Weapons of Mass Distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings

In 6 experiments we test the Optimal Innovation Hypothesis, according to which an optimally innovative stimulus, such that induces a novel response while allowing for the recovery of a salient one (Giora, 1997b, 2003), would be rated as more pleasing than either a more or a less familiar stimulus. Experiment 1 shows that it is the stimulus that meets the requirements for optimal innovativeness that is most pleasurable. Reading times obtained in Experiment 2 support the assumption that the stimuli found most pleasurable involve processing a salient meaning. Experiment 3 corroborates the results of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, showing that they also hold for identical (rather than different) stimuli. Experiment 4 controls for the possibility that the lengthy reading times found earlier might reflect lack of understanding. Experiment 5 shows that optimal innovation supersedes figurativity. Experiment 6 demonstrates that the Optimal Innovation Hypothesis applies to nonverbal stimuli as well.

[1]  N. Teng,et al.  Grouping, Simile, and Oxymoron in Pictures: A Design-Based Cognitive Approach , 2002 .

[2]  W. McD..  Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie , 1902, Nature.

[3]  Todd R. Ferretti,et al.  Discourse Factors That Influence Online Reading of Metaphor and Irony , 2000 .

[4]  Nishi Amane,et al.  The Introduction of Aesthetics , 2004 .

[5]  A. Maslow,et al.  The influence of familiarization on preference. , 1937 .

[6]  R. Giora,et al.  On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language☆ , 1999 .

[7]  D. Mcclelland,et al.  The Achievement Motive , 1954 .

[8]  R. Bornstein,et al.  Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  R. Giora.  Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis , 1997 .

[10]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[11]  Lee T. Lemon,et al.  Russian formalist criticism : four essays , 1968 .

[12]  R. Giora.  On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language , 2003 .

[13]  Arthur Schopenhauer,et al.  The World as Will and Representation , 1818 .

[14]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[15]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[16]  R. Jakobson.  Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics , 2006 .

[17]  David S. Miall,et al.  Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories , 1994 .

[18]  R. Kronauer,et al.  Affective Discrimination of Stimuli That Cannot Be Recognized , 2022 .

[19]  Rachel Giora,et al.  Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory , 1997 .

[20]  Yo Matsumoto.  Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs , 1996 .

[21]  A. Pilkington,et al.  Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective , 2000 .

[22]  D. Berlyne.  Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value , 1970 .

[23]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[24]  Robert B. Zajonc,et al.  Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. , 2000 .

[25]  Charles de Secondat baron de Montesquieu,et al.  An essay on taste , 1804 .

[26]  F. Nuessel.  More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor , 1990 .

[27]  R. Gibbs.  Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[28]  H. Home,et al.  Elements of Criticism , 2018 .

[29]  H. E. King.  The Achievement Motive , 1977 .

[30]  Rachel Giora,et al.  On the cognitive aspects of the joke , 1991 .

[31]  F. Brisard,et al.  Processing Unfamiliar Metaphors in a Self-Paced Reading Task , 2001 .

[32]  S. Freud,et al.  Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious , 1905 .

[33]  J. Forgas.  Feeling and thinking : the role of affect in social cognition , 2000 .

[34]  J. Mahon.  The Poetics of Mind , 1996 .