagged the “re-afference principle” (von Holst & Mittelstadt 1950;
von Holst 1954), the visual system uses a copy of motordirectives to the eye in order for
the students to be able to distinguish betweenthevisual stimulation caused by the
transformations in the attributive qualities of the student teacher (exafferent) and those
caused by transformations in the students physical observations (reafferent) of the
business studies student teacher. On the other hand, Bridgeman and Stark (1991),
Bridgeman et al (1975), Deubel (2004). Brune and Licking (1969) and Bridgeman
(1981) raised some objections to the efferent copy theory. The reference object theory
of Deubel (2004) and Bridgeman (2010) denies that efference copy is used to “cancel
out” displacement of the retinal image caused by saccadic eye-movements. On this
approach, efference copy does not directly support VOC. Rather, the role of efference
copy is to maintain an estimate of the direction of gaze, which can be integrated with
incoming retinal stimulation to determine the static, observer-relative locations of
perceived objects.The reafference theory which goes beyond the accounts of von Holst
and Mittelstadt in three ways was proposed by Richard Held in 1961.

First, the theory is simply an extension of von Holst and Mittelstadt’s reafference
principle, according to which efference copy is used to cancel out shifts of the retinal
image caused by saccadic eye movements.

Second, the reafference theory fails to explain just how stored efference-reafference
correlations are supposed to explain visuomotor control. Without elaboration, all that
Held’s theory seems to explicate is why students become surprised when reafference
generated by their classroom conducts are considered to be below the classroom
standard as a result of their perception towards the business studies student teacher
(Rock, 1966).The enactive theory being an extension of the sensorimotor cogency
theory was defended by J. Kevin O’Regan and Alva Noe (O’Regan & Noe 2001; Noe
2004, 2005, 2010; O’Regan 2011). According to this theory, spatially contentful, world-
presenting perceptual experiences and feelings of the students towards the business
studies students teacher depends on implicit knowledge of the way students’
stimulations vary as a function of their classroom conduct. That is, the way the students
may perceive the business studies students teacher will depend on the potency and
functionality of their senses.In addition, the evidence of this theory could be sourced
from three main. Thefirstcouldbe sourced from experiments with optical rearrangement
devices (ORDs). There Hurley and Noe (2003) maintained that adaptation to ORD only
occurs when the students can relearn how systematically interdependent is their
classroom conduct on their perception towards the business studies student teacher.
Moreover, contrary to this theory of Stratton, Harris and Rock, Hurley and Noe argues
that the reversal of the kind of student’s perception towards the business studies
student teacher is dependent or genuinely hinged upon physical observation before
they finally adapt to the situation. Although, Hurley and Noe did not contest the
numerous sources of empirical and introspective evidence that Stratton, Harris and
Rock adduced for this theory, they however rejected the theory on the basis of what
they took to be an untoward epistemic implication concerning adaptation to left-right
reversal (2003).The second empirical evidence comes from the well-known experiments
on tactile-visual sensory substitution (TVSS) devices that transform outputs from a low-
resolution video camera into a matrix of vibrotactile stimulation on the skin of one’s back
(Bach-y-Rita 1972, 2004) or electro-tactile stimulation on the surface of one’s tongue
(Sampaio et al. 2001).

The final source of evidence for this theory comes from the studies of the visuomotor
development in the absence of normal, reafferent visual stimulation. Held & Hein (1963)
performed an experiment in which pairs of Kittens were harnessed to a carousel in a
small, cylindrical chamber. One of the Kittens was able to engage in free
circumambulation while wearing a harness. The other kitten was suspended in the air in
a metal gondola whose motions were driven by the first harnessed kitten.Conversely,
the enactive approach has been challenged on somegrounds.Theapproachis essentially
an elaboration of Held’s reafference theoryandas such, faces many of the same
empirical obstacles. Evidence, for instance, that active movement per se is not
necessary for perceptual adoption to optical rearrangement is at the variance with
predications made by the reafference theory and the enactive approach alike. Also, the
theory is criticized because it is said to have been empirically falsified by evidence for
the DSM (O’Regan & Noe 2001; Clark 2009): the bond it posits between what the
students sees and how they conduct themselves is much too tight to comport with what
neuroscience has to tell us about functional relations. But the enactivist can make two
points as a rejoinder to this objection. First is that experimental findings indicate that
there are a number of contexts in which information about the business studies student
teacher present to the students consciousness is used to carry out their predetermined
conduct in the class (Briscoe 2009). Action and perception are not as sharply
dissociated as proponents of DSM sometimes argue. Second, the enactive approach
rejects the idea that the function of vision is to guide actions.c) Motor Component and
Efferent Readiness TheoriesHere, the theorists states otherwise as regards to the claim
that perception is action or action-based is far from unambiguous.

They contended that when the students develop any kind of perception towards the
business studies student teacher it implicates their classroom conduct in the sense that
it is taken constitutively to involves within feelings (touch) (Barkeley, 1709), Kinaesthetic
feedback from changes in eye position (Lotze, 1887), consciously experienced effort of
the will (Helmholtz, 2005), or knowledge of the way reafferent sensory stimulation varies
as a function of movement (Held, 1961; O’Regan & Noe 2001; Hurley & Noe
2003).According to the motor component theory, efference copies generated in
theocculatorsystem and/or proprioceptive feedback from eye-movements are used in
tandem with incoming sensory inputs to determine the characteristics of the perceived
business studies student teachers by the students (Helmholtz, 2005[1924]; Mck 1979;
Ebenholtz, 2002). By contrast, the efference readiness theories appeal to the particular
ways in the students’ perceptual states prepares the students’ conduct themselves in
response to the environmental condition of the classroom created by the business
studies student teacher. Further, the efferent readiness theories have two components:
the modest readiness theory and the bold readiness theory. The former claims that, the
way students perceives the business studies students teacher is influenced by the way
their spatial attributes are represented during their physical observation is sometimes
modulated by one or another form of convert action planning (Festinger, et al. 1967;
Coren, 1986; Vishton, et al. 2007). While the latter argues for the stranger, constitutive
claim that the students has a multiple simultaneous readiness to conduct themselves in
the classroom in response to the kind of perception they have formed about the
business studies student teacher, confirming that such action and will power are similar
(Taylor, 1968).Taylor’s behavioural theory of perception indentifies the conscious
experiences of the students having to physically observe the physical qualities of the
business studies student teacher with the passive activation of a specific set of learned
conducts (Taylor, 1965).

However, the cogent problem with Taylor‘s theory is also one that besets behaviourists
theories of perception generally. It assumes that for every business studies student
teacher they will exhibit a particular distinctive behaviour that constitutes the kind of
perception the student will form about them. Matthon (1988) aptly puts it thus: “there is
no such thing as the proper response, or even a range of functionally appropriate
responses, to what perception tell us (p.20).