Psychological Aesthetics

	Own studies
	1. Interindividual Differences
	2. Temporal stability of aesthetic judgments
	3. Tendency to consistent judgments
	4. Aesthetic: primacy of beauty
	5. Aesthetic threshold
	6. ERP-study
	Summary of the DFG project

Own studies

The present own studies concerning aesthetic processing approach the complex topic from different perspectives. These are shortly introduced in own short paragraphs (see below). Preliminary studies have shown that interindividual differences are an important factor and need special attention. Here individual judgment analyses were employed. Furthermore a couple of methodological aspects are important.
In a series of these studies new stimulus material in form of formal graphical black-and-white patterns was employed. Symmetry as well as the degree of complexity were systematically varied (see picture 1).

top

1. Interindividual Differences

Several studies (Jacobsen, 2002, 2004; Jacobsen & Höfel, 2002) reported large interindividual differences concerning the aesthetic judgment of visual stimuli. There is (no) accounting for tastes. Judgment analysis was employed to derive individual case models of judgment strategies as well as a group model.
Jacobsen &Höfel (2002) examined the aesthetic judgment of graphic patterns (figure 1). The participants judged 252 newly constructed graphic patterns according to their degree of beauty while classifying them into the categories beautiful, ugly, and indifferent. With the aim to calculate individual models and group models of judgment strategies of each single person for each pattern a value was calculated with the help of the McCall-Transformation (McCall 1939). The value the pattern reached in the Median-Split in the located category was used for further analysis. The predictors that were integrated into further calculation related to the patterns. Predictors such as symmetry, number of triangles, bars, rhombs and other elements were present in the respective pattern. With the help of multiple regression analysis the beauty judgments and the characteristics of the patterns could be compared. The thus calculated paramorphic judgment models of the participants showed on the one hand that symmetry correlated most with a positive aesthetic judgment. A second important factor was complexity that was measured by the number of existing elements in the pattern. Considering the individual judgments significant deviations from the group model could be detected. Some participants mainly liked those patterns that were not symmetric or those that contained only a small number of elements, i. e. with a lower degree of complexity. The results show that a group model sometimes neglects important interindividual differences that are important for analysis in the context of psychological aesthetics.

top

2. Temporal stability of aesthetic judgments

Höfel & Jacobsen (2003) analyzed the temporal stability of aesthetic judgments concerning graphic patterns during a time period from some days to several months. The participants judged graphic patterns (fig. 1). A second measurement was made at an interval of three days to 14 months. The results showed that stability of judgments decreased with larger time periods between the measurements. In future experiments this aspect has to be considered.

top

3. Tendency to consistent judgments

In the above mentioned study (Höfel & Jacobsen, 2003) item representations also have been effected during the second test phase. The participants were asked to judge the presented patterns twice, concerning their aesthetic value and symmetry/non symmetry. Since EEG-potentials were recorded during the second session, the influence of the design of the study on underlying process structures could be analyzed. The ERP-effects of the evaluative judgments (aesthetic) compared to the descriptive judgments (symmetry) decreased with repeated presentation and adjusted to each other. Thus it is to assume that no longer aesthetic judgments were made but similar to a memory task the previously given answer was consciously recalled and the answer was consistently given. It is important to keep this aspect in mind for the design of the experiment.

top

4. Aesthetic: primacy of beauty

Experimental studies concerning aesthetics need an operationalization of the idea of aesthetics. In the study of Jacobsen, Buchta, Köhler and Schröger (2004) verbal associations to the idea "aesthetic" were collected. Participants mentioned the word "beautiful" in 91,6 % of the cases. The second mostly mentioned word was "ugly" (42,12%). Although the given answers were widely ranged, the study showed that the word "beautiful" is strongly associated with the term "aesthetics".So we can proceed on the assumption that with aesthetic judgments prototypically the dimension beautiful-ugly is created. Thus it is obvious to ask participants explicitly for judgments of beauty. This was realized in own pilot studies.

top

5. Aesthetic threshold

One problem with the examination of processes in aesthetic evaluation is the fact that in order to have good experimental control attractive stimulus material is rather simple. Participants normally tend to spontaneously make aesthetic judgments of complex paintings, sculptures or buildings. Such objects however, mostly combine variations of a number of stimulus dimensions that make sufficient experimental control very difficult or even impossible. Therefore confining to simpler, well-controlled stimuli, only very vague statements concerning combination effects and interactions of analyzed facets can be made. To answer questions about underlying processes of the aesthetic judgments and emotions it is important to present appropriate stimulus material. The participant must have the ability to decide on a genuine and sensible judgment of beauty. Stimulus material that cannot trigger a real perception in positive or negative direction is thus not suitable for the experiment.
For verification of the aesthetic threshold which was first of all described by Fechner and later closer analyzed by Martin (1906), graphic black-white patterns were presented to the participants (Höfel, 2003, diploma-thesis). Six different dimensions were assigned and the participants were free to choose the dimension they found adequate to describe the patterns. In addition to the scale ugly/beautiful there were two further evaluative scales (not harmonic-harmonic, not interesting-interesting), and three descriptive (small-big, round-angular, not symmetric-symmetric). Due to the given task participants did not know that they implicitly dealt with an experiment concerning aesthetic. The aim was to find out whether or not patterns exceed the aesthetic threshold so that participants are able to give an aesthetic judgment. Only when a participant was able to intuitively give a judgment of beauty he/she used the offered scale (ugly-beautiful). With this procedure it was possible to operationalize and to determine the aesthetic threshold of each person. Additionally it could be seen that those stimuli used in the studies by Jacobsen and Höfel (fig. 1) were above the aesthetic threshold for a large number of participants. They spontaneously made beauty-judgments concerning these patterns. Some patterns of a more complex and curved design were aesthetically judged by more participants.

top

6. ERP-study

The study of Jacobsen and Höfel (2003) dealt with the question which processes were activated for an aesthetic judgment. Descriptive judgments of symmetry and evaluative aesthetic judgments were analyzed with respect to underlying processes and their time course.
In a pilot study participants aesthetically judged 252 graphic patterns (fig. 1) (beautiful, ugly, indifferent) so that in the following EEG experiment participants had an overview over the presented stimuli and their individually felt value of beauty. In addition, all patterns were presented once more during the electrode application. During the EEG recording all patterns were presented again while the participants both gave symmetry judgments and aesthetic judgments (symmetric vs. non symmetric; aesthetic vs. non aesthetic). After a cue stimulus referring to the kind of judgment ("S" for symmetry, "Ä" for Ästhetik) a pattern was presented. The participant had to judge by pressing a button.
Behavioral results showed that descriptive judgments were made within a shorter time period than evaluative judgments, although the participants had already performed the aesthetic task in the preceding classification task. This result suggests that those types of judgment were processed in different time courses. The following ERP effects were observed: in the case of the judgment "ugly", 300-400 ms after stimulus presentation a phasic frontal negativity occurred. After 600-1100 ms another negativity in the okzipital region was elicited when the pattern was judged as being symmetric. In sum a right-lateralized positivity in the time window between 440 and 880 ms emerged. It was stronger for evaluative judgments than for the descriptive ones.
The early effects of the "ugly" judgment (300-400 ms) indicate that positive and negative evaluations were processed differently. It may be that early positive and negative impression formation processes of beauty judgments underlie separate mechanisms.
Posterior effects during the symmetry judgment suggest a detailed visual analysis of the pattern. In the case of non-symmetric patterns the participant could prematurely stop the analysis whereas in the case of symmetric patterns he/she had to analyze the complete stimulus material in order not to miss a violation of symmetry. Thus the effects only occurred for symmetric judgments and not for non-symmetric judgments. The increased right-lateralization of the evaluative judgments supports existing studies that have analyzed evaluative vs. descriptive categorizations (Cacioppo et al.). Results of these preceeding studies have been replicated here with different stimulus material, experimental design, and differing task. The basic process structures of evaluative vs. descriptive judgments differ significantly. The results suggest that aesthetic judgments were made in two phases: An early impression formation followed by a later categorization. The ERPs permit the separation of those two phases and the specification of the time course. There are, however, alternative hypotheses for the genesis of the observed effects that cannot be excluded in a single experiment. These alternative hypotheses shall lead to a systematic analysis in the presented project.

top

Summary of the DFG project

Mental processes in the processing of aesthetics in the sense of the question "Is this object beautiful or ugly?" are an important field in evaluative, human cognition. The empirical aesthetics deal with the description and explanation of aesthetic phenomena. Although it is the second oldest domain of the experimental psychology in its development it drops back compared to other younger branches. The presented project wants to contribute to a well-founded exploration of cognitive and neuropsychological aspects of aesthetic evaluation Visual-aesthetic judgment processes were analyzed with the method of EEG brain potentials. Those will be embedded in systematic analyses of interindividual differences of aesthetic judgment ("There is no accounting for tastes"). Studies on the central mental concept system as well as psychological and electrophysiological results of other evaluative processes will be integrated. The here presented project systematically bases on own pilot studies. The aim is to promote a scientifically precise listing of involved structures and processes as well as the temporal procedure of aesthetic processing. Alternative hypotheses will be systematically excluded by control experiments.

top