Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 2, Issue 7, pp 281–286 | Cite as

Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity



A series of random-shaped polygons varying in number of sides in approximately even logarithmic steps from four to 160 sides was generated. Ss were required to compare all possible pairs of figures on one of three scales-subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness. Subjective evaluations of complexity continued to increase with informational content. Pleasingness evaluations described a bimodal function, peafeing at the 6-sided and 28-sided levels then falling rapidly with increased complexity. Interestingness efaluations rosé to a peafe at the 28-sided figure and remained high throughout the rest of the series.


Subjective Evaluation Pleasingness Evaluation Random Polygon Bimodal Function Affective Arousal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Attneave, F., &Atnoult, M. The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception.Psyckol. Buil.. 1956, 53, 452–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. The influence of complexity and novelty in Visual figures on orienting responses.J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 289–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D. E.Conflict arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlyne, D. E. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory cholce and evaluative ratings.Canad. J. Psychol.. 1963, 17, 274–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Day, H. Brief note on the Berlyne-Heekhausen controversy.Psychol. Rep., 1965a, 17, 225–226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Day, H. Exploratory behavior as a function of individual differences and level of arousal. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1965b, Microfilm #66–1064, University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  7. Day, H. Looking time as a function of stimulus variables and individual differences.Percept. mot. Skills, 1966, 22, 423–428.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, A. L.TechniQues of attitude scale constructions. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.Google Scholar
  9. Heckhausen, H. Complexity in perception: phenomenal criteria and information theoretic calculus—A note on D. E. Berlyne’s “Complexity effects”.Canad. J. Psychol., 1964, 18, 168–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Looft, W. R. An investigation of the preference function for visual random shape patterns. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association annual meeting, May, 1966.Google Scholar
  11. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., &Lowell, E. L.The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Michels, K. M., & Zusne, L. Metrics of visual form.Psychol. Bull., 1965.Google Scholar
  13. Munsinger, H. Multivariate analysis of preference for variability.J. exp. Psychol.. 1966, 71, 889–895.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Munsinger, H., & Kessen, W. Uncertainty, structure and preference.Psychol. Monogr., 1964, 78, No. 9 (Whole No. 586).Google Scholar
  15. Munsinger, H., &Kessen, W. stimulus variability and cognitive change.Psychol. Keu., 1966, 73, 164–178.Google Scholar
  16. Munsinger, H., Kessen, W., &Kessen, Marion L. Age and uncertainty: Developmental variations in preference for variability.J. exp. child Psychol., 1964, 1, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Terwilliger, R. R. Patterns complexity and affective arousal.Percept. mot. Skills, 1963, 17, 387–395.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hy Day
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations