Interest and Pleasure as Dimensions of Aesthetic Response

Abstract

A study was conducted comparing cognitive and affective responses to a set of twelve paintings. Forty subjects, including an equal number of naive and trained males and females, rated the paintings individually on a series of scales including: simple-complex, warm-cold, unemotional-emotional, not at all meaningful-meaningful, and familiar-unfamiliar. They also made comparative judgments of relative “interest” and “pleasure” between all possible pairs (66) of the paintings. “Interest” judgments were made under an objective and analytical task set, while “pleasing” judgments were made from a subjective and personal set. A multidimensional scaling analysis revealed two dimensions underlying the “pleasing” and “interest” judgments. These were identified by regressing the individual scale ratings against the dimensions. The “interest” dimensions, complexity/meaningfulness and familiarity, are comparable to motivational dimensions predicted by Berlyne: curiosity and variation. The “pleasing” dimensions, emotional arousal and aesthetic effectance, have been anticipated in the literature. Thematic content and date of the painting (modern versus pre-1850) could also be related to the dimensions. Individual differences in sensitivity to the “pleasing” dimensions were found primarily for naive and trained females.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlyne

D. E.

, Aesthetic and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1971.

Berlyne

D. E.

, (ed.), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics, Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., 1974.

Berlyne

D. E.

, “Interest” as a Psychological Concept, British Journal of Psychology, 39, pp. 184–195, 1949.

Bartlett

F. C.

, Remembering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1932.

Martindale

, The Pleasures of Thought: A Theory of Cognitive Hedonics, Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, pp. 49–80, 1984.

Cupchik

G. C.

and Gebotys

R. J.

, Meaning in Art: Interpretive Styles and Judgments of Quality, Visual Arts Research, 14, pp. 38–50, 1988.

Bernard

, Analyse des erreurs d'attribution comme indices de l'organization du savoir a propos de la peinture, paper presented at the meeting of the IXth International Colloquium on Empirical Aesthetics, Santa Cruz, California, August, 1985.

Ertel

, Exploratory Choice and Verbal Judgment, in Pleasure, Reward, Preference, Berlyne

D. E.

and Madsen

K. B.

(eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1973.

White

R. W.

, Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence, Psychological Review, 66, pp. 297–333, 1959.

10.

Heinrichs

R. W.

and Cupchik

G. C.

, Individual Differences as Predictors of Preference in Visual Art, Journal of Personality, 53, pp. 502–515, 1985.

11.

Berlyne

D. E.

and Ogilvie

J. C.

, Dimensions of Perception of Paintings, in Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics, Berlyne

D. E.

(ed.), Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., 1974.

12.

Cupchik

, An Experimental Investigation of Perceptual and Stylistic Dimensions of Paintings Suggested by Art History, in Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics, Berlyne

D. E.

(ed.), Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., 1974.

13.

O'Hare

, Individual Differences in Perceived Similarity and Preference for Visual Art: A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis, Perception and Psychophysics, 20, pp. 445–452, 1976.

14.

Cupchik

G. C.

and Berlyne

D. E.

, The Perception of Collative Properties in Visual Stimuli, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20, pp. 93–104, 1979.

15.

Mehrabian

and Russell

J. A.

, An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974.

16.

Spielberger

C. D.

, The State-Trait Anxiety Scale, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1968.

17.

Cupchik

G. C.

and Poulos

C. X.

, Judgments of Emotional Intensity in Self and Others: The Effects of Stimulus Context, Sex, and Expressivity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 431–439, 1984.

18.

Young

F. W.

and Lewyckyj

, ALSCAL—A User's Guide, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1979.

19.

McGuinness

, Sex Differences in the Organization of Perception and Cognition, in Exploring Sex Differences, Lloyd

and Archer

(eds.), Academic Press, London, 1976.