Abstract shapes can vary in how much they are preferred by observers, but the key factors are still not well understood. In Experiment 1, observers rated the attractiveness of octagonal polygons that varied in contour length but had approximate constant area. Thus, the shapes differed in compactness. Shapes with partial symmetry were judged to be more attractive as were those with greater total contour length. In a second experiment, participants judged polygons with different numbers of concavities but with constant contour length. Shapes with more concavities were considered more attractive. The data demonstrate a preference for greater complexity—both in terms of contour length and as changes in the number of concavities.
BertaminiM.ByrneC.BennettK. M. (2013) Attractiveness is influenced by the relationship between postures of the viewer and the viewed person. i-Perception4: 170.
3.
BirkhoffG. D. (1932) Aesthetic measure, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BoselieF.LeeuwenbergE. (1985) Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. American Journal of Psychology98: 1–39.
5.
DayH. (1967) Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception & Psychophysics2: 281–286.
6.
EisenmanR.GillensH. (1968) Preferences for complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills26: 888–890.
7.
EysenckH. J. (1941) The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review48: 83–92.
8.
Fechner, G. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel.
9.
FinkB.NeaveN.ManningJ. T.GrammerK. (2006) Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences41(3): 491–499.
10.
FriedenbergJ. (2009) Dynamical psychology. Complexity, self-organization and mind, Litchfield Park, Arizona: Emergent Publications.
11.
FriedenbergJ. (2012) Aesthetic judgment of triangular shape: Compactness and not the golden ratio determines perceived attractiveness. i-Perception3: 163–175.
12.
GibsonJ. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
HekkertP.ThurgoodC.WhitfieldT. (2013) The mere exposure effect for consumer products as a consequence of existing familiarity and controlled exposure. Acta Psychologica144: 411–417.
14.
KatzB. F. (2002) What makes a polygon pleasing?Empirical Studies of the Arts20: 1–19.
15.
MunsingerH.KessenW. (1964) Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied78: 1–24.
16.
Nadal, M. (2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Palma: Universitat de les Illes Balears.
17.
NadalM.MunarE.MartyG.Cela-CondeC. J. (2010) Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts28: 173–191.
18.
NickiR. M.MossV. (1975) Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology29: 237–249.
19.
NucciM.WagemansJ. (2007) Goodness of regularity in dot patterns: Global symmetry, local symmetry, and their interactions. Perception36: 1305–1319.
20.
PhillipsF.NormanJ. F.BeersA. M. (2010) Fechner’s aesthetics revisited. Seeing and Perceiving23: 263–271.
21.
RhodesG. (2006) The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology57: 199–226.
22.
StevensP. S. (1981) Handbook of regular patterns. An introduction to symmetry in two dimensions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
TovéeM. J.TaskerK.BensonP. J. (2000) Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body. Evolution and Human Behaviour21: 191–200.
