A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity.
aesthetic sensitivity
balance
complexity
contour
curvature
symmetry
Journal
British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)
ISSN: 2044-8295
Titre abrégé: Br J Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2019
revised:
16
09
2019
pubmed:
7
10
2019
medline:
2
2
2021
entrez:
7
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Aesthetic sensitivity has been defined as the ability to recognize and appreciate beauty and compositional excellence, and to judge artistic merit according to standards of aesthetic value. The Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST) has often been used to assess this ability, but recent research has revealed it has several psychometric problems. Such problems are not easily remedied, because they reflect flawed assumptions inherent to the concept of aesthetic sensitivity as traditionally understood, and to the VAST itself. We introduce a new conception of aesthetic sensitivity defined as the extent to which someone's aesthetic valuation is influenced by a given feature. Experiment 1 aimed to characterize aesthetic sensitivity to four prominent features in visual aesthetics: complexity, symmetry, contour, and balance. Experiment 2 aimed to replicate the findings of Experiment 1 and to assess the test-retest reliability of an instrument designed to measure aesthetic sensitivity to these features using an abridged set of stimuli. Our results reveal that people differ remarkably in the extent to which visual features influence their liking, highlighting the crucial role of individual variation when modelling aesthetic preferences. We did not find clear relations between the four measures of aesthetic sensitivity and personality, intelligence, and art interest and knowledge. Finally, our measurement instrument exhibited an adequate-to-good test-retest reliability.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
630-658Subventions
Organisme : la Caixa Foundation
ID : ID 100010434
Organisme : Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad
ID : LCF/BQ/ES17/11600021
Organisme : Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad
ID : PSI2016-77327-P
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The British Psychological Society.
Références
Alink, A., Schwiedrzik, C. M., Kohler, A., Singer, W., & Muckli, L. (2010). Stimulus predictability reduces responses in primary visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 2960-2966. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3730-10.2010
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 617-629. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1476
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Barron, F., & Welsh, G. S. (1952). Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style: Its measurement by a figure preference test. The Journal of Psychology, 33, 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1952.9712830
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., … Green, P. (2017). Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4, R package version 1.1-14. Retrieved from http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
Beckerman, H., Roebroeck, M. E., Lankhorst, G. J., Becher, J. G., Bezemer, P. D., & Verbeek, A. L. M. (2001). Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 10, 571-578. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013138911638
Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T., & Carbon, C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019648
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., Gheorghes, T. N., & Galatsidas, M. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity? British Journal of Psychology, 107, 154-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132
Birkhoff, G. D. (1932). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Applying the right statistics: Analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 22, 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.122
Brehmer, A., & Brehmer, B. (1988). What have we learned about human judgment from thirty years of policy capturing. In B. Brehmer & C. R. B. Joyce (Eds.), Human judgment: The SJT view (pp. 75-114). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62171-8
Brieber, D., Nadal, M., & Leder, H. (2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica, 154, 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004
Brieber, D., Nadal, M., Leder, H., & Rosenberg, R. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
Brown, S., & Dissanayake, E. (2009). The arts are more than aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as narrow aesthetics. In M. Skov & O. Vartanian (Eds.), Neuroaesthetics (pp. 43-57). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, C. (1924). Psychological tests of educable capacity, Chapter I Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. London.
Burt, C. (1933). How the mind works. London, UK: Allen and Unwin.
Burt, C. (1949). The structure of the mind. A review of the results of factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 176-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1949.tb01621.x
Cattaneo, Z., Lega, C., Ferrari, C., Vecchi, T., Cela-Conde, C. J., Silvanto, J., & Nadal, M. (2015). The role of the lateral occipital cortex in aesthetic appreciation of representational and abstract paintings: A TMS study. Brain and Cognition, 95, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.01.008
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). Art judgment: A measure related to both personality and intelligence? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 24, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.2190/U4LW-TH9X-80M3-NJ54
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 501-516. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X366867
Chan, J., Eysenck, H. J., & Götz, K. O. (1980). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: III cross-cultural comparison between Hong Kong children and adults, and English and Japanese samples. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 1325-1326. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.50.3c.1325
Chatterjee, A., Widick, P., Sternschein, R., Smith, W. B. II, & Bromberger, B. (2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 207-222. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.f
Che, J., Sun, X., Gallardo, V., & Nadal, M. (2018). Cross-cultural empirical aesthetics. Progress in Brain Research, 237, 77-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.03.002
Child, I. L. (1962). Personal preferences as an expression of aesthetic sensitivity. Journal of Personality, 30, 496-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02319.x
Child, I. L. (1965). Personality correlates of esthetic judgment in college students. Journal of Personality, 33, 476-511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01399.x
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1-24.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996). The methodology of social judgment theory. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 141-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467896394483
Corradi, G., Belman, M., Currò, T., Chuquichambi, E. G., Rey, C., & Nadal, M. (2019). Aesthetic sensitivity to curvature in real objects and abstract designs. Acta Psychologica, 197, 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.05.012
Cotter, K. N., Silvia, P. J., Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., & Vartanian, O. (2017). Curve appeal: Exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. i-Perception, 8, 2041669517693023. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517693023
Egermann, H., Pearce, M. T., Wiggins, G. A., & McAdams, S. (2013). Probabilistic models of expectation violation predict psychophysiological emotional responses to live concert music. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience, 13, 533-553. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0161-y
Egner, T., Monti, J. M., & Summerfield, C. (2010). Expectation and surprise determine neural population responses in the ventral visual stream. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 16601-16608. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2770-10.2010
Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where's the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 202-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.006
Eysenck, H. J. (1940). The ‘general factor’ in aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 94-102.
Eysenck, H. J. (1941a). A critical and experimental study of colour preferences. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417683
Eysenck, H. J. (1941b). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062483
Eysenck, H. J. (1941c). ‘Type’-Factors in aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 262-270.
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The experimental study of the ‘Good Gestalt’ - A new approach. Psychological Review, 49, 344-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057013
Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Preference judgments for polygons, designs and drawings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 396-398. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1972.34.2.396
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). Aesthetic preferences and individual differences. In D. O'Hare (Ed.), Psychology and the arts (pp. 76-101). Sussex, UK: The Harvester Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1983). A new measure of ‘good taste’ in visual art. Leonardo, 16, 229-231. https://doi.org/10.2307/1574921
Eysenck, H. J., & Castle, M. (1971). Comparative study of artists and nonartists on the maitland graves design judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 389-392. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031469
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf und Härtel.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 705-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00128-4
Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 997-1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00202-6
Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2013). The small step toward asymmetry: Aesthetic judgment of broken symmetries. i-Perception, 4, 352-355.
Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2014). The white cube of the museum versus the gray cube of the street: The role of context in aesthetic evaluations. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036847
Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2017). Predicting perceived visual complexity of abstract patterns using computational measures: The influence of mirror symmetry on complexity perception. PLoS ONE, 12, e0185276. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185276
Gear, J. (1986). Eysenck's visual aesthetic sensitivity test (VAST) as an example of the need for explicitness and awareness of content in empirical aesthetics. Poetics, 15, 555-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(86)90011-2
Gómez-Puerto, G., Munar, E., & Nadal, M. (2015). Preference for curvature: A historical and conceptual framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00712
Gómez-Puerto, G., Rosselló, J., Corradi, G., Acedo-Carmona, C., Munar, E., & Nadal, M. (2018). Preference for curved contours across cultures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 432-439.
Götz, K. O. (1981). VAST: Visual aesthetic sensitivity test. Düsseldorf, Germany: Concept Verlag.
Götz, K. O., Borisy, A. R., Lynn, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1979). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I. Construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 795-802. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.49.3.795
Graves, M. (1948). Design judgement test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Grüner, S., Specker, E., & Leder, H. (2019). Effects of context and genuineness in the experience of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 138-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418822896
Hammond, K. R., Rohrbaugh, J., Mumpower, J., & Adelman, L. (1977). Social judgment theory: Applications in policy formation. In M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes: Applications in problem settings (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Höfel, L., & Jacobsen, T. (2003). Temporal stability and consistency of aesthetic judgments of beauty of formal graphic patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 30-32. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.1.30
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279
Iwawaki, S., Eysenck, H. J., & Götz, K. O. (1979). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test (VAST): II. Cross-cultural comparison between England and Japan. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 859-862. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.49.3.859
Jacobsen, T. (2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604322779451
Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the Psychology of Aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2006.39.2.155
Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 755-766. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755
Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 289-299. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.3.4.289
Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29, 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54-69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 601-625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
Kirk, U., Harvey, A., & Montague, P. R. (2011). Domain expertise insulates against judgment bias by monetary favors through a modulation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 10332-10336. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019332108
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., & Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69, 306-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44, 1125-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
Kuznetsova, A., Brockho, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2012). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). Retrieved from http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest/
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode-Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 443-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
Leder, H., Tinio, P. P. L., Brieber, D., Kröner, T., Jacobsen, T., & Rosenberg, R. (2019). Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 104-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418777941
Lengger, P. G., Fischmeister, F. P. S., Leder, H., & Bauer, H. (2007). Functional neuroanatomy of the perception of modern art: A DC-EEG study on the influence of stylistic information on aesthetic experience. Brain Research, 1158, 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.001
Locher, P., Krupinski, E., & Schaefer, A. (2015). Art and authenticity: Behavioral and eye-movement analyses. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000026
Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1494-1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y
Lundy, D. E., Schenkel, M. B., Akrie, T. N., & Walker, A. M. (2010). How important is beauty to you? The development of the desire for aesthetics scale. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 73-92. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.1.e
Martindale, C. (2001). How does the brain compute aesthetic preference? The General Psychologist, 36, 25-35.
Mastandrea, S., Bartoli, G., & Bove, G. (2009). Preferences for ancient and modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteristics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013142
Mastandrea, S., & Crano, W. D. (2019). Peripheral factors affecting the evaluation of artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418790916
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO five-factor inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1
McManus, I. C., & Furnham, A. (2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 555-587. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X101088
Meier, N. C. (1927). Can art talent be discovered by test devices? Western Arts Association Bulletin, 11, 74-79.
Meier, N. C. (1928). A measure of art talent. Psychological Monographs, 39, 184-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093346
Meier, N. C., & Seashore, C. E. (1929). The meier-seashore art judgment test. Iowa City, IA: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Iowa.
Mühlenbeck, C., Jacobsen, T., Pritsch, C., & Liebal, K. (2017). Cultural and species differences in gazing patterns for marked and decorated objects: A comparative eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00006
Mühlenbeck, C. A., Liebal, K., Pritsch, C., & Jacobsen, T. (2015). Gaze duration biases for colours in combination with dissonant and consonant sounds: A comparative eye-tracking study with orangutans. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139894. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139894
Mühlenbeck, C., Liebal, K., Pritsch, C., & Jacobsen, T. (2016). Differences in the visual perception of symmetric patterns in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) and two human cultural groups: A comparative eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00408
Murray, S. O., Schrater, P., & Kersten, D. (2004). Perceptual grouping and the interactions between visual cortical areas. Neural Networks, 17, 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2004.03.010
Myszkowski, N., Çelik, P., & Storme, M. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and visual “Taste” measures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000099
Myszkowski, N., & Storme, M. (2017). Measuring “good taste” with the visual aesthetic sensitivity test-revised (VAST-R). Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.041
Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2014). Is visual aesthetic sensitivity independent from intelligence, personality and creativity? Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.021
Myszkowski, N., & Zenasni, F. (2016). Individual differences in aesthetic ability: The case for an aesthetic quotient. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 750. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00750
Nadal, M., Gallardo, V., & Marty, G. (2017). Commentary: Neural substrates of embodied natural beauty and social endowed beauty: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 596. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00596
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277001
Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2007). The role of context in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 520-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.009
Pang, C. Y., Nadal, M., Müller, J. S., Rosenberg, R., & Klein, C. (2013). Electrophysiological correlates of looking at paintings and its association with art expertise. Biological Psychology, 93, 246-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.10.013
Pearce, M. T., Zaidel, D. W., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., & Nadal, M. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621274
Pelowski, M., Forster, M., Tinio, P. P. L., Scholl, M., & Leder, H. (2017). Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with ‘real’ and museum-based art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000141
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Lauring, J. O., & Leder, H. (2016). Visualizing the impact of art: An update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive matrices: A perceptual test of intelligence. London, UK: H.K. Lewis.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364-382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 257-262. https://doi.org/doi:10.1038/nn.2726
Seisdedos, N. (1996). Raven matrices pogresivas. 2º Edición ampliada. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.
Silvia, P. J. (2007). An introduction to multilevel modeling for research on the psychology of art and creativity. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.2190/6780-361T-3J83-04L1
Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 25-42. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b
Singer, W. (2013). Cortical dynamics revisited. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17, 616-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.006
Skov, M. (2019). Aesthetic appreciation: The view from neuroimaging. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 220-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237419839257
Skov, M., & Nadal, M. (2018). Art is not special: An assault on the last lines of defense against the naturalization of the human mind. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 29, 699-702. https://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2017-0085
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Stewart, T. R. (1988). Judgment analysis: Procedures. In B. Brehmer & C. R. B. Joyce (Eds.), Human judgment: The SJT view (pp. 41-74). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62170-6
Stich, C., Eisermann, J., Knäuper, B., & Leder, H. (2007). Aesthetic properties of everyday objects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 1139-1168. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.4.1139-1168
Swami, V. (2013). Context matters: Investigating the impact of contextual information on aesthetic appreciation of paintings by Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 285-295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030965
Thorndike, E. L. (1916). Tests of esthetic appreciation. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 509-522. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073375
Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Individual differences in judgments of the beauty of simple forms. Psychological Review, 24, 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073175
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., … Nadal, M. (2019). Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 110-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000150
Vaz, S., Falkmer, T., Passmore, A. E., Parsons, R., & Andreou, P. (2013). The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test-retest reliability. PLoS ONE, 8, e73990. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073990
Wagner, V., Menninghaus, W., Hanich, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Art schema effects on affective experience: The case of disgusting images. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036126
Weichselbaum, H., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of art expertise. i-Perception, 9, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518761464
Wilson, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 165-180. https://doi.org/10.2190/B1LR-MVF3-F36X-XR64