Looking behaviour and preference for artworks: The role of emotional valence and location

Abstract

The position of an item influences its evaluation, with research consistently finding that items occupying central locations are preferred and have a higher subjective value. The current study investigated whether this centre-stage effect (CSE) is a result of bottom-up gaze allocation to the central item, and whether it is affected by item valence. Participants (n=50) were presented with three images of artistic paintings in a row and asked to choose the image they preferred. Eye movements were recorded for a subset of participants (n=22). On each trial the three artworks were either similar but different, or were identical and with positive valence, or were identical and with negative valence. The results showed a centre-stage effect, with artworks in the centre of the row preferred, but only when they were identical and of positive valence. Significantly greater gaze allocation to the central and left artwork was not mirrored by equivalent increases in preference choices. Regression analyses showed that when the artworks were positive and identical the participants' last fixation predicted preference for the central art-work, whereas the fixation duration predicted preference if the images were different. Overall the result showed that item valence, rather than level of gaze allocation, influences the CSE, which is incompatible with the bottom-up gaze explanation. We propose that the centre stage heuristic, which specifies that the best items are in the middle, is able to explain these findings and the centre-stage effect.Keywords: eye tracking, preference, centre-stage effect, art, decision making 3 1. Introduction In Western Society a robust social convention is that the person with the highest status will often be positioned in the centre a group of people (McArthur, 1981). This relationship between the central position and status has surprisingly important implications such as influencing how much a person is preferred, their perceived status, and even whether they will be given a job. For instance people who hold the belief that "Important people sit in the middle" are more likely to give a job to the candidate in the centre of a photograph of five potential job candidates (Raghubir & Valenzuela 2006). This 'center-stage effect' (CSE) has also been found to apply to consumer choices so that when people are presented with a row of similar items they show a preference for items in the middle rather than at either end of the row (Atalay, Bodur, & Rasolofoarison, 2012;Christenfeld, 1995;Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2006;Rodway, Schepman, & Lambert, 2012;Shaw & Bergen, 2000;Valenzuela & Raghubir, 2009). Therefore it is apparent that not all locations are treated equally, and the preference for centrally located people and objects influences decisions in a wide range of settings, including consumer choices and the evaluation of people.

A leftward perceptual asymmetry when judging the attractiveness of visual patterns

“…The presence of a leftward bias in attractiveness judgements also has clear applications, particularly in the design of product packaging, labels, and other forms of visual displays where attractiveness is important. Research has shown that people tend to look first and longer at the centre of a display, or scene (Bindemann, 2010), and to regard centrally placed items as more important and preferable (Atalay, Bodur, & Rasolofoarison, 2012;Kreplin, Thoma, & Rodway, 2014;Rodway, Schepman, & Lambert, 2012). The current findings, in addition to other research, indicate that for an array of display items those in the centre with an attractive left side may be the most preferred.…”

Reachability Does Not Explain the Middle Preference: A Comment on Bar-Hillel (2015)

“…We suggest that the results of Li and Epley (2009) , and other studies showing a role of item valence (e.g., Kreplin et al., 2014 ), seriously question the validity of the reachability account. However, the center-stage heuristic may also require further specification, as different processes might be involved, such as the flanking items influencing the attractiveness of the middle item ( Rodway, Schepman, & Lambert, 2013 ), or a negative emotional code being applied to items on the edge (see Scholtes, Dittrich, & Klauer, 2014 ).…”

“…The center-stage heuristic, but not reachability, would predict the middle preference for the good items and not the bad items. Similarly, Kreplin et al. (2014) only found a middle preference when the items (artworks) had a positive valence and not a negative valence.…”

“…Our primary concern is with the explanation provided by Bar-Hillel for the large number of studies showing a middle preference and which have not involved any element of hide-and-seek or differences in representativeness. For these studies, some of which were not included in her review (e.g., Kreplin, Thoma, & Rodway, 2014 ; Li & Epley, 2009 ; Reutskaja, Nagel, Camerer, & Rangel, 2011 ; Rodway, Schepman, & Lambert, 2012 ), the reachability explanation does not appear to be compatible with the data.…”

“…Reachability also does not appear to have played any role when selecting from items on a screen or paper, including the preference found for the person in the middle of a photograph of job candidates ( Valenzuela & Raghubir, 2009 ), for artworks on a computer screen ( Kreplin et al., 2014 ), for pictures on paper ( Rodway et al., 2012 ), for consumer items online ( Atalay et al., 2012 ; Reutskaja et al., 2011 ), when putting an “x” in one of three, or four, circles ( Christenfeld, 1995 ), and when checking a box that matched the layout of a planogram ( Atalay et al., 2012 ). For example, in Rodway et al.’s task, which involved selecting one of five pictures arranged in a row, if there was any influence of reachability then the rightmost picture might have been the easiest to choose given that all the participants were right-handed.…”