Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images

Journal of Vision

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 1-14

  Vessel, Edward A ^a   Rubin, Nava ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Individual differences; Semantic association; Visual preference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; SEMANTICS; VISION;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; BEAUTY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SEMANTICS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955482812     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/10.2.18     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adolphs, R., & Tranel, D. (1999). Preferences for visual stimuli following amygdala damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 610-616.
2. Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgements of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240-244.
3. Aks, D. J., & Sprott, J. C. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 1-16.
4. Appleton, J. (1988). Prospects and refuges revisited. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics (pp. 27-44). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Ariely, D., Kahneman, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Joint comment on "when does duration matter in judgment and decision making?" (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 524-529.
6. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). When does duration matter in judgment and decision making? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 508-523.
7. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645-648.
8. Berlyne, D. E. (1958). The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 289-296.
9. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
10. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corporation.
11. Berlyne, D. E., & Ogilvie, J. C. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 181-226). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
12. Biederman, I., & Vessel, E. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American Scientist, 94, 247-253.
13. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect-Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.
14. Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324-345.
15. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
16. Bronstad, P. M., & Russell, R. (2007). Beauty is in the 'we' of the beholder: Greater agreement on facial attractiveness among close relations. Perception, 36, 1674-1681.
17. Cupchik, G. C. (1974). An experimental investigation of perceptual and stylistic dimensions of paintings suggested by art history. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 235-257). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
18. Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 1-14.
19. Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572-595). New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Eysenck, H. J. (1940). The general factor in aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 94-102.
21. Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Fechner, G. T. (1912). Elemente der Psychophysik (Trans. H.S. Langfield). In B. Rand (Ed.), The Classical Psychologists (pp. 562-572). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [Originally published 1860].
23. Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 45-55.
24. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73-85.
25. Graham, D. J., & Field, D. J. (2007). Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: Spectra, sparseness and nonlinearities. Spatial Vision, 21, 149-164.
26. Hönekopp, J. (2006). Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 199-209.
27. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1995). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ulrich's Bookstore.
28. Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 581-598). New York: Oxford.
29. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489-508.
30. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
31. Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49-80.
32. Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference-Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53-80.
33. McGuire, D. P., & Davison, M. L. (1991). Testing group-differences in paired comparisons data. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 171-182.
34. McManus, I. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 505-524.
35. McManus, I. C., Jones, A. L., & Cottrell, J. (1981). The aesthetics of colour. Perception, 10, 651-666.
36. Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1, 320-329.
37. Nijenhuis, A., & Wilf, H. S. (1978). Combinatorial algorithms for computers and calculators (2 ed.). New York: Academic Press.
38. Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555-579). New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Parducci, A., Knobel, S., & Thomas, C. (1976). Independent contexts for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 360-366.
40. Parducci, A., & Wedell, D. H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 496-516.
41. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
42. Rawlings, D. (2000). The interaction of openness to experience and schizotypy in predicting preference for abstract and violent paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 69-91.
43. 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, 364-382.
44. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45-48.
45. Rentschler, I., Jüttner, M., Unzicker, A., & Landis, T. (1999). Innate and learned components of human visual preference. Current Biology, 9, 665-671.
46. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52-58.
47. Russell, P. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 99-110.
48. Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156-163.
49. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317-1322.
50. Shortess, G. K., Clarke, C. J., Richter, M. L., & Seay, M. (2000). Abstract or realistic? Prototypicality of paintings. Visual Arts Research, 26, 70-79.
51. Silvia, P. J. (2005a). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119-133.
52. Silvia, P. J. (2005b). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342-357.
53. Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10,000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 207-222.
54. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452-460.
55. Tinio, P. P. L., & Leder, H. (2009). Natural scenes are indeed preferred, but image quality might have the last word. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 52-56.
56. Van Tonder, G. J., Lyons, M. J., & Ejima, Y. (2002). Visual structure of a Japanese Zen garden. Nature, 419, 359-360.
57. Vessel, E. A., & Biederman, I. (2002). An fMRI investigation of visual preference habituation [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 2(7):492, 492a, http://journalofvision.org/2/7/492/, doi:10.1167/2.7.492.
58. Weber, E. H. (1846). Der Tastsinn and das Gemeingefuhl. In R. Wagner (Ed.), HandwOrterbuch der Physiologie (vol. iii).
59. Williams, J. W. J. (1964). Algorithm-232-Heapsort. Communications of the ACM, 7, 347-348.
60. Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. L. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31-41). Covelo, California: Island Press.
61. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989-1000.
62. Yu, D. W., & Shepard, G. H. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321-322.
63. Yue, X., Vessel, E. A., & Biederman, I. (2007). The neural basis of scene preferences. NeuroReport, 18, 525-529.
64. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (Monograph supplement No. 2, Part 2.), 1-27.
65. Zuckerman, M., Ulrich, R. S., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 563-576.