This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 10 November 2014, At: 13:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Dimensions of AestheticPerceptionMary Kay Biaggio a & Katherine A. Supplee aa University of IdahoPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Mary Kay Biaggio & Katherine A. Supplee (1983) Dimensions ofAesthetic Perception, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 114:1,29-35, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1983.9915392

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9915392

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Published as a separate and in The Journal of Psychology, 1983, 114, 29-35.

DIMENSIONS OF AESTHETIC PERCEPTION University of Idaho

MARY KAY BIAGGIO AND KATHERINE A. SUPPLEE

SUMMARY Researchers working in experimental aesthetics have identified three

dimensions of aesthetic perception: Hedonic Value, Arousal, and Uncer- tainty. The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the validity of these dimensions. Twelve paintings were rated by the 46 sub- jects on 12 adjective scales and the ratings were subjected to factor analy- ses. Results suggested that interestingness, powerfulness, and complexity may be more highly associated with the Hedonic Value factor than previ- ously recognized, while the Arousal factor may be more highly associated with judgments of displeasingness and ugliness. The Uncertainty factor here derived is highly similar in structure to that reported in previous research.

A. INTRODUCTION One of the major problems encountered by experimental aesthetics is the

lack of a suitable system of concepts by which to classify works of art (8). Such a system would describe art in a simple and meaningful way, explain relationships between works of art, describe similarities as well as differ- ences, and facilitate objective study such as examining the effects of culture and personality on stylistic preferences (8). The present study explores the validity of dimensions identified in previous research.

Osgood (13) has identified three underlying dimensions of affective and collative semantic components: Evaluative, Activity, and Potency. The evaluative factor is heavily loaded on scales such as nice-awful, fine-coarse, and heavenly-hellish, the Activity factor on scales such as fast-slow, hot- cold, and burning-freezing, and the Potency factor on scales such as big- little, powerful-powerless, and strong-weak.

Berlyne (3) compared the results of four factor-analytic studies employing

* Received in the Editorial Office on February 14, 1983, and published immediately at Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by The Journal Press.

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

30 JOURNAL O F PSYCHOLOGY

visual stimuli and semantic-differential scales (3, 7, 9, 10). The results of each of these studies produced three factors similar to Osgood’s. The first factor, named Hedonic Value by Berlyne, is associated with the Evaluative factor and emphasizes judgments of pleasingness, goodness, and beauty. A second factor, Arousal, is associated with the Activity factor and em- phasizes complexity, uncertainty, interestingness, and affective states of discomfort, tension, and alertness. A third factor, Uncertainty, is aligned with Osgood’s Potency factor and emphasizes perceived powerfulness or strength of the stimuli.

Berlyne (4) has fashioned a semantic differential after that used by Osgood and containing scales relating to each of the Osgood/Berlyne fac- tors. Several studies (4, 5 , 6, 11) using this measure have derived a factor similar to Berlyne’s Hedonic Value, with heavy loadings on scales reflecting Fleasingness, beauty, pleasure, and lack of tension or discomfort. A second factor derived by each study, similar to Berlyne’s Arousal factor, em- phasizes powerfulness, tension, and alertness; some studies also report high loadings on complexity (6), discomfort (1 I), and interestingness (4, 6). For the third factor, most closely associated with Uncertainty, scalt: loadings varied from study to study, although most emphasized complexity, in- definiteness, disorderliness, and lack of balance. Moderate to high loadings were also found on discomfort (4, 6, 1 l), powerfulness and a le r tn t s (4, 111, and interestingness (4).

Thus, although research has substantiated certain primary components of the Hedonic Value, Arousal, and Uncertainty factors, the type and degree of emphasis placed upon secondary components varies. The primary purpose of the present study was to explore the validity of these three affective and collative dimensions of aesthetic perceptions.

A secondary aim was to compare aesthetic judgments of ,art versus non-art students. Several researchers have differentiated artists from non- artists on the basis of preference for complexity (1, 12, 14). E-erlyne (5) found significant differences between psychology and fine art students on ratings of auditory stimuli on pleasingness, but not complexity cr interest- ingness. Goude (8) reported differences between art history students and psychology students in judgments of similarity between works of art: art history students tended to base similarity estimates on perceived emotional qualities while psychology students based their similarity judgments primarily on motif and composition and made less sophisticated assess- ments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARY KAY BIAGGIO A N D KATHERINE A. SUPPLEE 3 1

B. METHOD Two groups of Ss were formed. The art group was composed of 2 0 art

majors at the University of Idaho who volunteered to participate in a study about art preferences. The non-art group comprised 26 psychology students with “little interest’’ and little or no formal training art. The groups were comparable with respect to college standing, age, and composition by sex.

Twelve color slides of paintings were chosen from the University of Idaho Art Department collection. Content was restricted to portraits of women appearing to be in their 20s or 30s in age, with little variation in posture and few or no background objects. Paintings represented as many artistic styles as possible from the late 19th century to the late 1960s.

Twelve seven-point semantic differential rating scales were employed; these were the same as those developed by Berlyne (2) and modified by O’Hare and Gordon (1 1). These scales are: Simple-Complex, Weak- Powerful, Clear-Indefinite, Orderly-Disorderly, Unbalanced-Balanced, Displeasing-Pleasing, Beautiful-Ugly, No pleasure-High pleasure, No discomfort-High discomfort, Relaxed-Tense, Drowsy-Alert, and Interest- ing-Uninteresting.

Ss rated each of the 12 paintings individually on the 12 adjective scales.

C. RESULTS

Intercorrelations among mean scores on the semantic differential scales were subjected to principal-components factor analyses; rotated loadings are shown in Table 1. Three factors were retained for each group, account- ing for 73% and 75% of the variance for art and non-art groups respec- tively.

On Factor I, both art and non-art groups displayed high loadings on the Simple-Compex scale, the Weak-Powerful scale, and the Interesting- Uninteresting scale. In addition, the art group showed high loadings on the Displeasing-Pleasing scale, the Beautiful-Ugly scale, and the No pleasure-High pleasure scale. Factor loadings for these three scales for the non-art group were moderate. Drowsy-Alert received moderate loadings on Factor I from both groups. This factor has thus been termed Hedonic- Interest.

Two scales received high loadings from both groups on Factor 11: No discomfort-High discomfort and Relaxed-Tense. In addition, Drowsy-Alert received a high factor loading from the art group while Displeasing- Pleasing, Beautiful-Ugly, and No pleasure-High pleasure received high

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

32 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL RATINGS

Scales

Factor I Factor I1 Faci.or 111 Uncc rtainty ~ _ _ _ Hedonic-Interest Arousal

Art Non-art Art Non-art Art Non-art

Simple-Complex Weak-Powerful Clear-Indefinite Orderly-Disorderly Unbalanced-Balanced Displeasing-Pleasing Beautiful-Ugly No pleasure-High

pleasure No discomfort-High

discomfort Relaxed-Tense Drowsy- Alert Interesting-

Uninteresting

.64 .70 .20 -.01 .37

. 7 7 .79 .29 -.01 . 00 -.01 . 00 .22 .20 .79 -.12 -.08 .23 .18 .84

.26 .16 .05 -.23 -.74

.80 .49 -.35 -.67 -.26 -.80 - .48 .28 .62 .29

.84 - .58 - .16 - . 60 -.29

-.30 - .04 .73 .80 .25 - .06 . 2 1 .85 .84 .24

.45 .59 . 7 2 .43 -.07

-.87 - . 81 - . 04 .24 .15

.15 - . 14

.88 -.ti8 -..19

.45

-..15

. ' 5

. ' 0 -. 15

. 20

.n4

loadings from the non-art group. Loadings on the scales reflecting; discom- fort, tension, and alertness suggested that this factor be termed Arousal.

Three scales displayed high loadings from both groups on Factor 111: Clear-Indefinite, Orderly-Disorderly, and Unbalanced-Balanced. These loadings are typical of those observed on Berlyne's Uncertainty factor; therefore, Factor I11 was named Uncertainty.

Results of the principal-components factor analyses show the factor structure for the two groups to be quite similar. Eight of the semantic differential scales having high loadings (. 50 or greater).on particular factors are common to both groups. There are discrepancies in factor loadings for four of the scales: Displeasing-Pleasing, Beautiful- Ugly, No pleasure-High pleasure, and, to a lesser extent, Drowsy-Alert. The first three scales are loaded more heavily by the art group on the Hedonic-Interest factor and more heavily by the non-art group on the Arousal factor. The Drowsy- Alert scale received a higher loading on the Arousal factor from the art than from the non-art group.

The art and non-art groups evidenced greatest similarity on tF,e Uncer- tainty factor. Three scales were heavily loaded for both groups: Clear- Indefinite, Orderly-Disorderly, and Unbalanced-Balanced. The Ileautiful- Ugly scale received a higher loading from the non-art than from the art group, but no other scales received moderate or high loading:; on this factor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARY KAY BIAGGIO AND KATHERINE A. SUPPLEE 33

Table 2 displays group main effects yielded by the repeated measures analyses of variance. Groups show differences significant at the .02 level or better on five semantic differential scales: Weak-Powerful, Clear-Indefinite, Orderly-Disorderly, Unbalanced-Balanced, and Beautiful-Ugly.

D. DISCUSSION Three factors were derived: Hedonic-Interest, Arousal, and Uncertainty.

The Hedonic-Interest factor was highly loaded on hedonic scales (beauty, pleasure, and pleasingness), complexity, powerfulness, alertness, and in- terestingness. This factor thus differs from the Hedonic Value factor re- ported in the literature with respect to inclusion of scales reflecting com- plexity, powerfulness, alertness, and interestingness.

The second factor, Arousal, was highly loaded on discomfort, tenseness, and alertness for the art group; for the non-art group, moderate to high loadings were observed on the scales, as well as on negative hedonic scales. The arousal factor here differs from that previously reported with respect to the absence of loadings on complexity, powerfulness, and interesting- ness, and, for the non-art group, the inclusion of negative hedonic scales.

The third factor, Uncertainty, incorporates similar scale loadings for the art and non-art groups, emphasizing compositional elements of order, balance, and clarity. This factor parallels the Uncertainty factor reported in the literature.

The results suggest that, within the three aesthetic dimensions identified in the literature, pleasingness and beauty may be more highly associated with interestingness, complexity, and powerfulness than previously recog-

TABLE 2 GROUP MAIN EFFECTS ON REPEATED MEASURES ANALYSES OF VARIANCE

Scale F

Simple-Complex Weak-Powerful Clear-Indefinite Orderly-Disorderly Unbalanced-Balanced Displeasing-Pleasing Beautiful-Ugly No pleasure-High pleasure No discomfort-High discomfort Relaxed-Tense Drowsy-Alert Interesting-Uninteresting

. ? 2 12.66 7.97 6.23 7.00 2.31 6.0? 2.86

.35

.?9 1.40 .01

P .401 ,001 .OO? .016 .011 .131 .018 .098 .55? .380 .243 .926

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

34 JOURNAL O F PSYCHOLOGY

nized. In addition, a t least for some Ss, autonomic arousal may occur in the presence of perceived displeasingness and ugliness rather than in conjunc- tion with complexity and powerfulness. The discrepancies between factor structures derived by the present study and those reported in the literature may reflect greater instability among these factors than generally thought. On the other hand, these discrepancies may be due to differenlzes in S groups or to the nature of the stimuli employed. Similar studies used landscapes (1 l), exotic and pre-Renaissance paintings (S), and 18th and 19th century landscapes, still lifes, and religious works (6); the si:imuli of the present study were restricted to late 19th and 20th century po':traits of women. It is possible that portraits perceived to be ugly and displeasing may engender greater feelings of discomfort and tenseness than landscapes or other works judged equally displeasing because of the greater personal reference of human subject matter.

Results of the principal-components factor analyses revealed similar loadings by art and non-art groups on semantic differential scales for each of the three factors, with the exception of three scales reflecting pleasing- ness, beauty, and pleasurableness. These hedonic scales are loaded in conjunction with complexity, powerfulness, and interestingness far the ar t group (on the Hedonic-Interest factor); their opposite scale values (displeas- ingness, ugliness, and lack of pleasure) are associated with high dir.comfort, tension, and alertness for the non-art group (on the Arousal factor). These results suggest that art students perceived more beauty and p1e;uingness than non-art students in association with complexity, powerfulness, and interestingness, while non-art students associated affective reactions of discomfort and tension with perceived displeasingness and ugliness.

Results of the analysis of differences between art and non-art students on semantic differential scale ratings revealed significant differences on five scales: Weak-Powerful, Clear-Indefinite, Orderly-Disorderly, Unbalanced- Balanced, and Beautiful-Ugly. Differences on the first two scales appear to be due to greater emphasis in ratings by the non-art group, while differ- ences in the last three scales appear to reflect differences in direction of rating. Art students differed from non-art students on evaluatiorl of com- positional elements of paintings and perceived less ugliness and reported less negative affect in conjunction with paintings judged to be unclear, indefinite, and unbalanced.

REFERENCES

Its measurement by a figure preference test. J . of Psychol., 1952, 33, 109-203. 1. BARRON, F. , & WELSH, G. S. Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARY KAY BIAGGIO AND KATHERINE A. SUPPLEE 35

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

BERLYNE, D. E. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,

. Ends and means of experimental aesthetics. Can. J. Psychol., 1972, 26,

. Interrelation of verbal and non-verbal measures used in experimental aesthet-

. Dimensions of perception of exotic and pre-Renaissance paintings. Can. J.

BERLYNE, D. E., & OCILVIE, J. C. Dimensions of perception of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthefics. New York: Hemisphere, 1974.

EVANS, D. R., & DAY, H. I. The factcrial structure of responses to perceptual complex- ity. Psychon. Sci., 1971, 22, 357-359.

1971.

303-325.

ics. Scand. J. Psychol., 1973, 14, 177-184.

Psychol., 1975, 29, 151-173.

GOUDE, G. A multidimensional scaling approach to the perception of art. I. Scand. J. Psychol., 1972, 13, 258-271.

LIBBY, W. L., LACEY, B. C., & LACEY, J. 1. Pupillary and cardiac activity during visual attention. Psychophysiology, 1973, 10, 270-294.

LIBBY, W. L., & SELINGER, S. The relative effects of attention-interest and pleasantness-evaluation. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest- e m Psychological Association, Detroit, May 1971. O'HARE, D. P. A., & GORDON, I. E. Dimensions of perceptions of art: Verbal scales and

similarity judgments. Scand. J. Psychol., 1977, IS, 66-70. OSBORNE, J. W., & FARLEY, F. H. The relationship between aesthetic performance and

visual complexity in abstract art. Psychon. Sci., 1970, 19, 69-70. OSGOOD, C. E. Focus on Meaning. Vol. 1. Explorations in Semantic Space. The Hague:

Mouton, 1976. TAYLOR, R. E., & EISENMAN, R Perception and production of complexity by creative

art students. J. of Psychol., 1964, 57, 239-242.

Department of Psychology University of Idaho MOSCOW, Idaho 83843

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 13:

15 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014