Do people prefer curved lines, shapes, and objects over angular lines, shapes, and objects? Angularity is one of the oldest variables in the psychology of aesthetics, but past research has not always controlled for potential confounds. Two experiments manipulated angularity while controlling for symmetry, prototypicality, and balance. Study 1 used arrays of circles and hexagons from the Preference for Balance Test. Study 2 used asymmetrical random polygons; each polygon was digitally rounded to create angular and curved versions. As predicted, people preferred the round circles more than the angular hexagons and the curved polygons more than the angular polygons. Both experiments explored whether individual differences in expertise in the arts moderated angularity's effect on preference. Multilevel models showed that training in the arts interacted with angularity, but the pattern of the interaction varied between the two experiments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AugustinM. D., & LederH., (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48, 135–156.
2.
AxelssonÖ. (2007). Individual differences in preferences for photographs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 61–72.
BarM., & NetaM. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2191–2200.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.
EricssonK. A., & SimonH. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
7.
FechnerG. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik.Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
8.
GordonK. (1909). Esthetics. New York: Henry Holt.
9.
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.
10.
HevnerK. (1935). Experimental studies of the affective value of colors and lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 385–398.
11.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
KastlA. J., & ChildI. L. (1968). Emotional meaning of four typographical variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 440–446.
13.
KozbeltA. (2006). Dynamic evaluation of Matisse's 1935 Large Reclining Nude. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 119–137.
14.
LindauerM. S. (1990). Reactions to cheap art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 95–110.
15.
LindauerM. S. (1991). Comparisons between museum and mass-produced art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, 11–22.
16.
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.
17.
LocherP. J. (2007). Editorial: Twenty-five years of Empirical Studies of the Arts. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 117–120.
18.
LocherP., & NagyY. (1996). Vision spontaneously establishes the percept of pictorial balance. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 17–31.
19.
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.
20.
LocherP. J., & StappersP. J. (2002). Factors contributing to the implicit dynamic quality of static abstract designs. Perception, 31, 1093–1107.
21.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
LundholmH. (1921). The affective tone of lines: Experimental researches. Psychological Review, 28, 43–60.
23.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & WestA. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79–96.
24.
MillerR. J. (2007). Another slant on the oblique effect in drawings and paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 41–61.
25.
PoffenbergerA. T., & BarrowsB. E. (1924). The feeling value of lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 187–205.
26.
PolzellaD. J.HammarS. H., & HinkleC. W. (2005). The effect of color on viewers' ratings of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 153–163.
27.
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.
28.
SilviaP. J. (2006b). Exploring the psychology of interest.New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
SilviaP. J. (2007a). An introduction to multilevel modeling for research on the psychology of art and creativity. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 1–20.
30.
SilviaP. J. (2007b). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 247–249.
31.
SmithL. F., & SmithJ. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In LocherP.MartindaleC., & DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 47–58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
32.
SpechtS. M. (2007). Successive contrast effects for judgments of abstraction in artwork following minimal pre-exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 63–70.
33.
TurnerS. A.Jr., & SilviaP. J. (2006). Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion, 6, 670–674.
34.
ValentineC. W. (1962). The experimental psychology of beauty.London: Methuen.
35.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221–237.
36.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (2000). Beyond prototypicality: Toward a categorical-motivation model of aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 1–11.
37.
WilsonA., & ChatterjeeA. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 165–180.
38.
WinstonA. S., & CupchikG.C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1–14.
