A fleeting glimpse of an imposing edifice may elicit a transient perception of beauty in many observers. However, aesthetic judgments formed after prolonged contemplation of its architectural style, cultural significance, and personal relevance are not always congruent with the initial glance-based aesthetic impressions. The precise impact of elaborative cognitive processing on aesthetic judgments across and within observers remains to be fully elucidated. Within the framework of the Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking (PIA model), the present study delves into the potential influence of automatic (rapid, mainly stimulus-driven) and controlled (elaborate, mainly perceiver-driven) processing on both aesthetic reliability and aesthetic agreement (shared aesthetic taste), examining whether these two aesthetic measures exhibit coupled or independent effects. Additionally, we investigate whether the impact of cognitive processing on aesthetic agreement and aesthetic reliability varies depending on the stimulus domain, contrasting natural stimuli (e.g., faces) with human-made stimuli (e.g., artistic paintings). Our findings demonstrate that controlled processing based on elaboration reduces aesthetic agreement compared to automatic processing. This decline in between-subject aesthetic agreement is independent of within-subject aesthetic reliability, which can be reduced by extending the test-retest interval or employing more liberal lexical associations. Furthermore, natural stimuli elicit higher aesthetic agreement than human-made stimuli under automatic processing, but not under controlled processing. Notably, agreements of aesthetic judgment demonstrated consistent correlations across different stimulus categories. The implications of our findings are discussed in light of a hierarchical structure encompassing two aesthetic valuation systems.
Babo-RebeloM.ChatelM.TabacchiS.NamiqA.TraversE.JamesK.HaggardP. (2022). Aesthetic experience enhances first-person spatial representation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(43), e2201540119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201540119
BelfiA. M.VesselE. A.BrielmannA.IsikA. I.ChatterjeeA.LederH.StarrG. G. (2019). Dynamics of aesthetic experience are reflected in the default-mode network. NeuroImage, 188, 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.017
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH. (2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica, 154, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004
BrielmannA. A.ValeL.PelliD. G. (2017). Beauty at a glance: The feeling of beauty and the amplitude of pleasure are independent of stimulus duration. Journal of Vision, 17(14), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.14.9
10.
BronstadP. M.RussellR. (2007). Beauty is in the ‘we’ of the beholder: Greater agreement on facial attractiveness among close relations. Perception, 36(11), 1674–1681. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5793
11.
BuijsA. E.ElandsB. H.LangersF. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003
ChanR. C.ShiY. F.LaiM. K.WangY. N.WangY.KringA. M. (2012). The temporal experience of pleasure scale (TEPS): Exploration and confirmation of factor structure in a healthy Chinese sample. PloS one, 7(4), e35352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035352
14.
ChatterjeeA. (2003). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 4, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/e514602010-003
ChatterjeeA. (2022). An early framework for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. In ChatterjeeA.CardiloE. R. (Eds.), Brain, beauty, and art: Essays bringing neuroaesthetics into focus (pp. 3–13). Oxford University Press.
17.
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.f
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.039
20.
ColtheartM. (1980). The persistences of vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 290(1038), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1980.0082
21.
CoreyD. M.DunlapW. P.BurkeM. J. (1998). Averaging correlations: Expected values and bias in combined Pearson's r and fisher’s z transformations. The Journal of General Psychology, 125(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309809595548
22.
CorradiG.Rosselló-MirJ.VañóJ.ChuquichambiE.BertaminiM.MunarE. (2019). The effects of presentation time on preference for curvature of real objects and meaningless novel patterns. British Journal of Psychology, 110(4), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12367
23.
CupchikG. C.VartanianO.CrawleyA.MikulisD. J. (2009). Viewing artworks: Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain and Cognition, 70(1), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003
EpsteinR. A.HigginsJ. S.ParkerW.AguirreG. K.CoopermanS. (2006). Cortical correlates of face and scene inversion: A comparison. Neuropsychologia, 44(7), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.10.009
26.
Estrada-GonzálezV.YounN. J.CardilloE. R.ChatterjeeA. (2025). Slow-looking enhances aesthetic experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2552793
EvansJ. S. B.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
29.
FarzanfarD.WaltherD. B. (2023). Changing what you like: Modifying contour properties shifts aesthetic valuations of scenes. Psychological Science, 34(10), 1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231190546
30.
FechnerG. T. (1876). Preschool of aesthetics. Breitkopf & Härtel.
31.
FisherR. A. (1921). On the “probable error” of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 3–32.
32.
FrascaroliJ.LederHBratticoEVan de CruysS. (2023). Aesthetics and predictive processing: Grounds and prospects of a fruitful encounter. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 379(1895), 20220410. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0410
33.
GawronskiB.CreightonL. A. (2013). Dual process theories. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 282–312). Oxford University Press.
34.
GergerG.LederH. (2015). Titles change the esthetic appreciations of paintings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464
35.
GermineL.RussellR.BronstadP. M.BloklandG. A.SmollerJ. W.KwokH.WilmerJ. B. (2015). Individual aesthetic preferences for faces are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Current Biology, 25(20), 2684–2689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048
GrafL. K. M.LandwehrJ. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
38.
GrafL. K. M.LandwehrJ. 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
39.
HönekoppJ. (2006). Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199
40.
HuangY.XueX.SpelkeE.HuangL.ZhengW.PengK. (2018). The aesthetic preference for symmetry dissociates from early-emerging attention to symmetry. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 6263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24558-x
41.
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
42.
IigayaK.YiS.WahleI. A.TanwisuthS.CrossL.O'DohertyJ. P. (2023). Neural mechanisms underlying the hierarchical construction of perceived aesthetic value. Nature Communications, 14(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35654-y
43.
IsikA. I.VesselE. A. (2021). From visual perception to aesthetic appeal: Brain responses to aesthetically appealing natural landscape movies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 676032. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.676032
44.
KantI. (1987). Critique of judgment (W. S. Pluhar, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1790)
45.
KruglanskiA. W.JaskoK.MilyavskyM.ChernikovaM.WebberD.PierroA.di SantoD. (2018). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: A paradigm reconsidered. Psychological Inquiry, 29(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480619
46.
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
47.
LederH.CarbonC. C.RipsasA. L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005
48.
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
49.
LederH.NadalM. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode–developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
50.
LederH.TinioP. P.BrieberD.KrönerT.JacobsenT.RosenbergR. (2019). Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418777941
51.
LiC.ChenT. (2009). Aesthetic visual quality assessment of paintings. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 3(2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTSP.2009.2015077
52.
LocherP.KrupinskiE. A.Mello-ThomsC.NodineC. F. (2007). Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial Vision, 21, 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856807782753868
MenninghausW.WagnerV.WassiliwizkyE.SchindlerI.HanichJ.JacobsenT.KoelschS. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?Psychological Review, 126(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000135
55.
MonteiroL. C. P.NascimentoV. E. F. D.Carvalho da SilvaA.MirandaA. C.SouzaG. S.RipardoR. C. (2022). The role of art expertise and symmetry on facial aesthetic preferences. Symmetry, 14(2), 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14020423
56.
MullinC.Hayn-LeichsenringG.RediesC.WagemansJ. (2017). The gist of beauty: An investigation of aesthetic perception in rapidly presented images. Electronic Imaging, 29, 248–256. https://doi.org/10.2352/ISSN.2470-1173.2017.14.HVEI-152
PelliD. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897(00366
59.
PelowskiM.MarkeyP. S.ForsterM.GergerG.LederH. (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
60.
PomboM.BrielmannA.PelliD. (2022). When judging beauty, order matters only if the stimuli are homogeneous. The Visual Science of Art Conference (VSAC 2022). https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000A-B5E9-3
61.
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
62.
RaichleM. E.MacLeodA. M.SnyderA. Z.PowersW. J.GusnardD. A.ShulmanG. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676
63.
ReberR.WinkielmanP.SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
64.
RhodesG.ProffittF.GradyJ. M.SumichA. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 659–669. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208842
65.
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
66.
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
67.
SpielbergerC. D.Gonzalez-ReigosaF.Martinez-UrrutiaA.NatalicioL. F.NatalicioD. S. (1971). The state-trait anxiety inventory. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 5, 3–4.
68.
VaidyaA. R.SefranekM.FellowsL. K. (2018). Ventromedial frontal lobe damage alters how specific attributes are weighed in subjective valuation. Cerebral Cortex, 28(11), 3857–3867. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx246
VesselE. A.MaurerN.DenkerA. H.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
71.
VesselE. A.PasqualetteL.UranC.KoldehoffS.BignardiG.VinckM. (2023). Self-relevance predicts the aesthetic appeal of real and synthetic artworks generated via neural style transfer. Psychological Science, 34(9), 1007–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231188107
72.
VesselE. A.RubinN. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.2.18
73.
VesselE. A.StarrG. G.RubinN. (2012). The brain on art: Intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066
74.
WagnerD. D.HaxbyJ. V.HeathertonT. F. (2012). The representation of self and person knowledge in the medial prefrontal cortex. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1183
75.
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), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
76.
WelkeD.PurtonI.VesselE. A. (2023). Inspired by art: Higher aesthetic appeal elicits increased felt inspiration in a creative writing task. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17(3), 261. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca000039
77.
World Medical Association. (2013). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
78.
YooJ.JaskoK.WinkielmanP. (2024). Fluency, prediction and motivation: How processing dynamics, expectations and epistemic goals shape aesthetic judgements. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 379(1895), 20230326. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0326
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.
