For decades, researchers have explored the relationship between aesthetic features such as symmetry and complexity and preference. Likewise, philosophers and psychologists alike have pondered the differences between preference and behavior. Nevertheless, little is known about the relationship between aesthetic preference and motivation. Using an online approach–avoidance motivation task, we compare the reaction times between congruent (aesthetic preference + approach) and incongruent (aesthetic preference + avoidance) conditions. In Experiment 1, we explore the relationship between symmetry and complexity and approach–avoidance motivated behavior. In Experiment 2, we distinguish the mechanisms in play in the relationship by manipulating presentation and decision-making time. In Experiment 3, we assess the generalizability of the results beyond abstract graphical patterns. Overall, our research advances knowledge of the relationship between aesthetic preferences for features like symmetry and complexity and approach–avoidance motivation, and it has implications for fields such as marketing.
AleemH.Correa-HerranI.GrzywaczN. M. (2017). Inferring master painters’ esthetic biases from the statistics of portraits. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00094
2.
AleemH.PomboM.Correa-HerranI.GrzywaczN. M. (2019). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder or an objective truth? A neuroscientific answer. In Contreras-VidalJ. L.RobletoD.Cruz-GarzaJ. G.AzorínJ. M.NamC. S. (Eds.), Mobile brain-body imaging and the neuroscience of art, innovation and creativity (pp. 101–110). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24326-5_11
3.
AlthuizenN. (2021). Revisiting Berlyne’s inverted U-shape relationship between complexity and liking: The role of effort, arousal, and status in the appreciation of product design aesthetics. Psychology & Marketing, 38(3), 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21449
4.
AnselmeP.RobinsonM. J. F. (2016). “Wanting,” “liking,” and their relation to consciousness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 42(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000090
5.
AubéB.RougierM.MullerD.RicF.YzerbytV. (2019). The online-VAAST: A short and online tool to measure spontaneous approach and avoidance tendencies. Acta Psychologica, 201, 102942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102942
6.
AugustinM. D.WagemansJ.CarbonC.-C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. Specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004
BerlyneD. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. viii, 340). Hemisphere.
15.
BerridgeK. C.RobinsonT. E.AldridgeJ. W. (2009). Dissecting components of reward: ‘Liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.014
16.
BertaminiM.RamponeG. (2020). The study of symmetry in empirical aesthetics. In NadalM.VartanianO. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 488–509). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198824350.013.23
17.
BettelsJ.WiedmannK.-P. (2019). Brand logo symmetry and product design: The spillover effects on consumer inferences. Journal of Business Research, 97, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.039
BridgesD.PitiotA.MacAskillM. R.PeirceJ. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9414
BrielmannA. A.ValeL.PelliD. G. (2017). Beauty at a glance: The feeling of beauty and the amplitude of pleasure are independent of stimulus duration. Journal of Vision, 17(14), 9. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.14.9
CarverC. S.WhiteT. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impeding reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
24.
CastroD. C.BerridgeK. C. (2014, September). Advances in the neurobiological bases for food “liking” versus “wanting.”Physiology & Behavior, 136, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.022
ClementJ.KristensenT.GrønhaugK. (2013). Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.003
27.
CorradiG.Rosselló-MirJ.VañóJ.ChuquichambiE.BertaminiM.MunarE. (2019). The effects of presentation time on preference for curvature of real objects and meaningless novel patterns. British Journal of Psychology, 110(4), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12367
DeBruineL. M.BarrD. J. (2021). Understanding mixed-effects models through data simulation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920965119. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920965119
30.
DharR.GorlinM. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.002
31.
DjebbaraZ.KalantariS. (2023). Affordances and curvature preference: The case of real objects and spaces. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1527(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15038
32.
ElliotA. J.EderA. B.Harmon-JonesE. (2013). Approach–avoidance motivation and emotion: Convergence and divergence. Emotion Review, 5(3), 308–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913477517
33.
FriedenbergJ.LibyB. (2016). Perceived beauty of random texture patterns: A preference for complexity. Acta Psychologica, 168, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.007
GrafL. K. M.LandwehrJ. 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
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
38.
GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanT. A.UhlmannE. L.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575
39.
GüçlütürkY.JacobsR. H. A. H.van LierR. (2016). Liking versus complexity: Decomposing the inverted U-curve. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00112
40.
HavermansR. C. (2011). “You Say it’s Liking, I Say it’s Wanting . . .”. On the difficulty of disentangling food reward in man. Appetite, 57(1), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.310
HofmannW.De HouwerJ.PeruginiM.BaeyensF.GeertC. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018916
43.
ImamogluÇ. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0155
44.
IyerE. S. (1989). Unplanned purchasing: Knowledge of shopping environment and. Journal of Retailing, 65(1), 40–57.
45.
JacobsenT. (2010). Beauty and the brain: Culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation. Journal of Anatomy, 216(2), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01164.x
46.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. (2001). Aesthetics electrified: An analysis of descriptive symmetry and evaluative aesthetic judgment processes using event-related brain potentials. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.2190/P7W1-5F1F-NJK9-X05B
47.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(3), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755
JonesA. L.JaegerB. (2019). Biological bases of beauty revisited: The effect of symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism on female facial attractiveness. Symmetry, 11(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020279
50.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
51.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
52.
KahnemanD.FredricksonB. L.SchreiberC. A.RedelmeierD. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x
53.
KakoschkeNHawkerC.CastineB.de CourtenB.Verdejo-GarciaA. (2018). Smartphone-based cognitive bias modification training improves healthy food choice in obesity: A pilot study. European Eating Disorders Review, 26(5), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2622
54.
KumleL.VõM. L.-H.DraschkowD. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 2528–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0
55.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 95(Pt 4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
56.
LederH.NadalM. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode—Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
57.
LederH.TinioP. P. L.BrieberD.KrönerT.JacobsenT.RosenbergR. (2019). Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418777941
58.
LittleA. C. (2014). Domain specificity in human symmetry preferences: symmetry is most pleasant when looking at human faces. Symmetry, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym6020222
LukeS. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y
61.
MarinM. M.LampatzA.WandlM.LederH. (2016). Berlyne revisited: Evidence for the multifaceted nature of hedonic tone in the appreciation of paintings and music. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00536
MartindaleC.MooreK.BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53–80. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423259
64.
MatherK. B.AleemH.RheeY.GrzywaczN. M. (2023). Social groups and polarization of aesthetic values from symmetry and complexity. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 21507.
65.
McDougallS. J. P.ReppaI. (2008). Why do I like It? The relationships between icon characteristics, user performance and aesthetic appeal. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52(18), 1257–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805201822
66.
MenninghausW.WagnerV.WassiliwizkyE.SchindlerI.HanichJ.JacobsenT.KoelschS. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?Psychological Review, 126(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000135
67.
MeuleA.RichardA.DinicR.BlechertJ. (2019). Effects of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance intervention on chocolate craving and consumption: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(11), e12298. https://doi.org/10.2196/12298
68.
MøllerA. P.ThornhillR. (1998). Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: A meta-analysis. The American Naturalist, 151(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1086/286110
69.
NadalM.MunarE.MartyG.Cela-CondeC. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
72.
PietersR.WarlopL. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00022-6
73.
Piqueras-FiszmanB.KrausA. A.SpenceC. (2014). “Yummy” versus “Yucky”! Explicit and implicit approach–avoidance motivations towards appealing and disgusting foods. Appetite, 78, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.029
74.
PomboM.VelascoC. (2021). How aesthetic features convey the concept of brand premiumness. Psychology & Marketing, 38(9), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21534
75.
PomboM.AleemH.GrzywaczN. M. (2023). Multiple axes of visual symmetry: Detection and aesthetic preference. Symmetry, 15(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15081568
76.
RangelA.CamererC.MontagueP. R. (2008). A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357
77.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (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
ReutskajaE.NagelR.CamererC. F.RangelA. (2011). Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. American Economic Review, 101(2), 900–926. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.2.900
80.
RinckM.BeckerE. S. (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001
81.
RougierM.MullerD.CoursetR.SmedingA.DevosT.BataillerC. (2020). Toward the use of approach/avoidance tendencies as attitude measures: Individual- and group-level variability of the ingroup bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2653
82.
RougierM.MullerD.RicF.AlexopoulosT.BataillerC.SmedingA.AubéB. (2018). A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies: The role of visual whole-body movement information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.12.004
83.
SchneiderJ.HallJ. (2011). Why most product launches fail. Harvard Business Review.
84.
ShenhavA. (2024). The affective gradient hypothesis: An affect-centered account of motivated behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28, 1089–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.08.003
85.
SilviaP. J. (2005). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.342
SkovM.NadalM. (2020). A farewell to art: Aesthetics as a topic in psychology and neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619897963
88.
SolankiJ.JoshiN.ShahC.HbM.PaG. (2012). A study of correlation between auditory and visual reaction time in healthy adults. International Journal of Medicine and Public Health, 2(2), 36–38. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijmedph.2.2.8
89.
SolarzA. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047274
SteciuchC. C.KopatichR. D.FellerD. P.DurikA. M.MillisK. (2019). Don’t go with your gut: Exploring the role of motivation in aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000259
92.
TawilN.EliasJ.AsconeL.KühnS. (2024). The curvature effect: Approach-avoidance tendencies in response to interior design stimuli. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93, 102197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102197
93.
TinioP. P. L.LederH. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130(3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001
94.
TrederM. S. (2010). Behind the looking-glass: A review on human symmetry perception. Symmetry, 2(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym2031510
95.
TuromanN.VelascoC.ChenY.-C.HuangP.-C.SpenceC. (2018). Symmetry and its role in the crossmodal correspondence between shape and taste. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1463-x
96.
VartanianO.NavarreteG.ChatterjeeA.FichL. B.LederH.ModroñoC.NadalM.RostrupN.SkovM. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 2), 10446–10453. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301227110
97.
VartanianO.NavarreteG.ChatterjeeA.FichL. B.LederH.ModroñoC.RostrupN.SkovM.CorradiG.NadalM. (2019). Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: evidence from experts and nonexperts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000150
98.
VelascoC.PathakA.WoodsA. T.CorredorA.ElliotA. J. (2020). The relation between symmetry in food packaging and approach and avoidance words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(5), 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819887172
99.
VelascoC.Salgado-MontejoA.ElliotA. J.WoodsA. T.AlvaradoJ.SpenceC. (2016). The shapes associated with approach/avoidance words. Motivation and Emotion, 40(5), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9559-5
100.
VesselE. A.MaurerN.DenkerA. H.StarrG. G. (2018). Stronger shared taste for natural aesthetic domains than for artifacts of human culture. Cognition, 179, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.009
101.
VesselE. A.RubinN. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.2.18
102.
WangH.-F. (2019). “Think of the Children!”: The relationship between visual complexity, age, visual aesthetics, and learning motivation with regard to children. In BlashkiK.IsaíasP. (Eds.), Handbook of research on human-computer interfaces and new modes of interactivity (pp. 235–254). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9069-9
103.
WangL.YuY.LiO. (2019). The typeface curvature effect: The role of typeface curvature in increasing preference toward hedonic products. Psychology & Marketing, 37, 1118–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21287
104.
WassiliwizkyE.MenninghausW. (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
105.
WeichselbaumH.LederH.AnsorgeU. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of art expertise. i-Perception, 9(2), 2041669518761464. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518761464
106.
WeilR.FeistA.MoritzS.WittekindC. E. (2017). Approaching contamination-related stimuli with an implicit Approach-Avoidance Task: Can it reduce OCD symptoms? An online pilot study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 57, 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2017.05.007
107.
WittekindC. E.FeistA.SchneiderB. C.MoritzS.FritzscheA. (2015). The approach-avoidance task as an online intervention in cigarette smoking: A pilot study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 46, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.08.006
108.
WoodsA. T.VelascoC.LevitanC. A.WanX.SpenceC. (2015). Conducting perception research over the internet: A tutorial review. PeerJ, 3, e1058. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1058
109.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
110.
ZechH. G.RotteveelM.van DijkW. W.van DillenL. F. (2020). A mobile approach-avoidance task. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2085–2097. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01379-3
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
