Human preferences are biased towards associative information

Abstract

There is ample evidence that the brain generates predictions that help interpret sensory input. To build such predictions the brain capitalizes upon learned statistical regularities and associations (e.g., "A" is followed by "B"; "C" appears together with "D"). The centrality of predictions to mental activities gave rise to the hypothesis that associative information with predictive value is perceived as intrinsically valuable. Such value would ensure that this information is proactively searched for, thereby promoting certainty and stability in our environment. We therefore tested here whether, all else being equal, participants would prefer stimuli that contained more rather than less associative information. In Experiments 1 and 2 we used novel, meaningless visual shapes and showed that participants preferred associative shapes over shapes that had not been associated with other shapes during training. In Experiment 3 we used pictures of real-world objects and again demonstrated a preference for stimuli that elicit stronger associations. These results support our proposal that predictive information is affectively tagged, and enhance our understanding of the formation of everyday preferences.

Predictability of what or where reduces brain activity, but a bottleneck occurs when both are predictable

“…However, prior behavioral work suggests that if anything, regular streams draw greater attention than random ones. People prefer associative information (Trapp, Shenhav, Bitzer, & Bar, 2015), in the temporal domain attention is biased towards regularities (Zhao, AlAidroos, & Turk-Browne, 2013), and visual statistical learning enhances (rather than detracts from) memory for elements in regular sequences (Otsuka & Saiki, 2016). Thus, prior work would suggest that that regular (though not deterministic) series of the sort used here are not typically associated with greater disengagement.…”

Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable

“…Stimuli and material. We used the same stimuli as used by Trapp, Shenhav, Bitzer & Bar (2015), which consisted of 64 shapes with no semantic meaning or apparent affective value. For each participant separately, two shapes were randomly assigned as no-go stimuli, and 32 as go-stimuli.…”

“…Over the past decades, researchers have identified several factors that influence our preferences and aesthetic judgments, such as mere exposure (Zajonc, 1980), complexity (Frith & Nias, 1974), contrast (Reber, Winkielmann, & Schwarz, 1996), curviness (Bar & Neta, 2006), or processing fluency (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Austin, 2004;Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Recently, it has been proposed that preference judgments are also linked to the process of prediction (Ogawa & Watanabe, 2011;Trapp, Shenhav, Bitzer & Bar, 2015).…”

“…Why should the process of prediction be an influential factor to begin with? There is considerable evidence that the brain does not passively perceive sensory input, but actively constructs hypotheses or predictions that are tested against sensory input (Alink, Schwiedrzik, Kohler, Singer, & Muckli, 2010;Knill & Pouget, 2004;Rao & Ballard, 1999;Todorovic, van Ede, Maris, & de Lange, 2011;Trapp & Bar, 2015). In other words, perception inherently requires and relies upon prior expectations that support the inference.…”

“…Similarly, it could not be determined whether participants preferred certain shapes because the shape allowed them to predict the occurrence of other shapes or because the shape itself could be predicted based on the occurrence of other shapes (Trapp et al, 2015).…”