The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time.
Videos of moving faces are more flattering than static images of the same face, a phenomenon dubbed the Frozen Face Effect. This may reflect an aesthetic preference for faces viewed in a more ecological context than still photographs. In the current set of experiments, we sought to determine whether...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2019-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215813 |
id |
doaj-d3878893361447fd804039cf6fad989b |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-d3878893361447fd804039cf6fad989b2021-03-03T20:40:48ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01145e021581310.1371/journal.pone.0215813The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time.Malerie G McDowellJason HabermanVideos of moving faces are more flattering than static images of the same face, a phenomenon dubbed the Frozen Face Effect. This may reflect an aesthetic preference for faces viewed in a more ecological context than still photographs. In the current set of experiments, we sought to determine whether this effect is unique to facial processing, or if motion confers an aesthetic benefit to other stimulus categories as well, such as bodies and objects-that is, a more generalized 'Frozen Effect' (FE). If motion were the critical factor in the FE, we would expect the video of a body or object in motion to be significantly more appealing than when seen in individual, static frames. To examine this, we asked participants to rate sets of videos of bodies and objects in motion along with the still frames constituting each video. Extending the original FFE, we found that participants rated videos as significantly more flattering than each video's corresponding still images, regardless of stimulus domain, suggesting that the FFE generalizes well beyond face perception. Interestingly, the magnitude of the FE increased with the predictability of stimulus movement. Our results suggest that observers prefer bodies and objects in motion over the same information presented in static form, and the more predictable the motion, the stronger the preference. Motion imbues objects and bodies with greater aesthetic appeal, which has implications for how one might choose to portray oneself in various social media platforms.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215813 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Malerie G McDowell Jason Haberman |
spellingShingle |
Malerie G McDowell Jason Haberman The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Malerie G McDowell Jason Haberman |
author_sort |
Malerie G McDowell |
title |
The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. |
title_short |
The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. |
title_full |
The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. |
title_fullStr |
The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Frozen Effect: Objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. |
title_sort |
frozen effect: objects in motion are more aesthetically appealing than objects frozen in time. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2019-01-01 |
description |
Videos of moving faces are more flattering than static images of the same face, a phenomenon dubbed the Frozen Face Effect. This may reflect an aesthetic preference for faces viewed in a more ecological context than still photographs. In the current set of experiments, we sought to determine whether this effect is unique to facial processing, or if motion confers an aesthetic benefit to other stimulus categories as well, such as bodies and objects-that is, a more generalized 'Frozen Effect' (FE). If motion were the critical factor in the FE, we would expect the video of a body or object in motion to be significantly more appealing than when seen in individual, static frames. To examine this, we asked participants to rate sets of videos of bodies and objects in motion along with the still frames constituting each video. Extending the original FFE, we found that participants rated videos as significantly more flattering than each video's corresponding still images, regardless of stimulus domain, suggesting that the FFE generalizes well beyond face perception. Interestingly, the magnitude of the FE increased with the predictability of stimulus movement. Our results suggest that observers prefer bodies and objects in motion over the same information presented in static form, and the more predictable the motion, the stronger the preference. Motion imbues objects and bodies with greater aesthetic appeal, which has implications for how one might choose to portray oneself in various social media platforms. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215813 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT maleriegmcdowell thefrozeneffectobjectsinmotionaremoreaestheticallyappealingthanobjectsfrozenintime AT jasonhaberman thefrozeneffectobjectsinmotionaremoreaestheticallyappealingthanobjectsfrozenintime AT maleriegmcdowell frozeneffectobjectsinmotionaremoreaestheticallyappealingthanobjectsfrozenintime AT jasonhaberman frozeneffectobjectsinmotionaremoreaestheticallyappealingthanobjectsfrozenintime |
_version_ |
1714821207601184768 |