Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (11): 1872-1881.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01872
• Regular Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
GAO Cheng, LIU Chang
Received:
2024-02-01
Online:
2024-11-15
Published:
2024-09-05
CLC Number:
GAO Cheng, LIU Chang. How do processing fluency, expectation, and epistemic goals influence aesthetic judgment? A perspective of multi-model integration[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(11): 1872-1881.
[1] 柴方圆, 喻丰, 彭凯平. (2016). 审美愉悦与加工流畅性. [2] 何先友, 陈雅珏, 杨丹妮, 何德娴. (2019). 流畅性对审美鉴赏的影响——从加工流畅性模型到审美愉悦与兴趣模型. [3] 唐国尧, 徐祥运. (2022). 审美知觉研究的新视域: 预测加工理论探析. [4] Albrecht, S., & Carbon, C. C. (2014). The fluency amplification model: Fluent stimuli show more intense but not evidently more positive evaluations. [5] Armstrong, T., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging world. [6] Brielmann, A. A., & Dayan, P. (2022). A computational model of aesthetic value. [7] Brouillet, D., & Friston, K. (2023). Relative fluency (unfelt vs felt) in active inference. [8] Bullot, N. J., & Reber, R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. [9] Carr E. W., Brady T. F., & Winkielman P. (2017). Are you smiling, or have I seen you before? Familiarity makes faces look happier. [10] Carr E. W., Huber D. E., Pecher D., Zeelenberg R., Halberstadt J., & Winkielman P. (2017). The ugliness-in- averageness effect: Tempering the warm glow of familiarity. [11] Carr E. W., Rotteveel M., & Winkielman P. (2016). Easy moves: Perceptual fluency facilitates approach-related action. [12] Erle, T. M., & Topolinski, S. (2018). Disillusionment: How expectations shape the enjoyment of early perceptual processes. [13] Forster, M. (2022). Processing fluency. In M. Nadal & O. Vartanian (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 430-446). Oxford University Press. [14] Frascaroli J., Leder H., Brattico E., & Van de Cruys, S. (2024). Aesthetics and predictive processing: Grounds and prospects of a fruitful encounter. [15] Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. [16] Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? [17] Friston K. J., Lin M., Frith C. D., Pezzulo G., Hobson J. A., & Ondobaka S. (2017). Active inference, curiosity and insight. [18] Furnham, A., & Bunyan, M. (1988). Personality and art preferences. [19] Gershman, S. J. (2019). What does the free energy principle tell us about the brain? [20] Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The Pleasure- Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking. [21] Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: The two routes to aesthetic liking. [22] Halberstadt, J., & Winkielman, P. (2014). Easy on the eyes, or hard to categorize: Classification difficulty decreases the appeal of facial blends. [23] Hansen, J., & Topolinski, S. (2011). An exploratory mindset reduces preference for prototypes and increases preference for novel exemplars. [24] Hansen J.,& Wänke, M. (2013). Fluency in context: Discrepancy makes processing experiences informative In C Unkelbach & R Greifender (Eds), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp 70-84) Psychology Press Discrepancy makes processing experiences informative. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifender (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 70-84). Psychology Press. [25] Heilbron M., Armeni K., Schoffelen J.-M., Hagoort P., & de Lange, F. P. (2022). A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension. [26] Herzog S. M.,& Hertwig, R. (2013). The ecological validity of fluency. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifender (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 190-219). Psychology Press. [27] Hesp C., Smith R., Parr T., Allen M., Friston K. J., & Ramstead, M. J. D. (2021). Deeply felt affect: The emergence of valence in deep active inference. [28] Jacoby L. L., Kelley C., M., & Dywan J. (1989). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds), [29] Jakesch, M., & Carbon, C.-C. (2012). The mere exposure effect in the domain of haptics. [30] Jakesch M., Leder H., & Forster M. (2013). Image ambiguity and fluency. [31] Jiang Y., Marcowski P., Ryazanov A., & Winkielman P. (2023). People conform to social norms when gambling with lives or money. [32] Kaminska O. K., Magnuski M., Olszanowski M., Gola M., Brzezicka A., & Winkielman P. (2020). Ambiguous at the second sight: Mixed facial expressions trigger late electrophysiological responses linked to lower social impressions. [33] Kaube H., Eiserbeck A., & Rahman R. A. (2023). Separating art from the artist: The effect of negative affective knowledge on ERPs and aesthetic experience. [34] Kruglanski, A. W. (2023). [35] Kruglanski A. W., Jasko K., & Friston K. (2020). All thinking is “wishful” thinking. [36] Kruglanski A. W., Jasko K., Milyavsky M., Chernikova M., Webber D., Pierro A., & di Santo D. (2018). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: A paradigm reconsidered. [37] Kukkonen, K. (2024). Designs on consciousness: Literature and predictive processing. [38] Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., & Augustin D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. [39] Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode-developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. [40] Mantegna F., Hintz F., Ostarek M., Alday P. M., & Huettig F. (2019). Distinguishing integration and prediction accounts of ERP N400 modulations in language processing through experimental design. [41] Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Quantifying visual aesthetics based on processing fluency theory: Four algorithmic measures for antecedents of aesthetic preferences. [42] Menninghaus W., Wagner V., Wassiliwizky E., Schindler I., Hanich J., Jacobsen T., & Koelsch S. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?Psychological Review, 126(2), 171-195. [43] Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Vevea J. L., Citkowicz M., & Lauber E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. [44] Muth, C., & Carbon, C.-C. (2024). Predicting instabilities: An embodied perspective on unstable experiences with art and design. [45] Nadal, M., & Chatterjee, A. (2018). Neuroaesthetics and art’s diversity and universality. [46] Nieuwland M. S., Barr D. J., Bartolozzi F., Busch-Moreno S., Darley E., Donaldson D. I., … Wolfsthurn, S. V. G. Z. (2020). Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large- scale study using brain potentials. [47] Nook, E. C., & Zaki, J. (2015). Social norms shift behavioral and neural responses to foods. [48] Owen H. E., Halberstadt J., Carr E. W., & Winkielman P. (2016). Johnny Depp, reconsidered: How category-relative processing fluency determines the appeal of gender ambiguity. [49] Pocheptsova A., Labroo A. A., & Dhar R. (2010). Making products feel special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. [50] Reber R., Schwarz N., & Winkielman P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? [51] Rosenbaum, J. E., & Johnson, B. K. (2016). Who’s afraid of spoilers? Need for cognition, need for affect, and narrative selection and enjoyment. [52] Ryali C. K., Goffin S., Winkielman P., & Yu A. J. (2020). From likely to likable: The role of statistical typicality in human social assessment of faces. [53] Schwarz N., Jalbert M., Noah T., & Zhang L. (2021). Metacognitive experiences as information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. [54] Siev, J. J., & Teeny, J. D. (2024). Personal misconduct elicits harsher professional consequences for artists (vs. scientists): A moral-decoupling process. [55] Silvia P. J.(2012). Human emotions and aesthetic experience: An overview of empirical aesthetics. In A. Shimamura & S. E. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 250-275). Oxford University Press. [56] Unkelbach, C., & Greifender, R. (2013). [57] Van de Cruys S., Bervoets J., & Moors A. (2022). Preferences need inferences. In M. Nadal & M. Skov (Eds), [58] Van de Cruys S., Frascaroli J., & Friston K. (2024). Order and change in art: Towards an active inference account of aesthetic experience. [59] Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. [60] Vogel T., Ingendahl M., & Winkielman P. (2021). The architecture of prototype preferences: Typicality, fluency, and valence. [61] Wänke, M., & Hansen, J. (2015). Relative processing fluency. [62] Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. [63] Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy- attribution account of feelings of familiarity. [64] Wiersema D. V., van der Schalk J., & van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Who’s afraid of red, yellow, and blue? Need for cognitive closure predicts aesthetic preferences. [65] Winkielman P., Huber D. E., Kavanagh L., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Fluency of consistency: When thoughts fit nicely and flow smoothly In B Gawronski & F Strack (Eds), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp 89-111) The Guilford Press When thoughts fit nicely and flow smoothly. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 89-111). The Guilford Press. [66] Winkielman P., Olszanowski M., & Gola M. (2015). Faces in-between: Evaluations reflect the interplay of facial features and task-dependent fluency. [67] Winkielman P., Schwarz N., Fazendeiro T. A., & Reber R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In I. Munch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), [68] Wolf, J. (2020). Predictive coding: Neuroscience and art. [69] Yoo J., Jasko K., & Winkielman P. (2024). Fluency, prediction and motivation: How processing dynamics, expectations and epistemic goals shape aesthetic judgements. [70] Yoo, J., & Winkielman, P. (2023). |
[1] | SUI Xue, LI Yulin, YUE Zeming, LIU Xin, LI Yutong, LIU Shunhua. Prediction formation during speech perception: Factors and neural mechanisms [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(10): 1659-1669. |
[2] | YE Fang, QIU Huilin, JIANG Ke, LI Changjin. Interpretation model of role reversal based on predictive processing theory [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(8): 1504-1516. |
[3] | LI Xueyu, GAO Shenchun. Predictive processing and the bounds of cognition: A phenomenological perspective [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(7): 1186-1194. |
[4] | HUANG Jianping, XU Jingxian, WAN Xiaoang. Influence of associative learning on consumer behavior: From the perspective of product search experience [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(11): 2414-2423. |
[5] | YIN Kui, ZHANG Kaili, ZHAO Jing, GONG Zhenxing. The effects of employee empowerment expectation: The underlying theoretical explanations [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(2): 353-364. |
[6] | ZHOU Can, ZHOU Linshu, JIANG Cunmei. Neural mechanisms underlying the experience of musical pleasure [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(1): 123-130. |
[7] | Mengjiao Xu, Yingtao Fu, Jiahan Yu, Ping Zhu, Mowei Shen, Hui Chen. Source information is inherently linked to working memory representation for auditory but not for visual stimuli [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(suppl.): 24-24. |
[8] | DENG Jue, YE Yiduo, CHEN Yanfang. Implicit acquisition of musical syntax and its influence on schema expectation [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(6): 1012-1018. |
[9] | QIU Junjie, HUANG Xiting, YU Xiaolin. Does attention control affect rhythmic temporal expectation? [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(12): 2145-2156. |
[10] | CHEN Fangyan; LI Fengying; LI Weijian. Effects of perceptual cues on metamemory monitoring and control [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(4): 494-500. |
[11] | DENG Xiaofei; LUO Fei; GUO Jianyou. The Opposite Twins: Mechanisms Underlying Placebo/Nocebo Effect in Pain [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(5): 822-835. |
[12] | QIU Junjie; BI Cuihua; YUAN Xiangyong; HUANG Xiting. The Cognitive and Neural Mechanism of Temporal Expectation [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(3): 385-393. |
[13] | XIE Xiaofei;HU Tianyi;LIN Jing;LU Xi. Expectation Discrepancy: Risk Communication Barriers in Disaster [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(5): 761-774. |
[14] | WU Bo;HUANG Xi-Ting. Be Satisfied and Happy: Review and Prospect of Marital Expectation [J]. , 2012, 20(7): 1098-1109. |
[15] | ZHANG Wen-Cai;YUAN Li-Zhuang;LU Yun-Qing;LUO Jing. The History and Development of Experiment Design for Placebo Effect Studies [J]. , 2011, 19(8): 1115-1125. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||