Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We examined how familiarity with low or high complexity images influences complexity, liking and understanding judgments. Participants were first familiarized with either low or high complexity images. They then rated a set of intermediately complex images on perceived complexity, liking, and understanding. Data were analyzed using Bayesian mixed-effects models, controlling for declarative art knowledge, art interest, and visual art recognition. Participants familiarized with high complexity images rated intermediately complex images as less complex, indicating a contrast effect. Higher declarative art knowledge was linked to increased complexity ratings. Additionally, liking judgments were predicted by complexity ratings, especially among participants familiarized with simpler images, revealing that prior exposure shapes the relationship between complexity and liking. In contrast, understanding judgments were unaffected by complexity ratings or familiarization. These findings highlight the role of prior exposure in shaping visual complexity judgments, demonstrating how familiarity with certain complexity levels recalibrates perceptual baselines and influences subsequent evaluative judgments.

Keywords

visual complexity liking understanding familiarization art knowledge

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aksentijevic

Gibson

(2012). Psychological complexity and the cost of information processing. Theory & Psychology, 22(5), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311423435

Attneave

(1957). Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043921

Attneave

Arnoult

M. D.

(1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 53(6), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044049

Bae

Self

J. A.

Kim

(2019). Rich unboxing experiences: Complexity in product packaging and its influence upon product expectations. Journal of Design Research, 17(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2019.102230

Beebe-Center

J. G.

Pratt

C. C.

(1927). A test of Birkhoff’s aesthetic measure. Journal of General Psychology, 17(2), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1937.9918004

Berlyne

D. E.

(1958). The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0043555

Berlyne

D. E.

(1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593

Berlyne

D. E.

(1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1972). Ends and means of experimental aesthetics. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 26(4), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082439

10.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In Berlyne

D. E.

(Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 121–158). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

11.

Betancourt

(2017). A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. ArXiv Preprint, arXiv:1701.02434. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02434

12.

Birkhoff

G. D.

(1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674734470

13.

Bürkner

P. C.

(2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/JSS.V080.I01

14.

Carballal

Fernandez-Lozano

Rodriguez-Fernandez

Santos

Romero

(2020). Comparison of outlier-tolerant models for measuring visual complexity. Entropy, 22(4), 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/E22040488

15.

Chatterjee

(2003). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 4(2), 55–60.

16.

Chatterjee

Vartanian

(2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003v

17.

Chen

Sun

Zhou

Shu

(2023). Simple or complex: How temporal landmarks shape consumer preference for food packages. Food Quality and Preference, 104, 104734. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2022.104734

18.

Chipman

S. F.

(1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 269–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.269

19.

Chipman

S. F.

Mendelson

M. J.

(1979). Influence of six types of visual structure on complexity judgments in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.5.2.365

20.

Chu

S. L.

Fedorovskaya

Quek

Snyder

(2013). The effect of familiarity on perceived interestingness of images [paper presentation]. Proceedings of SPIE: The International Society for Optical Engineering, 8651, 86511C. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2008551

21.

Clemente

Pearce

M. T.

Skov

Nadal

(2021). Evaluative judgment across domains: Liking balance, contour, symmetry and complexity in melodies and visual designs. Brain and Cognition, 151, 105729. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDC.2021.105729

22.

Commare

Rosenberg

Leder

(2018). More than the sum of its parts: Perceiving complexity in painting. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/ACA0000186

23.

Corradi

Chuquichambi

E. G.

Barrada

J. R.

Clemente

Nadal

(2020). A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 630–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12427

24.

Davis

R. C.

(1936). An evaluation and test of Birkhoff’s aesthetic measure. Journal of General Psychology, 15(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1936.9917921

25.

Donderi

D. C.

(2006). An information theory analysis of visual complexity and dissimilarity. Perception, 35(6), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5249

26.

Donderi

D. C.

McFadden

(2005). Compressed file length predicts search time and errors on visual displays. Displays, 26(2), 18–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2005.02.002

27.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062483

28.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1942). The experimental study of the ‘Good Gestalt’ – A new approach. Psychological Review, 49(4), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057013

29.

Eysenck

H. J.

Castle

(1970). Training in art as a factor in the determination of preference judgments for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1970.tb02802.x

30.

Fechner

G. T.

(1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.

31.

Forsythe

Mulhern

Sawey

(2008). Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.116

32.

Forsythe

Nadal

Sheehy

Cela-Conde

C. J.

Sawey

(2011). Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X498958

33.

Forsythe

Sheehy

Sawey

(2003). Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 334–342. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202562

34.

Furnham

Boo

H. C.

(2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008

35.

García

Badre

A. N.

Stasko

J. T.

(1994). Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers, 6(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0953-5438(94)90024-8

36.

Gartus

Leder

(2017). Predicting perceived visual complexity of abstract patterns using computational measures: The influence of mirror symmetry on complexity perception. Plos One, 12, e0185276. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185276

37.

Gelman

Carlin

J. B.

Stern

H. S.

Dunson

D. B.

Vehtari

Rubin

D. B.

(2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd edn.). London: CRC Press.

38.

Gelman

Hill

(2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Gelman

Rubin

D. B.

(1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1214/SS/1177011136

40.

Güçlütürk

Jacobs

R. H. A. H.

Van Lier

(2016). Liking versus complexity: Decomposing the inverted U-curve. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00112

41.

Hall

A. C.

(1969). Measures of the complexity of random black and white and coloured stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29(3), 773–774. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1969.29.3.773

42.

Henderson

J. M.

(2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.006

43.

Imamoglu

Ç.

(2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0155

44.

Jakesch

Leder

(2015). The qualitative side of complexity: Testing effects of ambiguity on complexity judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039350

45.

Krueger

L. E.

(1975). Familiarity effects in visual information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 82(6), 949–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.949

46.

Kruschke

J. K.

(2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. London: Academic Press.

47.

Kruschke

J. K.

(2018). Rejecting or accepting parameter values in Bayesian estimation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918771304

48.

Kruschke

J. K.

Liddell

T. M.

(2018). The Bayesian new statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(1), 178–206. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13423-016-1221-4

49.

Lazard

A. J.

King

A. J.

(2020). Objective design to subjective evaluations: Connecting visual complexity to aesthetic and usability assessments of eHealth. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1606976

50.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

Augustin

(2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811

51.

Lee

J. H.

Ostwald

M. J.

(2023). The ‘visual attractiveness’ of architectural facades: Measuring visual complexity and attractive strength in architecture. Architectural Science Review, 66(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2022.2137458

52.

Machado

Romero

Nadal

Santos

Correia

Carballal

(2015). Computerized measures of visual complexity. Acta Psychologica, 160, 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.005

53.

Makowski

Ben-Shachar

Lüdecke

(2019). Bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), 1541. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01541

54.

Marin

M. M.

(2022). The role of collative variables in aesthetic experiences. In Nadal

Vartanian

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 385–429). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198824350.013.20

55.

Marin

M. M.

Leder

(2013). Examining complexity across domains: Relating subjective and objective measures of affective environmental scenes, paintings and music. PLoS ONE, 8, e72412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072412

56.

McCormack

Cruz Gambardella

(2022). Complexity and aesthetics in generative and evolutionary art. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 23(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10710-022-09429-9/TABLES/5

57.

McDougall

S. J. P.

Curry

M. B.

de Bruijn

(1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31(3), 487–519. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200730

58.

McElreath

(2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan (2nd edn.). London: CRC Press.

59.

Michailidou

Eraslan

Yesilada

Harper

(2021). Automated prediction of visual complexity of web pages: Tools and evaluations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 145, 102523. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHCS.2020.102523

60.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

Vevea

J. L.

Citkowicz

Lauber

E. A.

(2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085

61.

Morey

R. D.

Hoekstra

Rouder

J. N.

Lee

M. D.

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(2016). The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13423-015-0947-8/FIGURES/7

62.

Nadal

Munar

Marty

Cela-Conde

(2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d

63.

Nadal

Skov

(2025). The sensory valuation account of aesthetic experience. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00385-y

64.

Nadal

Vartanian

(2022). Empirical aesthetics: An overview. In Nadal

Vartanian

(Eds.), The oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 3–38). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198824350.013.1

65.

Nath

S. S.

Brändle

Schulz

Dayan

Brielmann

. (2024). Relating objective complexity, subjective complexity, and beauty in binary pixel patterns. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ACA0000657

66.

Palumbo

Ogden

Makin

A. D. J.

Bertamini

(2014). Examining visual complexity and its influence on perceived duration. Journal of Vision, 14(14), 3. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.14.3

67.

Park

Shimojo

(2010). Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(33), 14552–14555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004374107

68.

Pelowski

Markey

P. S.

Forster

Gerger

Leder

(2017). Move me, astonish me … delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003

69.

R Core Team . (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 4.3.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

70.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

71.

Skov

Nadal

(2021). The nature of beauty: Behavior, cognition, and neurobiology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1488(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14524

72.

Snodgrass

J. G.

Vanderwart

(1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174

73.

Specker

Forster

Brinkmann

Boddy

Pelowski

Rosenberg

Leder

(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

74.

Stoesz

B. M.

Niknam

Sutton

(2020). Defining the visual complexity of learning management systems using image metrics and subjective ratings. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 46(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27899

75.

Sun

Che

Nadal

Leder

(2025). Information and affective valence influence judgments of complexity, liking and understanding. British Journal of Psychology. Early Online View. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70037

76.

Tatarkiewicz

(1972). The great rheory of beauty and its decline. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/429278

77.

Tinio

P. P. L.

Leder

(2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001

78.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

79.

Van Geert

Wagemans

(2020). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/ACA0000224

80.

Van Geert

Wagemans

(2021). Order, complexity, and aesthetic references for neatly organized compositions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(3), 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000276

81.

Wang

Chen

Jiang

(2024). Simpler is greener: The impact of packaging visual complexity on products’ eco-friendliness perception. Psychology & Marketing, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/MAR.22096

82.

Zhang

Liu

X. L.

Reder

L. M.

(2020). Familiarity acts as a reduction in objective complexity. Memory & Cognition, 48, 1376–1387. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01055-z

83.

Zhou

E. Y.

Wilder

Damiano

Walther

D. B.

(2023). Neural dissociation between computational and subjective image complexity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ACA0000605

Exposure to Different Levels of Visual Complexity Influences Judgments of Complexity and Liking

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References