Selective interference of liking and beauty judgements on affective working memory and visual working memory

Abstract

Aesthetic processing has profound implications for everyday life. Although liking and beauty judgements are outcomes of aesthetic processing and derive from a common hedonic value, there may be some differences in how they engage working memory. This study used maintenance and aesthetic judgement tasks to examine whether liking and beauty judgements make different demands on domain-specific working memory resources. Sixty participants (30 males) were instructed to rate picture for liking or beauty while maintaining the subjective affect or brightness of the presented pictures. Results indicated that liking judgements selectively impaired participants’ performance in the affect maintenance task, and beauty judgements selectively impaired their performance in the brightness maintenance task. In addition, maintaining affect and brightness feelings in the mind increased image ratings on beauty but not on liking. Our findings provide evidence that liking judgements draw more on affective working memory resources than beauty judgements, and beauty judgements draw more on visual working memory resources than liking judgements.

Keywords

aesthetic processing liking judgement beauty judgement affective working memory visual working memory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baddeley

(2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422

Bao

H.-W.-S.

(2023). bruceR: Broadly useful convenient and efficient R functions (R package version 08.x). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bruceR

Bara

Binney

R. J.

Ramsey

(2022). Investigating the role of working memory resources across aesthetic and non-aesthetic judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1026–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221101876

Barrett

L. F.

Russell

J. A.

(1999). The Structure of Current Affect: Controversies and Emerging Consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00003

Berlyne

D. E.

(1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593

Blanca

M. J.

Alarcón

Arnau

Bono

Bendayan

(2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383

Brielmann

A. A.

Pelli

D. G.

(2017). Beauty requires thought. Current Biology, 27(10), 1506–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018

Broome

Gard

D. E.

Mikels

J. A.

(2012). Test–retest reliability of an emotion maintenance task. Cognition and Emotion, 26(4), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.613916

Chatterjee

Vartanian

(2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003

10.

Che

Sun

Skov

Vartanian

Rosselló

Nadal

(2021). The role of working memory capacity in evaluative judgments of liking and beauty. Cognition and Emotion, 35(7), 1407–1415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1947781

11.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1968). An experimental study of aesthetic preference for polygonal figures. The Journal of General Psychology, 79(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1968.9710447

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

13.

Frank

C. C.

Iordan

A. D.

Ballouz

T. L.

Mikels

J. A.

Reuter-Lorenz

P. A.

(2021). Affective forecasting: A selective relationship with working memory for emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000780

14.

Frijda

N. H.

Ortony

Sonnemans

Clore

G. L.

(1992). The complexity of intensity: Issues concerning the structure of emotion intensity. In Clark

M. S.

(Ed.), Emotion (pp. 60–89). Sage Publications, Inc.

15.

Goldman-Rakic

P. S.

(1987). Circuitry of primate prefrontal cortex and regulation of behavior by representational memory. In Plum

(Ed.), Hand book of physiology: The nervous system (pp. 373–417). American Physiological Society.

16.

Graf

L. K.

Landwehr

J. R.

(2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978

17.

Hur

Y.-J.

Hallam-Evans

Garfen

Baiza

Backhouse Spriggs

Mircea

M.-T.

Nagy

Pye

McManus

I. C.

(2022). Differentiating the visual aesthetics of the sublime and the beautiful: Selective effects of stimulus size, height, and color on sublimity and beauty ratings in photographs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000480

18.

Jonides

(1995). Working memory and thinking. In Smith

E. E.

Osherson

D. N.

(Eds.), Thinking: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 215–265). The MIT Press.

19.

Lang

P. J.

Bradley

M. M.

Cuthbert

B. N.

(2008). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual (Technical Report No. A-8). University of Florida.

20.

Leder

(2001). Determinants of preference: When do we like what we know? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/5TAE-E5CV-XJAL-3885

21.

Leder

Augustin

Belke

(2005). Art and cognition! Consequences for experimental aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5(2), 11–20.

22.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

Augustin

(2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811

23.

LeDoux

J. E.

Brown

(2017). A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(10), e2016–e2025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619316114

24.

Little

A. C.

Jones

B. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

(2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404

25.

Marin

M. M.

Lampatz

Wandl

Leder

(2016). Berlyne revisited: Evidence for the multifaceted nature of hedonic tone in the appreciation of paintings and music. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00536

26.

Mastandrea

Fagioli

Biasi

(2019). Art and psychological well-being: Linking the brain to the aesthetic emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0

27.

Matsumoto

Ekman

(1989). American-Japanese cultural differences in intensity ratings of facial expressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 13(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992959

28.

Mikels

J. A.

Larkin

G. R.

Reuter-Lorenz

P. A.

Carstensen

L. L.

(2005). Divergent trajectories in the aging mind: Changes in working memory for affective versus visual information with age. Psychology and Aging, 20(4), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.542

29.

Mikels

J. A.

Reuter-Lorenz

P. A.

(2019). Affective working memory: An integrative psychological construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619837597

30.

Mikels

J. A.

Reuter-Lorenz

P. A.

Beyer

J. A.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2008). Emotion and working memory: Evidence for domain-specific processes for affective maintenance. Emotion, 8(2), 256–266.

31.

Mullennix

J. W.

Foytik

L. R.

Chan

C. H.

Dragun

B. R.

Maloney

Polaski

(2013). Automaticity and the processing of artistic photographs. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.2.c

32.

Mullennix

J. W.

Pilot

K. M.

Steeves

T. A.

Burns

J. C.

(2018). The effects of cognitive load on judgments of titled visual art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000128

33.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

34.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

35.

Reimann

Zaichkowsky

Neuhaus

Bender

Weber

(2010). Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.009

36.

Repovš

Baddeley

(2006). The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.12.061

37.

Ritterfeld

Cupchik

G. C.

(1996). Perceptions of interior spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0029Get rights and content

38.

Sato

Oda

(2014). Effect of color and shape on aesthetic evaluations of colored shapes. Transactions of Japan Society of Kansei Engineering, 13(5), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.5057/jjske.13.561

39.

Seresinhe

C. I.

Preis

Moat

H. S.

(2015). Quantifying the impact of scenic environments on health. Scientific Reports, 5(16899), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16899

40.

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(4), 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039314

41.

Vartanian

Goel

(2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. Neuroreport, 15(5), 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000118723.38067.d6

42.

Wassiliwizky

Menninghaus

(2021). Why and how should cognitive science care about aesthetics? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(6), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.008

43.

Weigand

Jacobsen

(2022). Interruption, work rumination, and stress as indicators of reduced working memory resources affect aesthetic experiences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(7), 1272–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211050194