Lines contribute to the visual experience of drawings. People show a higher preference for curved than sharp angled lines. We studied preference for curvature using drawings of commonly-used objects drawn by design students. We also investigated the relationship of that preference with drawing preference. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed preference for the curved drawings in the laboratory and web-based contexts, respectively. Experiment 3 showed that the curved drawings were also preferred to draw than the sharp-angled ones. However, this effect only appeared when the drawings were made by hand, but not when they were made by computer. We found a moderate positive correlation between liking and drawing preference. This relationship was mainly explained by the hand-made drawings. Sex, art experience and openness to experience did not influence preference for curvature. Altogether, our findings support the curvature effect and the hypothesis that people prefer to draw what they like to see.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/0.18637/jss.v067.i01
4.
BertaminiM.PalumboL. (2015). The aesthetics of smooth contour curvature in historical contest. Art and Its Role in the History of the Balkans.
5.
BertaminiM.PalumboL.GheorghesT. N.GalatsidasM. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity?British Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132
6.
BertaminiM.SinicoM. (2021). A study of objects with smooth or sharp features created as line drawings by individuals trained in design. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 39(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237419897048
7.
BoyatzisC. J.EadesJ. (1999). Gender differences in preschoolers’ and kindergartners’ artistic production and preference. Sex Roles, 41(7–8), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018855707332
8.
BrauerM.CurtinJ. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159
9.
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
10.
ChatterjeeA.WidickP.SternscheinR.SmithW. B.BrombergerB. (2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.f
11.
ChuquichambiE. G.PalumboL.ReyC.MunarE. (2021). Shape familiarity modulates preference for curvature in drawings of common-use objects. PeerJ, 9, e11772. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11772
12.
CoburnA.VartanianO.KenettY. N.NadalM.HartungF.Hayn-LeichsenringG., … ChatterjeeA. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 108, 279–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009
13.
CorradiG.BelmanM.CurròT.ChuquichambiE. G.ReyC.NadalM. (2019a). Aesthetic sensitivity to curvature in real objects and abstract designs. Acta Psychologica, 197, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.05.012
14.
CorradiG.ChuquichambiE. G.BarradaJ. R.ClementeA.NadalM. (2019b). A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 630–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12427
15.
CorradiG.MunarE. (2020). The curvature effect. In Nadal RobertsM.VartanianO. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (Vol. 34, pp. 35–52). Oxford: Oxford Univerisity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198824350.013.24
16.
CotterK. N.SilviaP. J.BertaminiM.PalumboL.VartanianO. (2017). Curve appeal: Exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. I-Perception, 8(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517693023
DinhamJ. (1989). Drawing: What is it and why has it traditionally held a special place in Art programme?Journal of Art & Design Education, 8(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.1989.tb00263.x
19.
Gómez-PuertoG.MunarE.NadalM. (2016). Preference for curvature: A historical and conceptual framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00712
20.
Gómez-PuertoG.RossellóJ.CorradiG.Acedo-CarmonaC.MunarE.NadalM. (2017). Preference for curved contours across cultures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000135
21.
HoughtonN. (2016). Six into one: The contradictory art school curriculum and how it came about. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/JADE.12039
22.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. London: Routledge.
23.
HůlaM.FlegrJ. (2016). What flowers do we like? The influence of shape and color on the rating of flower beauty. PeerJ, 2016(6), e2106. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2106
24.
HumphreyD. (1997). Preferences in symmetries and symmetries in drawings: asymmetries between ages and sexes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.2190/df5n-hgfb-mvpk-u34d
25.
JadvaV.HinesM.GolombokS. (2010). Infants’ preferences for toys, colors, and shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1261–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z
26.
KozbeltA.SeidelA.ElBassiounyA.MarkY.OwenD. R. (2010). Visual selection contributes to artists’ advantages in realistic drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017657
LundholmH. (1920). The affective tone of lines: Experimental researches. Psychological Review, 28(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072647
29.
MaceM. A.WardT. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_5
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). Opensesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
32.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO five-factor inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1
33.
McElroyW. A. (1954). A sex difference in preferences for shapes. British Journal of Psychology, 64(4), 209–216.
34.
NadalM.MunarE.MartyG.Cela-CondeC.-J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty apprecitation. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d
35.
PalumboL.RamponeG.BertaminiM.SinicoM.ClarkeE.VartanianO. (2020). Visual preference for abstract curvature and for interior spaces: beyond undergraduate student samples. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000359
36.
PalumboL.RutaN.BertaminiM. (2015). Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses. Plos One, 10(10), e0140043. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140043
37.
ParkJ.ShimojoE.ShimojoS. (2010). Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(33), 14552–14555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004374107
38.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
39.
RutaN.VañóJ.PepperellR.CorradiG. B.ChuquichambiE. G.ReyC.MunarE. (2021). Preference for paintings is also affected by curvature. Psychology of the Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000395
40.
SchrollR.SchnurrB.GrewalD. (2018). Humanizing products with handwritten typefaces. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 648–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy014
41.
SilviaP. J.BaronaC. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b
42.
SingmannH.BolkerB.WestfallJ.AustF. (2016). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R Package Version 0.18-0.
43.
SinicoM.BertaminiM.SoranzoA. (2021). Perceiving intersensory and emotional qualities of everyday objects: A study on smoothness or sharpness features with line drawings by designers. Art & Perception, 9(3), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-BJA10026
44.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. California: Sage Publications.
45.
StoetG. (2017). Psytoolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643
46.
TaylorR. E.EisenmanR. (1964). Perception and production of complexity by creative Art students. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 57(1), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1964.9916693
47.
TinioP. P. L. (2013). From artistic creation to aesthetic reception: The mirror model of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030872
48.
VartanianO.NavarreteG.ChatterjeeA.FichL. B.LederH.RostrupN., … SkovM. (2017). Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts preference. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000150
49.
WashburnD.HumphreyD. (2001). Symmetries in the mind: Production, perception, and preference for seven one-dimensional patterns. Visual Arts Research, 27(2), 57–68.
50.
WilliamsL.McSorleyE.McCloyR. (2018). The relationship between aesthetic and drawing preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000188
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.
