Literature DB >> 25742990

A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: the pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking.

Laura K M Graf1, Jan R Landwehr2.   

Abstract

In this article, we develop an account of how aesthetic preferences can be formed as a result of two hierarchical, fluency-based processes. Our model suggests that processing performed immediately upon encountering an aesthetic object is stimulus driven, and aesthetic preferences that accrue from this processing reflect aesthetic evaluations of pleasure or displeasure. When sufficient processing motivation is provided by a perceiver's need for cognitive enrichment and/or the stimulus' processing affordance, elaborate perceiver-driven processing can emerge, which gives rise to fluency-based aesthetic evaluations of interest, boredom, or confusion. Because the positive outcomes in our model are pleasure and interest, we call it the Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking (PIA Model). Theoretically, this model integrates a dual-process perspective and ideas from lay epistemology into processing fluency theory, and it provides a parsimonious framework to embed and unite a wealth of aesthetic phenomena, including contradictory preference patterns for easy versus difficult-to-process aesthetic stimuli.
© 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  boredom; confusion; dual-process theories; empirical aesthetics; epistemic motivation; interest; need for cognitive enrichment; pleasure; processing fluency

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25742990     DOI: 10.1177/1088868315574978

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev        ISSN: 1532-7957


  24 in total

1.  Processing bias: extending sensory drive to include efficacy and efficiency in information processing.

Authors:  Julien P Renoult; Tamra C Mendelson
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Empathy, Einfühlung, and aesthetic experience: the effect of emotion contagion on appreciation of representational and abstract art using fEMG and SCR.

Authors:  Gerger Gernot; Matthew Pelowski; Helmut Leder
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2017-03-17

3.  Beauty Requires Thought.

Authors:  Aenne A Brielmann; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 4.  Do we enjoy what we sense and perceive? A dissociation between aesthetic appreciation and basic perception of environmental objects or events.

Authors:  A K M Rezaul Karim; Michael J Proulx; Alexandra A de Sousa; Lora T Likova
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.526

5.  Titles change the esthetic appreciations of paintings.

Authors:  Gernot Gerger; Helmut Leder
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Visualizing the Impact of Art: An Update and Comparison of Current Psychological Models of Art Experience.

Authors:  Matthew Pelowski; Patrick S Markey; Jon O Lauring; Helmut Leder
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Commentary: Aesthetic Pleasure versus Aesthetic Interest: The Two Routes to Aesthetic Liking.

Authors:  Gianluca Consoli
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-07-21

8.  Curve Appeal: Exploring Individual Differences in Preference for Curved Versus Angular Objects.

Authors:  Katherine N Cotter; Paul J Silvia; Marco Bertamini; Letizia Palumbo; Oshin Vartanian
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2017-04-03

9.  When Challenging Art Gets Liked: Evidences for a Dual Preference Formation Process for Fluent and Non-Fluent Portraits.

Authors:  Benno Belke; Helmut Leder; Claus-Christian Carbon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Liking versus Complexity: Decomposing the Inverted U-curve.

Authors:  Yağmur Güçlütürk; Richard H A H Jacobs; Rob van Lier
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.