This research addresses whether one underlying concept of appreciation exists across different classes of objects. Three studies were done. To identify aesthetic properties relevant for the aesthetic judgment of everyday objects and paintings, in Study 1 expert interviews were conducted with 12 interior designers, object-oriented designers and architects, and 12 students of art history. In Study 2, multidimensional unfolding (MDU) was used to examine whether common judgment criteria can be identified for the objects of the different classes. A sample of 217 German subjects participated. 2- or 3-dimensional MDU solutions resulted for each object class. The identified dimensions were labeled using the aesthetic properties derived from the expert interviews (Study 1). These dimensions represent relevant dimensions of aesthetic judgment on which object properties vary. Study 2 suggested that people use different dimensions of aesthetic judgment for different object classes. The identified dimensions were then used to construct three sets of systematically varied everyday objects and one set of systematically varied paintings. Using this stimulus material in Study 3, conjoint analysis indicated these dimensions are differentially important for the overall aesthetic judgment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnheimR. (1985) The other Gustav Fechner. In KochS.LearyD. E. (Eds.), A century of psychology as science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2.
BamossyG.ScammonD. L.JohnstonM. (1983) A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of an aesthetic judgment test. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 685–690.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1963) Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274–290.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1970) Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1971) Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corp.
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1974a) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publ. Corp.
7.
BerlyneD. E. (1974b) Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Wiley. Pp. 121–158.
8.
BirkhoffG. D. (1933) Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.
9.
BlochP. H.BrunelF. F.ArnoldT. J. (2003) Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551–565.
10.
BoringE. G. (1942) Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
11.
BoselieF. (1992) The golden section has no special aesthetic attractivity. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 10, 1–18.
12.
CarbonC. C.LederH. (2005) The repeated evaluation style (RET), a method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 587–601.
13.
CoombsC. H. (1964) A theory of data. New York: Wiley.
14.
CupchikG. C. (1986) A decade after Berlyne: New directions in experimental aesthetics. Poetics, 15, 345–369.
15.
CuttingJ. E. (2002) Gustave Caillebotte, French impressionism, and mere exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 319–343.
16.
de LeeuwJ. (2005) Multidimensional unfolding. In EverittB. S.HowellD. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, 3. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Pp. 1289–1294.
17.
EysenckH. J. (1941) ‘Type’–factors in aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 262–270.
18.
EysenckH. J. (1965) Aesthetics and personality. Exakte Ästhetik, 1, 35–50.
19.
EysenckH. J. (1983) Visual aesthetic sensitivity and its measurement. In RossM. (Ed.), The arts: A way of knowing. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Pp. 105–125.
20.
EysenckH. J.CastleM. (1970) Training in art as a factor in the determination of preference judgments for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 65–81.
21.
EysenckH. J.GötzK. O.LongH. Y.NiasD. K. B.RossM. (1984) A new Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test–IV. Cross-cultural comparisons between a Chinese sample from Singapore and an English sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 599–600.
22.
FechnerG. T. (1876) Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
23.
FergusonG. A.TakaneY. (1989) Statistical analysis in psychology and education. (6th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
FroisJ. P.EysenckH. J. (1995) The Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test applied to Portuguese children and fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 277–284.
25.
GötzK. O.BorisyA. R.LynnR.EysenckH. J. (1979) A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I. Construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 795–802.
26.
GreenS. B.SrinivasanV. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–121.
27.
GreenS. B.SrinivasanV. (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.
28.
HairJ. F. J. (1998) Conjoint analysis. In HairJ. F. J.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (Eds.), Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 387–442.
29.
HaysW. L.BennettJ. F. (1961) Multidimensional unfolding: Determining configuration from complete rank order preference data. Psychometrika, 26(2), 221–238.
30.
HekkertP.van WieringenP. C. W. (1996) The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologia, 109, 117–131.
31.
KoffkaK. (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
32.
KohliR. (1988) Assessing attribute significance in conjoint analysis: Nonparametric tests and empirical validation. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 123–133.
33.
KruskalJ. B. (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrica, 29(1), 1–27.
34.
KruskalW. H.WallisW. A. (1952) Use of ranks on one criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 583–621.
35.
LattoR.DouglasB. (2000) An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian (1872–1944). Perception, 29, 981–987.
36.
LederH. (2001) Wenn Gesichter Kopf stehen. Was der Inversions-Effekt für die Gesichtserkennung bedeutet. Psychologische Rundschau, 52, 75–84.
37.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgment. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
38.
LederH.CarbonC. C. (2005) Dimensions in appreciation of car-interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 603–618.
39.
LiuY. (2003) Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46, 1273–1292.
40.
LocherP. (2003) An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147–164.
41.
MartindaleC. (1984) The pleasure of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49–80.
42.
McIverJ. P.CarminesE. G. (1981) Unfolding theory, unidimensional scaling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
McManusI. C.CheemaB.StokerJ. (1993) The aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11, 83–94.
44.
MetzgerW. (1953) Gesetze des Sehens. Frankfurt: von Waldemar Kramer.
45.
NikettaR. (1987) Sozialpsychologie der Ästhetik. Unpublished Habilitation thesis, Univer. of Frankfurt, Germany.
46.
NodineC.LocherP.KrupinskiE. (1993) The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219–227.
47.
NollA. M. (1996) Human or machine: A subjective comparison of Piet Mondrian's “Composition with Lines” (1917) and a computer-generated picture. Psychological Record, 16, 1–10.
48.
ReipsU-D.LenglerR. (2005) The Web Experiment List: A web service for the recruitment of participants and archiving of internet-based experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 287–292.
49.
RitterfeldU. (1996) Psychologie der Wohnästhetik: Wie es uns gefällt. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
50.
RitterfeldU. (2002) Social heuristics in interior design preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 369–386.
51.
SwedeG. (1994) Basic theoretical issues. In SwedeG. (Ed.), The psychology of art: An experimental approach. Toronto, Ont.: Canadian Scholars' Press. Pp. 13–16.
52.
WittinkD. R.KrishnamurthiL.NutterJ. B. (1982) Comparing derived importance weights across levels on conjoint results. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 471–474.
53.
WittinkD. R.KrishnamurthiL.ReibsteinD. J. (1990) The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Marketing Letters, 1, 113–129.
54.
WolachA. H.McHaleM. A. (2005) Line spacing in Mondrian paintings and computer-generated modifications. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 281–291.
