The shapes associated with approach/avoidance words

Abstract People prefer curved and symmetrical shapes to their angular and asymmetrical counterparts. While it is known that stimulus valence is central to approach and avoidance motivation, the exact nature of the relationship between curvature/symmetry and approach/avoidance motivation still needs to be clarified. Experiment 1 was designed to investigate whether simple shapes are associated with approach and avoidance words. Participants found it easier to match more symmetrical shapes with approach words. In Experiment 2, symmetry was differentially associated with approach words and was rated significantly higher on the approach dimension than asymmetry. Next, we assessed whether object valence and object curvature (Experiment 3) or symmetry (Experiment 4) would lead to different associations to approach and avoidance words. Only object valence had a significant influence on participants’ ratings, with the positively-valenced objects being more closely associated with approach words than their negatively-valenced counterparts. These results highlight the complex relation between visual properties of objects, their valence, and appetitive and aversive categories.

[1]  J. Kagan,et al.  Infant responsivity to curvature. , 1976, Child development.

[2]  M. Bar,et al.  Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Detection of visual symmetries. , 1995, Spatial vision.

[4]  L. F. Barrett.  Valence is a basic building block of emotional life , 2006 .

[5]  D. Yves von Cramon,et al.  Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty , 2006, NeuroImage.

[6]  Wim Vanduffel,et al.  Symmetry activates extrastriate visual cortex in human and nonhuman primates. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Oshin Vartanian,et al.  Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  P. Silvia.  Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. , 2009 .

[9]  Christine L Larson,et al.  Simple geometric shapes are implicitly associated with affective value , 2011, Motivation and Emotion.

[10]  A. Møller,et al.  Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? , 1993, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[11]  H. Lundholm,et al.  The Affective Tone of Lines: Experimental Researches. , 1921 .

[12]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Emotional Valence Modulates the Preference for Curved Objects , 2011, Perception.

[13]  Steve J. Westerman,et al.  Product Design: Preference for Rounded versus Angular Design Elements , 2012 .

[14]  Marcos Nadal,et al.  Preference for Curvature: A Historical and Conceptual Framework , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[15]  M. Enquist,et al.  Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  M. Bar,et al.  Preference for Symmetry: Only on Mars? , 2011, Perception.

[17]  A. Elliot,et al.  Approach–Avoidance Motivation and Emotion: Convergence and Divergence , 2013 .

[18]  James S Magnuson,et al.  Moving hand reveals dynamics of thought. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Paul J. Silvia,et al.  Do People Prefer Curved Objects? Angularity, Expertise, and Aesthetic Preference , 2009 .

[20]  Anjan Chatterjee,et al.  The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art , 2013 .

[21]  N. Cliff.  Answering Ordinal Questions with Ordinal Data Using Ordinal Statistics. , 1996, Multivariate behavioral research.

[22]  R. de Raedt,et al.  Being Moved , 2010, Psychological science.

[23]  Ian Stewart.  Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction , 2013 .

[24]  Rufus A. Johnstone,et al.  Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  Martin Giurfa,et al.  Symmetry is in the eye of the ‘beeholder’: innate preference for bilateral symmetry in flower-naïve bumblebees , 2004, Naturwissenschaften.

[26]  Helmut Leder,et al.  Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[27]  C. Carbon.  The cycle of preference: long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[28]  M. Bar,et al.  Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects , 2006, Psychological science.

[29]  A. T. Poffenberger,et al.  The Feeling Value of Lines. , 1924 .

[30]  Moshe Bar,et al.  See it with feeling: affective predictions during object perception , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  Josep Call,et al.  Common Visual Preference for Curved Contours in Humans and Great Apes , 2015, PloS one.

[32]  Hiroshi Kawase,et al.  Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[33]  Thomas A. Farmer,et al.  Hand in Motion Reveals Mind in Motion , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[34]  T. Jacobsen,et al.  Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics , 2003, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[35]  K. Berridge.  Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking , 1996, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[36]  Isabell Tapia León,et al.  Smiles over Frowns: When Curved Lines Influence Product Preference , 2015 .

[37]  Michael D. Robinson,et al.  For which side the bell tolls: The laterality of approach-avoidance associative networks , 2013, Motivation and emotion.

[38]  David M Erceg-Hurn,et al.  Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[39]  Sibel Seda Dazkir,et al.  Furniture Forms and Their Influence on Our Emotional Responses Toward Interior Environments , 2012 .

[40]  Anders Pape Møller,et al.  Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[41]  Edgar Brunner,et al.  Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments , 2012 .

[42]  Karen B. Schloss,et al.  Visual aesthetics and human preference. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[43]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[44]  Geoffrey L. Collier,et al.  Affective synesthesia: Extracting emotion space from simple perceptual stimuli , 1996 .

[45]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[46]  J. Hardin,et al.  Generalized Estimating Equations , 2002 .

[47]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Symmetry, beauty and evolution , 1994, Nature.

[48]  Vasanti Jadva,et al.  Infants’ Preferences for Toys, Colors, and Shapes: Sex Differences and Similarities , 2010, Archives of sexual behavior.

[49]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[50]  P. Barnard,et al.  Fluctuating asymmetry and mate choice in paradise whydahs, Vidua paradisaea: an experimental manipulation , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[51]  Charles Spence,et al.  Searching for triangles: An extension to food & packaging , 2015 .

[52]  The effect of leg band symmetry on female–male association in zebra finches , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[53]  Jason Bell,et al.  Symmetry is less than meets the eye , 2015, Current Biology.

[54]  Giovanni Pezzulo,et al.  Tracking Second Thoughts: Continuous and Discrete Revision Processes during Visual Lexical Decision , 2015, PloS one.

[55]  Marco Bertamini,et al.  Comparing Angular and Curved Shapes in Terms of Implicit Associations and Approach/Avoidance Responses , 2015, PloS one.

[56]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design , 2005 .

[57]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[58]  J. Hanley,et al.  Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[59]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition , 2006 .