The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA) is a self-report scale for measuring individual differences in the strength of responses to art objects and events. Its 14 items sort into three subscales: aesthetic appreciation (AA), intense aesthetic experience (IAE), and creative behaviour. The present research evaluated the dimensionality of the AReA using tools from network psychometrics, particularly bootstrap exploratory graph analysis. Using a sample of English-speaking adults (n = 1071), the network analyses closely replicated the number and item composition of the AReA subscales, but one of the items—a cross-loaded item proposed to be in both the AA and IAE subscales—was not replicated. Using the bootstrap sampling distributions, we suggest item assignments that avoid awkward dual-loadings and provide a simpler dimensional structure. Taken together, the results reveal clear strengths of the AReA and illustrate how emerging network tools can illuminate and guide psychometric decisions.
BlondelV. D.GuillaumeJ. L.LambiotteR.LefebvreE. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
2.
BorsboomD.CramerA. O. J.KievitR. A.ScholtenA. Z.FranićS. (2009). The end of construct validity. In The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications (pp. 135–170). Information Age Publishing.
3.
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
4.
ChristensenA. P. (2023). Unidimensional community detection: A Monte Carlo simulation, grid search, and comparison. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ep3vx
5.
ChristensenA. P.GarridoL. E.Guerra-PeñaK.GolinoH. (2023). Comparing community detection algorithms in psychometric networks: A Monte Carlo simulation. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02106-4.
6.
ChristensenA. P.GolinoH. (2021). Estimating the stability of psychological dimensions via bootstrap exploratory graph analysis: A Monte Carlo simulation and tutorial. Psych, 3(3), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3030032.
7.
ChristensenA. P.GolinoH.SilviaP. J. (2020). A psychometric network perspective on the validity and validation of personality trait questionnaires. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2265
8.
CotterK. N.ChenD. F.ChristensenA. P.KimK. Y.SilviaP. J. (2023a). 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
9.
CotterK. N.Rodriguez-BoerwinkleR. M.ChristensenA. P.FeketeA.SmithJ. K.SmithL. F.TinioP. P. L.SilviaP. 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
10.
DiessnerR.SolomR. D.FrostN. K.ParsonsL.DavidsonJ. (2008). Engagement with beauty: Appreciating natural, artistic, and moral beauty. The Journal of Psychology, 142(3), 303–332. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.142.3.303-332
11.
GolbabaeiS.ChristensenJ. F.VesselE. A.KazemianN.BorhaniK. (2023). The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA) in Farsi language: A scale validation and cultural adaptation study. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17(4), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000532.
12.
GolinoH.ChristensenA. P. (2023). EGAnet: Exploratory Graph Analysis—A framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics (2.0.3) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EGAnet
13.
GolinoH. F.EpskampS. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLOS ONE, 12(6), e0174035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174035
14.
GolinoH.ShiD.ChristensenA. P.GarridoL. E.NietoM. D.SadanaR.ThiyagarajanJ. A.Martinez-MolinaA. (2020). Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255.
15.
IsvoranuA. M.EpskampS. (2023). Which estimation method to choose in network psychometrics? Deriving guidelines for applied researchers. Psychological Methods, 28(4), 925–946. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000439
16.
JiménezM.AbadF. J.Garcia-GarzonE.GolinoH.ChristensenA. P.GarridoL. E. (2023). Dimensionality assessment in bifactor structures with multiple general factors: A network psychometrics approach. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000590
17.
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
18.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
19.
PonsP.LatapyM. (2006). Computing communities in large networks using random walks. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 10(2), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.7155/jgaa.00124
20.
Rodriguez-BoerwinkleR. M.SilviaP. J. (2023). Visiting virtual museums: How personality and art-related individual differences shape visitor behavior in an online virtual gallery. Empirical Studies of the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231196491.
21.
RodriguezR. M.SilviaP. J.KaufmanJ. C.Reiter-PalmonR.PuryearJ. S. (2023). Taking inventory of the creative behavior inventory: An item response theory analysis of the CBI. Creativity Research Journal, 35(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2183322
22.
SchlotzW.WallotS.OmigieD.MasucciM. D.HoelzmannS. C.VesselE. 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
23.
SilviaP. J.NusbaumE. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021914
24.
SilviaP. J.RodriguezR. M.BeatyR. E.FrithE.KaufmanJ. C.LoprinziP.Reiter-PalmonR. (2021). Measuring everyday creativity: A Rasch model analysis of the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (BICB) scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100797.
25.
SpeckerE.ForsterM.BrinkmannH.BoddyJ.PelowskiM.RosenbergR.LederH. (2020). The Vienna art interest and art knowledge questionnaire (VAIAK): A unified and validated measure of art interest and art knowledge. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000205
26.
TruppM. D.BignardiG.SpeckerE.VesselE. A.PelowskiM. (2023). Who benefits from online art viewing, and how: The role of pleasure, meaningfulness, and trait aesthetic responsiveness in computer-based art interventions for well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107764
27.
TschacherW.BergomiC.TröndleM. (2015). The Art Affinity Index (AAI): An instrument to assess art relation and art knowledge. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415594709
28.
WanzerD. L.FinleyK. P.ZarianS.CortezN. (2020). Experiencing flow while viewing art: Development of the aesthetic experience questionnaire. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000203
29.
WidamanK. F.RevelleW. (2023). Thinking thrice about sum scores, and then some more about measurement and analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 55(2), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01849-w
