Object Domains and the Experience of Beauty

in Art & Perception
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The purpose of the present study was to specify whether the structure of the experience of beauty is domain-specific or domain-general. Five basic descriptors of the experience of beauty were specified: two central descriptors, Beauty and Attractiveness, and three descriptors that represented different 16 aspects of Beauty: Pleasure (hedonic aspect), Harmony (perceptual aspect), and Interestingness (motivational aspect). Four groups of 25 participants rated different sets of visual stimuli on the five bipolar seven-step scales: Beautiful–Ugly, Attractive–Repulsive, Pleasant–Unpleasant, Harmonious–Disharmonious and Interesting–Boring. In preliminary studies four sets of stimuli were extracted: (1) environmental scenes, (2) human faces and bodies, (3) abstract forms and (4) artworks. Correlations between descriptors, and multiple regression analyses revealed that, in all of the categories of objects, attractiveness was consistently closer to pleasure than harmony and interestingness. The relationships between the other descriptors were category-specific: beauty was closer to pleasure in cases of environmental objects and artworks and it was closer to harmony in the case of human faces and bodies and abstract forms. These results suggest that the structure of the experience of beauty is partially general to all categories of objects and partially domain-specific.

Object Domains and the Experience of Beauty

in Art & Perception

Sections

References

AharonI.EtcoffN.ArielyD.ChabrisC. F.O’ConnorE.BreiterH. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidenceNeuron 32537551.

ApterM. J. (2001). Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory. American Psychological AssociationWashington, D.C., USA.

ArmstrongT.Detweiler-BedellB. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging worldRev. Gen. Psychol. 12305329.

ArnheimR. (1949). The Gestalt theory of expressionPsychol. Rev. 56156171.

ArnheimR. (1969). Art and Visual Perception. University of California PressBerkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA.

ArnheimR. (1980). Visual Thinking. University of California PressBerkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA.

AttneaveF. (1955). Symmetry, information, and memory for patternsAm. J. Psychol. 68209222.

AugustinM. D.LederH.HutzlerF.CarbonC. C. (2008). Style follows content: On the microgenesis of art perceptionActa Psychol. 128127138.

AugustinM. D.CarbonC. C.WagemansJ. (2012a). Artful terms: A study on aesthetic word usage for visual art versus film and musicIperception 3319337.

AugustinM. D.WagemansJ.CarbonC.-C. (2012b). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aestheticsActa Psychol. 139187201.

BarM.NetaM. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objectsPsychol. Sci. 17645648.

BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton Century-CroftsNew York, NY, USA.

BerlyneD. E. (1974a). Novelty, complexity, and interestingness in: Studies in the New Experimental AestheticsBerlyneD. E. (Ed.) pp.  175180. Hemisphere Publishing CorporationWashington, D.C., USA.

BerlyneD. E. (1974b). Hedonic tone and reward value of exposure to paintings in: Studies in the New Experimental AestheticsBerlyneD. E. (Ed.) pp.  227234. Hemisphere Publishing CorporationWashington, D.C., USA.

BerlyneD. E.OgilvieJ. C. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings in: Studies in the New Experimental AestheticsBerlyneD. E. (Ed.) pp.  181226. Hemisphere Publishing CorporationWashington, D.C., USA.

BerlyneD. E.RobbinsM. C.ThompsonR. (1974). A cross-cultural study of exploratory and verbal responses to visual patterns varying in complexity in: Studies in the New Experimental AestheticsBerlyneD. E. (Ed.) pp.  259278. Hemisphere Publishing CorporationWashington, D.C., USA.

BirkhoffG. D. (1932). Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University PressCambridge, MA, USA.

BuffartH.LeeuwenbergE.RestleF. (1981). Coding theory of visual pattern completionJ. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 7241274.

CarbonC. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciationActa Psychol. 134233244.

CarbonC. C. (2011). Cognitive mechanisms for explaining dynamics of aesthetic appreciationIperception 2708719.

CreusenM. E. H.SchoormansJ. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choiceJ. Prod. Innov. Manag. 226381.

EcoU. (2007). On Ugliness. Harvill SeckerLondon, Great Britain. (Original work published 2002).

EcoU. (2004). History of Beauty. Seeker and WarburgLondon, Great Britain. (Original work published 2002).

ErtelS. (1973). Exploratory choice and verbal judgement in: Pleasure Reward PreferenceBerlyneD. E.MadsenK. B. (Eds) pp.  115132. Academic PressNew York, NY, USA.

EvansD. R.DayH. I. (1971). The factorial structure of responses to perceptual complexityPsychon. Sci. 22357359.

EysenckH. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formulaPsychol. Rev. 488392.

FaerberS. J.CarbonC. C. (2012). The power of liking: Highly sensitive aesthetic processing for guiding us through the worldIperception 3553561.

FaerberS. J.LederH.GergerG.CarbonC. C. (2010). Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciationActa Psychol. 135191200.

FurnhamA.TanT.McManusC. (1997). Waist-to-hip ratio and preference for body shape: A replication and extensionPers. Indiv. Dif. 22539549.

GarnerW. R.SutliffD. (1974). The effect of goodness on encoding time in visual patternPercept. Psychophys. 16426430.

GeldartS. (2010). That woman looks pretty, but is she attractive? Female perceptions of facial beauty and the impact of cultural labelsEur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 607987.

GreenD. C. (1995). All that glitters: A review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden sectionPerception 24937968.

HenssR. (1995). Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness: Replication and extensionPers. Indiv. Diff. 19479488.

HogarthW. (1753). The Analysis of Beauty. J. ReevesLondon.

IshaiA. (2007). Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortexInt. J. Psychophysiol. 63181185.

JacobsenT.BuchtaK.KöhlerM.SchrögerE. (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objectsPsychol. Rep. 9412531260.

JankovićD.MarkovićS. (2001). Takete–Maluma phenomenonPerception (Suppl.) 3029.

KaplanS. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge seeking knowledge using organism in: The Adaptive MindBarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds) pp.  535552. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, USA.

KoffkaK. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Kegan, Paul, Trench & TrubnerLondon, UK.

KubovyM. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind in: Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic PsychologyKahnemanD.DienerE.SchwarzN. (Eds) pp.  134154. Russell SageNew York, NY, USA.

LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgmentsBr. J. Psychol. 95489508.

LibbyW. L.LaceyB. C.LaceyJ. I. (1973). Pupilary and cardiatic activity during visual attentionPsychophysiology 10270294.

LiuY. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodologyErgonomics 4612731292.

LuedtkeR.HesslingerV. M.CarbonC. C. (2012). Different facets of facial attractiveness: Specification of the relationship between attractiveness, beauty, prettiness and sexual attractionPerception 41 (S)116.

MarkovićS. (2010). Aesthetic experience and the emotional content of paintingsPsihologija 434360.

MarkovićS. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotioni-Perception 3117.

MarkovićS.GvozdenovićV. (2001). Symmetry, complexity and perceptual economy: Effects of minimum and maximum simplicity conditionsVis. Cogn. 8305327.

MarkovićS.JankovićD. (2001). Implicit and explicit features of visual GestaltenPerception (Suppl.) 3030.

MarkovićS.RadonjićA. (2008). Implicit and explicit features of paintingsSpatial Vis. (Special Issue — Art and Perception: Towards a Visual Science of Art Part 3)21229259.

MartindaleC.MooreK. (1988). Priming prototypicality and preferenceJ. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 14661670.

McManusI. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figuresBr. J. Psychol. 71505524.

McManusI. C.CheemaB.StokerJ. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: A study of MondrianEmpir. Stud. Arts 118394.

MealeyL.BridgstockR.TownsendG. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractivness: A monozygotic co-twin comparisonJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76157165.

MealeyL.TheisP. (1995). The relationship of mood and preferences among natural landscapes: an evolutionary perspectiveEthol. Sociobiol. 16247256.

O’DohertyJ.CritchleyH.DeichmannR.DolanR. J. (2003). Dissociating valence of outcome from behavioral control in human orbital and ventral prefrontal corticesJ. Neurosci. 2379317939.

OriansG. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior in: The Evolution of Human Social BehaviorLockardS. J. (Ed.) pp.  4966. ElsevierChicago, IL, USA.

OriansG. H.HeerwagenJ. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes in: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of CultureBarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds) pp.  555580. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, USA.

OsgoodC.MayW.MironM. (1975). Cross-cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. University of Illinois PressUrbana, IL, USA.

OsgoodC.SucciG. J.TannenbaumP. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois PressUrbana, IL, USA.

ParadisoS.JohnsonD. L.AndreasenN. C.O’LearyD. S.WatkinsG. L.Boles PontoL. L.HichwaR. D. (1999). Cerebral blood flow changes associated with attribution of emotional valence to pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral visual stimuli in a PET study of normal subjectsAm. J. Psych. 15616181629.

PerrettD. I.LeeK. J.Penton-VoakI. S.RowlandD. A.YoshikawaS.BurtD. M.HenziS. P.CastlesD. L.AkamatsuS. (1998). Effect of sexual dimorphism of facial attractivenessNature 394884887.

RamachandranV. C.HirsteinW. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experienceJ. Conscious. Stud. 61551.

RhodesG.ProffittF.GradyJ.SumichA. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beautyPsychon. Bull. Rev. 5659669.

RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affectJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 3911611178.

RussellJ. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotionPsychol. Rev. 110145172.

SepänmaaY. (1993). The Beauty of Environment: A General Model for Environmental Aesthetics. Environmental Ethics BooksDenton, TX, USA.

SilviaP. J. (2005). Emotional response to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotionJ. Gen. Psychol. 9342357.

SilviaP. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotionsPsychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 34851.

SilviaP. J.BrownE. M. (2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experiencePsychology of Aesthetic Creativity and the Arts 1100106.

SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of waist-to-hip ratio and female physical attractivenessJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65293307.

SymonsD. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford University PressOxford, UK.

ThornhillR. (2003). Darwinian aesthetic informs traditional aesthetics in: Evolutionary AestheticsVolandE.GrammerK. (Eds) pp.  1035. SpringerBerlin, Germany.

ThornhillR.GangestatS. W. (1999). Facial attractivenessTr. Cogn. Sci. 3452460.

TinbergenN. (1954). Curious Naturalists. Basic BooksNew York, NY, USA.

WagemansJ. (1995). Detection of visual symmetriesSpat. Vis. 9932.

WinkielmanP.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease put a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive effectJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 819891000.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Hypothetical network of correlations between five descriptors: Beauty, Attractiveness, Pleasure, Harmony and Interestingness. Correlations are presented as inverted distances (the shorter the distance, the higher the correlation). Inter-correlations of surrounding descriptors are represented with lines, whereas the stronger expected associations of central descriptors with Pleasure are emphasized by an ellipse.

  • View in gallery

    Hypothetical networks of correlations between the five descriptors for four categories of objects. Correlations are presented as inverted distances (shorter the distance, higher the correlation). Inter-correlations of surrounding descriptors are presented with lines, whereas the stronger expected associations of central descriptors and surrounding descriptors are emphasized by ellipses.

  • View in gallery

    Networks of correlations between five descriptors for four categories of objects. The diagrams were obtained in MDS where distances were calculated as inverted correlations (Pearson R’s were converted to Fisher Z values): shorter the distance, the higher the correlation. Inter-correlations of the three ‘surrounding’ descriptors are presented with lines, whereas the stronger associations between ‘central’ descriptors (Beauty and Attractiveness) and ‘surrounding’ descriptors (Pleasure, Harmony and Interestingness) are emphasized by ellipses.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 25 25 10
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0