Processing Fluency Theory - Essay Example

Processing Fluency Theory Introduction Processing fluency is simply the ease at which information flows through the cognitive system or the ease at which information is processed (Shimamura & Palmer, 2011). This is a theory in psychology that suggests that people associate beauty with the ease at which they can process the pattern (Kruglanski &Higgins, 2007). Aesthetic pleasure is as a result of the perceivers processing capability. The more clearly or fluently perceivers process an object, the better the aesthetic response. Easy patterns are easy to process and therefore the human mind easily understands them and associates them with familiarity and beauty. There are various variables known to influence a perceiver’s aesthetic judgment. These include figural goodness, balance and proportion, repetition of stimulus, symmetry as well as figure-ground contrast (Shimamura & Palmer, 2011). This theory has both strengths and weaknesses which must be addressed to establish how it can be used to define beauty and how it is perceived. Ease of processing and familiarity Patterns and objects which are familiar to a person are easy to process since the perceiver’s brain can already recognize them. Therefore identifying their beauty and aesthetic value is easier since the brain has already internalized the patterns of the object (Musch & Klauer, 2003). Processing Fluency theory has a fundamental impact on so many areas including communication. Elements that are easy to understand are easy to appreciate and therefore the human mind finds it easier to trust those things that are easily understood (Shimamura & Palmer, 2012). It is necessary to consider this issue when dealing with situations where trust is necessary. Medin (2013) asserts that, complex patterns and objects are hard to understand and so they are not perceived as beautiful. Objects and patterns rank lower in the aesthetic value when the fluency of interpretation is slow. This can be used to enhance learning in classrooms where information can be coded in a way that is easy to decode (Thurman & Fiorello, 2014) Defining beauty Many scholars have attempted to define what beauty is. The primary question debated over the years has always been “what is beauty?” Yantis & Pashler, (2002) define beauty as a property of an object that releases a pleasant experience in any suitable perceiver. Thurman & Fiorello, (2014) posit that anything can be referred to as beautiful so long as it pleases the senses. As such, beauty is a function of behavioural qualities of a person and any attempt to define the laws of beauty is completely ineffective. Modern philosophers suggest that beauty emerges from patterns in the way people and objects relate. George Santaya a philosopher in mid 1990s identified three distinguishing characteristics of beauty. He defined beauty as value positive, intrinsic and objectified (Starr 2013). The meaning behind this is that beauty gives pleasure without any reasoning about expected utility. This is equivalent to Thomas Aquinas definition of beauty as what provides pleasure at sight. People either will like an object at first sight or not like at all. A person does not spend hours trying to figure out whether an object is pleasant to look at or not. It’s instantaneous. By saying beauty is objectified means that people perceive beauty as something that lies in the object (Kubovy 2000). Overview The processing fluency theory with regard to appreciating beauty and aesthetic value recognizes that people enjoy beauty and aesthetic value based on their perception, rather than the objective synthesis. When an individual looks at an object, such as a painting, they instantly judge the object as either beautiful or not beautiful. This process happens subconsciously. As Schwarz and Winkielman (2004) say, an individual does not look at an object, analyze it and then reach a conclusion on its aesthetic value. Rather, he or she looks at the object and instantly, based on the patterns that are present in the object, decides whether the object is beautiful or not beautiful. Schwarz et al (2004) research indicates that the faster the person is able to interpret the information, the easier it is for them to interpret the object as beautiful or not. Beauty is associated with friendliness. The same applies to familiarity. Familiar patterns are likely to be associated with good memories and friendliness. As a result, the easier it is for a person to interpret the pattern, the easier it is to take the object to be friendly. This is therefore related and associated with pleasure which is presented as beauty since it pleases the brain (Starr, 2013). Additionally, the more difficult it is for the pattern to be recognized, the harder it is for beauty to be interpreted (Starr, 2013). Objects that are complex in nature are not easily interpreted. There are two main reasons why difficult-to-recognize patterns may not be interpreted as beautiful. First, the person involved does not have a lot of time to objectively interpret the object and the pattern. Secondly, difficult patterns mean that the object is regarded as unfamiliar and unfriendly and therefore does not stimulate pleasure in the brain of the perceiver. As a result, a person looking at a pattern that is hard to interpret will not regard it as beautiful or good to look at (Kubovy, 2000). This issue is introduced by the fact that beauty is appreciated at the subconscious level where few objective decision are made and where the decisions are more subjective (Thurman & Fiorello, 2014). For example, a painting may have good artistic value based on the way the artist has been able to manipulate the various visual elements such as colour, patters and shapes. However, as Medin (2013) cites, it may lack aesthetic value if the end pattern and arrangements are not easy for a person to interpret. At the same time, a painting may have aesthetic value, that is the beauty element, but fail to have the artistic element. Immanuel Kant’s viewpoint is considered as the beginning of cognitive approach to the brain. He argues that there is more to knowledge than just sights, sounds and smells that leave an impression on our senses. We interpret our environment by connecting sensory experience to already existing ideas (Yantis & Pashler,2002). Quite a number of things can evoke pleasant feelings such as good food, sleep or a house. They are not only needed to make one happy but are required for sustenance. Kant further identified three features of things that elicit pleasure. They are agreeable, good and beautiful. People accord aesthetic judgment based on their evaluation of beautiful things. Strengths and Weaknesses of the theory The processing fluency theory is one theory that has revolutionized the way beauty is understood (Schwarz et al, 2004). Other theories have indicated that beauty is achieved through symmetry and that the more symmetrical an object or pattern is, the more it is likely to be perceived as beautiful or aesthetically valuable. The processing fluency theory has its strengths and weaknesses with regard to being able to provide a proper definition of beauty (Schwarz et al 2004). Strengths One principal of processing fluency theory is that it eases the sense of how people are able to appreciate beauty as perceived. The processing fluency theory clearly identifies how people are able to perceive and enjoy beauty that is only enjoyable outside their body. It enhances the understanding of the fact that beauty is perceived as a matter of the person being able to interpret patterns and recognize them. It is sensible since unfamiliar patters are not recognized as beautiful (Forgas, 2013). If for instance a person was to meet a non-human, alien, with unrecognizable facial or primordial features, the alien would not be regarded as good looking. The creature would be anaesthetically pleasing. This would happen regardless of whether the symmetry of the facial figure of the alien was perfect. Yet, in other theories that try to explain beauty and how it is perceived, symmetry would be interpreted as aesthetically appealing. Therefore, the processing fluency theory is necessary in understanding how people appreciate beauty (Starr, 2013). This theory also draws on some very practical aspects of how the human mind works. The theory could also be utilized to give an explanation of other factors such as familiarity. The more familiar objects and patterns are more likely they are to be interpreted as beautiful since people can relate to them. Weaknesses The theory has a number of issues that need to be explored to make it more viable. First, this theory talks about the ease of processing as the main factor to deciding how an object will be perceived with regard to its aesthetic value (Kruglanski & Higgins, 2007). Since not everyone has the same ease in processing the patterns and information, it can then be argued that every individual will regard different objects and patterns differently. Everyone has their own understanding of beauty. This would then be the same as the other theories that posit that the beauty of an object is in the perceiver’s eye. The other issue is that it only takes account of the patterns and how they can easily be interpreted by the observer. As Starr (2013) argues, beauty is much more than just patterns and there are other factors that determine how different individuals interpret and appreciate beauty. For instance, this theory does not take an account of other importance issues such as colour. Different people based on their personality are more likely to prefer some colours to others. This, as Starr (2013) put it would mean that colours, and not just patterns, are also essential in the way an individual enjoys beauty. As such, colours also add to the aesthetic value of the object. This theory does not address the importance of colour in determining beauty. Even if it did, there still would be a dilemma of the fact that different people perceive aesthetic value of different colours differently. If this was to be used, it would then mean that, as earlier theories had indicated, the aesthetic value of an object is in the person who is regarding it (Reber, Schwarz & Winkielman 2004). This theory then fails to fully define what beauty is and what causes it. It may define how some people generally perceive beauty, but not what beauty really is. As a result, it fails to be an all inclusive theory that fully defines what beauty is. References: Forgas, J. (2013). Social Cognition and Communication. New Yirk, NY: Psychology Press. Kruglanski, A.W. & Higgins, E.T. (2007). Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. London, Uk: Guilford Press. Musch, M. & Klauer, K.C. (2003). The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Medin, D. (2013). Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York, NY: Academic Press. Reber, R., Schwarz, N. & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceivers Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 4, , PP. 364-382. Shimamura, A.P. & Palmer, S.E. (2012). Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience. Oxford, Uk: Oxford University Press. Starr, G. (2013). Feeling Beauty: The Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Thurman, S.K. & Fiorello, C.A. (2014). Applied Cognitive Research in K-3 Classrooms. London, UK: Routledge. Yantis & Pashler,(2002). Sensation and perception. New York, NY Wiley. Kubov, M.,(2000). The psychology of perspective and Renaissance art. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press Read More