Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A total of 69 male and female college students were recruited to participate in this study to investigate successive contrast effects in perception of “abstraction” in artwork. Artworks rated as “high,” “medium,” and “low” in abstraction were established based upon results of a pilot study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three contrast groups (i.e., “high-medium,” “medium-medium,” and “low-medium”) and subsequently rated the same target artwork as being less “abstract” and less “complex” when it was preceded by a single “high” abstract painting than when it was preceded by a single “low” abstract painting. The target artwork was also rated as more “passive” when it was preceded by the “high” abstract painting than when it was preceded by the “medium” abstract painting. These findings are consistent with and extend previous research that has examined contrast effects in aesthetic judgments of artwork.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartoshuk

L. M.

Fast

, & Snyder

D. J.

(2005). Differences in our sensory worlds: Invalid comparisons with labeled scales. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 122–125.

Benjafield

, & McFarlane

(1997). Preference for proportions as a function of content. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15, 143–151.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1973). Interrelations of verbal and nonverbal measures used in experimental aesthetics. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology, 14, 177–184.

Coren

, & Miller

(1974). Size contrast as a function of figural similarity. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 355–357.

Chieffi

, & Ricci

(2002). Influence of contextual stimuli on line bisection. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 868–874.

Dolese

M. J.

Zellner

D. A.

, & Vasserman

(2005). Categorization affects hedonic contrast in the visual arts. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5, 21–25.

Herz

R. S.

, & Cupchik

G. C.

(1993). The effects of hedonic context on evaluations and experience of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11, 147–166.

Konecni

(1997). The vase on the mantelpiece: The golden section in context. Empirical Studies of the Art, 15, 177–207.

Lawless

H. T.

Glatter

, & Hohn

(1991). Context dependent changes in the perception of odor quality. Chemical Senses, 16, 349–360.

10.

Lawless

H. T.

Horne

, & Spiers

(2000). Contrast and range effects for category, magnitude and labeled magnitude scales in judgments of sweetness intensity. Chemical Senses, 25, 85–92.

11.

Limbert

W. M.

, & Polzella

D. J.

(1998). Effects of music on the perception of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 33–39.

12.

Lindauer

M. S.

, & Dintruff

D. D.

(1975). Contrast effects in the response to art. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 40, 155–164.

13.

Locher

Smith

, & Smith

(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.

14.

Marks

L. E.

, & Warner

(1991). The slippery context effect and critical bands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance, 17, 986–996.

15.

McBride

R. L.

(1985). Stimulus range influences intensity and hedonic ratings of flavour. Appetite, 6, 125–131.

16.

Nodine

Locher

, & Krupinski

(1993). The role of formal training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219–227.

17.

Polzella

D. J.

(2000). Differences in reactions to paintings by male and female college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 251–258.

18.

Rankin

K. M.

, & Marks

J. E.

(1991). Differential context effects in taste perception. Chemical Senses, 16, 617–629.

19.

Schifferstein

H. N. J.

(1994). Contextual effects in the perception of quinine HCl/NaCl mixtures. Chemical Senses, 19, 113–123.

20.

Schifferstein

H. N. J.

, & Frijters

J. E. R.

(1992). Contextual and sequential effects on judgments of sweetness intensity. Perception and Psychophysics, 52, 243–255.

21.

Specht

S. M.

, & Twining

R. C.

(1999). Human taste contrast and self-reported measures of anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 384–386.

22.

Temme

J. E. V.

, & Gieszen

C. A. C.

(1995). Contrast effects and social desirability in art appreciation. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 171–181.

23.

Zellner

D. A.

Kern

, & Parker

(2002). Protection from the good: Subcategorization reduces hedonic contrast. Appetite, 38, 175–180.

24.

Zellner

D. A.

Rohm

E. A.

Bassetti

T. L.

, & Parker

(2003). Compared to what? Effects of categorization on hedonic contrast. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 468–473.

Successive Contrast Effects for Judgments of Abstraction in Artwork following Minimal Pre-Exposure

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References