Two theories of aesthetic preference are reviewed. According to Berlyne's psychobiological theory, the main determinants of aesthetic preference are collative variables such as complexity and novelty, and preference is generally related to its determinants in an inverted-U manner. Recent findings contrary to these predictions are briefly reviewed. According to Martindale's cognitive theory, the main determinant of aesthetic preference is prototypicality or meaningfulness, and preference is usually related to its determinants in a monotonic or U-shaped fashion. Three experiments concerning preference for semantic category exemplars are reported. Typicality accounted for eight or nine times more of explained variance in preference than did long-term novelty, short-term novelty, or mere exposure. Preference was related to both typicality and collative variables by monotonic or U-shaped functions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlyneD. E., Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960.
2.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century, Crofts, New York, 1971.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (ed.), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics, Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., 1974.
4.
MartindaleC., The Pleasures of Thought: A Theory of Cognitive Hedonics, Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, pp. 49–80, 1984.
5.
GroebenN., Receptionsforschung als empirische Literaturwissenshchaft, Athenaum, Kronberg, 1977.
6.
GuilfordJ. P., System in the Relationship of Affective Value to Frequency and Intensity of Auditory Stimuli, American Journal of Psychology, 67, pp. 691–695, 1954.
7.
VitzP. C., Preference for Tones as a Function of Frequency (Hertz) and Intensity (Decibels), Perception and Psychophysics, 11, pp. 84–88, 1971.
8.
BerlyneD. E.McDonnellP.NickiR. M., and ParhamL. C., Effects of Auditory Pitch and Complexity on EEG Desynchronization and on Verbally Expressed Judgments, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 21, pp. 346–367, 1967.
9.
GuilfordJ. P., There is a System in Color Preferences, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 30, pp. 455–459, 1940.
10.
GrangerG. W., An Experimental Study of Color Preference, Journal of General Psychology, 52, pp. 3–20, 1955.
11.
GuilfordJ. P., The Affective Value of Color as a Function of Hue, Tint and Color, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, pp. 342–370, 1934.
12.
de VilliersP. A. and HerrnsteinR. J., Toward a Law of Response Strength, Psychological Bulletin, 83, pp. 1131–1153, 1976.
13.
MunsingerH. L. and KessenW., Uncertainty, Structure and Preference, Psychological Monographs, 78, No. 9 (Whole No. 586), 1964.
14.
DayH., Evaluation of Subjective Complexity, Pleasingness and Interestingness for a Series of Random Polygons Varying in Complexity, Perception and Psychophysics, 2, pp. 281–286, 1967.
15.
DayH., The Importance of Symmetry and Complexity in the Evaluation of Complexity, Interest and Pleasingness, Psychonomic Science, 10, pp. 339–340, 1968.
16.
MartindaleC.MooreK.WestA.RosenK.BorkumJ., and MontagueJ., Anomalous Findings for Berlyne's Theory Can Be Explained by a Cognitive Model of Preference, Manuscript submitted for publication, 1987.
17.
van de GeerJ. P.LeveltW. J., and PlompR., The Connotation of Musical Intervals, Acta Psychologia, 20, pp. 308–319, 1962.
18.
NardiK. and MartindaleC., Creativity and Preferences for Tones Varying in Dissonance and Intensity, Eastern Psychological Association convention, New York, 1981.
19.
RoschE., The Nature of Mental Codes for Color Categories, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, pp. 302–322, 1975.
20.
WhitfieldT. W. A. and SlatterP. G., The Effects of Categorization and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Choice in a Furniture Selection Task, British Journal of Psychology, 70, pp. 65–75, 1979.
21.
LightL. L.HollanderS., and Kayra-StuartF., Why Attractive People are Harder to Remember, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, pp. 269–271, 1981.
22.
PurcellA. T., The aesthetic experience and mundane reality, in CrozierW. R. and ChapmanA. J. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art, pp. 189–210, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
23.
WestA.MooreK.MartindaleC., and RosenK., Prototypicality and Preference, Eighth International Colloquium on Empirical Aesthetics, Cardiff, 1983.
24.
MartindaleC. and MooreK., Priming, Prototypicality, and Preference. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1987.
25.
MooreK. and MartindaleC., Preference for Shapes Varying in Color, Color Typicality, Size, and Complexity, International Conference on Psychology and the Arts, Cardiff, 1983.
26.
HeinrichsR. W., Statistical and Theoretical Specification of Relations between Perceptual and Appreciative Verbal Responses to Figure Paintings, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1983.
27.
MartindaleC. and MooreK., Relationship of Musical Preference to Collative, Ecological, and Psychophysical Variables, Manuscript submitted for publication, 1987.
28.
MartindaleC., Cognition, Psychobiology, and Aesthetics, in FarleyF. and NeperudR. (eds.), The Foundations of Aesthetics, Art, and Art Education, Praeger, New York, in press.
29.
MartindaleC., Cognition and Consciousness, Dorsey, Homewood, IL, 1981.
30.
McClellandJ. L. and RumelhartD. E. (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 2, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
31.
BorkumJ. and MartindaleC., The Time Course of Facilitatory and Inhibitory Processes in the Perception of Spoken Words, Eastern Psychological Association convention, 1987.
32.
ZajoncR. B., Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences, American Psychologist, 35, pp. 151–175, 1980.
33.
ZajoncR. B., Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 9(2), pp. 1–27, 1968.
34.
KučeraH. and FrancisW. N., Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English, Brown University Press, Providence, RI, 1967.
35.
MartindaleC., The Evolution of Italian Painting: A Quantitative Investigation of Trends in Style and Content from the Gothic to Rococo Styles, Leonardo, 19, pp. 217–222, 1986.
36.
BattingW. F. and MontagueW. E., Category Norms for Verbal Items in 56 Categories: A Replication and Extension of the Connecticut Category Norms, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 80, (No. 3, part 2), pp. 1–46, 1969.
37.
StangD. J., Methodological Factors in Mere Exposure Research, Psychological Bulletin, 81, pp. 1014–1025, 1974.
