Aesthetics Electrified: An Analysis of Descriptive Symmetry and Evaluative Aesthetic Judgment Processes Using Event-Related Brain Potentials

Abstract

An event-related brain potential (ERP) study comparing descriptive and evaluative judgment processes is reported. Using identical stimuli to isolate perceptual from judgmental processes, the two judgment types were operationalized by employing symmetry and aesthetic judgments. Electrophysiological activity was recorded while participants viewed newly designed two-dimensional patterns in a pre-cued task setting. Judgment analyses of a Phase I test and performance in the main experiment revealed detailed paramorphic models of the individual judges' cognitive systems as well as group models. Symmetry showeda strong positive correlation with judgments and was the most important cue in every case. Descriptive judgments were performed faster than evaluative judgments. The ERPs revealed a phasic frontal negativity in the non-aesthetic condition as well as a sustained posterior negativity in the symmetrical condition. All conditions showed late positive potentials (LPP). Evaluative judgment LPPs revealed a more pronounced right lateralization. It was concluded that descriptive symmetry judgment and evaluative aesthetic judgment processes differ dramatically and recruit, at least in part, different neural machinery.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlyne

D. E.

(1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Crites

S. L.

Gardner

W. L.

, & Berntson

G. G.

(1994). Bioelectrical echoes from evaluative categorizations: I. A late positive brain potential that varies as a function of trait negativity and extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 115–125.

Cooksey

R. W.

(1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.

Eisenman

(1967). Complexity—simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8, 169–170.

Fechner

G. T.

(1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik [Experimental Aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Gardner

(1985). The mind's new science. A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.

Hammond

K. R.

Stewart

T. R.

Brehmer

, & Steinmann

D. O.

(1975). Social judgment theory. In Kaplan

& Schwartz

(Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press.

Ito

T. A.

, & Cacioppo

(1999). The psychophysiology of utility appraisals. In Kahneman

Diener

, & Schwartz

(Eds.), Understanding quality of life: Scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Konecni

V. J.

(1979). Determinants of aesthetic preference and effects of exposure to aesthetic stimuli: Social, emotional and cognitive factors. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 9, 149–197.

10.

Mandler

, & Shebo

B. J.

(1983). Knowing and liking. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 125–144.

11.

Martindale

(1988). Aesthetics, psychobiology, and cognition. In Farley

F. H.

& Neperud

R. W.

(Eds.), The foundation of aesthetics, art and art education. New York: Praeger.

12.

McCall

W. A.

(1939). Measurement. New York: Macmillan.

13.

Pashler

(1990). Coordinate frame for symmetry detection and object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16,150–163.

14.

Petty

R. E.

Wegener

D. T.

, & Fabrigar

L. R.

(1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–647.

15.

Stewart

T. R.

(1988). Judgment analysis. In B. B. and Joyce

C. R. B.

(Ed.), Human judgment: The SJT view. Amsterdam: North Holland.