Visiting Virtual Museums: How Personality and Art-Related Individual Differences Shape Visitor Behavior in an Online Virtual Gallery

Abstract

The present study explored how personality shapes encounters with art within a virtual art gallery. An online sample of 264 adults completed questionnaires before freely wandering around a virtual gallery, which spanned three rooms and contained 24 artworks (half abstract, half representational) of various sizes and genres. We examined how the Big Five personality traits, aesthetic fluency, and aesthetic responsiveness predicted visit behavior: overall visit time, distance traveled in the gallery, the proportion of time spent viewing artwork, and how long and from what distance people viewed each individual artwork. Openness to experience had widespread effects on virtual visit behaviors, followed by extraversion, and variation in artwork features (area and abstraction) predicted viewing time and distance for individual artworks. We discuss how virtual galleries may contribute to understanding both traditional museum visitors and the emerging study of online virtual visitors.

Keywords

aesthetics virtual art personality openness to experience museum studies visitor studies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aeschbach

V. M.

Schipperges

Braun

M. A.

Ehret

Ruess

Sahintuerk

Thomaschke

(2022). Less is more: The effect of visiting duration on the perceived restorativeness of museums. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000475

Agostino

Arnaboldi

Lampis

(2020). Italian state museums during the COVID-19 crisis: From onsite closure to online openness. Museum Management and Curatorship, 35(4), 362–372.

Amichai-Hamburger

Wainapel

Fox

(2002). “On the Internet no one knows I’m an introvert”: Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 125–128.

Atari

Afhami

Mohammadi-Zarghan

(2020). Exploring aesthetic fluency: The roles of personality, nature relatedness, and art activities. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 125–131.

Belke

Leder

Augustin

(2006). Mastering style: Effects of explicit style-related information, art knowledge and affective state on appreciation of abstract paintings. Psychology Science, 48(2), 115–134.

Brida

J. G.

Nogare

C. D.

Scuderi

(2017). Learning at the museum: Factors influencing visit length. Tourism Economics, 23(2), 281–294.

Brieber

Nadal

Leder

Rosenberg

(2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99019.

Carbon

C.-C.

(2017). Art perception in the museum: How we spend time and space in art exhibitions. I-Perception, 8(1), 2041669517694184.

Chamorro-Premuzic

Furnham

Reimers

(2007). The artistic personality. The Psychologist, 20(2), 84–87.

10.

Chamorro-Premuzic

Reimers

Hsu

Ahmetoglu

(2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100(3), 501–516.

11.

Clarke

J. C.

Shortess

G. K.

Richter

M. L.

(1984). Stimulus size, viewing distance, and experimental aesthetics. Visual Arts Research, 10(2), 1–8.

12.

Cotter

K. N.

Chen

D. F.

Christensen

A. P.

Kim

K. Y.

Silvia

P. J.

(2023). Measuring art knowledge: Item response theory and differential item functioning analysis of the Aesthetic Fluency Scale. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17(3), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000397

13.

Cotter, K. N., Crone, D. L., Rodriguez-Boerwinkle, R. M., Boerwinkle, M., Silvia, P. J., & Pawelski, J. O. (2022). Examining the flourishing impacts of repeated visits to a virtual art museum and the role of immersion. Behavioral Sciences, 12(12), 500. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12120500

14.

Cotter

K. N.

Fekete

Silvia

P. J.

(2022). Why do people visit art museums? Examining visitor motivations and visit outcomes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 40(2), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374211011740

15.

Cotter

K. N.

Harrouche

Rodriguez-Boerwinkle

R. M.

Boerwinkle

Silvia

P. J.

Pawelski

J. O.

(2023a).

Virtual art visits: Examining the effects of slow looking on well-being in an online environment

. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000548

16.

Cotter

K. N.

Rodriguez-Boerwinkle

R. M.

Christensen

A. P.

Fekete

Smith

J. K.

Smith

L. F.

Tinio

P. P. L.

Silvia

P. J.

(2023b). Updating the aesthetic fluency scale: Revised long and short forms for research in the psychology of the arts. PLoS One, 18(2), e0281547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281547

17.

Cumming

(2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

18.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.

19.

Ebeling-Witte

Frank

M. L.

Lester

(2007). Shyness, Internet use, and personality. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(5), 713–716.

20.

Estrada-Gonzalez

East

Garbutt

Spehar

(2020). Viewing art in different contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(569), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00569

21.

Fayn

MacCann

Tiliopoulos

Silvia

P. J.

(2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and pleasure. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(215), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01877

22.

Feist

G. J.

Brady

T. R.

(2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77–89.

23.

Fekete

Pelowski

Specker

Brieber

Rosenberg

Leder

(2022). The Vienna Art Picture System (VAPS): A data set of 999 paintings and subjective ratings for art and aesthetics research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000460

24.

Furnham

Walker

(2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 57–72.

25.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34.

26.

Grincheva

(2018). Researching online museums: Digital methods to study virtual visitors. In Research methods for the digital humanities (pp. 103–128). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96713-4_7

27.

Kaufman

S. B.

Quilty

L. C.

Grazioplene

R. G.

Hirsh

J. B.

Gray

J. R.

Peterson

J. B.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258.

28.

Lee

J. W.

Kim

Lee

S. H.

(2019). Digital museum and user experience: The case of Google art & culture. In International Symposium on Electronic Art.

29.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.

30.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO personality inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 182–191.

31.

Mastandrea

Bartoli

Bove

(2009). Preferences for ancient and modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteristics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 164–173.

32.

McCrae

R. R.

(2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 5–11.

33.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128.

34.

Meyer

Thoma

G. B.

Kampschulte

Köller

(2023). Openness to experience and museum visits: Intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, and creative imagination predict the frequency of visits to different types of museums. Journal of Research in Personality, 103, 104352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104352

35.

Pelowski

Forster

Tinio

P. P.

Scholl

Leder

(2017). Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with “real” and museum-based art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(3), 245–264.

36.

Peterson

R. A.

Cavanaugh

J. E.

(2020) Ordered quantile normalization: A semiparametric transformation built for the cross-validation era. Journal of Applied Statistics, 47, 2312–2327.

37.

R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Downloaded from https://www.R-project.org

38.

Reitstätter

Brinkmann

Santini

Specker

Dare

Bakondi

,…& Rosenberg

(2020). The display makes a difference: A mobile eye tracking study on the perception of art before and after a museum’s rearrangement. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.2.6

39.

Rijksmuseum Masterpieces Up Close. (n.d.). Rijksmuseum.Nl. Retrieved October 24, 2022, from https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/masterpieces-up-close

40.

Rodriguez

R. M.

Fekete

Silvia

P. J.

Cotter

K. N.

(2021). The art of feeling different: Measuring and exploring the diversity of emotions experienced during a museum visit. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000443

41.

Rodriguez-Boerwinkle

R. M.

Boerwinkle

Silvia

P. J.

(2023). The Open Gallery for Arts Research: An open-source tool for studying the psychology of virtual art museum visits. Behavioral Research Methods, 55, 824–842. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01857-w

42.

Schlotz

Wallot

Omigie

Masucci

M. D.

Hoelzmann

S. C.

Vessel

E. A.

(2021). The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA): A screening tool to assess individual differences in responsiveness to art in English and German. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000348

43.

Schwaba

Luhmann

Denissen

J. J. A.

Chung

J. M.

Bleidorn

(2018). Openness to experience and culture-openness transactions across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000150

44.

Seidel

Prinz

(2018). Great works: A reciprocal relationship between spatial magnitudes and aesthetic judgment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(1), 2–10.

45.

Silvia

P. J.

(2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(4), 247–249.

46.

Silvia

P. J.

Fayn

Nusbaum

E. C.

Beaty

R. E.

(2015). Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376–384.

47.

Silvia

P. J.

Nusbaum

E. C.

(2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 208–214.

48.

Smith

J. K.

(2014). The museum effect: How museums, libraries, and cultural institutions educate and civilize society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

49.

Smith

J. K.

Smith

L. F.

(2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 229–236.

50.

Smith

L. F.

Bousquet

S. G.

Chang

Smith

J. K.

(2006). Effects of time and information on perception of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(2), 229–242.

51.

Smith

L. F.

Smith

J. K.

(2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In Locher

Martindale

Dorfman

(Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 47–58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

52.

Smith

L. F.

Smith

J. K.

Tinio

P. P. L.

(2017). Time spent viewing art and reading labels. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 77–85.

53.

Specht

S. M.

(2010). Artists’ statements can influence perceptions of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 193–206.

54.

Sundar

S. S.

Kim

H. S.

Zhang

(2015). Communicating art, virtually! Psychological effects of technological affordances in a virtual museum. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(6), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1033912

55.

Swami

Furnham

(2014). Personality and aesthetic experiences. In Tinio

P. P.

Smith

J. K.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 540–561). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

56.

Sylaiou

Mania

Paliokas

Pujol-Tost

Killintzis

Liarokapis

(2017). Exploring the educational impact of diverse technologies in online virtual museums. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 10(1), 58–84. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2017.083907

57.

Tröndle

Wintzerith

Wäspe

Tschacher

(2012). A museum for the twenty-first century: The influence of “sociality” on art reception in museum space. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(5), 461–486.

58.

Twomey

D. R. F.

Burns

Morris

(1998). Personality, creativity, and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism, sensation seeking, schizotypy, and openness to experience. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16(2), 153–178.

59.

Van Paasschen

Bacci

Melcher

D. P.

(2015). The influence of art expertise and training on emotion and preference ratings for representational and abstract artworks. PLoS One, 10(8), e0134241.

60.

Weibel

Wissmath

Mast

F. W.

(2010). Immersion in mediated environments: The role of personality traits. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 251–256.

61.

Whitty

Cossell

Dang

K. S.

Guivant

Katupitiya

(2010). Autonomous navigation using a real-time 3d point cloud. In 2010 Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 1–3).

62.

Yalowitz

S. S.

Bronnenkant

(2009). Timing and tracking: Unlocking visitor behavior. Visitor Studies, 12(1), 47–64.

63.

Zhou

Fishbach

(2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000056

64.

Zuckerman

(2007). The sensation seeking scale V (SSS-V): Still reliable and valid. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1303–1305.

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.

0.00 MB

0.49 MB