Abstract
The field of empirical aesthetics sets out to understand and predict our aesthetic preferences (Palmer et al., Annual Review of Psychology 64(1):77–107, 2013). Its history dates back to the birth of visual psychophysics and the work of Gustav Fechner (Vorschule der aesthetik (Vol. 1). Brietkopf & Härtel, 1876), while multiple models of aesthetic experience have been proposed in the intervening years (Chatterjee A, Vartanian O, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(7):370–375, 2014; Leder H et al., British Journal of Psychology 95(4):489–508, 2004; Pelowski M et al., Physics of Life Reviews 21:80–125, 2017). This chapter briefly sets out the history of empirical aesthetics, and the state of the research field at present. I outline recent work on inter-observer agreement in aesthetic preference, before presenting empirical work that argues the importance of first objective (characteristics of stimuli) and then subjective (characteristics of context) factors in shaping aesthetic preference. Considering the role of properties of the stimulus, I will review literature on the relationship between aesthetic preference and symmetry, shape, compositional structure, colour and complexity as well as considering the potential role of statistical properties of images. I will then review putative subjective predictors of aesthetic preference including the role of context, framing and the influence of information about the artist and the artistic process. Both subjective and objective approaches will be evaluated from an individual differences perspective, focusing on the mediating role of familiarity, expertise, culture, cognitive ability and personality. Finally, I will attempt to draw these approaches together with reference to aesthetic sensitivity: an individual observer’s propensity to have an aesthetic response to a particular objective image characteristic, and will explore some putative factors that may modulate and explain individual differences in aesthetic sensitivity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abeln, J., Fresz, L., Amirshahi, S. A., McManus, I. C., Koch, M., Kreysa, H., & Redies, C. (2016). Preference for well-balanced saliency in details cropped from photographs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00704
Arnheim, R. (1965). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Faber & Faber.
Augustin, D., & Leder, H. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48(2), 135.
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x
Batt, R., Palmiero, M., Nakatani, C., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Style and spectral power: Processing of abstract and representational art in artists and non-artists. Perception, 39(12), 1659–1671. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6747
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps towards an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere.
Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., Gheorghes, T. N., & Galatsidas, M. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity? British Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132
Bertamini, M., Rampone, G., Makin, A. D. J., & Jessop, A. (2019). Symmetry preference in shapes, faces, flowers and landscapes. PeerJ, 7, e7078. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7078
Bignardi, G., Ticini, L. F., Smit, D., & Polderman, T. J. (2020). Domain-specific and domain-general genetic and environmental effects on the intensity of visual aesthetic appraisal.. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/79nbq
Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Harvard University Press.
Brachmann, A., & Redies, C. (2017). Computational and experimental approaches to visual aesthetics. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 11, 102. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00102
Brattico, E., & Pearce, M. (2013). The neuroaesthetics of music. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(1), 48–61.
Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Scheerlinck, B., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177.
Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Berio, D., Leymarie, F. F., & Wagemans, J. (2020). Aesthetics of graffiti: Comparison to text-based an pictorial artforms. Empirical Studies of the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237420951415
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100(3), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X366867
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003
Cho, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Of great art and untalented artists: Effort information and the flexible construction of judgmental heuristics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.04.009
Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (2000). Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(1–2), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00021-5
Corradi, G., Belman, M., Currò, T., Chuquichambi, E. G., Rey, C., & Nadal, M. (2019). Aesthetic sensitivity to curvature in real objects and abstract designs. Acta Psychologica, 197, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.05.012
Corradi, G., Chuquichambi, E. G., Barrada, J. R., Clemente, A., & Nadal, M. (2020). A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 630–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12427
Cotter, K. N., Silvia, P. J., Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., & Vartanian, O. (2017). Curve appeal: Exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. I-Perception, 8(2), 204166951769302. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517693023
Cupchik, G. C., Shereck, L., & Spiegel, S. (1994). The Effects of Textual Information on Artistic Communication. 20(1), 62–78.
Cutting, J. E. (2003). Gustave Caillebotte, French impressionism, and mere exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196493
Eysenck, H. (1940). The general factor in aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 94–102.
Fechner, G. (1876). Vorschule der aesthetik (Vol. 1). Brietkopf & Härtel.
Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK
Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00190
Flavell, J. C., Over, H., & Tipper, S. P. (2020). Competing for affection: Perceptual fluency and ambiguity solution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000702
Friedenberg, J. D. (2012). Aesthetic judgment of triangular shape: Compactness and not the Golden ratio determines perceived attractiveness. I-Perception.
Germine, L., Russell, R., Bronstad, P. M., Blokland, G. A. M., Smoller, J. W., Kwok, H., Anthony, S. E., Nakayama, K., Rhodes, G., & Wilmer, J. B. (2015). Individual aesthetic preferences for faces are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Current Biology, 25(20), 2684–2689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048
Gómez-Puerto, G., Munar, E., & Nadal, M. (2016). Preference for curvature: A historical and conceptual framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 712.
Graham, D. J., Friedenberg, J. D., & Rockmore, D. N. (2009). Efficient visual system processing of spatial and luminance statistics in representational and non-representational art. IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging, 72401N–72401N. http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=811744
Graham, D. J., Friedenberg, J. D., Rockmore, D. N., & Field, D. J. (2010). Mapping the similarity space of paintings: Image statistics and visual perception. Visual Cognition, 18(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280902934454
Graham, D. J., & Redies, C. (2010). Statistical regularities in art: Relations with visual coding and perception. Vision Research, 50(16), 1503–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.002
Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U., Lehmann, T., & Redies, C. (2017). Subjective ratings of beauty and aesthetics: Correlations with statistical image properties in Western oil paintings. I-Perception, 8(3), 204166951771547. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517715474
Höfel, L., & Jacobsen, T. (2003). Temporal stability and consistency of aesthetic judgments of beauty of formal graphic patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 30–32.
Huang, Y., Xue, X., Spelke, E., Huang, L., Zheng, W., & Peng, K. (2018). The aesthetic preference for symmetry dissociates from early-emerging attention to symmetry. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 6263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24558-x
Hůla, M., & Flegr, J. (2016). What flowers do we like? The influence of shape and color on the rating of flower beauty. PeerJ, 4, e2106. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2106
Hurlbert, A. C., & Ling, Y. (2007). Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology, 17(16), R623–R625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022
Ishii, Y., Okubo, M., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Imai, H. (2011). Lateral biases and reading direction: A dissociation between aesthetic preference and line bisection. Brain and Cognition, 75(3), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.12.005
Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analysis of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 755–766.
Judd, T., Durand, F., & Torralba, A. (2011). Fixations on low-resolution images. Journal of Vision, 11(4), 14–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.4.14
Kirk, U. (2008). The neural basis of object-context relationships on aesthetic judgment. PLoS One, 3(11), e3754. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003754
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00065-9
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508.
Leder, H., Carbon, C.-C., & Ripsas, A.-L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode - developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
Letsch, P., & Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2020). The composition of abstract images – Differences between artists and laypersons. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000209
Little, A. (2014). Domain specificity in human symmetry preferences: Symmetry is Most pleasant when looking at human faces. Symmetry, 6(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym6020222
Lyssenko, N., Redies, C., & Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2016). Evaluating abstract art: Relation between term usage, subjective ratings, image properties and personality traits. Frontiers in psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00973
Makin, A. D. J. (2016). The Gap Between Aesthetic Science and Aesthetic Experience. 30.
Makin, A. D. J., Helmy, M., & Bertamini, M. (2018). Visual cortex activation predicts visual preference: Evidence from Britain and Egypt. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(8), 1771–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1350870
Makin, A. D. J., Pecchinenda, A., & Bertamini, M. (2012). Implicit affective evaluation of visual symmetry. Emotion, 12(5), 1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026924
Makin, A. D. J., Wright, D., Rampone, G., Palumbo, L., Guest, M., Sheehan, R., Cleaver, H., & Bertamini, M. (2016). An electrophysiological index of perceptual goodness. Cerebral Cortex, 26(12), 4416–4434. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw255
Mallon, B., Redies, C., & Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2014). Beauty in abstract paintings: Perceptual contrast and statistical properties. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00161
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423259
Mastandrea, S., & Crano, W. D. (2019). Peripheral factors affecting the evaluation of artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418790916
Mastandrea, S., & Umiltà, M. A. (2016). Futurist art: Motion and aesthetics as a function of title. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00201
Mather, G. (2018). Visual image statistics in the history of Western art. Art and Perception, 6(2–3), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-20181092
McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9053-1
McManus, I. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of Psychology, 71(4), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb01763.x
McManus, I. C., Cook, R., & Hunt, A. (2010). Beyond the Golden section and normative aesthetics: Why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preferences for rectangles? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017316
McManus, I. C., & Furnham, A. (2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97(4), 555–587. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X101088
McManus, I. C., & Weatherby, P. (1997). The Golden section and the aesthetics of form and composition: A cognitive model. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.2190/WWCR-VWHV-2Y2W-91EE
McManus, I. C., & Wu, W. (2013). “The square is … bulky, heavy, contented, plain, good-natured, stupid …”: A cross-cultural study of the aesthetics and meanings of rectangles. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030469
Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1(3), 320.
Muth, C., Hesslinger, V. M., & Carbon, C.-C. (2015). The appeal of challenge in the perception of art: How ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity, and the opportunity for insight affect appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038814
Nadal, M., Munar, E., Marty, G., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d
Newman, G. E., & Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026035
Ostrofsky, J., & Shobe, E. (2015). The relationship between need for cognitive closure and the appreciation, understanding, and viewing times of realistic and nonrealistic figurative paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33(1), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415570016
Ou, L.-C., Luo, M. R., Woodcock, A., & Wright, A. (2004). A study of colour emotion and colour preference. Part I: Colour emotions for single colours. Color Research & Application, 29(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/col.20010
Ou, L.-C., Yuan, Y., Sato, T., Lee, W.-Y., Szabó, F., Sueeprasan, S., & Huertas, R. (2018). Universal models of colour emotion and colour harmony. Color Research & Application, 43(5), 736–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/col.22243
Palmer, S. E., & Griscom, W. S. (2013). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0355-2
Palmer, S. E., & Schloss, K. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(19), 8877–8882. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906172107
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
Palumbo, L., Rampone, G., Bertamini, M., Sinico, M., Clarke, E., & Vartanian, O. (2020). Visual preference for abstract curvature and for interior spaces: Beyond undergraduate student samples. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000359
Palumbo, L., Ruta, N., & Bertamini, M. (2015). Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses. PLoS One, 10(10), e0140043. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140043
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2017). Move me, astonish me… delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003
Pérez González, C. (2012). Lateral organisation in nineteenth-century studio photographs is influenced by the direction of writing: A comparison of Iranian and Spanish photographs. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 17(5), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2011.586701
Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(5), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00014-8
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.
Redies, C., Amirshahi, S. A., Koch, M., & Denzler, J. (2012). PHOG-derived aesthetic measures applied to color photographs of artworks, natural scenes and objects. European conference on computer vision, 522–531. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-33863-2_54
Russell, P. A., & Milne, S. (1997). Meaningfulness and hedonic value of painting: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(1), 61–73.
Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2012a). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 865–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027736
Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2012b). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Representational fit and the role of semantic context. Perception, 41(12), 1434–1457. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7233
Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2014). The politics of color: Preferences for republican red versus democratic blue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(6), 1481–1488. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0635-0
Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2017). An ecological framework for temporal and individual differences in color preferences. Vision Research, 141, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2017.01.010
Schloss, K. B., Poggesi, R. M., & Palmer, S. E. (2011). Effects of university affiliation and “school spirit” on color preferences: Berkeley versus Stanford. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0073-1
Sherman, M. T., Seth, A. K., Barrett, A. B., & Kanai, R. (2015). Prior expectations facilitate metacognition for perceptual decision. Consciousness and Cognition, 35, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.04.015
Silvia, P. J. (2013). Interested experts, confused novices: Art expertise and the knowledge emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.f
Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021914
Spehar, B., Clifford, C. W. G., Newell, B. R., & Taylor, R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers & Graphics, 27(5), 813–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0097-8493(03)00154-7
Spehar, B., Wong, S., van de Klundert, S., Lui, J., Clifford, C. W. G., & Taylor, R. P. (2015). Beauty and the beholder: The role of visual sensitivity in visual preference. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00514
Strauss, E. D., Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2013). Color preferences change after experience with liked/disliked colored objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0423-2
Taylor, C., Clifford, A., & Franklin, A. (2013). Color preferences are not universal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030273
Tinio, P. P. L. (2013). From artistic creation to aesthetic reception: The mirror model of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030872
Tseng, P. H., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G. M., Munoz, D. P., & Itti, L. (2009). Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 9(7), 4–4. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.7.4
Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. I-Perception, 2(9), 1035–1062. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0466aap
Van der Helm, P., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1996). Goodness of visual regularities: A nontransformational approach. Psychological Review, 103(3), 429–456.
Van Geert, E., & Wagemans, J. (2019). Order, complexity, and aesthetic preferences for neatly organized compositions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000276
Van Geert, E., & Wagemans, J. (2020). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000224
van Paasschen, J., Bacci, F., & Melcher, D. P. (2015). The influence of art expertise and training on emotion and preference ratings for representational and abstract artworks. PLoS One, 10(8), e0134241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134241
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modrono, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement_2), 10446–10453. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301227110.
Verpooten, J. (2018). Expertise affects aesthetic evolution in the domain of art: Evidence from artistic fieldwork and psychological experiments. In Z. Kapoula, E. Volle, J. Renoult, & M. Andreatta (Eds.), Exploring Transdisciplinarity in art and sciences (pp. 303–326). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76054-4_16
Verpooten, J., & Dewitte, S. (2017). The conundrum of modern art: Prestige-driven Coevolutionary aesthetics trumps evolutionary aesthetics among art experts. Human Nature, 28(1), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-016-9274-7
Vessel, E. A. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.2.18
Vessel, E. A., & Rubin, N. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of vision, 10(2), 18–18.
Vessel, E. A., Maurer, N., Denker, A. H., & Starr, G. G. (2018). Stronger shared taste for natural aesthetic domains than for artifacts of human culture. Cognition, 179, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.009
Vogt, S., & Magnussen, S. (2007). Expertise in pictorial perception: Eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen. Perception, 36(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5262
Wagner, V., Menninghaus, W., Hanich, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Art schema effects on affective experience: The case of disgusting images. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036126
Wickens, T., Palmer, S. E., & Gardner, J. (2008). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects. Spatial Vision, 21, 421–449.
Wiersema, D. V., van der Schalk, J., & van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Who’s afraid of red, yellow, and blue? Need for cognitive closure predicts aesthetic preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(2), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025878
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
Zangemeister, W. H., Sherman, K., & Stark, L. (1995). Evidence for a global scanpath strategy in viewing abstract compared with realistic images. Neuropsychologia, 33(8), 1009–1025.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chamberlain, R. (2022). The Interplay of Objective and Subjective Factors in Empirical Aesthetics. In: Ionescu, B., Bainbridge, W.A., Murray, N. (eds) Human Perception of Visual Information. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81465-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81465-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-81464-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-81465-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)