<p>One of the main reasons related to the <strong>'Gestalt principles'</strong> </p>

<ul>
<li>Law of Proximity Objects near each other tend to be grouped together.</li>
<li>Law of Similarity Similar items tend to be grouped together.</li>
<li>Law of Closure Objects grouped together are seen as a whole.</li>
<li>Law of Continuity Lines are seen as following the smoothest path.</li>
<li>Law of Common Region Items in similar areas tend to be grouped
together.</li>
<li>Law of Connectedness Items that are connected are seen as groups.</li>
</ul>

<p>This is a nice summary from the article referenced below:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Coupling emotional and behavioral triggers in some form of cognitive grouping — whether by proximity, similarity or something else — strengthens the motivation to act on the behavioral cue.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'd add to this: We feel more comfortable when perceiving something expected. When something breaks this (such as misalignment), it causes stress because there is a gap between our expectations (as the principles outline) and our experience. </p>

<p>References</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/08/strengthening-behavioral-cues-in-ux-web-design-with-gestalt-principles/">http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/08/strengthening-behavioral-cues-in-ux-web-design-with-gestalt-principles/</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gestaltprinciples/gestaltprinc.htm">http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gestaltprinciples/gestaltprinc.htm</a> </p></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-15T20:13:14.227Z
Given [the OP's request for an explanation as to _why_ we prefer things as such](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1250/why-do-we-prefer-visually-aligned-objects#comment4373_1250) I wonder whether you could add any references in order to substantiate your closing addition.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-22T10:17:25.973Z
2012-06-22T10:17:25.973Z
Jay
<p>There are two related reasons, I believe for this:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Relationship and connection. When things are aligned, we see then as connected and related. Nature does give us the guidance for things that are related and connected in other ways, but often by a degree of alignment or similarity. In UX terms, we indicate the relationships between items by positioning and similarlity, including alignment.</p></li>
<li><p>Pattern matching. Our brains are awesome pattern matchers. However, if there is a misalignment, we try to see some meaning or pattern in the misalignment, when there probably isn't one. By aligning things, the pattern we see is one of order and similarity.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>There is a degree of alignment in nature, and we do notice it. There is evidence that  <a href="http://www.faceresearch.org/students/notes/symmetry.pdf">symmetrical faces are more attractive</a>), because we like the alignments. It makes the UI look more attractive.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-22T10:00:09.030Z
2012-06-22T10:00:09.030Z
Schroedingers Cat
<p>Jay's answer is correct, this occurs as a result of Gestalt processing. I will address your comment that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>No response actually brings light on why we prefer things to be aligned, only the realization of such fact (for example, Gestalt
  principle).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But first I will say that I believe this assumption is wrong:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nothing in nature is "aligned".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Many things in nature are aligned. The sides of my body are roughly parallel. The same with the sides of my arm, a tree trunk, a river, etc. In fact many Gestalt properties occur so often in nature, that they have been deemed "non-accidental" properties (Lowe, 1987; Witkin &amp;
Tenenbaum, 1983). The idea is that the probability of seeing, e.g., two parallel lines by chance alone would be extremely small if lines in nature had random orientation. But it's not rare, and so it must have some significance (e.g. they are part of the same object).</p>

<p>Jepson and Richards (1992) formalize this argument in a Bayesian framework, and show that statistical regularities in the environment (such as Gestalt features) make good "features" precisely because they are "non-accidental", and thus probably carry informational content.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Richards, W., &amp; Jepson, A. (1992). What makes a good feature? (No.
  AIM-1356). MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH CAMBRIDGE ARTIFICIAL 
  INTELLIGENCE LAB. <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a259962.pdf">PDF</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-15T19:14:38.360Z
2012-11-15T19:19:41.030Z
2012-11-15T19:19:41.030Z
Jeff
<p>We all know visual alignment is one of the foundations of design. Everything must be aligned with everything else.<br>
We also know that when things are aligned it is easier to process information.
<strong>My question is <em>why</em>?</strong></p>

<p>Nothing in nature is "aligned". What's the anthropological/biology reason why humans prefer aligned information?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-22T13:41:01.923Z
Check out [Gestalt Psychology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology#Emergence), alignment, even when rough, is how we find patterns for things
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-22T18:02:00.820Z
I asked this question and got a great reference which has led me to a few more articles once I knew more about what to search for:
http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/522/what-concepts-of-perception-should-designers-be-aware-of-when-designing
Ryan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-14T14:33:32.423Z
Has this question been sufficiently answered, or are you looking for further thoughts? If it is the former then will you consider accepting one of the answers?
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-16T10:15:13.207Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev No response actually brings light on why we prefer things to be aligned, only the realization of such fact (for example, Gestalt principle).
Gonçalo Veiga
<perception><vision><gestalt-psychology>
Why do we prefer visually aligned objects?
Gonçalo Veiga
# Why do we prefer visually aligned objects?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-06-22)

We all know visual alignment is one of the foundations of design. Everything must be aligned with everything else.  
We also know that when things are aligned it is easier to process information.
**My question is *why*?**

Nothing in nature is "aligned". What's the anthropological/biology reason why humans prefer aligned information?

**Tags:** perception, vision, gestalt-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Check out [Gestalt Psychology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology#Emergence), alignment, even when rough, is how we find patterns for things  
> **username_2**: I asked this question and got a great reference which has led me to a few more articles once I knew more about what to search for: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/522/what-concepts-of-perception-should-designers-be-aware-of-when-designing  
> **username_3**: Has this question been sufficiently answered, or are you looking for further thoughts? If it is the former then will you consider accepting one of the answers?  
> **username_0**: @ArtemKaznatcheev No response actually brings light on why we prefer things to be aligned, only the realization of such fact (for example, Gestalt principle).  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-06-22. Score: 16

One of the main reasons related to the **'Gestalt principles'**

* Law of Proximity Objects near each other tend to be grouped together.
* Law of Similarity Similar items tend to be grouped together.
* Law of Closure Objects grouped together are seen as a whole.
* Law of Continuity Lines are seen as following the smoothest path.
* Law of Common Region Items in similar areas tend to be grouped
  together.
* Law of Connectedness Items that are connected are seen as groups.

This is a nice summary from the article referenced below:

> **Coupling emotional and behavioral triggers in some form of cognitive grouping — whether by proximity, similarity or something else — strengthens the motivation to act on the behavioral cue.**

I'd add to this: We feel more comfortable when perceiving something expected. When something breaks this (such as misalignment), it causes stress because there is a gap between our expectations (as the principles outline) and our experience.

References

* <http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/08/strengthening-behavioral-cues-in-ux-web-design-with-gestalt-principles/>
* <http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gestaltprinciples/gestaltprinc.htm>

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Given [the OP's request for an explanation as to _why_ we prefer things as such](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1250/why-do-we-prefer-visually-aligned-objects#comment4373_1250) I wonder whether you could add any references in order to substantiate your closing addition.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2012-06-22. Score: 13

There are two related reasons, I believe for this:

1. Relationship and connection. When things are aligned, we see then as connected and related. Nature does give us the guidance for things that are related and connected in other ways, but often by a degree of alignment or similarity. In UX terms, we indicate the relationships between items by positioning and similarlity, including alignment.
2. Pattern matching. Our brains are awesome pattern matchers. However, if there is a misalignment, we try to see some meaning or pattern in the misalignment, when there probably isn't one. By aligning things, the pattern we see is one of order and similarity.

There is a degree of alignment in nature, and we do notice it. There is evidence that [symmetrical faces are more attractive](http://www.faceresearch.org/students/notes/symmetry.pdf)), because we like the alignments. It makes the UI look more attractive.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2012-11-15. Score: 6

username_4's answer is correct, this occurs as a result of Gestalt processing. I will address your comment that:

> No response actually brings light on why we prefer things to be aligned, only the realization of such fact (for example, Gestalt
> principle).

But first I will say that I believe this assumption is wrong:

> Nothing in nature is "aligned".

Many things in nature are aligned. The sides of my body are roughly parallel. The same with the sides of my arm, a tree trunk, a river, etc. In fact many Gestalt properties occur so often in nature, that they have been deemed "non-accidental" properties (Lowe, 1987; Witkin &
Tenenbaum, 1983). The idea is that the probability of seeing, e.g., two parallel lines by chance alone would be extremely small if lines in nature had random orientation. But it's not rare, and so it must have some significance (e.g. they are part of the same object).

Jepson and Richards (1992) formalize this argument in a Bayesian framework, and show that statistical regularities in the environment (such as Gestalt features) make good "features" precisely because they are "non-accidental", and thus probably carry informational content.

> Richards, W., & Jepson, A. (1992). What makes a good feature? (No.
> AIM-1356). MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH CAMBRIDGE ARTIFICIAL
> INTELLIGENCE LAB. [PDF](http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a259962.pdf)


---

