Processing fluency affects behavior more strongly among people higher in trait mindfulness

Vaughn, Leigh Ann; Dubovi, Abigail S; Niño, Natalia

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.002

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This hypothesis extends regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), which proposes that individuals prefer to strive for goals in ways that fit and sustain their current regulatory focus in the activity, because doing so feels right and helps them feel engaged in what they are doing (also see Cesario & Higgins, 2008;Freitas & Higgins, 2002;Higgins, 2006;Vaughn, Dubovi, & Niño;Vaughn, Malik, Schwartz, Petkova, & Trudeau). Eager ways to strive for goals, such as thinking of ways to make everything go right, are a good fit for promotion focus.…”

Section: How Regulatory Focus Can Influence Subjective Need Supportmentioning

confidence: 62%

Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory

Vaughn¹

2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces the need-support model, which proposes that regulatory focus can affect subjective support for the needs proposed by self-determination theory (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and support of these needs can affect subjective labeling of experiences as promotion-focused and prevention-focused. Three studies tested these hypotheses (N = 2,114).Study 1 found that people recall more need support in promotion-focused experiences than in prevention-focused experiences, and need support in their day yesterday (with no particular regulatory focus) fell in between. Study 2 found that experiences of higher need support were more likely to be labeled as promotion-focused rather than prevention-focused, and that each need accounted for distinct variance in the labeling of experiences. Study 3 varied regulatory focus within a performance task and found that participants in the promotion condition engaged in need-support inflation, whereas participants in the prevention condition engaged in needsupport deflation. Directions for future research are discussed.Keywords: Motivation, regulatory focus theory, self-determination theory, psychological needs NEED-SUPPORT MODEL 3 Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory Ferris and Cameron are friends, and Ferris is looking to have a great day -a better day than Cameron is. Although Cameron is not having a bad day, his dad asked him this morning how his college applications are going and mentioned again how important it is for Cameron to get into a top school. Right now, Cameron is feeling less than totally free to do what he wants, less than totally competent, and less than totally close to his dad. But he is still having a pretty good day, and he wants to keep it that way. In contrast, Ferris saw that the morning was beautiful, decided to take the day off, and convinced his parents that he was sick. His parents gave him kisses from across the room before heading off to work. Right now, Ferris is feeling like he can do what he wants, able to take on and master hard challenges, and loved by his parents. He was already having a good day, and now he wants to experience everything great about it -and he wants Cameron to come along. Cameron is currently prevention focused: he wants to maintain the pretty good day he is having. Ferris is currently promotion focused: he wants to gain as many good experiences as he can. Ferris's needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are also more supported right now than Cameron's are.In general, could support of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness be higher in promotion focus than in prevention focus? No current theory explicitly makes this prediction, but it pertains to both regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997(Higgins, , 1998 and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Regulatory focus theory emphasizes differences between promotion focus and prevention focus, whereas self-determination theory emphasizes psyc...

show abstract

Section: How Regulatory Focus Can Influence Subjective Need Supportmentioning

confidence: 62%

Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory

Vaughn¹

2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need-support model proposes that people can inflate subjective need support to enhance promotion focus in an activity and deflate subjective need support to enhance prevention focus in an activity. This hypothesis extends regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), which proposes that individuals prefer to strive for goals in ways that fit and sustain their current regulatory focus in the activity, because doing so feels right and helps them feel engaged in what they are doing (also see Freitas & Higgins, 2002;Higgins, 2006;Vaughn, Dubovi, & Niño;Vaughn, Malik, Schwartz, Petkova, & Trudeau). Eager ways to strive for goals, such as thinking of ways to make everything go right, are a good fit for promotion focus.…”

Section: How Regulatory Focus Can Influence Subjective Need Supportmentioning

confidence: 62%

Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory

Vaughn¹

2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, some individuals enjoy moderate increases in complexity from a starting point, while others dislike the same changes. This difference in enjoyment of complexity can be attributed to various factors including sex, age, personality and even physiological differences in visual perception (Crosson and Robertson-Tchabo, 1983 ; Chamorro-Premuzic et al, 2010 ; Vaughn et al, 2013 ; Spehar et al, 2015 ). However, the difference can also be due to experience and exposure, as when comparing artists and non-experts (Smith and Melara, 1990 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferring Master Painters' Esthetic Biases from the Statistics of Portraits

Aleem

Correa-Herran

Grzywacz

2017

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Processing Fluency Theory posits that the ease of sensory information processing in the brain facilitates esthetic pleasure. Accordingly, the theory would predict that master painters should display biases toward visual properties such as symmetry, balance, and moderate complexity. Have these biases been occurring and if so, have painters been optimizing these properties (fluency variables)? Here, we address these questions with statistics of portrait paintings from the Early Renaissance period. To do this, we first developed different computational measures for each of the aforementioned fluency variables. Then, we measured their statistics in 153 portraits from 26 master painters, in 27 photographs of people in three controlled poses, and in 38 quickly snapped photographs of individual persons. A statistical comparison between Early Renaissance portraits and quickly snapped photographs revealed that painters showed a bias toward balance, symmetry, and moderate complexity. However, a comparison between portraits and controlled-pose photographs showed that painters did not optimize each of these properties. Instead, different painters presented biases toward different, narrow ranges of fluency variables. Further analysis suggested that the painters' individuality stemmed in part from having to resolve the tension between complexity vs. symmetry and balance. We additionally found that constraints on the use of different painting materials by distinct painters modulated these fluency variables systematically. In conclusion, the Processing Fluency Theory of Esthetic Pleasure would need expansion if we were to apply it to the history of visual art since it cannot explain the lack of optimization of each fluency variables. To expand the theory, we propose the existence of a Neuroesthetic Space, which encompasses the possible values that each of the fluency variables can reach in any given art period. We discuss the neural mechanisms of this Space and propose that it has a distributed representation in the human brain. We further propose that different artists reside in different, small sub-regions of the Space. This Neuroesthetic-Space hypothesis raises the question of how painters and their paintings evolve across art periods.

show abstract

Processing fluency affects behavior more strongly among people higher in trait mindfulness

Cited by 14 publications

References 53 publications

Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory

Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory

Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory

Inferring Master Painters' Esthetic Biases from the Statistics of Portraits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About