COMPLEXITY AND AESTHETIC PREFERENCE FOR DIVERSE VISUAL STIMULI
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Marcos Nadal Roberts: COMPLEXITY AND AESTHETIC PREFERENCE FOR DIVERSE VISUAL STIMULI. DOCTORAL THESIS, Departament de Psicologia, Universitat de les Illes Balears, 2007. 439 Seiten
DOI
Abstract
Even a superficial familiarity with the field of empirical aesthetics is enough to realize that there is a considerable amount of conceptual confusion. For instance, aesthetic judgment and aesthetic preference are often used with no prior explicit definition. Whereas some authors seem to consider that they are interchangeable, others consider that they should be used to designate different phenomena. In the present work I have chosen to follow McWhinnie's (1968) criterion of using aesthetic preference to refer to the degree with which people like a particular visual stimulus or not, how much they prefer it to another, or how they rate its beauty. Conversely, aesthetic judgment will be used to refer to the assessment someone does of the aesthetic or artistic value of a certain visual stimulus. Whereas the goodness of someone’s aesthetic judgment can be gauged using external criteria provided by expert’s appraisals –though these have certainly varied throughout history-, there can be no yardstick to determine how “good” someone’s aesthetic preference is, given that it is an entirely subjective and personal matter. Finally, aesthetic appreciation will be used to refer to the human capacity to divide the world into beautiful and ugly things, to prefer a blue car to a red one, and to like blond men more than others. We believe that this capacity was present at least at the time of our species’ birth, though it probably built on pre-existing cognitive and affective processes. It led the first Homo sapiens to decorate their bodies and to make necklaces, enabled our upper Palaeolithic ancestors to create breath-taking murals on cave walls, drove Michelangelo to sculpt David, and allows us to admire all of this. But it also allowed our ancestors to avoid settling in resourceless environments, feeling attracted by sick-looking people, and it allows us to avoid living in bare-walled houses, and wearing brown with red. ivThe work presented here, structured as a standard journal paper, is mostly concerned with aesthetic preference for visual stimuli, though there are many previous studies on aesthetic judgment and aesthetic appreciation which cast light on how people develop aesthetic preferences for visual stimuli. In fact, the question of the factors that govern these preferences is one of the oldest in the field of empirical aesthetics, and one of its chiefs objectives has been to articulate a sort of predictive mathematical formula that describes an underlying relation between certain attributes of visual stimuli and people’s reaction to them. After briefly reviewing early attempts to formulate this relation, we will present Daniel Berlyne’s framework, which stimulated research in the field since the 1970s. The main aim of our work is to explore the reasons behind the divergence of results obtained by studies attempting to verify Berlyne’s predicted relation between complexity and aesthetic preference. We look at three main possibilities: (i) studies have varied as to the proportion of male and female participants, (ii) studies have used different kinds of stimuli (abstract, representational, artistic, geometric figures, and so on), (iii) studies have used different measures of complexity. As we mentioned, we are concerned solely with visual stimuli. Generalization of our results to auditory stimuli could be possible, though we have left this interesting issue for a later occasion. Carrying out this project has been satisfying and thrilling most of the time, and disheartening at certain moments. However, I am sure it would not have been completed without the help and encouragement from my colleagues at the Deparatment de Psicologia and the Departament de Filosofia i Treball Social at the Universitat de les Illes Balears. To them I am deeply grateful. Thank you to my supervisors, Camilo José Cela Conde and Gisèle Marty, who I greatly admire and respect, for inspiring and enthusing me. Support, patience, and understanding from my friends and family were as essential as air, food, and water to me during this venture.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
Used References
Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240-244.
Altmann, C. F., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2003). Perceptual organization of local elements into global shapes in the human visual cortex. Current Biology, 13, 342-349.
Anwar, M. P., & Child, I. L. (1972). Personality and esthetic sensitivity in an Islamic culture. The Journal of Social Psychology, 87, 21-28.
Arnheim, R. (1966). Toward a psychology of art. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Ashmore, R. D. (1990). Sex, Gender, and the Individual. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research (pp. 486-526). New York: The Guilford Press.
APA. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Attneave, F. (1957). Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 221-227.
Azim, E., Mobbs, D., Jo, B., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2005). Sex differences in brain activation elicited by humor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 16496-16501.
Barron, F. (1952). Personality style and perceptual choice. Journal of Personality, 20, 385-401.
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.
Beebe-Center, J. H., & Pratt, C. C. (1930). A test of Birkhoff's aesthetic measure. Journal of General Psychology, 17, 335-350.
338Behrmann, M., & Kimchi, R. (2003). What does visual agnosia tell us about perceptual organization and its relationship to object perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 19-42.
Bell, E. C., Willson, M. C., Wilman, A. H., Dave, S., & Silverstone, P. H. (2006). Males and females differ in brain activation during cognitive tasks. Neuroimage, 30, 529-538.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274-290.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974a). Novelty, complexity, and interestingness. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 175-180). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974b). The new experimental aesthetics. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 1-26). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974c). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 121-158). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E., & Ogilvie, J. C. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 181-226). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E., Ogilvie, J. C., & Parham, L. C. C. (1968). The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 376-387.
Berlyne, D. E., & Peckham, S. (1966). The semantic differential and other measures of reaction to visual complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 125-135. Bernard, Y. (1972). Sex influence in aesthetic behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 663-666.
Bezrucsko, N., & Schroeder, D. H. (1994). Differences in visual preferences and cognitive aptitudes of professional artists and nonartists. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 19-39.
Binet, A. (1903). Etude expérimentale de l’Intelligence. Paris: Sleicher frères. Birkhoff, G. D. (1932). Aesthetic Measure. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Boghi, A., Rasetti, R., Avidano, F., Manzone, C., Orsi, L., D'Agata, F., et al. (2006). The effect of gender on planning: An fMRI study using the Tower of London task. Neuroimage, 33, 999-1010.
Boselie, F. (1991). Against prototypicality as a central concept in aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, 65-73.
Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 1-39.
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 300-319.
Brighouse, G. (1939). Variability in preference for simple forms. Psychological Monographs, 51, 68-74.
Bullough, E. (1921). Recent work in experimental aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 12, 76-99.
Burt, C. (1924). Psychological Tests of Educable Capacity, Chapter I. In Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. London.
Burt, C. (1933). The Psychology of Art. In C. Burt (Ed.), How the Mind Works (pp. Chapter 15). London: Allen and Unwin.
Carreras, P. (1998). De Fechner a Berlyne: 100 años de estética experimental. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 19, 323-332.
Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Munar, E., Nadal, M., & Burges, L. (2002). The "style scheme" grounds perception of paintings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 91- 100.
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.
Chatterjee, A. (2003). Prospects for a Cognitive Neuroscience of Visual Aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology of the Arts, 4, 55-60.
Chevrier, J., & Delorme, A. (1980). Aesthetic preferences: Influence of perceptual ability, age and complexity of stimulus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 839-849.
Child, I. L. (1962). Personal preferences as an expression of aesthetic sensitivity.
Journal of Personality, 30, 496-512.
Child, I. L. (1965). Personality correlates of esthetic judgment in college students. Journal of Personality, 33, 476-511.
Child, I. L., & Siroto, L. (1965). BaKwele and American esthetic evaluations compared. Ethnology, 4, 349-360.
Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269-301.
Chipman, S. F., & Mendelson, M. J. (1979). Influence of six types of visual structure on complexity judgments in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 365-378.
Clark-Carter, D. (1997/2002). Investigación cuantitativa en psicología. Del diseño experimental al reporte de investigación. Méjico: Oxford University Press.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO- PI-R). Odessa, Fl.: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crespo León, A. (1999). Organización perceptual y reconocimiento visual del objeto. In E. Munar, J. Rosselló & A. Sánchez-Cabaco (Eds.), Atención y Percepción (pp. 339-377). Madrid: Alianza.
Cupchik, G. C. (1986). A decade after Berlyne. New directions in Experimental Aesthetics. Poetics, 15, 345-369.
Cupchik, G. C., & Heinrichs, R. W. (1981). Toward an integrated theory of aesthetic perception. In H. Day (Ed.), Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics. New York: Plenum.
Davis, P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 498-510.
Davis, R. C. (1936). An evaluation and test of Birkhoff's aesthetic measure. Journal of General Psychology, 15, 231-240.
Day, H. (1967). Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 281-286.
Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1992). Neural mechanisms of emotion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 329-338.
Dewar, H. (1938). A Comparison of Tests of Aesthetic Appreciation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 29-49.
Dickie, G. (1962). Is Psychology relevant to Aesthetics? The Philosophical Review, 71, 285-302.
Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual Complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73-97.
Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8(4), 169-170.
Eisenman, R., & Cofee, S. (1964). Aesthetic preferences of art students and mathematics students. The Journal of Psychology, 58, 375-378.
Eisenman, R., & Gillens, H. (1968). Preferences for complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 888-890.
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.
Eysenck, H. J. (1941b). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83-92.
Eysenck, H. J. (1941c). 'Type'-Factors in aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 262-270.
343Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The experimental study of the 'Good Gestalt' - A new approach. Psychological Review, 49, 344-363.
Eysenck, H. J. (1968). An experimental study of aesthetic preference for polygonal figures. The Journal of General Psychology, 79, 3-17.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971a). Factors determining aesthetic preferences for geometrical designs and devices. British Journal of Aesthetics, 11, 154-166.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971b). Personal preferences, aesthetic sensitivity and personality in trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Personality, 39, 544-557.
Eysenck, H. J., & Castle, M. (1970a). A factor-analytic study of the Barron-Welsh Art Scale. The Psychological Record, 20, 523-525.
Eysenck, H. J., & Castle, M. (1970b). Training in art as a factor in the determination of preference judgments for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 65-81.
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.
Eysenck, H. J., & Hawker, G. W. (1994). The taxonomy of visual aesthetic preferences: An empirical study. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 95-101.
Eysenck, H. J., & Iwawaki, S. (1971). Cultural relativity in aesthetic judgments: An empirical study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 817-818.
Eysenck, H. J., & Iwawaki, S. (1975). The determination of aesthetic judgment by race and sex. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 11-20.
Farley, F., & Ahn, S.-H. (1973). Experimental aesthetics: Visual aesthetic preference in five cultures. Studies in Art Education, 15, 44-48.
Farley, F. H., & Weinstock, C. A. (1980). Experimental aesthetics: Children's complexity preference in original art and photoreproductions. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 194-196.
Farrell, E., & Rogers, P. (1982). Is aesthetic response independent of age, sex, and IQ? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 16, 96-98.
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.
Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 77-89.
Ford, C. S., Prothro, E. T., & Child, I. L. (1966). Some transcultural comparisons of esthetic judgment. Journal of Social Psychology, 68, 19-26.
Francès, R. (1976). Comparative effects of six collative variables on interest and preference in adults of different educational levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 62-79.
Frois, J. P., & Eysenck, H. J. (1995). The visual aesthetic sensitivity test applied to Portuguese children and fine art students. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 277- 284.
Frumkin, R. M. (1963). Sex, familiarity, and dogmatism as factors in painting preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 17, 12.
Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sanvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-baing: the case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 427-434.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence and, art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 705-715.
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.
Garner, W. R. (1970). Good patterns have few alternatives. American Scientist, 58, 34- 42.
Georgopoulos, A. P., Whang, K., Georgopoulos, M.-A., Tagaris, G. A., Amirikian, B., Richter, W., et al. (2001). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of visual object construction and shape discrimination: Relations among task, hemispheric lateralization, and gender. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 72- 89.
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.
Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2005). The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: sex matters. Neuroimage, 25, 320-327.
Hall, A. C. (1969). Measures of the complexity of random black and white and coloured stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 773-774.
Hardiman, G. W., & Zernich, T. (1977). Preferences for the visual arts: A review of recent studies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 455-463.
Hare, F. G. (1974). Artistic training and responses to visual and auditory patterns varying in uncertainty. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 159-168). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Heath, T., Smith, S. G., & Lim, B. (2000). Tall buildings and the urban skyline. The effect of visual complexity on preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 541- 556.
Heckhausen, H. (1964). Complexity in perception: Phenomenal criteria and information theoretic calculus -a note on D. E. Berlyne's "complexity effects". Canadian Journal of Psychologyo, 18, 168-173.
Heinrichs, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53, 502-515.
Hekkert, P., Peper, C. E., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1994). The effect of verbal instruction and artistic background on the aesthetic judgment of rectangles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 185-203.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111-124.
Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototipicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 483-495.
Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. v. (1996a). Beauty in the eye of the expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389-407.
Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. v. (1996b). The impact of level of expertiese on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117-131.
Hogeboom, M., & van Leeuwen, C. (1997). Visual search strategy and perceptual organization covary with individual preference and structural complexity. Acta Psychologica, 95, 141-164.
Humphrey, N. K. (1973). The illusion of beauty. Perception, 2, 429-429.
Ichikawa, S. (1985). Quantitative and structural factors in the judgment of pattern complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 101-109.
Imamoglu, C. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non- architecture Turkish students' assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 5-16.
Iwao, S., & Child, I. L. (1966). Comparison of esthetic judgments by American experts and by Japanese potters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 68, 27-33.
Iwao, S., Child, I. L., & García, M. (1969). Further evidence of agreement between Japanese and American esthetic evaluations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 11-15.
Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the Psychology of Aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155-162.
Jacobsen, T., Buchta, K., Köler, M., & Schröger, E. (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94, 1253-1260.
Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 755-766.
Johnson, O., & Knapp, R. H. (1963). Sex differences in aesthetic preferences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 279-301.
Jones, B. E. (2003). Arousal Systems. Frontiers in Bioscience, 8, s438-s451.
Katz, B. F. (2002). What makes a polygon pleasing? Empirical studies of the Arts, 20, 1- 19.
Kemp, A. H., Silberstein, R. B., Armstrong, S. M., & Nathan, P. J. (2004). Gender differences in the cortical electrophysiological processing of visual emotional stimuli. NeuroImage, 16, 632-646.
Kettlewell, N., & Lipscomb, S. (1992). Neuropsychological correlates for realism- abstraction, a dimension of aesthetics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1023- 1026.
Kettlewell, N., Lipscomb, S., Evans, L., & Rosston, K. (1990). The effect of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 85-93.
Kloss, M. G., & Dreger, R. M. (1971). Abstract art preferences and temperament traits: A study in the psychology of aesthetics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 35, 375-378.
Knapp, R. H., Brimner, J., & White, M. (1959). Educational level, class status, and aesthetic preference. Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 277-284.
Knapp, R. H., & Wulff, A. (1963). Preferences for abstract and representational art. The Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 255-262.
Konecni, V. J. (1978). Daniel E. Berlyne: 1924-1976. American Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 133-137.
Kozbelt, A. (2001). Artists as experts in visual cognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 705-723.
Kreitler, S., Zigler, E., & Kreitler, H. (1974). The complexity of complexity. Human Development, 17, 54-73.
Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to non representational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 355-358.
Lacey, J. I. (1967). Somatic response patterning of stress: Some revisions of activation theory. In M. Appley & R. Trumbell (Eds.), Psychological Stress. New York: Appleton.
Lacey, J. I., & Lacey, B. C. (1958). Verification and extension of the principle of autonomic response-stereotypy. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 50-73.
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261-273.
Lawlor, M. (1955). Cultural influences on preference for designs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 690-692.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489-508.
Lévy Mangin, J. P., & Varela Mallou, J. (Eds.). (2003). Análisis multivariable para las ciencias sociales. Madrid: Pearson.
Lindauer, M. S. (1990). Reactions to cheap art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 95-110.
Locher, P. J. (2003a). Experimental techniques for investigating the contribution of pictorial balance to the creation and perception of visual displays. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 21, 127-235.
Locher, P. J. (2003b). An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147-164.
Locher, P. J. (2004). Factors contributing to the percieved dynamic quality of static abstract designs. In J. P. Frois, P. Andrade & J. F. Marques (Eds.), Art and Science. Proceedings of the XVIII Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (pp. 188-191). Lisboa: Jorge Fernandes.
Locher, P. J., Smith, K. S., & Smith, L. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30, 449-465.
Long, G. M., & Wurst, S. A. (1984). Complexity effects on reaction-time measures of visual persistence: Evidence for peripheral and central contributions. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 537-561.
Lowie, R. H. (1921). A note on aesthetics. American Anthropologist, 23, 170-174.
Mackiewicz, K. L., Sarinopoulos, I., Cleven, K. L., & Nitschke, J. B. (2006). The effect of anticipation and the specificity of sex differences for amygdala and hippocampus function in emotional memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 14200-15205.
Margolis, J. (1980). Prospects for a science of aesthetic perception. In J. Fisher (Ed.), Perceiving artworks. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49-80.
Martindale, C. (1988). Aesthetics, Psychobiology, and Cognition. In F. Farley & R. Neperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 7-42). Nueva York: Praeger.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Anderson, K. (2005). The effect of extraneous stimulation on aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 83-91.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's Psychobiological Theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53-80.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79-96. Marty, G. (1997). Hacia la Psicología del Arte. Psicothema, 9, 57-68.
Marty, G., Cela-Conde, C. J., Munar, E., Rosselló, J., Roca, M., & Escudero, J. T. (2003). Dimensiones factoriales de la experiencia estética. Psicothema, 15, 478- 483.
McElroy, W. A. (1952). Aesthetic appreciation in aborigigines of Arnhem Land: A comparative experimental study. Oceania, 23, 81-95.
McGuinness, D. (1976). Sex differences in the organization of perception and cognition. In Lloyd & Archer (Eds.), Exploring sex differences (pp. 123-156). London: Academic Press.
McWhinnie, H. J. (1968). A review of research on aesthetic measure. Acta Psychologica, 28, 363-375.
McWhinnie, H. J. (1993). Response time and aesthetic preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 336-338.
Meier, N. C. (1942). Art in human affairs. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mendelson, M. J. (1984). Attention to quantitative and configural properties of abstract visual patterns by children and adults. Child development, 55, 1789- 1798.
Messinger, S. M. (1998). Pleasure and Complexity: Berlyne revisited. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 558-560.
Mong, J., Easton, A., Kow, L.-M., & Pfaff, D. (2003). Neural, hormonal and genetic mechanisms for the activation of brain and behavior. European Journal of Pharmacology, 480, 229-231.
Munsinger, H., & Kessen, W. (1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78, 1-24.
Murray, S. O., Schrater, P., & Kersten, D. (2004). Perceptual grouping and the interactions between visual cortical areas. Neural Networks, 17, 695-705.
Nasar, J. L. (2002). What design for a presidential library? Complexity, typicality, order, and historical significance. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 83-99.
Neiss, R. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 345-366.
Neperud, R. W. (1986). The relationship of art training and sex differences to aesthetic valuing. Visual Arts Research, 12, 11-19.
Neperud, R. W., & Marschalek, D. G. (1988). Informational and affect bases of aesthetic response. Leonardo, 21, 305-312.
Nicki, R. M. (1972). Arousal increment and degree of complexity as incentive. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 165-171.
Nicki, R. M., & Gale, A. (1977). EEG, measures of complexity, and preference for nonrepresentational works of art. Perception, 6, 281-286.
Nicki, R. M., Lee, P. L., & Moss, V. (1981). Ambiguity, cubist works of art, and preference. Acta Psychologica, 49, 27-41.
Nicki, R. M., & Moss, V. (1975). Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 237-249.
Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J., & Krupinski, E. A. (1993). The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219-227.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2000). Collative variables versus prototipicality. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 13-17.
O'Hare, D. (1976). Individual differences in perceived similarity and preference for visual art: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 445-452.
Osborne, J. W., & Farley, F. H. (1970). The relationship between aesthetic preference and visual complexity in abstract art. Psychonomic Science, 19, 69-70.
Palmer, S. E. (1982). Symmetry, transformation, and the structure of perceptual systems. In J. Beck (Ed.), Organization and Representation in Perception (pp. 95- 144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palmer, S. E. (1991). Goodness, Gestalt, groups, and Garner. Local symmetry sobgroups as a theory of figural goodness. In G. R. Lockhead & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), The perception of structure. Essays in honor of Wendell R. Garner (pp. 23-39). Washington DC: APA Press.
Palmer, S. E., Brooks, J. L., & Nelson, R. (2003). When does grouping happen? Acta Psychologica, 114, 311-330.
Pickford, R. W. (1955). Factorial studies of aesthetic judgments. In A. A. Roback (Ed.), Present-Day Psychology (pp. 913-929). New York: Philosophical Library.
Piefke, M., Weiss, P. H., Markowitsch, H. J., & Fink, G. R. (2005). Gender differences in the functional neuroanatomy of emotional episodic autobiographical memory. Human Brain Mapping, 24, 313-324.
Polzella, D. J. (2000). Differences in reactions to paintings by male and female college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 251-258.
Pomerantz, J. R., & Kubovy, M. (1981). Perceptual Organization: An Overview. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual Organization (pp. 423-456). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pratt, C. C. (1961). Aesthetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 71-92.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1997). Conclusions from the study of gender differences in cognition. In C. e. al. (Ed.), Gender Differences in Human Cognition (pp. 131-169). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rump, E. E. (1968). Is there a general factor of preference for complexity? Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 346-348.
Saklofske, D. H. (1975). Visual aesthetic complexity, attractiveness and diverse exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 813-814.
Sambrook, T., & Whiten, A. (1997). On the nature of complexity in cognitive and behavioural science. Theory & Psychology, 7, 191-213.
Savarese, J. M., & Miller, R. J. (1979). Artistic preferences and cognitive-perceptual style. Studies in Art Education, 20, 45-41.
Siebold, J. R. (1972). Children`s rating responses as related to amount and recency of stimulus familiarization and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 14, 257-264.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119- 133.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139-161.
Smith, L., Bousquet, S. G., Chang, G., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Effects of time and information on perception of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2, 229-242.
Soueif, M. I., & Eysenck, H. J. (1971). Cultural differences in aesthetic preferences. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 293-298.
Soueif, M. I., & Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Factors in the determination of preference judgments for polygonal figures: A comparative study. International Journal of Psychology, 7, 145-153.
Stamps, A. E., III. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 300-320.
Strother, L., & Kubovy, M. (2003). Perceived complexity and the grouping effect in band patterns. Acta Psychologica, 114, 229-244.
Taylor, R. E., & Eisenman, R. (1964). Perception and production of complexity by creative art students. The Journal of Psychology, 57, 239-242.
Tobacyk, J. J., Myers, H., & Bailey, L. (1981). Field-dependence, sensation-seeking, and preference for paintings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 270-277.
Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2005). Does gender play a role in functional asymmetry of ventromedial prefrontal cortex? Brain, 128, 2872-2881.
Vanderplas, J. M., & Garvin, E. A. (1959). The association value of random shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 147-154.
Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. Neuroreport, 15, 893-897.
Vitz, P. C. (1966). Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105-114.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideratioin of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.
Weber, C. O. (1927). Aesthetics of rectangles and theories of affection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 310-318.
Williams, E. D., Winter, L., & Woods, J. M. (1938). Tests of Literary Appreciation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 265-284.
Wilson, G. D., Ausman, J., & Mathews, T. R. (1973). Conservatism and art preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 286-288.
Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1-14.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 4, 307-312.
Links
Full Text
http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/10803/9447/1/tmnr1de1.pdf
