Implicit and Explicit Aesthetic Evaluation of Design Objects

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

Can a preference for design objects also be achieved automatically? The aim of this study is to examine whether different levels of expertise in industrial design (laypeople versus design experts) can orient the preference towards different styles of design objects (classic chairs versus modern chairs), at both implicit and explicit levels. Implicit and explicit preferences are often mediated by assessor features. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) was used to measure the automaticity of the evaluation. The participants (44 laypeople and 40 experts) performed a categorization task with reference to pictures (five classic and five modern chairs) and words (five positive and five negative aesthetic words). Reaction times were registered. The explicit evaluation of the stimuli was assessed using a seven-point Likert scale referring to the adjectives beautiful, typical, familiar, understandable, complex and interesting in order to appraise overall preferences for both classic and modern design objects.

In both measurements, implicit and explicit preferences for classic and modern objects were moderated by expertise: experts were aesthetically more oriented towards modern objects while laypeople did not show a specific preference for one style. This study is one of the first attempts to demonstrate the differences in aesthetic preferences between experts and non-experts at an implicit level.

Implicit and Explicit Aesthetic Evaluation of Design Objects

in Art & Perception

Sections

References

  • AugustinM. D.LederH. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spacesPsychol. Sci. 48135156.

  • BertaminiM.MakinA. D. J.RamponeG. (2013). Implicit association of symmetry with positive valence, high arousal and simplicityi-Perception 4317327.

  • BoselieF.CesaroA. (1994). Disjunctive ambiguity as a determinant of the aesthetic attractivity of visual patternsEmpir. Stud. Arts 128594.

  • CrozierW. R.ChapmanA. J. (1984). Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art. North-HollandAmsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • De HouwerJ.Teige-MocigembaS.SpruytA.MoorsA. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and reviewPsychol. Bull. 135347368.

  • EvansJ. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognitionAnnu. Rev. Psychol. 59255278.

  • FazioR. H.OlsonM. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and useAnnu. Rev. Psychol. 54297327.

  • FeistG. J.BradyT. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract artEmpir. Stud. Arts 227789.

  • GattolV.SaaksjarviM.CarbonC. C. (2011). Extending the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Assessing consumer attitudes based on multi-dimensional implicit associationsPLoS One 6e15849.

  • GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude changePsychol. Bull. 132692731.

  • GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association testJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 614641480.

  • GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithmJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85197216.

  • GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanT. A.UhlmannE. L.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validityJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 971741.

  • HeinrichsR. W.CupchikG. C. (1985). Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual artJ. Pers. 53502515.

  • HekkertP.van WieringenP. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of artAm. J. Psychol. 109389407.

  • KawakamiK.DovidioJ. F.DijksterhuisA. (2003). Effect of social category priming on personal attitudesPsychol. Sci. 14315319.

  • KettlewellN.LipscombS.EvansL.RosstonK. (1990). The effect of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for paintingsEmpir. Stud. Arts 88593.

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

  • LocherP.KrupinskiE. A.Mello-ThomsC.NodineC. F. (2007). Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experienceSpat. Vis. 215577.

  • LocherP.NodineC. F. (1989). The perceptual value of symmetryComp. Math. Appl. 17475484.

  • MakinA. D. J.PecchinendaA.BertaminiM. (2012). Implicit affective evaluation of visual symmetryEmotion 1210211030.

  • MastandreaS.BartoliG.BoveG. (2007). Learning through ancient art and experiencing emotions with contemporary art: Comparing visits in two different museumsEmpir. Stud. Arts 25173191.

  • MastandreaS.BartoliG.BoveG. (2009). Preferences for ancient and modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteristicsPsychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 3164173.

  • MastandreaS.BartoliG.CarrusG. (2011). The automatic aesthetic evaluation of different art and architectural stylesPsychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 5126134.

  • McWhinnieH. J. (1968). A review of research on aesthetic measureActa Psychol. 28363375.

  • MuthC.CarbonC. C. (2013). The Aesthetic Aha: On the pleasure of having insights into GestaltActa Psychol. 1442530.

  • NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (2007). The implicit association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review in: Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and BehaviorBarghJ. A. (Ed.) pp.  265292. Psychology PressPhiladelphia, PA, USA.

  • PavlovićM.MarkovićS. (2012). Automatic processes in aesthetic judgment: Insights from the implicit association testPsihologija 45377393.

  • SchnabelK.BanseR.AsendorpfJ. (2006). Employing automatic approach and avoidance tendencies for the assessment of implicit personality self-conceptExp. Psychol. 536976.

  • SilviaP. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotionsEmpir. Stud. Arts 24139161.

  • SmithE. R.DeCosterJ. (2000). Dual process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systemsPers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4108131.

  • SmithL. F.SmithJ. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency in: New Directions in Aesthetics Creativity and the ArtsLocherP.MartindaleC.DorfmanL. (Eds) pp.  4758. Baywood Publishing Co.Amityville, NY, USA.

  • StampsA. E.NasarJ. L. (1997). Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking and architectural stylesJ. Environ. Psychol. 171132.

  • StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behaviorPers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8220247.

  • WhitfieldT. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviourJ. Environ. Psychol. 3221237.

  • WinstonA. S.CupchikG. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naïve and experienced viewersVis. Arts Res. 18114.

  • ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposureJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Monogr. Suppl. 9127.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Pictures used as stimuli of the category ‘Classic chairs’. (1) Louis X; (2) Louis XV; (3) Baroque; (4) Chesterfield; (5) Leather traditional armchair.

  • View in gallery

    Pictures used as stimuli of the category “Modern Chairs”. (1) Marcel Breuer, “Wassily”, Model B3 chair, 1927; (2) Le Corbusier, “Petit Modèle”, 1928; (3) Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, “Barcelona chair”, 1929; (4) Charles and Ray Eames, “DAX Chair with Arms”, 1948; (5) Verner Panton, “Panton Chair”, 1960.

  • View in gallery

    D6 score values for laypeople and experts (p<0.05).

  • View in gallery

    Reaction times in the compatible and incompatible blocks between laypeople and experts (∗∗∗p<0.0001).

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 123 120 15
Full Text Views 194 194 0
PDF Downloads 11 11 0
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0