One of Berlyne's many intriguing ideas was that aesthetic feelings have implications for behavior, particularly actions associated with approach, avoidance, and exploration. Later models of aesthetic emotions, however, have not addressed the implications of aesthetic emotions for action. Using controversial contemporary photography, two experiments examined the behavioral implications of negative emotions. Feelings of anger and disgust predicted self-reported indicators of rejection (Experiment 1) and the probability of choosing to receive a controversial postcard as a gift (Experiment 2). These findings illustrate relationships between appraisal, emotions, and action tendencies, and they expand the evidence for the appraisal approach to aesthetic emotions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism.Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba.
2.
AxelssonÖ. (2007). Individual differences in preferences for photographs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 61–72.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1974a). The new experimental aesthetics. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1974b). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 121–158). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1975). Behaviorism? Cognitive theory? Humanistic psychology? To Hull with them all. Canadian Psychological Review, 16, 69–80.
7.
BerlyneD. E., & CrozierJ. B. (1971). Effects of complexity and prechoice stimulation on exploratory choice. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 242–246.
8.
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.
9.
BrehmJ. W. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 2–22.
10.
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.
11.
DayH. I. (1968). Some determinants of looking time under different instructional sets. Perception and Psychophysics, 4, 279–281.
12.
EkmanP., & FriesenW. V. (1986). A new pan-cultural facial expression of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 10, 159–168.
13.
EndersC. K., & TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.
14.
EvansD. R., & DayH. I. (1971). The factorial structure of responses to perceptual complexity. Psychonomic Science, 27, 357–359.
15.
FeistG. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.
16.
FredricksonB. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.
17.
FrijdaN. H. (1986). The emotions.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FrijdaN. H. (2007). The laws of emotion.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
FrijdaN. H.KuipersP., & ter SchureE. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.
20.
HalberstadtJ. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166–183.
21.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
IzardC. E. (1977). Human emotions.New York: Plenum.
23.
IzardC. E., & AckermanB. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. In LewisM. & Haviland-JonesJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 253–264). New York: Guilford.
24.
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.
25.
KozbeltA. (2006). Dynamic evaluation of Matisse's 1935 Large Reclining Nude. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 119–137.
26.
KuppensP.MechelenI. V.SmitsD. J., & de BoekP. (2003). The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity, and sufficiency of components. Emotion, 3, 254–269.
27.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
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.
29.
LitmanJ. A., & SilviaP. J. (2006). The latent structure of trait curiosity: Evidence for interest and deprivation curiosity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 318–328.
30.
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.
31.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological model. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.
34.
MastandreaS.BartoliG., & BoveG. (2007). Learning through ancient art and experiencing emotions with contemporary art: Comparing visits in two different museums. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 173–191.
35.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
36.
McCraeR. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 5–11.
37.
NabiR. L. (2002). The theoretical versus the lay meaning of disgust: Implications for emotion research. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 695–703.
38.
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.
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.
RosemanI. J., & SmithC.A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, method, research (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
RozinP. R.LoweryL.ImadaS., & HaidtJ. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
42.
SansoneC.WeirC.HarpsterL., & MorganC. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379–390.
43.
SchererK. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In SchererK. R.SchorrA., & JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, method, research (pp. 92–120). New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
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.
45.
SilviaP. J. (2005b). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342–357.
46.
SilviaP. J. (2005c). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.
47.
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.
48.
SilviaP. J. (2006b). Exploring the psychology of interest.New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
SilviaP. J. (2007). An introduction to multilevel modeling for research on the psychology of art and creativity. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 1–20.
50.
SilviaP. J. (2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 57–60.
51.
SilviaP. J., & BaronaC. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25–42.
52.
SilviaP. J., & BrownE. M. (2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 100–106.
53.
TurnerS. A.Jr., & SilviaP. J. (2006). Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion, 6, 670–674.
54.
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.
55.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT., & CattyS. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.
56.
ZakrissonI. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 863–872.
