» Articles » PMID: 26288314

Everything's Relative? Relative Differences in Processing Fluency and the Effects on Liking

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2015 Aug 20
PMID 26288314
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Explanations of aesthetic pleasure based on processing fluency have shown that ease-of-processing fosters liking. What is less clear, however, is how processing fluency arises. Does it arise from a relative comparison among the stimuli presented in the experiment? Or does it arise from a comparison to an internal reference or standard? To address these questions, we conducted two experiments in which two ease-of-processing manipulations were applied: either (1) within-participants, where relative comparisons among stimuli varying in processing ease were possible, or (2) between-participants, where no relative comparisons were possible. In total, 97 participants viewed simple line drawings with high or low visual clarity, presented at four different presentation durations, and rated for felt fluency, liking, and certainty. Our results show that the manipulation of visual clarity led to differences in felt fluency and certainty regardless of being manipulated within- or between-participants. However, liking ratings were only affected when ease-of-processing was manipulated within-participants. Thus, feelings of fluency do not depend on the nature of the reference. On the other hand, participants liked fluent stimuli more only when there were other stimuli varying in ease-of-processing. Thus, relative differences in fluency seem to be crucial for liking judgments.

Citing Articles

Nomen est omen? How and when company name fluency affects return expectations.

Fenneman A, Janssen D, Nolte S, Zeisberger S PLoS One. 2023; 18(8):e0287995.

PMID: 37585410 PMC: 10431612. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287995.


The subjective feeling of a gap between conceptual and perceptual fluency is interpreted as a metacognitive signal of pastness.

Brouillet D, Servajean P, Josa R, Gimenez C, Turo S, Michalland A Cogn Process. 2022; 24(1):83-94.

PMID: 36527528 PMC: 9759051. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-022-01114-0.


Beauty at a glance: The feeling of beauty and the amplitude of pleasure are independent of stimulus duration.

Brielmann A, Vale L, Pelli D J Vis. 2017; 17(14):9.

PMID: 29228142 PMC: 6894407. DOI: 10.1167/17.14.9.


Global Sensory Qualities and Aesthetic Experience in Music.

Brattico P, Brattico E, Vuust P Front Neurosci. 2017; 11:159.

PMID: 28424573 PMC: 5380758. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00159.


Titles change the esthetic appreciations of paintings.

Gerger G, Leder H Front Hum Neurosci. 2015; 9:464.

PMID: 26379527 PMC: 4548445. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464.

References
1.
Rossion B, Pourtois G . Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: the role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception. 2004; 33(2):217-36. DOI: 10.1068/p5117. View

2.
Whittlesea B, Williams L . The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001; 27(1):3-13. View

3.
Gartus A, Leder H . The small step toward asymmetry: Aesthetic judgment of broken symmetries. Iperception. 2013; 4(5):361-4. PMC: 3859553. DOI: 10.1068/i0588sas. View

4.
Alter A, Oppenheimer D, Epley N, Eyre R . Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007; 136(4):569-76. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569. View

5.
Greene M, Oliva A . The briefest of glances: the time course of natural scene understanding. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(4):464-72. PMC: 2742770. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02316.x. View