Recent evolutionary theory has argued that what people find “beautiful” is not arbitrary, but rather has evolved over millions of years of hominid sensory, perceptual, and cognitive evolution. Sensations that have adaptive value (i.e., that enhance safety, survival, and reproduction) often become aesthetically preferred. One purpose of the current study was to present a personality and social attitude template for persons who prefer a relatively recent and generally unappreciated form of art, namely abstract art. One hundred and four college participants (68 female) completed personality (openness and experience seeking) and social attitude questionnaires and recorded their preference for 15 realistic, 15 ambiguous, and 15 abstract works of art. Results showed that open participants preferred every form of art presented, but that this difference increased as the art became more abstract. In addition, those with attitudes more tolerant of political liberalism and drug use preferred abstract art the most.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AikenN. E. (1998). The biological origins of art.Westport, CT: Praeger.
2.
BarronF. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478–485.
3.
BarronF., & WelshG. S. (1952). Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style. Journal of Psychology, 33, 199–203.
4.
BarrowJ. D. (1995). The artful universe.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.
BoselieF., & CesàroA. (1994). Disjunctive ambiguity as a determinant of the aesthetic attractivity of visual patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12(1), 85–94.
7.
BrantL.MarshallP. H., & RoarkB. (1995). On the development of prototypes and preferences. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13(2), 161–170.
8.
ChildI. L. (1965). Personality correlates of esthetic judgement in college students. Journal of Personality, 33, 476–511.
9.
ChildI. L.CoopermanM., & WolowitzH. M. (1968). Esthetic preference and other correlates of active versus passive food preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 75–84.
10.
CossR. G. (1968). The ethological command in art. Leonardo, 1, 273–287.
11.
CostaP. T.Jr., & McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
12.
DarwinC. (1871). The descent of man.London: Murray (reprinted in 1998 by Prometheus Books).
13.
DissanayakeE. (1988). What is art for?Seattle, WA: Washington University Press.
14.
DissanayakeE. (1992). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why.New York: The Free Press.
15.
EysenckH. J. (1941). Personality factors and preference judgments. Nature, 148, 346.
16.
EysenckH. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FeistG. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.
18.
FeistG. J. (2001). Natural and sexual selection in the evolution of creativity. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2, 11–16.
19.
FurnhamA., & AvisonM. (1997). Personality and preference for surreal paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 923–935.
20.
FurnhamA., & BunyanM. (1988). Personality and art preferences. European Journal of Personality, 2, 67–74.
21.
HeinrichsR. W., & CupchikG. C. (1985). Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53, 502–515.
22.
HekkertP., & SneldersH. M. J. J. (1995). Prototypicality as an explanatory concept in aesthetics: A reply to Boselie (1991). Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 149–160.
23.
KaganJ. (1994). Galen's prophecy: Temperament in human nature.New York: Basic Books.
24.
KettlewellN.LipscombS.EvansL., & RosstonK. (1990). The effect of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 85–93.
25.
KingR.MeganathanJ.NagaharaJ., & BoscoloM. (1998). Individual differences in complexity preference and artistic style: Neoclassical versus expressionistic aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 15–23.
26.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.New York: Oxford.
27.
LindauerM. S., & DintruffD. D. (1975). Contrast effects in the response to art. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 155–164.
28.
MachotkaP. (1982). Esthetic judgment warm and cool: Cognitive and affective determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 100–107.
29.
MartindaleC. (1996). A note on the relationship between prototypicality and preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 109–113.
30.
MartindaleC., & MooreK. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670.
31.
McCraeR. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1261.
32.
MillerG. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature.New York: Doubleday.
33.
MillerG. F. (2001). Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2, 20–25.
34.
NickiR. M., & MossV. (1975). Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 237–249.
35.
OriansG. H. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2, 25–29.
36.
OriansG. H., & HeerwagenJ. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In BarkowJ. H. and CosmidesL. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555–579). New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
OsborneJ. W., & FarleyF. H. (1970). The relationship between aesthetic preference and visual complexity in abstract art. Psychonomic Science, 19, 69–70.
38.
PowerC. (1999). “Beauty magic”: The origins of art. In DunbarR.KnightC., & PowerC. (Eds.), The evolution of culture (pp. 92–112). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
39.
RawlingsD. (2000). The interaction of openness to experience and schizotypy in predicting preference for abstract and violent paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 69–91.
40.
RawlingsD.Barrantes i VidalN., & FurnhamA. (2001). Personality and aesthetic preferences in Spain and England: Two studies relating sensation seeking and openness to experience to liking for paintings and music. European Journal of Personality, 14, 553–576.
41.
RawlingsD.TwomeyF.BurnsE., & MorrisS. (1998). Personality, creativity, and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism, sensation seeking, schizotypy, and openness to experience. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 153–178.
42.
RothbartM.AhadiS., & EvansD. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78, 122–135.
43.
ThomasA., & ChessS. (1977). Temperament and development.New York: Brunner/Mazel.
44.
ThornhillR. (1998). Darwinian aesthetics. In CrawfordC. B. & KrebsD. L. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 543–572). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
ToobyJ., & CosmidesL. (2001). Does beauty build adapted minds? Toward an evolutionary theory of aesthetics, fiction, and the arts. SubStance, 30, 6–27.
46.
WilsonG. D.AusmanJ., & MathewsT. R. (1973). Conservatism and art preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 286–288.
47.
ZahaviA., & ZahaviA. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
49.
ZuckermanM. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
ZuckermanM. (1994). Manual with scoring keys and forms for Form V of the Senation Seeking Scale (SSS-V).Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
51.
ZuckermanM.EysenckS. B., & EysenckH. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139–149.
52.
ZuckermanM.NearyR. S., & BrustmanB. A. (1970). Sensation-seeking scale correlates in experience (smoking, drugs, alcohol, “hallucinations,” and sex) and preference for complexity (designs). Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the APA, 5(1), 317–318.
53.
ZuckermanM.UlrichR. S., & McLaughlinJ. (1993). Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 563–576.
