Since Berlyne's seminal research, the study of experimental aesthetics has examined interest as a response to art. The present research explores the implications of appraisal theories of emotion for the study of interest as an emotion relevant to aesthetics. Participants viewed pictures of modern experimental visual art and rated each picture for interest and for appraisals of complexity and comprehensibility. Multilevel modeling assessed the within-person effects of appraisals on interest. As predicted by appraisal theories, both appraisals significantly and strongly predicted interest at the within-person level. The within-person relationships were not moderated by individual-differences relevant to interest in art (e.g., trait curiosity). Theories of “aesthetic response” should capitalize on modern theories and findings in emotion psychology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AitkenP. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240–244.
2.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: Freeman.
3.
BennettJ. M., & TopelA. (2002). Jazz duet: Collaborative visualingual work.Columbus, OH: Luna Bisonte.
4.
BerkowitzL., & Harmon-JonesE. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4, 107–130.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
7.
BerlyneD. E. (1974). The new experimental aesthetics. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
8.
BerlyneD. E. (1975). Behaviorism? Cognitive theory? Humanistic psychology? To Hull with them all. Canadian Psychological Review, 16, 69–80.
9.
BerlyneD. E., & PeckhamS. (1966). The semantic differential and other measures of reaction to visual complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 125–135.
10.
BoselieF. (1991). Against prototypicality as a central concept in aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, 65–73.
11.
BraggB. W. E., & CrozierJ. B. (1974). The development with age of verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 91–108). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G., & AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
ConsedineN. S.MagaiC., & KingA. R. (2004). Deconstructing positive affect in later life: A differential functionalist analysis of joy and interest. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 58, 49–68.
15.
CupchikG. C. (1988). The legacy of Daniel E. Berlyne. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 171–186.
16.
DuffyE. (1934). Emotion: An example of the need for reorientation in psychology. Psychological Review, 44, 184–198.
17.
EllsworthP. C. (2003). Confusion, concentration, and other emotions of interest: Commentary on Rozin and Cohen (2003). Emotion, 3, 81–85.
18.
EllsworthP. C., & SchererK. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In DavidsonR. J.SchererK. R., & GoldsmithH. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
EllsworthP. C., & SmithC. A. (1988). Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal differentiating positive emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 301–331.
20.
EvansD. R., & DayH. I. (1971). The factorial structure of responses to perceptual complexity. Psychonomic Science, 27, 357–359.
21.
FeistG. J., & BradyT. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 77–89.
22.
FrancèsR. (1976). Comparative effects of six collative variables on interest and preference in adults of different educational levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 62–79.
23.
FredricksonB. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.
24.
FurnhamA., & WalkerJ. (2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72.
25.
HareF. G. (1974). Artistic training and responses to visual and auditory patterns varying in uncertainty. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 159–168). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
HekkertP., & van WieringenP. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117–131.
28.
HidiS., & BerndorffD. (1998). Situational interest and learning. In HoffmanL.KrappA.RenningerK. A., & BaumertJ. (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 74–90). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
IzardC. E. (1977). Human emotions.New York: Plenum.
33.
JacobsenT. (2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41–56.
34.
KashdanT. B. (2004). Curiosity. In PetersonC. & SeligmanM. E. P. (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 125–141). New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
KeltnerD., & ShiotaM. N. (2003). New displays and new emotions: A commentary on Rozin and Cohen (2003). Emotion, 3, 86–91.
36.
KreftI., & de LeeuwJ. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling.London: Sage.
37.
KuppensP.van MechelenI.SmitsD. J. M., & de BoeckP. (2003). The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity, and sufficiency of components. Emotion, 3, 254–269.
38.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
LazarusR. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 37–67). New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological model. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.
42.
MillisK. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experience. Emotion, 1, 320–329.
43.
MorinG. (2003). A penny dreadful.Toronto: Insomniac Press.
44.
NeissR. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 345–366.
45.
NezlekJ. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785.
46.
NorthA. C., & HargreavesD. J. (2000). Collative variables versus prototypicality. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 13–17.
47.
OatleyK. (2004). Emotion: A brief history.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
48.
RawlingsD. (2000). The interaction of openness to experience and schizotypy in predicting preference for abstract and violent paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 69–91.
49.
RawlingsD. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for “unpleasant” paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 395–410.
50.
RawlingsD., & BastianB. (2002). Painting preference and personality, with particular reference to Gray's behavioral inhibition and behavioral approach systems. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 177–193.
51.
RawlingsD.TwomeyF.BurnsE., & MorrisS. (2002). Personality, creativity, and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism, sensation seeking, schizotypy, and openness to experience. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 153–178.
52.
RosemanI. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research, and applications. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 68–91). New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
RosemanI. J., & EvdokasA. (2004). Appraisals cause experienced emotions: Experimental evidence. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1–28.
54.
RosemanI. J., & SmithC. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
RussellP. A. (1994). Preferability, pleasingness, and interestingness: Relationships between evaluative judgments in empirical aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 141–157.
56.
RussellP. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 99–110.
57.
RussellP. A., & GeorgeD. A. (1990). Relationships between aesthetic response scales applied to paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 15–30.
58.
RussellP. A., & GrayC. D. (1991). The heterogeneity of the preferability scale in aesthetic judgments of paintings. Visual Arts Research, 17, 76–84.
59.
RussellP. A., & MilneS. (1997). Meaningfulness and the hedonic value of paintings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15, 61–73.
60.
SchererK. R. (1997). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 113–150.
61.
SchererK. R. (1999). On the sequential nature of appraisal processes: Indirect evidence from a recognition task. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 763–793.
62.
SchererK. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
SchorrA. (2001). Appraisal: The evolution of an idea. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 20–34). New York: Oxford University Press.
64.
SelbyS. (2003). Problem pictures.San Francisco: SINK Press.
65.
SilviaP. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.
66.
SilviaP. J. (in press). Exploring the psychology of interest.New York: Oxford University Press.
67.
SilviaP. J., & WarburtonJ. B. (in press). Positive and negative affect: Bridging states and traits. In SegalD. L. & ThomasJ. C. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology, Vol. 1: Personality and everyday functioning. New York: Wiley.
68.
SmithC. A., & EllsworthP. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.
69.
SmithC. A., & KirbyL. D. (2001). Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 121–138). New York: Oxford University Press.
70.
SnijdersT. A. B., & BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.London: Sage.
71.
TanE. S. (2000). Emotion, art, and the humanities. In LewisM. & Haviland-JonesJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 116–134). New York: Guilford.
72.
TomkinsS. S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol. 1, The positive affects.New York: Springer.
van ReekumC. M., & SchererK. R. (1997). Levels of processing in emotion-antecedent appraisal. In MatthewsG. (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 259–330). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
75.
WalkerE. L. (1980). Psychological complexity and preference: A hedgehog theory of behavior.New York: Brooks–Cole.
76.
WalkerE. L. (1981). The quest for the inverted U. In DayH. I. (Ed.), Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics (pp. 39–70). New York: Plenum.
77.
WatsonD. (2000). Mood and temperament.New York: Guilford.
78.
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, 1063–1070.
79.
WatsonD.WieseD.VaidyaJ., & TellegenA. (1999). The two general systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838.
80.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (2000). Beyond prototypicality: Toward a categorical-motivation model of aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 1–11.
