Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- aesthetic liking (2)
- interest (2)
- pleasure (2)
- processing fluency (2)
- processing style (2)
- attractiveness (1)
Institute
A commentary on Commentary: Aesthetic Pleasure versus Aesthetic Interest: The Two Routes to Aesthetic Liking by Consoli, G. (2017). Front. Psychol. 8:1197. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01197
In his commentary on the paper “Aesthetic Pleasure versus Aesthetic Interest: The Two Routes to Aesthetic Liking,” authored by Jan R. Landwehr and myself (Graf and Landwehr, 2017), Consoli (2017) deplores two aspects of our paper. First, an inadequate definition and operationalization of the key constructs aesthetic pleasure, aesthetic interest, and aesthetic liking, respectively aesthetic attractiveness. Second, the conclusions drawn from our empirical studies. While I acknowledge that one may have a different theoretical perspective on aesthetic perception and evaluation, it appears that Consoli's (2017) commentary does not even address the empirical data of our studies but only our theoretical assumptions and definitions. In the following, I will address Consoli's (2016, 2017) arguments in more detail, and I will corroborate our theoretical reasoning with the empirical data of our studies (Graf and Landwehr, 2017).....
Although existing research has established that aesthetic pleasure and aesthetic interest are two distinct positive aesthetic responses, empirical research on aesthetic preferences usually considers only aesthetic liking to capture participants’ aesthetic response. This causes some fundamental contradictions in the literature; some studies find a positive relationship between easy-to-process stimulus characteristics and aesthetic liking, while others suggest a negative relationship. The present research addresses these empirical contradictions by investigating the dual character of aesthetic liking as manifested in both the pleasure and interest components. Based on the Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking (PIA Model; Graf and Landwehr, 2015), two studies investigated the formation of pleasure and interest and their relationship with aesthetic liking responses. Using abstract art as the stimuli, Study 1 employed a 3 (stimulus fluency: low, medium, high) × 2 (processing style: automatic, controlled) × 2 (aesthetic response: pleasure, interest) experimental design to examine the processing dynamics responsible for experiencing aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest. We find that the effect of stimulus fluency on pleasure is mediated by a gut-level fluency experience. Stimulus fluency and interest, by contrast, are related through a process of disfluency reduction, such that disfluent stimuli that grow more fluent due to processing efforts become interesting. The second study employed product designs (bikes, chairs, and lamps) as stimuli and a 2 (fluency: low, high) × 2 (processing style: automatic, controlled) × 3 (product type: bike, chair, lamp) experimental design to examine pleasure and interest as mediators of the relationship between stimulus fluency and design attractiveness. With respect to lamps and chairs, the results suggest that the effect of stimulus fluency on attractiveness is fully mediated by aesthetic pleasure, especially in the automatic processing style. Conversely, disfluent product designs can enhance design attractiveness judgments due to interest when a controlled processing style is adopted.