Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Presentation-order effects for aesthetic stimulus preference
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
2012 (English)In: Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, ISSN 1943-3921, E-ISSN 1943-393X, Vol. 74, no 7, 1499-1511 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

For preference comparisons of paired successive musical excerpts, Koh (American Journal of Psychology, 80, 171-185, 1967) found time-order effects (TOEs) that correlated negatively with stimulus valence-the first (vs. the second) of two unpleasant (vs. two pleasant) excerpts tended to be preferred. We present three experiments designed to investigate whether valence-level-dependent order effects for aesthetic preference (a) can be accounted for using Hellstrom's (e.g., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 460-477, 1979) sensation-weighting (SW) model, (b) can be generalized to successive and to simultaneous visual stimuli, and (c) vary, in accordance with the stimulus weighting, with interstimulus interval (ISI; for successive stimuli) or stimulus duration (for simultaneous stimuli). Participants compared paired successive jingles (Exp. 1), successive color patterns (Exp. 2), and simultaneous color patterns (Exp. 3), selecting the preferred stimulus. The results were well described by the SW model, which provided a better fit than did two extended versions of the Bradley-Terry-Luce model. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed higher weights for the second stimulus than for the first, and negatively valence-level-dependent TOEs. In Experiment 3, there was no laterality effect on the stimulus weighting and no valence-level-dependent space-order effects (SOEs). In terms of the SW model, the valence-level-dependent TOEs can be explained as a consequence of differential stimulus weighting in combination with stimulus valence varying from low to high, and the absence of valence-level-dependent SOEs as a consequence of the absence of differential weighting. For successive stimuli, there were no important effects of ISI on weightings and TOEs, and, for simultaneous stimuli, duration had only a small effect on the weighting.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 74, no 7, 1499-1511 p.
Keyword [en]
Aesthetic preference, Presentation order, Time-order errors, Space-order errors, Visual perception, Audition, Math modeling
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-82114DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0333-9ISI: 000308949900012OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-82114DiVA: diva2:566765
Note

AuthorCount:2;

Available from: 2012-11-09 Created: 2012-11-08 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hellström, Åke
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 50 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf