Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Do aesthetic preferences for images of neatly organized compositions (e.g., images collected on blogs like Things Organized Neatly^©) generalize across cultures? In an earlier study, focusing on stimulus and personal properties related to order and complexity, Western participants indicated their preference for one of two simultaneously presented images (100 pairs). In the current study, we compared the data of the native Dutch-speaking participants from this earlier sample (N = 356) to newly collected data from a native Chinese-speaking sample (N = 220). Overall, aesthetic preferences were quite similar across cultures. When relating preferences for each sample to ratings of order, complexity, soothingness, and fascination collected from a Western, mainly Dutch-speaking sample, the results hint at a cross-culturally consistent preference for images that Western participants rate as more ordered, but a cross-culturally diverse relation between preferences and complexity.

Keywords

aesthetics order complexity simplicity cross-cultural differences

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlyne

D. E.

(1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593

Berlyne

D. E.

(1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Boland

J. E.

Chua

H. F.

Nisbett

R. E.

(2008). How we see it: Culturally different eye movement patterns over visual scenes. In Rayner

(Ed.), Cognitive and cultural influences on eye movements (pp. 363–378). People’s Publishing House.

Carciofo

Yang

Song

Zhang

(2016). Psychometric evaluation of Chinese-language 44-item and 10-item big five personality inventories, including correlations with chronotype, mindfulness and mind wandering. PLoS ONE, 11, e0149963. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149963

Chan

Eysenck

H. J.

Götz

K. O.

(1980). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: III. Cross-cultural comparison between Hong Kong children and adults, and English and Japanese samples. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 1325–1326. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.50.3c.1325

Che

Sun

Gallardo

Nadal

(2018). Cross-cultural empirical aesthetics. Progress in Brain Research, 237, 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.03.002

Chen

Huang

Wang

Shi

(2008). The revision of the personal need for structure scale in Chinese. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 44, 490–492. https://doi.org/10.13209/j.0479-8023.2008.076

Child

I. L.

Iwao

(1968). Personality and esthetic sensitivity: Extension of findings to younger age and to different culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 308–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025599

Choi

Dalal

Kim-Prieto

Park

(2003). Culture and judgment of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.46

10.

Chua

H. F.

Boland

J. E.

Nisbett

R. E.

(2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(35), 12629–12633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506162102

11.

Diedenhofen

Musch

(2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE, 10, e0121945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945

12.

Epskamp

Cramer

A. O. J.

Waldorp

L. J.

Schmittmann

V. D.

Borsboom

(2012). Qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i04

13.

Eysenck

H. J.

Iwawaki

(1971). Cultural relativity in aesthetic judgments: An empirical study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 817–818. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1971.32.3.817

14.

Eysenck

H. J.

Iwawaki

(1975). The determination of aesthetic judgment by race and sex. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923256

15.

Fingerhut

Brielmann

A. A.

Reindl

Pelowski

Kawabata

Prinz

J. J.

(2020). Is more more in visual art? People prefer complexity in art stimuli but there are cultural differences between Western-European and Eastern-Asian observers in what they judge to be good art. Manuscript in preparation.

16.

Graf

L. K. M.

Landwehr

J. R.

(2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978

17.

Graf

L. K. M.

Landwehr

J. R.

(2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: The two routes to aesthetic liking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015

18.

Harrel

F. E.

Jr (2019). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous (Version 4.2-0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc

19.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a

20.

Ishii

Miyamoto

Rule

N. O.

Toriyama

(2014). Physical objects as vehicles of cultural transmission: Maintaining harmony and uniqueness through colored geometric patterns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213508151

21.

Iwawaki, S., Eysenck, H. J., & Götz, K. O. (1979). A new Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST): II. cross-cultural comparison between England and Japan. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(3), 859–862. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.49.3.859

22.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

23.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138; BFI-44 printed on pp. 132). Guilford Press. Chinese edition: L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (2003, pp. 135–184; Chinese BFI-44 printed on pp.176 of the Chinese edition).

24.

Kitayama

Salvador

C. E.

(2024). Cultural psychology: Beyond east and west. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-021723-063333

25.

Lacko

Čeněk

Arikan

Dresler

Galang

A. J. R.

Stachoň

, … Šašinka

(2023). Investigating the cross-cultural differences in the analytic/holistic cognitive styles of eleven countries. PsyArXiV. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r8cjf

26.

Leder

Mikuni

Kawabata

Rosenberg

(2023). Symmetry as an inter-cultural feature constituting beauty: Implicit and explicit beauty evaluation of visual symmetry in Japan. Empirical Studies of the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231183377

27.

Masuda

Gonzalez

Kwan

Nisbett

R. E.

(2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of east asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1260–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320555

28.

Masuda

Nisbett

R. E.

(2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922

29.

Masuda

Wang

Ito

Senzaki

(2012). Culture and the mind: Implications for art, design, and advertisement. In Handbook of research on international advertising. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781001042

30.

Mattice

(2013). Artistry as methodology: Aesthetic experience and Chinese philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 8, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12014

31.

Miyamoto

(2013). Chapter three - culture and analytic versus holistic cognition: Toward multilevel analyses of cultural influences. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 131–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00003-6

32.

Neuberg

S. L.

Newsom

J. T.

(1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113

33.

Nisbett

R. E.

Masuda

(2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(19), 11163–11170. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1934527100

34.

Pelowski

Akiba

Palacios

(2012). Satori, koan and aesthetic experience: Exploring the “realization of emptiness” in Buddhist enlightenment via empirical study of modern art. Psyke & Logos, 33(2), 236–268. https://doi.org/10.7146/pl.v33i2.8738

35.

Radomsky

A. S.

Rachman

(2004). Symmetry, ordering and arranging compulsive behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 893–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.07.001

36.

R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/

37.

Redies

Amirshahi

S. A.

Koch

Denzler

(2012). PHOG-derived aesthetic measures applied to color photographs of artworks, natural scenes and objects. ECCV 2012 Workshops and Demonstrations, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7583, 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33863-2_54

38.

Redies

Brachmann

Hayn-Leichsenring

G. U.

(2015). Changes of statistical properties during the creation of graphic artworks. Art & Perception, 3, 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-00002017

39.

Revelle

(2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 1.8.12) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

40.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

41.

Thompson

M. M.

Naccarato

M. E.

Parker

K. C. H.

Moskowitz

G. B.

(2001). The personal need for structure (PNS) and personal fear of invalidity (PFI) scales: Historical perspectives, present applications and future directions. In Moskowitz

(Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 19–39). Erlbaum.

42.

Van Geert

Wagemans

(2020). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000224

43.

Van Geert

Wagemans

(2021). Order, complexity, and aesthetic preferences for neatly organized compositions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15, 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000276

44.

Wand

(2018). SemiPar: Semiparametic regression (Version 1.0-4.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SemiPar

45.

Wang

Masuda

Ito

Rashid

(2012). How much information? East Asian and north American cultural products and information search performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1539–1551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212455828

46.

Wei

Simko

(2017). corrplot: Visualization of a correlation matrix. R package version 0.84. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=corrplot

47.

Wickham

Averick

Bryan

Chang

D’Agostino McGowan

François

, … Yutani

(2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

48.

Wilke

C. O.

(2019). cowplot: Streamlined plot theme and plot annotations for ‘ggplot2’ (Version 1.0.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot

49.

Xie

(2020). knitr: A general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in R (Version 1.28) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/knitr/index.html

50.

Zhang

(2004). The ancient Chinese theory of simplicity as beauty and its special meaning in the history of aesthetics. Literature & Art Studies, 5(4), 38–46. https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/7747284/The_Ancient_Chinese_Theory_of_Simplicity_as_Beauty.htm

51.

Zou

G. Y.

(2007). Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations. Psychological Methods, 12, 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.399

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

0.31 MB

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Aesthetic Preferences for Neatly Organized Compositions: Native Chinese- Versus Native Dutch-Speaking Samples

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material