Fluency, prediction and motivation: how processing dynamics, expectations and epistemic goals shape aesthetic judgements

Abstract

What psychological mechanisms underlie aesthetic judgements? An influential account known as the Hedonic Marking of Fluency, later developed into a Processing Fluency Theory of Aesthetic Pleasure, posits that ease of processing elicits positive feelings and thus enhances stimulus evaluations. However, the theory faces empirical and conceptual challenges. In this paper, we extend it by integrating insights from predictive processing frameworks (PPF) and the epistemic motivation model (EMM). We propose four extensions. First, fluency of a stimulus depends on perceivers' expectations—their internal model of the world. Second, perceivers also form expectations about fluency itself and thus can experience surprising fluency. These expectations can come from the individual's history, their current task and their environment. Third, perceivers can value fluency but also disfluency, reflecting their non-directional epistemic goals. Fourth, perceivers also have directional epistemic goals, preferring specific conclusions or belief content. Consequently, affective reactions depend on whether the stimulus satisfies those goals. These directional epistemic goals may override concerns about fluency or change the value of fluency associated with specific content. We review supporting evidence and introduce novel predictions. By integrating insights from PPF and EMM, our framework can better capture established fluency effects and highlights their limitations and extensions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Art, aesthetics and predictive processing: theoretical and empirical perspectives’.

Aesthetics and predictive processing: grounds and prospects of a fruitful encounter

“…The three parts that follow—devoted to “Visual Art” [ 63 , 123 ], “Music” [ 102 , 132 , 133 ] and “Literature, Narrative and Cinema” [ 56 , 95 , 96 , 125 ] respectively—offer an articulate picture of the insights that PP can provide when applied to different art forms (including some that have so far been little or never explored from a PP perspective), and what in turn these art forms, when considered from a PP perspective, can tell us about our mental functioning. The last part, entitled “Responses and Critical Perspectives” contains papers that compare the PP picture of our aesthetic encounters with other leading proposals in the field and provide useful criticisms and indications for future research [ 64 , 107 , 108 ].…”

“…A systematic attempt to bring the PP picture in contact with the major frameworks and results in empirical aesthetics is still missing, but what emerges from the existing discussion on the topic (e.g. [7,45,[106][107][108][109]) is encouraging. It seems to indicate that PP can indeed enter into productive contact with-and in fact incorporate-a good part of past and present research in the field.…”

Binocularly suppressed stimuli induce brain activities related to aesthetic emotions

“…In addition to interest-based liking, this serves as a unique source of the liking score in non-biological stimuli. Notably, the PP framework complicates the processing fluency theory that hedonic experience driven by fluency is biassed by prior expectation to the stimuli or fluency itself (e.g., 'more fluent than expected, ' 'prefer to be kept in a state of puzzlement') (Yoo et al, 2024). Furthermore, the prototypicality of the stimuli, which is a key driver of the aesthetic emotion in processing fluency theory, is formed by repeated PP throughout the life of the human being.…”