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

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that humans prefer information that is linked to the process of prediction. Yet it remains to be specified whether preference judgments are biased to information that can be predicted, or information that enables to predict. We here use a serial reaction time task to disentangle these two options. In a first learning phase, participants were exposed to a continuous stream of arbitrary shapes while performing a go/no-go task. Embedded in this stream were hidden pairs of go-stimuli (e.g., shape A was always followed by shape B). Data show faster reaction times to predictable shapes (i.e., shape B) as compared to random and predictive shapes (i.e., shape A), indicating that participants learned the regularities and anticipated upcoming information. Importantly, in a subsequent, unannounced forced-choice preference task, the shapes that were predictive of others were significantly more preferred over random shapes than shapes that could be predicted. Because both the reaction time benefit in the learning phase and the effect in the preference phase could be considered rather small, we studied the relation between both. Interestingly, the preference correlated with the reaction time benefit from the learning phase. A closer look at this correlation further suggested that the difference in preference was only observed when participants picked up the contingencies between predictive and predictable shapes. This study adds evidence to the idea that prediction processes are not only fundamental for cognition, but contribute to the way we evaluate our external world.

The sound of beauty: How complexity determines aesthetic preference

“…An important role of unexpected events, or prediction errors, has more recently been suggested in aesthetic judgment (Chetverikov & Kristjánsson, 2016;Trapp, Shenhav, Bitzer, & Bar, 2015;Van de Cruys et al, 2014;Van de Cruys & Wagemans, 2011). One recent study observed a higher preference for predictive stimuli relative to non-predictive (i.e., randomly predictive) ones (Braem & Trapp, 2017). This seems consistent with the decreasing trend at the right side of the inverted-U, although we must be cautious: First, this work found an effect specifically for predictive, not for predictable, stimuli.…”

The Price of Predictability: Estimating Inconsistency Premiums in Social Interactions

“…Reducing uncertainty and increasing predictability has been discussed as a fundamental human need (Heider, 1958;Hogg, 2000;Kagan, 1972), with the pleasure of predictability deriving from the perceived ability to anticipate and control our environment. Whereas predictability facilitates attentional orienting, processing, and performance (e.g., Alink et al, 2010;Coull & Nobre, 1998;Posner et al, 1980) and is processed as rewarding by the brain (e.g., Braem & Trapp, 2019;Trapp et al, 2015), unpredictability is experienced as aversive (e.g., Heine et al, 2006;Proulx et al, 2012;Schubert et al, 2017;Topolinski & Strack, 2015) and increases stress and physiological arousal (e.g., de Berker et al, 2016;Herry et al, 2007;Jackson et al, 2015;Mendes et al, 2007;Peters et al, 2017).…”

A link between age, affect, and predictions?

“…When eventually asked which layout they prefer, participants significantly chose the predictive over the random layout. Braem and Trapp ( 2019 ) showed that when exposed to a series of subsequently presented stimuli with hidden pairs, i.e., one stimulus predicted the occurrence of another, participants preferred the stimulus that had helped them to make predictions over random and over the predicted stimulus. This could indicate that facilitated predictive processing is tagged as inherently positive.…”