Art experts find art more interesting, particularly when it is abstract or complex. These findings are explored in light of a model of aesthetic emotions rooted in appraisal theories (Silvia, 2005b, 2005d). This model attributes emotional responses to art to cognitive appraisal processes (as opposed to collative motivation, prototypicality, or processing fluency). Two experiments examined whether art experts and novices differed in the appraisals that make art interesting. In Experiment 1, people with art training found complex pictures more interesting, and they appraised them as easier to understand. Using multilevel modeling, Experiment 2 explored whether art training involved a qualitative shift in the appraisals that cause interest. Within-person effects of appraisals on emotions were essentially independent of between-person differences in training. People high and low in training make the same emotional appraisals of art, but they reach different answers to the appraisal questions.
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.
BerlyneD. E. (1971a). Aesthetics and psychobiology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1971b). What next? Concluding summary. In DayH. I.BerlyneD. E., & HuntD. E. (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: A new direction in education (pp. 186–196). Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1974). The new experimental aesthetics. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1975). Behaviorism? Cognitive theory? Humanistic psychology? To Hull with them all. Canadian Psychological Review, 16, 69–80.
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1978). Curiosity and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 97–175.
7.
BerlyneD. E., & PeckhamS. (1966). The semantic differential and other measures of reaction to visual complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 125–135.
8.
BoselieF. (1991). Against prototypicality as a central concept in aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, 65–73.
9.
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.
10.
Cedrus Corporation. (2003). SuperLab Pro (Version 2.0.4) [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA: Author.
11.
ChristiaansH. H. C. M. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 41–54.
12.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G., & AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
CrozierJ. B. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 27–90). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
14.
CupchikG. C. (1988). The legacy of Daniel E. Berlyne. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 171–186.
15.
DayH. I. (1968). The importance of symmetry and complexity in the evaluation of complexity, interest and pleasingness. Psychonomic Science, 10, 339–340.
16.
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.
17.
EvansD. R., & DayH. I. (1971). The factorial structure of responses to perceptual complexity. Psychonomic Science, 27, 357–359.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
HekkertP.SneldersD., & van WieringenP. C. W. (2003). “Most advanced, yet acceptable”: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111–124.
21.
HekkertP., & van WieringenP. C. W. (1996a). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389–407.
22.
HekkertP., & van WieringenP. C. W. (1996b). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117–131.
23.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
KreftI., & de LeeuwJ. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling.London: Sage.
25.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
LederH.AugustinD., & BelkeB. (2005). Art and cognition! Consequences for experimental aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5(2), 11–20.
27.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA., & AugustinA. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
28.
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.
29.
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.
30.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological model. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.
32.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & WestA. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79–96.
33.
MillisK. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experience. Emotion, 1, 320–329.
34.
NeissR. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 345–366.
35.
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.
36.
NorthA. C., & HargreavesD. J. (2000). Collative variables versus prototypicality. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 13–17.
37.
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.
38.
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.
39.
ReberR.SchwartzN., & WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
40.
RhodesG., & HalberstadtJ. (2003). It's not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 149–156.
41.
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.
42.
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.
43.
RussellP. A. (1994). Preferability, pleasingness, and interestingness: Relationships between evaluative judgments in empirical aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 141–157.
44.
RussellP. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 99–110.
45.
RussellP. A., & GeorgeD. A. (1990). Relationships between aesthetic response scales applied to paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 15–30.
46.
RussellP. A., & GrayC. D. (1991). The heterogeneity of the preferability scale in aesthetic judgments of paintings. Visual Arts Research, 17, 76–84.
47.
SchererK. R. (1997). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 113–150.
48.
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.
49.
SilviaP. J. (2005a). Appraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity. Unpublished manuscript.
50.
SilviaP. J. (2005b). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119–133.
51.
SilviaP. J. (2005c). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.
52.
SilviaP. J. (2005d). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342–357.
53.
SilviaP. J. (2006a). Exploring the psychology of interest.New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
SilviaP. J. (2006b). The within-person coherence of appraisals, emotion, and action: A multilevel approach. Unpublished manuscript.
55.
SilviaP. J., & WarburtonJ. B. (2006). Positive and negative affect: Bridging states and traits. In ThomasJ. C. & SegalD. L. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and Psychopathology: Vol. 1. Personality and everyday functioning (pp. 268–284). New York: Wiley.
56.
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.
57.
SnijdersT. A. B., & BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.London: Sage.
58.
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.
59.
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.
60.
WalkerE. L. (1980). Psychological complexity and preference: A hedgehog theory of behavior.New York: Brooks–Cole.
61.
WinkielmanP., & CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.
