Two experiments were conducted to examine sequential context effects on judgments of liking for artistic photographs. In Experiment 1, target photographs were preceded in a sequence by context photographs prerated for liking. The results showed that viewing time and response time for targets increased when preceded by highly liked context photographs. However, ratings of liking for targets were unaffected. In Experiment 2, target photographs were preceded by pleasant or unpleasant context photographs. An assimilation effect on target ratings was produced by unpleasant context, with targets rated lower for liking. Both pleasant and unpleasant context photographs affected viewing time and response time for targets. Overall, the results from both experiments show that the presence of an artwork that immediately precedes another artwork in a sequence can affect the processing of the subsequent artwork. This suggests that the positioning of artworks in sequences can produce context effects on art appreciation.
AldhafeeriF. M.MackenzieI.KayT.AlghamdiJ.SlumingV. (2012).
Regional brain responses to pleasant and unpleasant IAPS pictures: Different networks. Neuroscience Letters,
512, 94–98. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.064
2.
ArielliE. (2012).
Contrast and assimilation in aesthetic judgments of visual artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
30(1), 59–74. doi: 10.2190/EM.30.1.f
3.
BelkeB.LederH.StrobachT.CarbonC. C. (2010).
Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts,
4(4), 214–222. doi: 10.1037/a0019648
4.
BitgoodS. C.HendersonD. D. (1993).
The effects of gallery changes on visitor reading and object viewing time. Environment and Behavior,
25(6), 761–781.
5.
BrieberD.LederH.NadalM. (2015).
The experience of art in museums: An attempt to dissociate the role of physical context and genuineness. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
33(1), 95–105. doi: 10.1177/0276237415570000
6.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH.RosenbergR. (2014).
Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS One,
9(6), e99019. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
7.
BullotN. J.ReberR. (2013).
The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
36, 123–180. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000489
8.
CalabriaA. J.FairchildM. D. (2003).
Perceived image contrast and observer preference I: The effects of lightness, chroma, and sharpness manipulations of contrast perception. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology,
47(6), 479–493.
9.
CoganE.ParkerS.ZellnerD. A. (2013).
Beauty beyond compare: Effects of context extremity and categorization on hedonic contrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
39(1), 16–22. doi: 10.1037/a0031020
10.
FranklinM. G.BecklenR. C.DoyleC. L. (1993).
The influence of titles on how paintings are seen. Leonardo,
26(2), 103–108. doi: 10.2307/1575894
11.
GartusA.LederH. (2014).
The white cube of the museum versus the grey cube of the street: The role of context in aesthetic evaluations. Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts,
8(9), 311–320. doi: 10.1037/a0036847
12.
GergerG.LederH. (2015).
Titles change the esthetic appreciation of paintings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
9, 1–10. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464
13.
KirkU.SkovM.HulmeO.ChristensenM. S.ZekiS. (2009).
Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. Neuroimage,
44, 1124–1132. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.009
14.
KondoA.TakahashiK.WatanabeK. (2013).
Influence of gender membership on sequential decisions of face attractiveness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,
75(7), 1347–1352. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0533-y
15.
LangP. J.BradleyM. M.CuthbertB. N. (2008). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. (Report No. A-8). University of Florida, Gainesville.
16.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004).
A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology,
95, 489–508. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369811
17.
LederH.CarbonC.RipsasA. (2006).
Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica,
121, 176–198. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005
18.
LederH.GergerG.BrieberD.SchwarzN. (2014).
What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition and Emotion,
28(6), 1137–1147. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.870132
19.
LederH.GergerG.DresslerS.SchabmannA. (2012).
How art is appreciated. Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts,
6, 2–10. doi: 10.1037/a0026396
20.
LocherP.SmithL.SmithJ. (1999).
Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
17(2), 121–129. doi: 10.2190/R2WN-TAF2-376D-EFUH
21.
MillisK. (2001).
Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion,
1(3), 320–329. doi: 10.1037//1528-3542.1.3.320
22.
MullennixJ. W.FallierC. L.MansuetoK. M. (2013). Psychology Research,
3(8), 425–438.
23.
MullennixJ. W.FoytikL. R.ChanC. H.DragunB. R.MaloneyM.PolaskiL. (2013).
Automaticity and the processing of artistic photographs. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
31(2), 145–171. doi: 10.2190/EM.31.2.c
24.
MullennixJ. W.VarmeckyA.ChanC.MickeyZ.Polaski-HoffmanL. (2016).
The effect of color on automaticity of aesthetic judgments. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
34, 8–34. doi: 10.1177/0276237415621183
25.
MullennixJ. W.PilotK. M.SteevesT. A.BurnsJ. C. (2018).
The effects of cognitive load on titled visual art. Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts,
12(2), 166–176. doi: 10.1037/aca0000128
26.
MullennixJ. W.RobinetJ. (2018).
Art expertise and the processing of titled abstract art. Perception,
47(4), 359–378. doi: 10.1177/0301006617752314
27.
PegorsT. K.MattarM. G.BryanP. B.EpsteinR. A. (2015).
Simultaneous perceptual and response biases on sequential face attractiveness judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
144(3), 664–673. doi: 10.1037/xge0000069
28.
PekarikA. J. (2004).
To explain or not explain. Curator,
47, 12–18. doi: 10.1111/j.2051-6952.2004.tb00363.x
29.
PelowskiM.MarkeyP. S.ForsterM.GergerG.LederH. (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,
857, 1–46. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003
30.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004).
Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review,
8(4), 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957/pspr0804_3
31.
RussellP. A. (2003).
Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology,
94, 99–100. doi: 10.1348/000712603762842138
32.
RussellP. A.MilneS. (1997).
Meaningfulness and hedonic value of paintings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
15, 61–73. doi: 10.2190/EHT3-HWVM-52CB- 8QHJ
TinioP. P. L.LederH. (2009).
Natural scenes are indeed preferred, but image quality might have the last word. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
3, 52–56. doi: 10.1037/a0014835
35.
TinioP. P. L.LederH.StrasserM. (2011).
Image quality and the aesthetic judgment of photographs: Contrast, sharpness, and grain teased apart and put together. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
5(2), 165–176. doi: 10.1037/a0019542
36.
Van DongenN. N. N.Van StrienJ. W.DijkstraK. (2016).
Implicit emotion regulation in the context of viewing artworks: ERP evidence in response to pleasant and unpleasant pictures. Brain and Cognition,
107, 48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2016.06.003
37.
WedellD. H.ParducciA.GieselmanR. E. (1987).
A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
23, 230–249. doi: 10.1016/0022-1032(87)90034-5
38.
ZajoncR. B. (1998). Emotions. In GilbertD.T.FiskeS.T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. (pp. 591–632).
Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
