This study investigated the need for uniqueness, visual aesthetic sensitivity, and their correlation. To investigate these variables, we asked 71 participants to complete the German adaptation of the Need for Uniqueness scale (NfU-G) and the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST)—including the VAST-Revised (VAST-R). The NfU-G measures the need to set oneself apart from others, whereas the VAST(-R) tests the ability to identify the objective aesthetic goodness of a figural composition. The findings of this study are significantly compliant with theoretical considerations: the higher a participant scores on the NfU-G scale, the lower the percentage of correctly identified drawings on the VAST(-R), with the VAST being a stronger predictor than the VAST-R. Thus, the results suggest that participants who strive for individuality exhibit lower visual aesthetic sensitivity since they tend to violate norms in order to assert their uniqueness. Limitations regarding this outcome are discussed.
AugustinM. D.WagemansJ.CarbonC. C. (2012).
All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica,
139(1), 187–201. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004
2.
BarnlundD. C. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States.
Tokyo, Japan:
Simul Press.
3.
BauerH. H.HuberF.HettM.NeumannM. M. (2007). Das Bedürfnis nach einzigartigen Produkten: Zwei Studien zu Consumer’s Need for Uniqueness und dem Bedürfnis der Verbraucher nach einzigartigen Produkten [The need for unique products: Two studies on consumer’s need for uniqueness and consumers’ needs for unique products]. Reihe: Wissenschaftliche Arbeitspapiere/Institut für Marktorientierte Unternehmensführung, 113. Mannheim, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Arbeitspapiere.
4.
BelkR. (1988).
Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139–168. doi:10.1086/209154
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1970).
Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics,
8(5), 279–286. doi:10.3758/BF03212593
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology.
East Norwalk, CT:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
7.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA. (2004).
Art judgment: A measure related to both personality and intelligence? Imagination,Cognition and Personality,
24(1), 3–24. doi:10.2190/U4LW-TH9X-80M3-NJ54
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
EysenckH. J. (1940).
The general factor in aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology: General Section,
31(1), 94–102. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1940.tb00977.x
10.
EysenckH. J. (1983).
A new measure of “good taste” in visual art. Leonardo,
16(3), 229–231. doi:10.2307/1574921
11.
EysenckM. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory.
Hove, England:
Psychology Press.
12.
FechnerG. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik.
Leipzig, Germany:
Breitkopf & Härtel.
13.
FestingerL. (1954).
A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations,
7(2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
14.
FroisJ. P.EysenckH. (1995).
The visual aesthetic sensitivity test applied to Portuguese children and fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal,
8, 277–284. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0803_6
15.
FromkinH. L. (1972).
Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality,
6(2-3), 178–185.
16.
FromkinH. L.DipboyeR. L.PyleM. (1972). Reversal of the attitude similarity-attraction effect by uniqueness deprivation. Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, 344, 1–24.
17.
FurnhamA.Chamorro-PremuzicT. (2004).
Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences,
37(5), 943–955.
18.
GearJ. (1986).
Eysenck’s Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST) as an example of the need for explicitness and awareness of context in empirical aesthetics. Poetics,
15, 555–564. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(86)90011-2
19.
GötzK. O. (1985). VAST: Visual aesthetic sensitivity test (4th ed.).
Düsseldorf, Germany:
Concept Verlag.
20.
GötzK. O.BorisyA. R.LynnR.EysenckH. J. (1979).
A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I. Construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
49, 795–802. doi:10.2466/pms.1979.49.3.795
21.
HöfelL.JacobsenT. (2003).
Temporal stability and consistency of aesthetic judgments of beauty of formal graphic patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
96(1), 30–32. doi:10.2466/pms.2003.96.1.30
22.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
23.
HolbrookM. B. (2005).
The role of ordinary evaluations in the market for popular culture: Do consumers have a “good taste”?Marketing Letters,
16(2), 75–86. doi:10.1007/s11002-005-2774-6
24.
HolbrookM. B.AddisM. (2007).
Taste versus the market: An extension of research on the consumption of popular culture. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(3), 415–424. doi:10.1086/518529
25.
HyattE. M. (1992).
Consumer stereotyping: The cognitive bases of the social symbolism of products. ACR North American Advances,
19(1), 299–303.
26.
ImhoffR.ErbH. P. (2009).
What motivates nonconformity? Uniqueness seeking blocks majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
35(3), 309–320. doi:10.1177/0146167208328166
27.
IstókE.BratticoE.JacobsenT.KrohnK.MüllerM.TervaniemiM. (2009).
Aesthetic responses to music: A questionnaire study. Musicae Scientiae,
13(2), 183–206. doi:10.1177/102986490901300201
28.
JacobsenT. (2006).
Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo,
39(2), 155–162. doi:10.1162/leon.2006.39.2.155
29.
JacobsenT. (2010).
Beauty and the brain: Culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation. Journal of Anatomy,
216(2), 184–191. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01164.x
30.
JacobsenT.BuchtaK.KöhlerM.SchrögerE. (2004).
The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports,
94(3), 1253–1260. doi:10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260
31.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. (2002).
Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
95(3), 755–766. doi:10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755
32.
JarymowiczM.CodolJ.-P. (1979).
Self-others similarity perception: Striving for diversity from other people. Polish Psychological Bulletin,
10(1), 41–48.
33.
KimH. S.DroletA. (2003).
Choice and self-expression: A cultural analysis of variety-seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85(2), 373–382. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.373
34.
KimH.MarkusH. R. (1999).
Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(4), 785–800.
35.
KnoopC. A.WagnerV.JacobsenT.MenninghausW. (2016).
Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics,
56, 35–49. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001
36.
KonecniV. J. (1979).
Determinants of aesthetic preference and effects of exposure to aesthetic stimuli: Social, emotional and cognitive factors. Progress in Experimental Personality Research,
9, 149–197.
37.
Lalot, F., Cantarella, M., Zerhouni, O., Joly, E., Quiamzade, A., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Desrichard, O., & Bègue, L. (2017). Assessing private and public Need for Uniqueness: Validation of French versions of the Need for Uniqueness (NfU) and Self-Attributed Need for Uniqueness (SANU) scales. Journal of personality assessment, 101(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1394867
38.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004).
A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgment. British Journal of Psychology,
95, 489–508. doi:10.1348/0007126042369811
39.
LederH.TinioP. P. L.BrieberD.KrönerT.JacobsenT.RosenbergR. (2019).
Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
37(1), 1–11. doi:10.1177/0276237418777941
40.
LynnM.HarrisJ. (1997a).
Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
27(21), 1861–1883. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01629.x
41.
LynnM.HarrisJ. (1997b).
The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing,
14(6), 601–616. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199709)14:6<601::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-B
42.
McGuireW. J.Padawer-SingerA. (1976).
Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
33(6), 743–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.6.743
43.
MyszkowskiN. (2019).
The first glance is the weakest: “Tasteful” individuals are slower to judge visual art. Personality and Individual Differences,
141, 188–195.
44.
MyszkowskiN.ÇelikP.StormeM. (2018).
A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and visual “Taste” measures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
12, 24–33. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00750
45.
MyszkowskiN.StormeM. (2017).
Measuring “good taste” with the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test-Revised (VAST-R). Personality and Individual Differences,
117, 91–100. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.041
46.
MyszkowskiN.StormeM.ZenasniF.LubartT. (2014).
Is visual aesthetic sensitivity independent from intelligence, personality and creativity?Personality and Individual Differences,
59, 16–20. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.021
47.
MyszkowskiN.ZenasniF. (2016).
Individual differences in aesthetic ability: The case for an aesthetic quotient. Frontiers in Psychology,
7, 750 doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00750
48.
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/s15327957pspr0804_3
49.
SchumpeB. M.HerzbergP. Y.ErbH. P. (2016).
Assessing the need for uniqueness: Validation of the German NfU-G scale. Personality and Individual Differences,
90, 231–237. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.012
50.
SilviaP. J. (2005).
Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
23(2), 119–133. doi:10.2190/12AV-AH2P-MCEH-289E
51.
SilviaP. J. (2006).
Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
24(2), 139–161. doi:10.2190/DX8K-6WEA-6WPA-FM84
52.
SimonsonI.NowlisS. M. (2000).
The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research,
27(1), 49–68. doi:10.1086/314308
53.
SmithL. F.SmithJ. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In LocherP.MartindaleC.DorfmanL.PetrovV.LeontievD. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the psychology of art (pp. 47–58).
Amityville, NY:
Baywood.
54.
SnyderC. R. (1992).
Basic and applied social psychology unavailability effects on message processing: A theoretical analysis an empirical test. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
13(1), 9–24. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1301
55.
SnyderC. R.FromkinH. L. (1977).
Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
86(5), 518–527. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518
56.
SnyderC. R.FromkinH. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The pursuit of difference.
New York, NY:
Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-3659-4
57.
StockéV. (2004).
Entstehungsbedingungen von Antwortverzerrungen durch soziale Erwünschtheit. Ein Vergleich der Prognosen der Rational-Choice Theorie und des Modells der Frame-Selektion [Answer formation through social desirability: A comparison of the predictions of the rational choice theory and the models of frame selection]. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie,
33(4), 303–320. doi:10.1515/zfsoz-2004-0403
58.
TepperK.HoyleR. H. (1996).
Latent variable models of need for uniqueness. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
31(4), 467–494. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3104_4
59.
TianK. T.BeardenW. O.HunterG. L. (2001).
Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 50–66. doi:10.1086/321947
60.
TianK. T.MckenzieK. (2012).
Need for the long-term predictive validity of the consumers’ scale uniqueness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 171–193. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1003_5
61.
ZweigenhaftR. L. (1981).
Unusual names and uniqueness. Journal of Social Psychology,
114(2), 297–298. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9922763
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
