Whether aesthetic perception is stable over time for individuals and among individuals remains to be elucidated. In the current study, we investigated the effects of physical properties and categories of image features, and personal traits, on within- and across-participant visual aesthetic consistencies. We constructed an image library that consisted of 598 pictures and covered nine different categories. Forty-three adults without previous experience in art training conducted aesthetic evaluations of all images with a 7-point Likert scale twice on two consecutive days. The results mainly indicated that (a) complexity of images had a negative correlation on both within- and across-participant consistencies, while average hue had a positive effect; (b) concreteness of images contributed greatly to consistencies, with abstract images being associated with lower consistencies; (c) personal traits did not correlate with visual aesthetic consistencies. Our findings suggest that some stimulus-related, rather than person-related factors have effects on visual aesthetic consistency.
AmirshahiS. A.KochM.DenzlerJ.RediesC. (2012). PHOG analysis of self-similarity in aesthetic images. SPIE Proceedings, 8291, 82911J. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.911973
2.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
3.
BornsteinM. H.BerlyneD. E. (1975). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.2307/428656
ChenY. C.ChangA.RosenbergM. D.FengD.SchollB. J.TrainorL. J. (2022). “Taste typicality” is a foundational and multi-modal dimension of ordinary aesthetic experience. Current Biology, 32(8), 1837–1842.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.039
8.
DosherB. A.LuZ. L. (1998). Perceptual learning reflects external noise filtering and internal noise reduction through channel reweighting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(23), 13988–13993. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.23.13988
9.
EysenckH. J.EysenckS. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire.San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
10.
ForsytheA.NadalM.SheehyN.Cela-CondeC. J.SaweyM. (2011). Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610x498958
11.
GardD. E.GardM. G.KringA. M.JohnO. P. (2006). Anticipatory and consummatory components of the experience of pleasure: A scale development study. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1086–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.001
12.
GrahamD.StockingerS.LederH. (2013). An island of stability: Art images and natural scenes–but not natural faces–show consistent esthetic response in Alzheimer’s-related dementia. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00107
13.
HalpernA. R.LyJ.Elkin-FrankstonS.O’ConnorM.G. (2008). “I know what I like”: Stability of aesthetic preference in Alzheimer’s patients. Brain and Cognition, 66(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2007.05.008
14.
IigayaK.YiS.WahleI. A.TanwisuthK.O’DohertyJ. P. (2021). Aesthetic preference for art can be predicted from a mixture of low- and high-level visual features. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(6), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01124-6
15.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.3.4.289
16.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. E. A. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(3), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755
17.
KurdiB.LozanoS.BanajiM. R. (2016). Introducing the open affective standardized image set (OASIS). Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0715-3
18.
LangP. J.BradleyM. M.CuthbertB. N. (2008). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
19.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
20.
LederH.GollerJ.RigottiT.ForsterM. (2016). Private and shared taste in art and face appreciation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00155
McManusI. C.CookR.HuntA. (2010). Beyond the golden section and normative aesthetics: Why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preferences for rectangles?Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017316
23.
MyszkowskiN.StormeM.ZenasniF.LubartT. (2014). Is visual aesthetic sensitivity independent from intelligence, personality and creativity?Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.021
24.
PelliD. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897x00366
25.
PugachC.DaleyE.LederH.GrahamD. J. (2014). Aesthetic stability in development. In: Proceedings of the international association for empirical aesthetics biennial congress, New York, NY, August 2014.
26.
PugachC.LederH.GrahamD. J. (2017). How stable are human aesthetic preferences across the lifespan?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00289
27.
RCore Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
28.
RavenJ.RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H. (2003). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment: Pearson.
29.
RediesC. (2015). Combining universal beauty and cultural context in a unifying model of visual aesthetic experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00218
30.
RediesC.AmirshahiS. A.DenzlerJ. (2012). PHOG-derived aesthetic measures applied to color photographs of artworks, natural scenes and objects. In A. Fusiello, V. Murino, & R. Cucchiara (Eds.) European conference on computer vision (pp. 522–531). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33863-2_54
31.
RediesC.GrebenkinaM.MohseniM.KaduhmA.DobelC. (2020). Global image properties predict ratings of affective pictures. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00953
32.
RizviS. J.PizzagalliD. A.SprouleB. A.KennedyS. H. (2016). Assessing anhedonia in depression: Potentials and pitfalls. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 65, 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.004
33.
SchepmanA.RodwayP.PullenS. J.KirkhamJ. (2015). Shared liking and association valence for representational art but not abstract art. Journal of Vision, 15(5), 11. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.5.11
34.
Van GeertE.WagemansJ. (2021). Order, complexity, and aesthetic preferences for neatly organized compositions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(3), 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000276
35.
VerhavertS.WagemansJ.AugustinM. D. (2017). Beauty in the blink of an eye: The time course of aesthetic experiences. British Journal of Psychology,109(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12258
36.
VesselE. A.MaurerN.DenkerA.StarrG. G. (2018). Stronger shared taste for natural aesthetic domains than for artifacts of human culture. Cognition, 179, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.009
37.
VesselE. A.RubinN. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 18–18. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.2.18
38.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
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.
