The Automatic Aesthetic Evaluation of Different Art and Architectural Styles

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 126-134

  Mastandrea, Stefano ^a   Bartoli, Gabriella ^a   Carrus, Giuseppe ^a  

^a ROMA TRE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Aesthetic evaluation; Automatic processes; Implicit Association Test

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957659790     PISSN: 19313896     EISSN: 1931390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021126     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bargh J.A. Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. Unintended thought 1989, 3-51. Guilford Press, New York, NY. J.S. Uleman, J.A. Bargh (Eds.).
2. Berlyne D.E. Aesthetics and psychobiology 1971, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
3. Boselie F., Cesaro A. Disjunctive ambiguity as a determinant of the aesthetic attractivity of visual patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts 1994, 12(1):85-94.
4. Brunel F.F., Tietje B.C., Greenwald A.G. Is the Implicit Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition?. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2004, 14(4):385-404.
5. Crozier W.R., Chapman A.J. Cognitive processes in the perception of art 1984, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
6. Cutting J.E. Gustave Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and mere exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2003, 10:319-343.
7. Fazio R.H., Sanbonmatsu D.M., Powel M.C., Kardes F.R. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 50:229-238.
8. Feist G.J., Brady T.R. Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts 2004, 22(1):77-89.
9. Fiske S.T., Taylor S.E. Social cognition: From brains to culture 2008, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
10. Francès R. Psychologie de l'art et de l'esthétique 1979, PUF, Paris, France.
11. Gifford R., Hine D.W., Muller-Clemm W., Reynolds D.J., Shaw K.T. Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment and Behavior 2000, 32(2):163-187.
12. Greenwald A.G., McGhee D., Schwartz J.L.K. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 6:1464-1480.
13. Heinrichs R.W., Cupchik G.C. Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality 1985, 53:502-515.
14. Hekkert P., van Wieringen P.C.W. Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology 1996, 109:389-407.
15. Inquisit 2.0.60616. (2006). [Computer software]. Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.
16. Kameron J. Experimental studies of environment perception. Environment and cognition 1973, 157-167. Seminar Press, New York, NY. W.H. Ittelson (Ed.).
17. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
18. Kettlewell N., Lipscomb S., Evans L., Rosston K. The effect of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts 1990, 8:85-93.
19. Kunst-Wilson W.R., Zajonc R.B. Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science 1980, 207:557-558.
20. Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 2004, 95:489-508.
21. Locher P., Krupinski E.A., Mello-Thoms C., Nodine C.F. Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial Vision 2007, 21(1-2):55-77.
22. Locher P., Nodine C.F. The perceptual value of symmetry. Computers and Math Applications 1989, 17:475-484.
23. Martindale C., Moore K. Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1988, 14:661-670.
24. Mastandrea S., Bartoli G., Bove G. Preferences for ancient and modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteristics. Psychology of Aesthetic, Creativity, and the Arts 2009, 3(3):164-173.
25. McWhinnie H.J. A review of research on aesthetic measure. Acta Psychologica 1968, 28:363-375.
26. Neisser U. Cognitive psychology 1967, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
27. Nosek B.A., Greenwald A.G., Banaji M.R. The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior 2007, 265-292. Psychology Press, New York, NY. J.A. Bargh (Ed.).
28. Nosek B.A., Hansen J.J. The associations in our heads belong to us: Searching for attitudes and knowledge in implicit evaluation. Cognition and Emotion 2008, 22(4):553-594.
29. Öhman A. The psychophysiology of emotion: An evolutionary-cognitive perspective. Advances in psychophysiology 1987, 2:79-127.
30. Posner M.I., Keele S.W. On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1968, 77:353-363.
31. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J., Mainardi Peron E., Falchero S. Preference or preferences for landscape?. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1994, 14(3):195-209.
32. Purcell T., Peron E., Berto R. Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33(1):93-106.
33. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8(4):364-382.
34. Shiffrin R.M., Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review 1977, 84:127-190.
35. Silvia P.J. Emotional response to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology 2005, 9:342-357.
36. Smith J., Smith L. Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts 2001, 19:229-236.
37. Stamps A.E., Nasar J.L. Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17(1):11-32.
38. Tinio P.P.L., Leder H. Natural scenes are indeed preferred, but image quality might have the last word. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2009, 3(1):52-56.
39. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Behaviour and the natural environment 1983, 85-125. Plenum Press, New York, NY. I. Altman, J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.).
40. Whitfield T.W.A. Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1983, 3:221-237.
41. Whitfield T.W.A., Slatter P.E. The effects of categorisation and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology 1979, 70:65-75.
42. Williams J.M.G., Watts F.N., MacLeod C., Matthews A. Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders 1988, Wiley, Chichester, England.
43. Winkielman P., Cacioppo J.T. Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001, 81:989-1000.
44. Winkielman P., Halberstadt J., Fazendeiro T., Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 2006, 17(9):799-806.
45. Wohlwill J.F. Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology 1974, 2:127-147.
46. Zajonc R.B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1968, 9(2):1-27.
47. Zajonc R.B. Emotions. The handbook of social psychology 1998, 591-632. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.).