Aesthetic response typologies are criticised for their imprecision and lack of theoretical parsimony. An alternative approach which subsumes reported characteristics of aesthetic choices under one model, related to stochastic learning theory, is advanced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BinetA.Etude experimentale de l'intelligence. Paris: Ancienne Librarie Schleicher, 1903.
2.
BulloughE.The perceptive problem in the aesthetic appreciation of single colours. Brit. J. Psychol., 1908, 2, 406–462.
3.
BurtC. L.How the mind works. London: Allen & Unwin, 1933.
4.
BurtC. L.Type factors in aesthetic judgements. Character & Pers., 1939, 7, 238–254; 285–299.
5.
CoombsC. H.RaiffaH.ThrallR. M.Some views on mathematical models and measurement theory. Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 132–144.
6.
EvansJ.Taste and temperament. London: Cape, 1939.
7.
EysenckH. J.The general factor in aesthetic judgments. Brit. J. Psychol., 1941, 31, 94–102.
8.
GarnerW. R.HakeH.The amount of information in absolute judgments. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 446–459.
9.
GregsonR. A. M.Some possible forms of lexicographic evaluation. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 173–183.
10.
GregsonR. A. M.Additivity of value in the representation of aesthetic choices. Aust. J. Psychol., 1964, 16, 20–32. (a)
11.
GregsonR. A. M.A study in the psychometrics of substitution choices. Univer. Canterbury, Dept. Psychol. Res. Rep., 1964, No. 5. (b)
12.
GuilfordJ. P.HolleyJ. W.A factorial approach to the analysis of variance in aesthetic judgments. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 208–218.
13.
OsgoodC. E.SuciC. J.TannenbaumP. H.The measurement of meaning. Urbana: Univer. of Illinois Press, 1957.
14.
Togrol-BirandB. A.Aesthetic evaluation of works of art by artists and laymen. Paper read at XVth Int. Congr. Psychol., Brussels, 1957.
15.
TuckerW. T.Experiments in aesthetic communications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Illinois, 1955.
16.
ValentineC. W.The experimental psychology of beauty. Edinburgh: Nelson, 1919.
