The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based Aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking
Abstract
In this article, we develop an account of how aesthetic preferences can be formed as a result of two hierarchical, fluency-based processes. Our model suggests that processing performed immediately upon encountering an aesthetic object is stimulus driven, and aesthetic preferences that accrue from this processing reflect aesthetic evaluations of pleasure or displeasure. When sufficient processing motivation is provided by a perceiver’s need for cognitive enrichment and/or the stimulus’ processing affordance, elaborate perceiver-driven processing can emerge, which gives rise to fluency-based aesthetic evaluations of interest, boredom, or confusion. Because the positive outcomes in our model are pleasure and interest, we call it the Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking (PIA Model). Theoretically, this model integrates a dual-process perspective and ideas from lay epistemology into processing fluency theory, and it provides a parsimonious framework to embed and unite a wealth of aesthetic phenomena, including contradictory preference patterns for easy versus difficult-to-process aesthetic stimuli.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Flow: the psychology of optimal experience
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-0597 · Cited by 12,637
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition
Gibson, J. J. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315740218 · Cited by 12,132
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · cited 1×
“The presented dual-process perspective has been amply used to integrate and explain diverse phenomena such as persuasion (e.g., Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), social behavior (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), causal attribution (e.g., Gilbert, 1989), and many others (see Gawronski & Creighton,…”
BackgroundFeeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Chaiken, S. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752 · Cited by 5,516
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Social psychology: handbook of basic principles
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3595 · Cited by 4,895
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271
Cited by
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., & Lauber, E. A. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000085 · Cited by 389
Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork
Bellaiche, L., Shahi, R., Turpin, M. H., Ragnhildstveit, A., Sprockett, S., Barr, N., Christensen, A., & Seli, P. (2023) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6 · Cited by 233
“These latter criteria require higher cognitive elaboration to determine communicative properties of art, as discussed in Graf and Landwehr (2015) and Sherman and Morrissey (2017).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe Big Five, aesthetic judgment styles, and art interest
Afhami, R., & Mohammadi-Zarghan, S. (2018) · Europe’s Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1479 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R.
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-03-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-410
- ISSN
- 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7957
- OpenAlex
- W2319117153
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 101
- FWCI
- 9.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based Aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1088868315574978
- The paper
- Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based Aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
