Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1444–1451 | Cite as

Seeing and liking: Biased perception of ambiguous figures consistent with the “inward bias” in aesthetic preferences

  • Yi-Chia Chen
  • Brian J. Scholl
Brief Report

Abstract

Aesthetic preferences are ubiquitous in visual experience. Indeed, it seems nearly impossible in many circumstances to perceive a scene without also liking or disliking it to some degree. Aesthetic factors are only occasionally studied in mainstream vision science, though, and even then they are often treated as functionally independent from other aspects of perception. In contrast, the present study explores the possibility that aesthetic preferences may interact with other types of visual processing. We were inspired, in particular, by the inward bias in aesthetic preferences: When an object with a salient “front” is placed near the border of a frame (say, in a photograph), observers tend to find the image more aesthetically pleasing if the object faces inward (toward the center) than if it faces outward (away from the center). We employed similar stimuli, except that observers viewed framed figures that were ambiguous in terms of the direction they appeared to be facing. The resulting percepts were influenced by the frames in a way that corresponded to the inward bias: When a figure was placed near a frame’s border, observers tended to see whichever interpretation was facing inward. This effect occurred for both abstract geometric figures (e.g., ambiguously-oriented triangles) and meaningful line drawings (e.g., left-facing ducks or right-facing rabbits). The match between this new influence on ambiguous figure perception and the previously studied aesthetic bias suggests new ways in which aesthetic factors may relate not only to what we like, but also to what we see in the first place.

Keywords

Ambiguous figures Bistable images Aesthetics Inward bias 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For helpful conversation and/or comments on earlier drafts, we thank Chaz Firestone, Brandon Liverence, and Aysu Suben.

References

  1. Attneave, F. (1968). Triangles as ambiguous figures. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 447–453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avrahami, J., Argaman, T., & Weiss-Chasum, D. (2004). The mysteries of the diagonal: Gender-related perceptual asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1405–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertamini, M., Bennett, K. M., & Bode, C. (2011). The anterior bias in visual art: The case of images of animals. Laterality, 16, 673–689.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2013). The small step toward asymmetry: Aesthetic judgment of broken symmetries. i-Perception, 4, 361–364.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gregory, R. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 290, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halberstadt, J. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hsiao, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-C., Spence, C., & Yeh, S.-L. (2012). Assessing the effects of audiovisual semantic congruency on the perception of a bistable figure. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 775–787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hurlbert, A. C., & Ling, Y. (2007). Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology, 17, R623–R625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leyssen, M. H. R., Linsen, S., Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2012). Aesthetic preference for spatial composition in multiobject pictures. i-Perception, 3, 25–49.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Linsen, S., Leyssen, M. H. R., Gardner, J. S., & Palmer, S. E. (2011). Aesthetic preferences in the size of images of real-world objects. Perception, 40, 291–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (2004). Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 748–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 421–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Palmer, S. E., & Griscom, W. (2013). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Palmer, S. E., & Guidi, S. (2011). Mapping the perceptual structure of rectangles through goodness-of-fit ratings. Perception, 40, 1428–1446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palmer, S. E., & Schloss, K. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 8877–8882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1991). Directing spatial attention within an object: Altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 17, 170–182.Google Scholar
  19. 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, 364–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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, 865–879.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, M. M., & Aldridge, K. D. (1974). Stochastic processes in reversing figure perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Toppino, T. C. (2003). Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 1285–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Torrey, C. C. (1970). Trace localization and the recognition of visual form. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 591–600.Google Scholar
  25. van Ee, R., van Dam, L. C. J., & Brouwer, G. J. (2005). Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bi-stability. Vision Research, 45, 41–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ward, E. J., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). Stochastic or systematic?: Seemingly random perceptual switching in bistable events triggered by transient unconscious cues. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  27. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, pt. 2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations