Image aesthetic pleasure (AP) is conjectured to be related to image visual complexity (VC). The aim of the present study was to investigate whether (a) two image attributes, AP and VC, are reflected in eye-movement parameters; and (b) subjective measures of AP and VC are related. Participants (N = 26) explored car front images (M = 50) while their eye movements were recorded. Following image exposure (10 seconds), its VC and AP were rated. Fixation count was found to positively correlate with the subjective VC and its objective proxy, JPEG compression size, suggesting that this eye-movement parameter can be considered an objective behavioral measure of VC. AP, in comparison, positively correlated with average dwelling time. Subjective measures of AP and VC were related too, following an inverted U-shape function best-fit by a quadratic equation. In addition, AP was found to be modulated by car prestige. Our findings reveal a close relationship between subjective and objective measures of complexity and aesthetic appraisal, which is interpreted within a prototype-based theory framework.
AvramM.GutyrchikE.BaoY.PöppelE.ReiserM.BlautzikJ. (2013) Neurofunctional correlates of esthetic and moral judgments. Neuroscience Letters534: 128–132.
2.
BerlyneD. E. (1971) Aesthetics and psychobiology, New York, NY: Century-Crofts.
3.
BraunJ.AmirshahiS. A.DenzlerJ.RediesC. (2013) Statistical image properties of print advertisements, visual artworks and images of architecture. Frontiers in Psychology4: 808. doi:10.3389/fpyg.2013.00808.
4.
BrownS.GaoX.TisdelleL.EickhoffS. B.LiottiM. (2011) Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. NeuroImage58: 250–258.
5.
ChassyP.GobetF. (2011) A hypothesis about the biological basis of expert intuition. Review of General Psychology15: 198–212.
6.
ChassyP.GobetF. (2013) Visual search in ecological and non-ecological displays: Evidence for a non-monotonic effect of complexity on performance. PLoS ONE8: e53420. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053420.
7.
ChassyP.KellyL.GuestM. (2014, May) The negative relationship between visual complexity and aesthetical pleasure. Abstract for the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Birmingham, England: The British Psychological Society.
8.
ChikhmanV.BondarkoV.DanilovaM.GoluzinaA.ShelepinY. (2012) Complexity of images: Experimental and computational estimates compared. Perception41: 631–647.
9.
De GrootA.GobetF. (1996) Perception and memory in chess, Assen, Netherlands: van Gorcum.
10.
DonderiD. C. (2006a) An information theory analysis of visual complexity and dissimilarity. Perception35: 823–835.
11.
DonderiD. C. (2006b) Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin132: 73–97.
12.
DorrM.MartinezT.GegenfurtnerK. R.BarthE. (2010) Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision10: 28. doi:10.1167/10.10.28.
13.
EtcoffN. (1999) Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty, New York, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
14.
ForsytheA.MulhernG.SaweyM. (2008) Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing. Behavior Research Methods40: 116–129.
15.
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. 1–16. Epub ahead of print. doi:1088868315574978.
16.
HekkertP.van WieringenP. C. W. (1990) Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology4: 483–513.
17.
JacobsenT.SchubotzR. I.HöfelL.CramonD. Y. (2006) Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage29: 276–285.
18.
LaengB.BloemI. M.D’AscenzoS.TommasiL. (2014) Scrutinizing visual images: The role of gaze in mental imagery and memory. Cognition131: 263–283.
19.
LandwehrJ. R.WentzelD.HerrmannA. (2013) Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing77: 92–107.
20.
LangloisJ. H.RoggmanL. A. (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science1: 115–121.
21.
NasarJ. (2002) What design for a presidential library? Complexity, typicality, order, and historical significance. Empirical Studies of the Arts20: 83–99.
22.
NieminenS.IstókE.BratticoE.TervaniemiM.HuotilainenM. (2011) The development of aesthetic responses to music and their underlying neural and psychological mechanisms. Cortex47: 1138–1146.
23.
OrthU. R.WirtzJ. (2014) Consumer processing of interior service environments: The interplay among visual complexity, processing fluency, and attractiveness. Journal of Service Research17: 296–309.
24.
PalumboL.OgdenR.MakinA. D. J.BertaminiM. (2014) Examining visual complexity and its influence on perceived duration. Journal of Vision14: 3. doi:10.1167/14.14.3.
25.
PerronM.Roy-CharlandA. (2013) Analysis of eye movements in the judgment of enjoyment and non-enjoyment smiles. Frontiers in Psychology4: 659. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00659.
26.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review8: 364–382.
27.
RhodesG.HalberstadtJ.JefferyL.PalermoR. (2005) The attractiveness of average faces is not a generalized mere exposure effect. Social Cognition23: 205–217.
28.
TeilG. (2001) La production du jugement esthétique sur les vins par la critique vinicole. Sociologie du Travail43: 67–89.
29.
TinioP. P. L.LederH. (2009) Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica130: 241–250.
30.
TuchA. N.PresslaberE. E.StöcklinM.OpwisK.Bargas-AvilaJ. A. (2012) The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgements. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies70: 794–811.
31.
VartanianO.NavarreteG.ChatterjeeA.FichL. B.Gonzalez-MoraJ. L.LederH.SkovM. (2015) Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology41: 10–18.
32.
WangQ.YangS.LiuM.CaoZ.MaQ. (2014) An eye-tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective. Decision Support Systems62: 1–10.
33.
WindhagerS.BooksteinF. L.GrammerK.OberzaucherE.SaidH.SliceD. E.SchaeferK. (2012) “Cars have their own faces”: Cross-cultural ratings of car shapes in biological (stereotypical) terms. Evolution and Human Behavior33: 109–120.
34.
WindhagerS.HutzlerF.CarbonC.-C.OberzaucherE.SchaeferK.ThorstensenT.GrammerK. (2010) Laying eyes on headlights: Eye movements suggest facial features in cars. Collegium Antropologicum34: 1075–1080.
35.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT.CattyS. (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science17: 799–806.
36.
YadavH. C.JainR.ShuklaS.AvikalS.MishraP. K. (2013) Prioritization of aesthetic attributes of car profile. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics43: 296–303.
