The purpose of the present study was to specify the underlying structure of the subjective experience of beauty in different object categories. In the Main study participants rated 120 stimuli (24 images X 5 object categories) on 64 descriptors. A principal component analysis extracted nine basic dimensions (6–8 per category). Component structures are similar cross-category. Fantastic, Striking, and Harmonious beauty are common to all categories, Elegant, Cute, Relaxing, Magical and Grandiose beauty are common to most categories, whereas Erotic beauty is specific only for Humans. We proposed a functional model hypothesizing that different dimensions of beauty reflect the satisfaction of the different needs of subject related to different psychobiological domains ranging from the reward system (Fantastic beauty) through the information processing (Harmonious, Elegant, Striking, and Magical beauty) to instinctive functions, such as protection (Cute beauty), security (Relaxing beauty), submission (Grandiose beauty), and sex (Erotic beauty).
ArnheimR. (1969). Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
AugustinM. D.CarbonC. C.WagemansJ. (2012a). Artful terms: A study on aesthetic word usage for visual art versus film and music. i-Perception, 3(5), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0511aap
4.
AugustinM. D.WagemansJ.CarbonC.-C. (2012b). All is beautiful? Generality vs. Specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psycholoica, 139(1), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004
5.
BerlyneD.OgilvieJ. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 181–226). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
6.
BerlyneD.RobbinsM.ThompsonR. (1974). A cross-cultural study of exploratory and verbal responses to visual patterns varying in complexity. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 259–278). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
7.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
8.
BerlyneD. E. (1974a). The new experimental aesthetics. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1–25). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
9.
BerlyneD. E. (1974b). Hedonic tone and reward value of exposure to paintings. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 227–234). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
10.
BiedermanI.VesselE. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain: A novel theory explains why the brain craves information and seeks it through the senses. American Scientist, 94(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1511/2006.59.247
11.
BirkhoffG. D. (1932). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
BurkeE. (1757/1958). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Edited with an Introduction and Notes by J.T. Boulton. Abingdon, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14.
Calvo-MerinoB.JolaC.GlaserD. E.HaggardP. (2008). Towards a sensorimotor aesthetics of performing art. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.11.003
15.
CaseyR. J.RitterJ. M. (1996). How infant appearance informs: Child care providers’ responses to babies varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(96)90013-1
CreusenM. E. H.SchoormansJ. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.x
20.
CupchikG. C.GebotysR. J. (1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of Arts, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2190/L789-TPPY-BD2Q-T7TW
21.
DissanayakeE. (2015). What is art for?Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
22.
DoyleJ. F. (2009). A woman’s walk: Attractiveness in motion. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099329
23.
DuttonD. (2009). The art instinct: beauty, pleasure, and human evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
EcoU. (2004). History of beauty. London, UK: Secker and Warburg.
25.
EcoU. (2007). On ugliness. London, UK: Harvill Secker.
26.
EisenmanR.GellensH. K. (1968). Preferences for complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26(3), 888–890. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1968.26.3.888
27.
ErtelS. (1973). Exploratory choice and verbal judgement. In BerlyneD. E.MadsenK. B. (Eds.), Pleasure, reward, preference (pp. 115–132). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
28.
EskineK. J.KacinikN. A.PrinzJ. J. (2012). Stirring images: Fear, not happiness or arousal, makes art more sublime. Emotion, 12(5), 1071–1074. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027200
29.
EvansD.DayH. (1971). The factorial structure of responses to perceptual complexity. Psychonomic Science, 22(6), 357–359. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332619
30.
EysenckH. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48(1), 83–92. doi.10.1037/h0062483 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062483
31.
EysenckH. J. (1968). An experimental study of aesthetic preference for polygonal figures. The Journal of General Psychology, 79(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1968.9710447
32.
FaerberS. J.CarbonC. C. (2012). The power of liking: Highly sensitive aesthetic processing for guiding us through the world. i-Perception, 3(8), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0
33.
FanJ.DaiW.LiuF.WuJ. (2005). Visual perception of male body attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272(1560), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2922
34.
FechnerG. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Wiesbaden, Germany: Breitkopf & Härtel.
FurnhamA.TanT.McManusC. (1997). Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(4), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00241-3
GordonA. M.StellarJ. E.AndersonC. L.McNeilG. D.LoewD.KeltnerD. (2017). The dark side of the sublime: Distinguishing a threat-based variant of awe. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000120
40.
GrammerK.FinkB.MøllerA. P.ThornhillR. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78(3), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793102006085
41.
GuéguenN. (2012). Gait and menstrual cycle: Ovulating women use sexier gaits and walk slowly ahead of men. Gait & Posture, 35(4), 621–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.011
42.
HenssR. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00115-4
43.
HildebrandtK. A.FitzgeraldH. E. (1978). Adults’ responses to infants varying in perceived cuteness. Behavioural Processes, 3(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(78)90042-6
44.
IshizuT.ZekiS. (2014). A neurobiological enquiry into the origins of our experience of the sublime and beautiful. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00891
45.
JacobsenT.BuchtaK.KoehlerM.SchroegerE. (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94(3 Pt 2), 1253–1260. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260
46.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.3.4.289
47.
KantI. (1764/1960). Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
48.
KantI. (1790/1987). Kritik der Urteilskraft (The Critique of Judgment translated by Werner S. Pluhar, Hackett Publishing Co.).
49.
KarrakerK. H.SternM. (1990). Infant physical attractiveness and facial expression: Effects on adult perceptions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1104
KirschL. P.UrgesiC.CrossE. S. (2016). Shaping and reshaping the aesthetic brain: Emerging perspectives on the neurobiology of embodied aesthetics. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 62, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.12.005
KubovyM. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. In KahnemanD.DienerE.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 134–154). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
54.
LandgrafA. J.LeeY. (2020). Dimensionality reduction for binary data through the projection of natural parameters. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 180(3), 104668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2020.104668
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
57.
LeeS.HuangJ. Z.HuJ. (2010). Sparse logistic principal components analysis for binary data. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 4(3), 1579. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-AOAS327SUPP
LiuY. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46(13-14), 1273–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130310001610829
60.
LocherP.OverbeekeK.StappersP. J. (2005). Spatial balance of color triads in the abstract art of Piet Mondrian. Perception, 34(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5033
61.
LocherP.UngerR.SociedadeP.WahlJ. (1993). At 1st glance: Accessibility of the physical attractiveness stereotype. Sex Roles, 28(11), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289990
62.
LocherP. J.StappersP. J.OverbeekeK. (1998). The role of balance as an organizing design principle underlying adults’ compositional strategies for creating visual displays. Acta Psychologica, 99(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00008-0
63.
LorenzK. (1970). Studies in animal and human behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
Lorenzo-SevaU.FerrandoP. J. (2012). TETRA-COM: A comprehensive SPSS program for estimating the tetrachoric correlation. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1191–1196. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0200-6
65.
MakinA. D.WiltonM. M.PecchinendaA.BertaminiM. (2012). Symmetry perception and affective responses: A combined EEG/EMG study. Neuropsychologia, 50(14), 3250–3261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.10.003
66.
MarcusA.MaX. (2016, July). Cuteness Design in the UX: An Initial Analysis. International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability(pp. 46-56). Springer International Publishing.
67.
Marković, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. iPerception (Special issue - Art and Perception), 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0450aap
68.
Marković, S (2014). Object domains and the experience of beauty. , 2(1-2), 119-140. . Art and Perception, 2(1–2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-00002020
69.
Marković, S., & Alfirević, Đ. (2015). Basic dimensions of experience of architectural objects' expressiveness: Effect of expertise. Psihologija, 48(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1501061M
70.
Marković, S. & Bulut, T. (2017). Attractiveness of the female body: Preference for the average or the supernormal?. Psihologija, 50(3), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1703403M
71.
Marković, S. & Gvozdenović, V. (2001). Symmetry, complexity and perceptual economy: Effects of Minimum and Maximum simplicity conditions. Visual Cognition, 8(3/4/5), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000025
72.
Marković, S. & Radonjić, A. (2008). Implicit and explicit features of paintings. Spatial Vision (Special Issue - Art and Perception: Towards a Visual Science of Art, Part 3), 21(3–5), 229–259. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808784532563
MartindaleC.MooreK.WestA. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.2190/MCAJ-0GQT-DJTL-LNQD
75.
McManusI. C.CheemaB.StokerJ. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.2190/HXR4-VU9A-P5D9-BPQQ
76.
McManusI. C.CookR.HuntA. (2010). Beyond the golden section and normative aesthetics: Why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preferences for rectangles?Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017316
77.
MealeyL.BridgstockR.TownsendG. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.151
MorrisP. H.WhiteJ.MorrisonE. R.FisherK. (2013). High heels as supernormal stimuli: How wearing high heels affects judgements of female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.11.006
MuthénB. (1978). Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables. Psychometrika, 43(4), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293813
82.
NadalM.MunarE.CapoM. A.RosselioJ.Cela-CondeC. J. (2008). Towards a frameworkfor the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. Spatial Vision, 21(3-5), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808784532653
83.
NietzscheF. W. (1872/2026). The Birth of Tragedy (Die Geburt der Tragödie). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
84.
OriansG. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In LockardS. J. (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49–66). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
85.
OriansG. H.HeerwagenJ. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555–580). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
86.
OsgoodC.MayW.MironM. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
87.
OsgoodC.SucciG. J.TannenbaumP. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Champaign, IL:University of Illinois Press.
88.
PalmerS. E.GardnerJ. S.WickensT. D. (2008). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects. Spatial Vision, 21(3), 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808784532662
89.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Procedings of the National Academy of Science, 107(19), 8877–8882. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906172107
90.
PelapratE.ColeM. (2011). Minding the gap“: Imagination, creativity and human cognition. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9176-5
91.
PerrettD. I.BurtD. M.Penton-VoakI. S.LeeK. J.RowlandD. A.EdwardsR. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(5), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00014-8
RiegerG.GygaxL.LinsenmeierJ. A.Siler-KnoglA.MoskowitzD. A.BaileyJ. M. (2011). Sex typicality and attractiveness in childhood and adulthood: Assessing their relationships from videos. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9512-8
94.
RusoB.RenningerL.AtzwangerK. (2003). Human habitat preferences: A generative territory for evolutionary aesthetics research. In VolandE.GrammerK. (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics (pp. 279–294). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
95.
SantayanaG. (1925). The mutability of aesthetic categories. The Philosophical Review, 34(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/2179353
SepänmaaY. (1993). The beauty of environment: A general model for environmental aesthetics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
98.
SilviaP. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017081
99.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293
100.
StephanC. W.LangloisJ. H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attribution of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child Development, 55(2), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129969
101.
SternglanzS. H.GrayJ. L.MurakamiM. (1977). Adult preference for infantile facial features: An ethological approach. Animal Behaviour, 25(1), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(77)90072-0
102.
SwamiV.SmithJ.TsiokrisA.GeorgiadesC.SangareauY.ToveeM. J.FurnhamA. (2007). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece: A cross-cultural study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.1.15-26
103.
SymonsD. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
TinioP. P.LederH. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130(3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001
WinkielmanP.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease put a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
110.
ZittounT.CerchiaF. (2013). Imagination as expansion of experience. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9234-2
