The differential power of extraneous influences to modify aesthetic judgments of biological and artifactual stimuli.
artifactual beauty
biological beauty
neuroesthetics
Journal
PsyCh journal
ISSN: 2046-0260
Titre abrégé: Psych J
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101598595
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
revised:
22
10
2020
received:
20
07
2020
accepted:
29
10
2020
pubmed:
10
12
2020
medline:
29
4
2021
entrez:
9
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We addressed the question of the extent to which external information is capable of modifying aesthetic ratings given to two different categories of stimuli-images of faces (which belong to the biological category) and those of abstract paintings with no recognizable objects (which sit in the artifactual category). A total of 51 participants of different national origins rated the beauty of both sets of stimuli, indicating the certainty of their rating; they then re-rated them after being exposed to the opinions of others on their aesthetic status. Of these 51 participants, 42 who met our criteria were selected to complete the experiment. The results showed that individuals were less prone to modifying their ratings of stimuli belonging to the biological category compared to those falling into the artifactual category. We discuss this finding in light of our theoretical Bayesian-Laplacian model and on the evidence given by previous empirical research.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190-199Subventions
Organisme : Leverhulme Trust
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005). Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58(3), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012
Chen, C.-H., & Zeki, S. (2011). Frontoparietal activation distinguishes face and space from artifact concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2558-2568. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2011.21617
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C.-H. (1995). ‘Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours’: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261
DeBruine, L., & Jones, B. (2017). Face research lab London set. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5047666.v3
Fink, B., & Neave, N. (2005). The biology of facial beauty. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27(6), 317-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.2005.00286.x
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(3), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036847
Germine, L., Russell, R., Bronstad, P. M., Blokland, G. A. M., Smoller, J. W., Kwok, H., … Wilmer, J. B. (2015). Individual aesthetic preferences for faces are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Current Biology, 25(20), 2684-2689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048
Hönekopp, J. (2006). Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199
Huang, M., Bridge, H., Kemp, M. J., & Parker, A. J. (2011). Human cortical activity evoked by the assignment of authenticity when viewing works of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00134
Izuma, K., & Adolphs, R. (2013). Social manipulation of preference in the human brain. Neuron, 78(3), 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.023
Kant I. Critique of Judgment. Indianapolis, IN and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company; 1790/1987;576.
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, 108(25), 10332-10336. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019332108
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
Kinsey A., C., Pomeroy W., R., Martin, C., E.. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93 (6):894-898. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.6.894
Klucharev, V., Hytönen, K., Rijpkema, M., Smidts, A., & Fernández, G. (2009). Reinforcement learning signal predicts social conformity. Neuron, 61(1), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.027
Land E. H.. Recent advances in retinex theory and some implications for cortical computations: color vision and the natural image. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA. 1983;80 5163-5169doi. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.16.5163
Land, E. H. (1974). The retinex theory of color vision. Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 47, 23-58.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79
Leder, H., Goller, J., Rigotti, T., & Forster, M. (2016). Private and shared taste in art and face appreciation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00155
Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122-1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., … Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org/
Sidhu, D. M., McDougall, K. H., Jalava, S. T., & Bodner, G. E. (2018). Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures. PLoS One, 13(7), e0200431. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200431
Slater, A., Von der Schulenburg, C., Brown, E., Badenoch, M., Butterworth, G., Parsons, S., & Samuels, C. (1998). Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(2), 345-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90011-X
Sutherland, C. A. M., Burton, N. S., Wilmer, J. B., Blokland, G. A. M., Germine, L., Palermo, R., … Rhodes, G. (2020). Individual differences in trust evaluations are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(19), 10218-10224. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920131117
van Langen, J. (2020). Open-visualizations in R and Python [Jupyter Notebook]. Retrieved from https://github.com/jorvlan/open-visualizations
Vessel, E. A., Maurer, N., Denker, A. H., & Starr, G. G. (2018). Stronger shared taste for natural aesthetic domains than for artifacts of human culture. Cognition, 179, 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.009
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(2), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036126
Zaki, J., Schirmer, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2011). Social influence modulates the neural computation of value. Psychological Science, 22(7), 894-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611411057
Zeki, S. (2011). Splendors and miseries of the brain: Love, creativity, and the quest for human happiness (). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Zeki, S. (2013). Clive Bell's “significant form” and the neurobiology of aesthetics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00730
Zeki, S., & Chén, O. Y. (2020). The Bayesian-Laplacian brain. European Journal of Neuroscience, 51(6), 1441-1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14540
Zeki, S., & Ishizu, T. (2013). The “visual shock” of Francis Bacon: An essay in neuroesthetics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00850
Zeki, S., Javier, A., & Mylonas, D. (2020). The biological basis of the experience and categorization of colour. European Journal of Neuroscience, 51(2), 670-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14557
Zeki, S., & Romaya, J. P. (2010). The brain reaction to viewing faces of opposite- and same-sex romantic partners. PLoS One, 5(12), e15802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015802