Cargando…

The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study

People often form different aesthetic preferences for natural and built environments, which affects their behavioral intention; however, it remains unknown whether this difference in aesthetic preference is due to differences in thinking styles. However, whether tourists’ aesthetic preferences diffe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Wan, Ruan, Rongbin, Deng, Weiwei, Gao, Junxi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36726514
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027742
_version_ 1784880062632296448
author Chen, Wan
Ruan, Rongbin
Deng, Weiwei
Gao, Junxi
author_facet Chen, Wan
Ruan, Rongbin
Deng, Weiwei
Gao, Junxi
author_sort Chen, Wan
collection PubMed
description People often form different aesthetic preferences for natural and built environments, which affects their behavioral intention; however, it remains unknown whether this difference in aesthetic preference is due to differences in thinking styles. However, whether tourists’ aesthetic preferences differ when using different visual attention processes has not been studied further. This study used eye-tracking and self-reporting to investigate these questions. The results show that natural environment images are more favored visually because they can evoke in tourists larger pupil diameters and longer scan paths, but we found no significant difference in fixation duration and fixation counts. We also found that the scanning path of tourists who predominantly rely on intuitive thinking is modulated by the bottom-up attention process, while the scanning path of tourists who prefer rational thinking is modulated by the top-down attention process. In the bottom-up process, tourists who prefer rational thinking exhibit more positive aesthetic preferences and emotional arousal. In summary, the present study verified that aesthetic preference is more likely to be influenced by both thinking style and visual attention processing. The results of the present work provide preliminary evidence that the aesthetic preference of the environment is not only related to visual attention but also affected by the individual visual attention process and thinking style.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9886090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98860902023-01-31 The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study Chen, Wan Ruan, Rongbin Deng, Weiwei Gao, Junxi Front Psychol Psychology People often form different aesthetic preferences for natural and built environments, which affects their behavioral intention; however, it remains unknown whether this difference in aesthetic preference is due to differences in thinking styles. However, whether tourists’ aesthetic preferences differ when using different visual attention processes has not been studied further. This study used eye-tracking and self-reporting to investigate these questions. The results show that natural environment images are more favored visually because they can evoke in tourists larger pupil diameters and longer scan paths, but we found no significant difference in fixation duration and fixation counts. We also found that the scanning path of tourists who predominantly rely on intuitive thinking is modulated by the bottom-up attention process, while the scanning path of tourists who prefer rational thinking is modulated by the top-down attention process. In the bottom-up process, tourists who prefer rational thinking exhibit more positive aesthetic preferences and emotional arousal. In summary, the present study verified that aesthetic preference is more likely to be influenced by both thinking style and visual attention processing. The results of the present work provide preliminary evidence that the aesthetic preference of the environment is not only related to visual attention but also affected by the individual visual attention process and thinking style. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9886090/ /pubmed/36726514 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027742 Text en Copyright © 2023 Chen, Ruan, Deng and Gao. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Chen, Wan
Ruan, Rongbin
Deng, Weiwei
Gao, Junxi
The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study
title The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study
title_full The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study
title_fullStr The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study
title_full_unstemmed The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study
title_short The effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study
title_sort effect of visual attention process and thinking styles on environmental aesthetic preference: an eye-tracking study
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36726514
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027742
work_keys_str_mv AT chenwan theeffectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT ruanrongbin theeffectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT dengweiwei theeffectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT gaojunxi theeffectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT chenwan effectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT ruanrongbin effectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT dengweiwei effectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy
AT gaojunxi effectofvisualattentionprocessandthinkingstylesonenvironmentalaestheticpreferenceaneyetrackingstudy