We comprehensively measured individual differences in aesthetic interest by developing The Desire for Aesthetics Scale (DFAS). In Study 1, a 40-item scale was given to 71 undergraduates. Based on item-total correlations, the worst items were revised or dropped, and new items were created. In Study 2, a 43-item scale was tested with 99 undergraduates from two colleges, and was given to one group 3 months later, demonstrating adequate test-retest reliability scores (r = .74). In Study 3, a revised 42-item scale was given to 62 older, non-students. For the combined relevant samples from Study 2 and Study 3 (N = 110), the final 36-item DFAS yielded good internal consistency (alpha = .82, p < .001 compared to a test value of .70; 95% confidence interval: (0.764, 0.865)). Overall, in multiple samples, this scale resulted in reliable measurements of individual differences in motivation to seek out and care about a wide range of aesthetic stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AikenL. R., & Groth-MarnatG. (2006). Psychological testing and assessment (12th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
2.
AllportG. W.VernonP. E., & LindzeyG. (1960). A study of values (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Wiley.
5.
BlackburnS. (1996). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
BraithwaiteV. A., & ScottW. A. (1991). Values. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R., & WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 661–753). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
BussD. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.
8.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
9.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K.KirkpatrickL. A., & LarsenR. J. (2001). A half century of American mate preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 491–503.
10.
ByrneD. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713–715.
11.
ChildI. L. (1962). A study of esthetic values. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
12.
ChildI. L. (1964). Development of sensitivity to esthetic values.New Haven, CT: Yale University.
13.
ChildI. L., & IwaoS. (1968). Personality and aesthetic sensitivity: Extension of findings to younger age and to different culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 308–312.
14.
CostaP. T.Jr., & McCraeR. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
15.
DeYoungC. G.PetersonJ. B., & HigginsD. M. (2005). Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73, 825–858.
16.
EysenckH. J. (1961). The experimental study of the “Good Gestalt”: A new approach. Psychological Review, 49, 344–364.
17.
EysenckH. J. (1972). Personal preference, aesthetic sensitivity and personality in trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Personality, 40, 544–557.
18.
FarnsworthP. R. (1949). Agreement with the judgments of musicologists as a measure of musical taste. Journal of Psychology, 28, 421–425.
19.
GibbinsK., & WalkerI. (1994). Multiple interpretations of the Rokeach value survey. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 797–805.
20.
GordonE. E. (1965). The Musical Aptitude Profile: A new and unique musical aptitude battery. Council on Research in Musical Education, 6, 12–16.
21.
HekkertP., & SchiffersteinH. N. J. (2008, August). Cross-sensory principles of aesthetics. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, Chicago, IL.
22.
HolbrookM. B., & ZirlinR. B. (1985). Artistic creation, artworks, and aesthetic appreciation: Some philosophical contributions to nonprofit marketing. Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, 1, 1–54.
23.
HousenA. (1992). Validating a measure of aesthetic development for museums and schools. ILVS Review, 2, 213–237.
24.
IsemingerG. (1981). Aesthetic appreciation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39, 389–397.
25.
JohnO. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In BussD. M. & CantorN. (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271). New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
KantI. (1790). Critique of the aesthetical judgment. In GreeneT. M. (Ed.), Kant selections (pp. 375–445). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
27.
KeutzerC. S. (1978). Whatever turns you on: Triggers to transcendent experiences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18, 77–80.
28.
KierkegaardS. (1959). Either/or. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
29.
KierkegaardS. (1985). Fear and trembling. New York: Penguin.
30.
KluckhohnF. R., & StrodtbeckF. (1961). Variations in value orientations. New York: HarperCollins.
31.
KonecniV. J. (1984). Elusive effects of artists' hidden “messages.” In CrozierW. R. & ChapmanA. J. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 71–93). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
32.
KopelmanR. E.RovenporJ. L., & GuanM. (2003). The study of values: Construction of the fourth edition. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 203–220.
33.
KrugS. E. (1997). Interpretive and technical guide for the adult personality inventory.Champaign, IL: MetriTech.
34.
LundyD. E. (in press). A test of consensus in aesthetic evaluation among professional critics of modern music. Empirical Studies of the Arts.
35.
LundyD. E.BarkerB. C., & GlennA. J. (2008, May). The role of aesthetic similarity in attraction. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
36.
LundyD. E.TanJ., & CunninghamM. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance of physical attractiveness and humor. Personal Relationships, 5, 311–325.
37.
MargolisJ. (1978). Philosophy looks at the arts.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
38.
MaslowA. (1962). Toward a psychology of being.New York: Van Nostrand.
39.
McCraeR. R., & CostaP. T.Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In BriggsS. R.HoganR., & JonesW. H. (Eds.), Handbook of personality Psychology (pp. 825–847). New York: Academic Press.
40.
McCraeR. R., & JohnO. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 40, 175–215.
41.
NorthA. C., & HargreavesD. J. (1995). Eminence in pop music. Popular Music and Society, 19, 41–66.
42.
NorthA. C., & HargreavesD. J. (1996). Affective and evaluative responses to the arts. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 207–222.
43.
ParsonsM. J. (1989). How we understand art. A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PinkerS. (1997). How the mind works.New York: Norton.
45.
PinkerS. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature.New York: Penguin.
46.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.
47.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values.New York: Free Press.
48.
RokeachM. (1979). Understanding human values.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
49.
RussellD.PeplauL. A., & CutronaC. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.
50.
SmithL., & SmithJ. (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.
51.
SpielbergerC. D.GorsuchR. L.LuscheneR.VaggP. R., & JacobsG A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Self-Evaluation Questionnaire).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
52.
SprangerE. (1928). Types of men. [Translation of Lebensformen].Halle: Max Niemeyer.
53.
StangeK., & TaylorS. (2008). Relationship of personal cognitive schemas to the labeling of a profound emotional experience as religious-mystical or aesthetic. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 26, 37–50.
54.
SuperD. (1973). Work values inventory. Iowa City, IA: Houghton Mifflin.
55.
SuperD. E., & NevillD. D. (1986). The values scale (research ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists' Press.
56.
SymonsD. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
TellegenA., & AtkinsonG. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268–277.
