Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Experts and novices differ in how they experience and understand art, and expertise in the arts moderates a wide range of aesthetic processes. The present research examined the role of expertise in the experience of interest and confusion, two knowledge emotions, particularly whether expertise moderated the cognitive appraisals that bring about the emotions. A sample of 174 people viewed and rated a series of abstract images taken from small-press publications. Expertise was measured with the aesthetic fluency scale (Smith & Smith, 2006), and multivariate multilevel models were used to estimate the effects of expertise and appraisals. As expected, people high in expertise found the images significantly more interesting and less confusing. The main effects of appraisals on interest and confusion replicated past work, and expertise interacted with most of the appraisals—the cognitive foundations of interest and confusion have different weights for experts and novices.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlyne

D. E.

(1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Chatterjee

Widick

Sternschein

Smith

W. B.

II , & Bromberger

(2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 207–222.

DeWall

C. N.

Silvia

P. J.

Schurtz

D. R.

, & McKenzie

(2011). Taste sensitivity and aesthetic preferences: Is taste only a metaphor? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29, 171–189.

D'Mello

, & Graesser

(2009). Automatic detection of learner's affect from gross body language. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 23, 123–150.

Hekkert

, & van Wieringen

P. C. W.

(1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389–407.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

, & Augustin

(2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.

Leder

Gerger

Dressler

S. G.

, & Schabmann

(2012). How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 2–10.

Locher

P. 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.

Locher

P. J.

Smith

J. K.

, & Smith

L. 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.

10.

Lundy

D. E.

(2010). A test of consensus in aesthetic evaluation among professional critics of modern music. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 243–258.

11.

Millis

(2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experience. Emotion, 1, 320–329.

12.

Parsons

M. J.

(1987). How we understand art: A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Silvia

P. J.

(2005a). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119–133.

14.

Silvia

P. J.

(2005b). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.

15.

Silvia

P. J.

(2006a). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139–161.

16.

Silvia

P. J.

(2006b). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

17.

Silvia

P. J.

(2007a). An introduction to multilevel modeling for research on the psychology of art and creativity. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 1–20.

18.

Silvia

P. J.

(2007b). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 247–249.

19.

Silvia

P. J.

(2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 57–60.

20.

Silvia

P. J.

(2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 75–80.

21.

Silvia

P. J.

, & Barona

C. M.

(2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 25–42.

22.

Silvia

P. J.

, & Berg

(2011). Finding movies interesting: How expertise and appraisals influence the aesthetic experience of film. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29, 73–88.

23.

Silvia

P. J.

, & Nusbaum

E. C.

(2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 208–214.

24.

Smith

L. F.

, & Smith

J. K.

(2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In Locher

Martindale

, & Dorfman

(Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 47–58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

25.

Tsutsui

, & Ohmi

(2011). Complexity scale and aesthetic judgments of color combinations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29, 1–15.

Interested Experts,Confused Novices: Art Expertise and the Knowledge Emotions

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References