This article introduces some applications of multilevel modeling for research on art and creativity. Researchers often collect nested, hierarchical data—such as multiple assessments per person—but they typically ignore the nested data structure by averaging across a level of data. Multilevel modeling, also known as hierarchical linear modeling and random coefficient modeling, enables researchers to test old hypotheses more powerfully and to ask new research questions. After describing the logic of multilevel analysis, the article illustrates three practical uses of multilevel modeling: (1) estimating within-person relationships, (2) examining between-person differences in within-person processes, and (3) comparing people's judgments to a criterion. The breadth, flexibility, and power of multilevel modeling make it a useful analytic tool for the multilevel data that researchers have been collecting all along.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
2.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G., & AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
FeistG. J., & BradyT. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 77–89.
4.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
KreftI., & de LeeuwJ. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling.London: Sage.
6.
KuppensP.van MechelenI.SmitsD. J. M., & de BoeckP. (2003). The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity, and sufficiency of components. Emotion, 3, 254–269.
7.
LocherP. J. (1996). The contribution of eye-movement research to an understanding of the nature of pictorial balance perception: A review of the literature. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 143–163.
8.
LocherP. J. (2006). Experimental scrutiny of the role of balance in the visual arts. In LocherP.MartindaleC., & DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 19–32). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
9.
LocherP. J.SmithJ. K., & SmithL. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30, 449–465.
10.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
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.
12.
PolzellaD. J.HammarS. H., & HinkleC. W. (2005). The effect of color on viewers' ratings of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 153–163.
13.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F., & CongdonR. T.Jr. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling.Chicago: Scientific Software International.
15.
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.
16.
RawlingsD. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for “unpleasant” paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 395–410.
17.
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.
18.
RobinsonW. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Sociological Review, 15, 351–357.
19.
SilviaP. J. (2005a). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119–133.
20.
SilviaP. J. (2005b). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342–357.
21.
SilviaP. J. (2005c). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.
22.
SilviaP. J. (2006a). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139–161.
23.
SilviaP. J. (2006b). Exploring the psychology of interest.New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
SilviaP. J., & TurnerS. A.Jr. (2006). Viewing disturbing pictures. Unpublished raw data, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
25.
SimontonD. K. (2005). Film as art versus film as business: Differential correlates of screenplay characteristics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 93–117.
26.
SimontonD. K. (2006). Cinematic creativity and aesthetics: Empirical analyses of movie awards. In LocherP.MartindaleC., & DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 123–136). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
27.
SingerJ. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 322–354.
28.
SnijdersT. A. B., & BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.London: Sage.
29.
TurnerS. A.Jr., & SilviaP. J. (in press). Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion.
30.
WilsonA., & ChatterjeeA. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 165–180.
