Preference for Harmony: A Preference for Structural Simplicity,Familiarity,or Both?

Abstract

The preference for harmony (PfH) has been posited to represent an individual difference in the preference for stimuli that are relatively simple, regular, and/or harmonious. We tested whether variations in PfH may also reflect the extent to which individuals prefer stimuli that are more familiar, irrespective of their structural features. To this end, we examined the association between PfH and two behavioral measures of the preference for familiarity, one based on individual differences in the strength of the mere-exposure effect and the other based on preferences for musical chords that appear more versus less frequently within Western musical corpora. Our results showed modest but reliable positive correlations between PfH and both measures. These findings qualify the original interpretation of PfH by suggesting that it at least partially reflects a predilection for stimuli that are more familiar, not just structurally simpler, more regular, and/or more harmonious.

Keywords

preference for harmony good gestalt mere exposure individual differences aesthetics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bastin

Besson

Simon

Delhaye

Geurten

Willems

Salmon

(2019). An integrative memory model of recollection and familiarity to understand memory deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, E281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19000621

Belke

Leder

Carbon

C. C.

(2015). When challenging art gets liked: Evidences for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. PLoS ONE, 10, e0131796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131796

Berlyne

D. E.

(1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Boersma

Weenink

(2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Version 6.0.43. http://www.praat.org

Bornstein

R. F.

D’Agostino

P. R.

(1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.545

Cacioppo

J. T.

Petty

R. E.

(1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Chevrier

Delorme

(1980). Aesthetic preferences: Influence of perceptual ability, age and complexity of stimulus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 839–849. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.50.3.839

Clore

G. L.

(1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment . In Martin

L. L.

Tesser

(Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133–163). Erlbaum.

Corradi

Chuquichambi

E. G.

Barrada

J. R.

Clemente

Nadal

(2020). A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology, 111, 630–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12427

10.

Garner

W. R.

(1974). The processing of information and structure. Erlbaum.

11.

Greifeneder

Bless

Pham

M. T.

(2011). When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 107–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310367640

12.

Harrison

P. M. C.

Pearce

M. T.

(2020). Simultaneous consonance in music perception and composition. Psychological Review, 127, 216–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000169

13.

Huron

(2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. MIT Press.

14.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

15.

Martindale

Moore

(1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.661

16.

Monin

(2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.103

17.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

Vevea

J. L.

Citkowicz

Lauber

E. A.

(2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085

18.

Mrkva

Van Boven

(2020). Salience theory of mere exposure: Relative exposure increases liking, extremity, and emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1118–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000184

19.

Müllensiefen

Gingras

Musil

Stewart

(2014). The musicality of non-musicians: An index for assessing musical sophistication in the general population. PloS One, 9, e89642. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089642

20.

Nadal

(2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli [Doctoral thesis]. Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain. https://ibdigital.uib.es/greenstone/collect/tesisUIB/import/TDX-0404108-112455.pdf

21.

Ollen

J. E.

(2006). A criterion-related validity test of selected indicators of musical sophistication using expert ratings [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ohio State University. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1161705351&disposition=inline

22.

Palmer

S. E.

(1991). Goodness, Gestalt, groups, and Garner: Local symmetry subgroups as a theory of figural goodness. In Lockhead

G. R.

Pomerantz

J. R.

(Eds.), The perception of structure: Essays in honor of Wendell R. Garner (pp. 23–39). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10101-001

23.

Palmer

S. E.

(1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. MIT Press.

24.

Palmer

S. E.

Griscom

W. S.

(2013). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 453–461. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0355-2

25.

Palmer

S. E.

Schloss

K. B.

Sammartino

(2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504

26.

Rausch

(1966). Das Eigenschaftsproblem in der Gestalttheorie der Wahrnemung [The property problem in the Gestalt theory of perception]. In Metzger

Bergius

Thomae

(Eds.), Allgemeine Psychologie [General psychology] (pp. 866–953). Hogrefe.

27.

R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

28.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

29.

Schloss

K. B.

Palmer

S. E.

(2011). Aesthetic response to color combinations: Preference, harmony, and similarity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 551–571. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0027-0

30.

Sherman

Grabowecky

Suzuki

(2015). In the working memory of the beholder: Art appreciation is enhanced when visual complexity is compatible with working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039314

31.

Snyder

C. R.

Fromkin

H. L.

(1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518

32.

Song

S. E.

Friedman

R. S.

(2023). Investigating the association between preference for harmony and preference for smooth versus jagged visual contours [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University at Albany.

33.

Song

S. E.

Kowalewski

D. A.

Friedman

R. S.

(2022). Preference for harmony: A link between aesthetic responses to combinations of colors and musical tones. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 32, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000290

34.

Stoet

(2010). PsyToolkit – A software package for programming psychological experiments using linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096

35.

Stoet

(2017). Psytoolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643

36.

Van der Helm

P. A.

Leeuwenberg

E. L.

(1991). Accessibility: A criterion for regularity and hierarchy in visual pattern codes. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 151–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(91)90025-O

37.

Van Geert

Wagemans

(2020). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000224

38.

Van Geert

Wagemans

(2023). Prägnanz in visual perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02344-9

39.

Webster

D. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049

40.

Wertheimer

(1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II [Investigations into the teachings of Gestalt. II. Psychological research]. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410640

41.

Zajonc

R. B.

(1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848

42.

Zuckerman

(1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Erlbaum.