Following the demise of Berlyne's model, experimental aesthetics has lacked a unifying theory. The field now is characterized by a set of proximate and overlapping theories. In the main they are evolutionary, process-driven, distinguish between wired-in predispositions and acquired preferences, and reject a simple stimulus-driven approach and formulaic laws (e.g., color harmony, the golden section). They recognize aesthetic appraisal as a staged process from stimulus onset to response, and incorporate emotion as fundamental. On the deficit side, they are unclear as to the staged process, the role of processing components (e.g., fluency, appraisal, categorization), and their interaction. This article focuses upon one such theory, and seeks to further articulate it. Importantly, it advances testable hypotheses that would support or undermine it. It is suggested that greater emphases upon refutation would benefit theory construction in this field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarsalouL. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629–654.
2.
BarsalouL. W., & RossB. H. (1986). The roles of automatic and strategic processing in sensitivity to superordinate and property frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 116–134.
3.
BarthesR. (1983). The fashion system. New York: Hill and Wang.
4.
BerlinB., & KayP. (1969). Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1972). Experimental aesthetics. In DodwellP. C. (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 107–125). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
7.
BerlyneD.E. (1975). Dimensions of perceptions of exotic and pre-Renaissance paintings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 151–172.
8.
BerlyneD. E. (1976). The new experimental aesthetics and the problem of classifying works of art. Sciences de l'Art, 1, 85–106.
9.
BlascovichJ. (1992). A biopsychosocial approach to arousal regulation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 213–237.
10.
BlascovichJ.ErnstJ. M.KelseyR. M.SalomonK. L., & FazioR. H. (1993). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of autonomic reactivity during decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 165–176.
11.
BloomP. (1996). Intention, history, and artefact concepts. Cognition, 60, 1–29.
12.
BornsteinM. H. (1987). Perceptual categories in vision and audition. In HarnadS. (Ed.), Categorical perception.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.
14.
BoselieF. (1991). Against prototypicality as a central concept in aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, 65–73.
15.
BoyntonR. M., & OlsonC. X. (1987). Locating basic colors in the OSA space. Color Research and Application, 12, 94–105.
16.
BoyntonR. M., & OlsonC. X. (1990). Salience of chromatic basic color terms confirmed by three measures. Vision Research, 30, 1311–1317.
17.
BrantL.MarshallP. H., & RoarkB. (1995). On the development of prototypes and preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 161–170.
18.
ChaigneauS. E.BarsalouL. W., & SlomanS. (2004). Assessing the causal structure of function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 601–625.
19.
CoughlanP., & MashmanR. (1999). Once is not enough: Repeated exposure to and aesthetic evaluation of an automobile design prototype. Design Studies, 20, 553–563.
20.
DelgadoM. M. R.RobertsW. W., & MillerN. E. (1954). Learning by electrical stimulation of the brain. American Journal of Physiology, 179, 587–593.
21.
DiesendruckG., & GelmanS. (1999). Domain differences in absolute judgments of category membership: Evidence for an essentialist account of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 338–346.
22.
DissanayakeE. (1992). Homo Aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. New York: Free Press.
23.
FarkasA. (2002). Prototypicality-effect in Surrealist paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 127–136.
24.
FazioR. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In PratkanisA. R. & GreenwaldA. G. (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
FazioR. H.BlascovichJ., & DriscollD. (1992). On the functional value of attitudes: The influence of accessible attitudes upon the ease and quality of decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 388–401.
26.
GärlingT. (1976). The structural analysis of environmental perception and cognition: A multidimensional scaling approach. Environment and Behavior, 8, 385–415.
27.
GuilfordJ. P., & SmithP. C. (1959). A system of color-preference. American Journal of Psychology, 72, 487–502.
28.
HalberstadtJ., & RhodesG. (2000). The attractiveness of non-face averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.
29.
HanJ. K. (1998). Brand extensions in a competitive context: Effects of competitive targets and product attribute typicality on perceived quality. Journal of Consumer and Market Research [On-line]. Available: http://www.amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/han01-98.html
30.
HekkertP. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48, 157–172.
31.
HekkertP., & van WieringenP. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 483–495.
32.
HekkertP.MorelK., & SneldersD. (1996). Typicality, originality and aesthetic preference. Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, Prague.
33.
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.
34.
HerzogT. R.KaplanS., & KaplanR. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 595–609.
35.
HelsonH. (1964). Adaptation-Level theory.New York: Harper and Row.
36.
HumphreyN. K. (1973). The illusion of beauty. Perception, 2, 420–439.
37.
ImamogluE. (1974). Initial evaluation of stimuli as another limiting condition of the exposure effect. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 157–159.
38.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
KayP., & MaffiL. (1999). Color appearance and the emergence and evolution of basic color lexicons. American Anthropologist, 101, 743–760.
40.
KruglanskiA. W.FreundT., & BarT. D. (1996). Motivational effects in the mere-exposure paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 479–499.
41.
LangloisJ. H., & RoggmanL. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.
42.
LaumannE. O., & HouseJ. S. (1970). Living room styles and social attributes: The patterning of material artifacts in a modern urban community. Sociology and Social Research, 54, 331–342.
43.
LederH. (2001). Determinants of preference: When do we like what we know?Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, 201–211.
44.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA., & AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
45.
LeDouxJ. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are.New York: Viking Penguin.
46.
LevinsonJ. (1993). Extending art historically. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51, 411–423.
47.
LindgaardG.FernandesG.DudekC., & BrownJ. (2006). ‘Attention web designers: You have fifty milliseconds to make a good first impression!’Behavior and Information Technology, 25,115–126.
48.
LokenB., & WardJ. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 111–126.
49.
MartindaleC. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49–80.
50.
MartindaleC. (1988). Aesthetics, psychobiology, and cognition. In FarleyF. H. & NeperudR. W. (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 7–42). New York: Praeger.
51.
MartindaleC., & MooreK. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670.
52.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.
53.
MillisK. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1, 320–329.
54.
MolesA. (1966). Information theory and aesthetic perception.Urbana, Il: University of Illinois Press.
55.
NasarJ. L. (2002). What design for a presidential library? Complexity, typicality, order, and historical significance. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 83–90.
56.
NedungadiP., & HutchinsonJ. (1985). The prototypicality of brands: Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. In HirschmanE. & HolbrookM. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 12 (pp. 498–503). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
NorthA. C., & HargreavesD. J. (1997). Experimental aesthetics and everyday music listening. In HargreavesD. J. & NorthA. C. (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 84–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
O'HareD. P. A. (1976). Individual differences in perceived similarity and preference for visual art: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 445–452.
60.
O'HareD. P. A., & GordonI. E. (1977). Dimensions of the perception of art: Verbal scales and similarity judgements. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 66–70.
61.
OldsJ., & MilnerP. (1954). Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 47, 419–427.
62.
PedersenD. M. (1986). Perception of interior designs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 671–676.
63.
PosnerM. I., & KeeleS. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.
64.
PurcellA. T. (1984). The aesthetic experience and mundane reality. In CrozierW. R. & ChapmanA. J. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 189–210). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
65.
ReberR.WinkielmanP., & SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.
66.
ReberR.SchwarzN., & WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
67.
RhodesG., & HalberstadtJ. (2003). It's not just faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 149–156.
68.
RoschE. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In MooreT. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111–144). New York: Academic Press.
69.
RoschE. (1999). Reclaiming concepts. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 61–77.
70.
RosemanI. J., & SmithG. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Assumptions, varieties, controversies. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71.
SchererK. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 92–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
SilviaP. J. (2005a). Emotion responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342–357.
73.
SilviaP. J. (2005b). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.
74.
SilviaP. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual arts: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139–161.
75.
SivikL. (1974). Color meaning and perceptual color dimensions: A study of color samples. Göteborg Psychological Reports, 4(1).
76.
SmithE. E.ShobenE. J., & RipsL. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.
77.
SneldersD., & HekkertP. (1999). Association measures as predictors of product originality. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 588–592.
78.
SturgesJ., & WhitfieldT. W. A. (1995). Locating basic colors in the Munsell space. Color Research and Application, 20, 364–376.
79.
SturgesJ., & WhitfieldT. W. A. (1997). Salient features of Munsell color space as a function of monolexemic naming and response latencies. Vision Research, 37, 307–313.
80.
TurnerA. A., & SilviaP. J. (2006). Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion, 6, 670–674.
81.
VeblenT. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Macmillan.
82.
WardJ. C.BitnerM. J., & BarnesJ. (1992). Measuring the prototypicality and meaning of retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68, 194–220.
83.
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.
84.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (2000). Beyond prototypicality: Towards a Categorical-Motivation model of aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 1–11.
85.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (2005). Aesthetics as pre-linguistic knowledge: A psychological perspective. Design Issues, 21, 3–17.
86.
WhitfieldT. W. A., & SlatterP. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 65–75.
87.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT., & CattyS. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.
88.
WohlwillJ. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In AltmanI. & WohlwillJ. F. (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol.1) (pp. 37–86). New York: Plenum Press.
89.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement9, 1–27.
90.
ZajoncR. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In ForgasJ. P. (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
