Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Influence of Presentation Mode on Preference of the Meaningful Entities: The Interaction between Inward Bias and Canonical View Point

의미 있는 개체 제시 방식이 선호도에 미치는 영향: 중심 편향 원리와 규범적 관점의 상호작용을 중심으로

  • 정혜녕 (건국대학교 문화컨텐츠.커뮤니케이션(학과간)학과 ) ;
  • 윤신애 (건국대학교 KU 커뮤니케이션 연구소 한국연구재단 인문과학 ) ;
  • 이현석 (건국대학교 문화컨텐츠.커뮤니케이션(학과간)학과 ) ;
  • 홍우평 (건국대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과)
  • Received : 2022.12.22
  • Accepted : 2023.04.04
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the interaction between inward bias and canonical viewpoint, which are factors known to affect preference for meaningful objects. It also considered the familiarity of each entity in terms of their influence on the existence of a canonical viewpoint and demonstrated whether the relative strength of two preferences varies depending on familiarity. To confirm this, we conducted a behavior experiment using a two-alternative forced-choice task. The experimental stimuli were eight single objects for familiarity level (high/low), whereas the entity's inward bias and canonical viewpoint were observed or violated. Results showed that when inward bias was obeyed, the frequency of being chosen as a preferred option was higher, and the reaction time for preference judgment was shorter. However, the observation of a canonical viewpoint did not affect frequency and reaction time. Moreover, familiarity played an interference role in aesthetic judgment. These results indicate that inward bias is stronger than canonical viewpoint, ultimately implying that a single object's interaction with the visual context is superior to the entity's attribute as regards to preference judgment.

본 연구의 목적은 의미 있는 대상의 선호도 판단에 영향을 미치는 것으로 알려진 원리인 내적 편향 원리와 규범적 관점 간의 상호작용 양상을 연구하는 데에 있다. 개별 개체의 친숙도가 규범적 관점에 영향을 미친다는 점 또한 고려하여 친숙도 수준에 따른 두 선호도 원리의 작용 양상을 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 이중 대안 선택 과제를 활용한 행동 반응 실험을 진행하였으며, 친숙도 수준(높음/낮음)에 따라 각 8개의 단일 개체를 실험 재료로 하여 내적 편향 원리 준수 여부와 규범적 관점 준수 여부를 조작하였다. 실험 결과, 내적 편향 원리를 준수한 상태에서 개체가 제시된 경우가 내적 편향 원리가 위배된 상태로 개체가 제시된 경우보다 더 선호되었다. 선호 판단에 걸리는 반응시간 또한 더 짧은 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 규범적 관점 준수 여부는 선택 빈도 및 반응 시간에 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 더불어, 개체의 친숙도는 선호도 판단과 관련된 의사 결정에 간섭 요인으로 작용하는 것으로 나타났다. 이와 같은 결과는 개체 선호도 원리 중 내적 편향의 강도가 규범적 관점에 비해 더 우세하며, 단일 개체가 제시될 때 그에 대한 선호 판단에 있어서 그 개체가 가진 속성보다 시각적 문맥과의 상호작용이 중요하게 작용한다는 것을 시사한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2021년도 건국대학교 우수연구인력 양성사업 지원에 의한 논문임.

References

  1. Amheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  2. Annett, M. (1970). A classification of hand preference by association analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 303-321. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1970.tb01248.x
  3. Baayen, R. H., & Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
  4. Baayen, R. H., & Shafaei-Bajestan, E. (2019). languageR: Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics. (R package version 1.5. 0).
  5. Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
  6. Bertamini, M., Bennett, K. M., & Bode, C. (2011). The anterior bias in visual art: The case of images of animals. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 16(6), 673-689. DOI: 10.1080/1357650X.2010.508219
  7. Blanz, V., Tarr, M. J., & Bulthoff, H. H. (1999). What object attributes determine canonical views?. Perception, 28(5), 575-599. DOI: 10.1068/p2897
  8. Bode, C., Bertamini, M., & Helmy, M. S. (2016). Left-right position in moving images: An analysis of face orientation, face position, and movement direction in eight action films. Art & Perception, 4(3), 241-263. DOI: 10.1163/22134913-00002053
  9. Bornstein, R. F., & D'Agostino, P. R. (1994). The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/ attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition, 12(2), 103-128. DOI: 10.1521/ soco.1994.12.2.103
  10. Chen, Y. C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). Seeing and liking: Biased perception of ambiguous figures consistent with the "inward bias" in aesthetic preferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(6), 1444-1451. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0617-2
  11. Corradi, G., Chuquichambi, E. G., Barrada, J. R., Clemente, A., & Nadal, M. (2020). A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 630-658. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12427
  12. Gerger, G., Leder, H., & Kremer, A. (2014). Context effects on emotional and aesthetic evaluations of artworks and IAPS pictures. Acta Psychologica, 151, 174-183. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.008
  13. Hung, W. K., & Chen, L. L. (2012). Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 81-90.
  14. Ibarra, F. F., Kardan, O., Hunter, M. R., Kotabe, H. P., Meyer, F. A., & Berman, M. G. (2017). Image feature types and their predictions of aesthetic preference and naturalness. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 632. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00632
  15. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 306. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306
  16. Kim S. Y., Baek G. Y., Choi J. E., & Lee H. H (2014). The effects of product presentation and background of photos in internet shopping malls on consumer perceptions. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 38(4), 467-481. DOI: 10.5850/JKSCT.2014.38.4.467
  17. Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to nonrepresentational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(4), 355-358. DOI: 10.3758/BF03337681
  18. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
  19. Leboe, J. P., & Whittlesea, B. W. (2002). The inferential basis of familiarity and recall: Evidence for a common underlying process. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 804-829. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2828
  20. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489-508. DOI: 10.1348/0007126042369811
  21. Li, M., Lv, J., & Tang, C. (2019). Aesthetic assessment of paintings based on visual balance. IET Image Processing, 13(14), 2821-2828. DOI: 10.1049/iet-ipr.2018.6572
  22. Mallon, B., Redies, C., & Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2014). Beauty in abstract paintings: perceptual contrast and statistical properties. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 161. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00161
  23. Nascimento, S. M., Albers, A. M., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2021). Naturalness and aesthetics of colors-preference for color compositions perceived as natural. Vision Research, 185, 98-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2021.03.010
  24. Palmer, S. E. (1991). Goodness, gestalt, groups, and garner: Local symmetry subgroups as a theory of figural goodness. In G. R. Lockhead & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), The perception of structure: Essays in honor of Wendell R. Garner (pp. 23-39). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/10101-001
  25. Palmer, S. E., & Guidi, S. (2011). Mapping the perceptual structure of rectangles through goodness-of-fit ratings. Perception, 40(12), 1428-1446. DOI: 10.1068/p7021
  26. Palmer, S. E., & Schloss, K. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(19), 8877-8882. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.090617210
  27. Palmer, S. E., Gardner, J. S., & Wickens, T. D. (2008). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects. Spatial Vision, 21(3), 421. DOI: 10.1163/156856808784532662
  28. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77-107. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
  29. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long, & A. Baddeley (Eds.), International Symposium on Attention and Performance (Attention and performance IX). 135-151. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  30. Park, J., Lennon, S. J., & Stoel, L. (2005). On-line product presentation: Effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychology & Marketing, 22(9), 695-719. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20080
  31. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3p1), 353. DOI: 10.1037/h0025953
  32. R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from URL: https://www.R-project.org/
  33. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45-48. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00008
  34. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
  35. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 192. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
  36. Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2012). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 865-879. DOI: 10.1037/a0027736
  37. Silvera, D. H., Josephs, R. A., & Giesler, R. B. (2002). Bigger is better: The influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(3), 189-202. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.410
  38. Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25-42. DOI: 10.2190/EM.27.1.b
  39. So, C. (2023). Measuring aesthetic preferences of neural style transfer: More precision with the two alternative-forced-choice task. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(4), 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2049081
  40. Toth, J. P. (1996). Conceptual automaticity in recognition memory: Levels-of-processing effects on familiarity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale, 50(1), 123-138. DOI: 10.1037/1196-1961.50.1.123
  41. Tyler, C. W. (1998, July). Eye placement principles in portraits and figure studies over the past two millennia. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging III (Vol. 3299, pp. 431-438). SPIE. DOI: 10.1117/12.320133
  42. Verfaillie, K., & Boutsen, L. (1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(7), 925-961. DOI: 10.3758/BF03205454
  43. Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., & Wells, S. (2012). Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular design elements. Psychology & Marketing, 29(8), 595-605. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20546
  44. Westerman, D. L., Lanska, M., & Olds, J. M. (2015). The effect of processing fluency on impressions of familiarity and liking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 426. DOI: 10.1037/a0038356
  45. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799-806. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x
  46. Woods, A. T., Moore, A., & Newell, F. N. (2008). Canonical views in haptic object perception. Perception, 37(12), 1867-1878. DOI: 10.1068/p6038
  47. Zhao, S., & Meyer, R. J. (2007). Biases in predicting preferences for the whole visual patterns from product fragments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 292-304. DOI: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70039-6