A review of studies on the judgment of rectangle proportions pointed out that individual differences in preference might be partly due to differences in verbal instructions given to the subjects. In the present experiment two types of instruction were used and their effects on both naive and experienced (art school) subjects were assessed. Following a subjective instruction, emphasizing personal preference, mean ratings of naive subjects revealed a preference peak around the Golden Section, whereas mean ratings of experienced viewers peaked at the square. In the objective condition, involving judgment of the goodness of proportion regardless of personal liking, the mean preferences of both groups clearly tended toward the square. Individual preference functions partly confirmed these mean patterns, but demonstrated large intersubject variability. Moreover, the naive viewers were significantly more consistent in their ratings than the experienced ones.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FechnerG. T., Vorschule der Ästhetik, Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1876.
2.
KreitlerH. and KreitlerS., Psychology of the Arts, Duke University Press, Durham, 1972.
3.
ChildI. L., Aesthetic Theories, in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 10, CarteretteE.C. and FriedmanM. P. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 111–131, 1978.
4.
BirkhoffG., Aesthetic Measure, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1933.
5.
EysenckH. J., An Experimental Study of Aesthetic Preferences for Polygonal Figures, Journal of General Psychology, 79, pp. 3–17, 1968.
6.
AustinJ. R. and SleightR. B., Aesthetic Preference for Isosceles Triangles, Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, pp. 430–431, 1951.
7.
McManusI. C., The Aesthetics of Simple Figures, British Journal of Psychology, 71, pp. 505–524, 1980.
8.
PlugC., The Golden Section Hypothesis, American Journal of Psychology, 93, pp. 467–487, 1980.
9.
BorissavlievitchM., The Golden Number and the Scientific Aesthetics of Architecture, Tiranti, London, 1958.
10.
HuntleyH. E., The Divine Proportion: A Study in Mathematical Beauty, Dover Publications, New York, 1970.
11.
BoselieF., The Golden Section has No Special Aesthetic Attractivity!, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 10, pp. 1–18, 1992.
12.
ZusneL., Visual Perception of Form, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
13.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1971.
14.
BenjafieldJ., A Review of Recent Research on the Golden Section, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 3, pp. 117–134, 1985.
15.
McWhinnieH., A Review of Selected Research on the Golden Section Hypothesis, Visual Arts Research, 13, pp. 73–84, 1987.
16.
ThompsonG. G., The Effect of Chronological Age on Aesthetic Preferences for Rectangles of Different Proportions, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, pp. 50–58, 1946.
17.
NienstedtC. W. and RossS., Preferences for Rectangular Proportions in College Students and the Aged, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 78, pp. 153–158, 1951.
18.
PiehlJ., The Golden Section: The “True” Ratio?, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, pp. 831–834, 1978.
19.
GodkewitschM., The ‘Golden Section’: An Artifact of Stimulus Range and Measure of Preference, American Journal of Psychology, 87, pp. 269–277, 1974.
20.
LaloC., L'Esthétique Expérimental et Contemporaine, Alcan, Paris, 1908.
21.
PiehlJ., The ‘Golden Section’: An Artifact of Stimulus Range and Demand Characteristics, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, pp. 47–50, 1976.
22.
HögeH., The Golden Section Hypothesis: A Funeral, but not the Last One …, in Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Berlin, 1992.
23.
EysenckH. J., Personal Preferences, Aesthetic Sensitivity and Personality in Trained and Untrained Subjects, Journal of Personality, 40, pp. 544–557, 1972.
24.
MachotkaP., Esthetic Judgment Warm and Cool: Cognitive and Affective Determinants, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, pp. 100–107, 1982.
25.
KaplanS., Aesthetics, Affect and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective, Environment and Behavior, 19, pp. 3–32, 1987.
26.
CupchikG. C. and GebotysR. J., The Search for Meaning in Art: Interpretive Styles and Judgments of Quality, Visual Arts Research, 14, pp. 38–50, 1988.
27.
CupchikG. C., From Perception to Production: A Multilevel Analysis of the Aesthetic Process, in Emerging Visions of the Aesthetic Process, CupchikG. and LaszloJ. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 83–99, 1992.
28.
CupchikG. C. and WinstonA. S., Reflection and Reaction: A Dual Process Analysis of Emotional Responses to Art, in Art and Emotions, Vol. 2, DorfmanL. Ya.LeontievD. A.PetrovV. M., and SozinovV. A. (eds.), The Perm State Institute of Culture, Perm, CIS. pp. 65–72, 1992.
29.
GoodmanN., Languages of Art, An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, (2nd Edition), Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1976.
30.
NeperudR. W., A Propositional View of Aesthetic Experiencing for Research and Teaching in Art Education, in The Foundations of Aesthetics, Art, & Art Education, FarleyF. H. and NeperudR. W. (eds.), Praeger Publishers, New York, pp. 273–319, 1988.
31.
BerlyneD. E., The Golden Section and Hedonic Judgments of Rectangles: A Cross-Cultural Study, Sciences de l'Art-Scientific Aesthetics, 7, pp. 1–6, 1970.
32.
BarnhartE. N., The Criteria used in Preferential Judgments of Geometrical Forms, American Journal of Psychology, 53, pp. 354–370, 1940.
33.
SchiffmanH. R., Figural Preference and the Visual Field, Perception and Psychophysics, 6, pp. 92–94, 1969.
34.
EysenckH. J. and CastleM., Training in Art as a Factor in the Determination of Preference Judgments for Polygons, British Journal of Psychology, 61, pp. 65–81, 1970.
35.
BezruczkoN. and SchroederD. H., Technical Report 1991-1. Artistic Judgment III: Artist Validation, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1991.
36.
FarnsworthP. R., Preferences for Rectangles, Journal of General Psychology, 7, pp. 479–481, 1932.
37.
BenjafieldJ., The ‘Golden Rectangle’: Some New Data, American Journal of Psychology, 89, pp. 737–743, 1976.
38.
SchiffmanH. R., Golden Section: Preferred Figural Orientation, Perception & Psychophysics, 1, pp. 193–194, 1966.
39.
HardyG. H. and WrightE. M., An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, (4th Edition), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965.
40.
PeperC. E.BeekP. J., and van WieringenP. C. W., Bifurcations in Polyrhythmic Tapping: In Search of Farey Principles, in Tutorials in Motor Neuroscience, RequinJ. and StelmachG. E. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 413–431, 1991.
41.
ArnheimR., A Review of Proportion, in Module, Proportion, Symmetry, Rhythm, KepesG. (ed.), Braziller, New York, pp. 218–230, 1966.
42.
SiegelS. and CastellanN. J.Jr., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, (2nd Edition), McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore, 1988.
43.
HainesT. H. and DaviesA. E., The Psychology of Aesthetic Reaction to Rectangular Forms, Psychological Review, 11, pp. 249–281, 1904.
44.
VanderplasJ. M. and GarvinE. A., The Association Value of Random Shapes, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, pp. 147–154, 1959.
45.
DavisF. C., Aesthetic Proportion, American Journal of Psychology, 45, pp. 298–302, 1933.
