Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Research Article

Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder

Individual Differences in Preference for Randomized Visual Patterns

Published Online:March 21, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000432

Abstract

Abstract. Recent studies have shown that preference judgments can vary considerably from one person to another and when these data are averaged the results can be misleading. In the current study, we examine individual differences in aesthetic preference for randomized visual patterns. In Experiment 1, we start with a structured checkerboard and progressively randomize its alternating black and white squares by 10% increments. In Experiment 2, we begin with a structured square array of vertical line segments and progressively randomize line orientation. In both experiments, there were strong differences in responding with most participants favoring either ordered or randomized versions. We found differences in Big-Five trait scores across these groupings. Individuals who scored high on extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness all preferred random patterns. Preference results for openness and neuroticism varied across the experiments. Explanations for predicted and obtained trait outcomes are provided.

References

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A. & Ahmetoglu, G. (2008). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X366867 First citation in articleMedline, Google Scholar

  • 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 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Deregowski, J. B. (1989). Real space and represented space: Cross-cultural perspectives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 51–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00024286 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334506 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Feist, G. & Brady, T. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Furnham, A. & Walker, J. (2001a). 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 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Furnham, A. & Walker, J. (2001b). Personality and judgment of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.340 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gucluturk, Y., Jacobs, R. H. A. & van Lier, R. (2016). Liking versus complexity: Decomposing the inverted U-curve. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhu.201600112 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Green, D. M. & Luce, R. D. (1974). Variability of magnitude estimates: A timing theory analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1505–1511. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213947 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Imamoglu, Ç. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0155 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McCrae, R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. HoganJ. JohnsonEds., Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2013). Introduction to the empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In T. A. WidigerP. T. Costa JrEds., Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed., pp. 15–27). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McManus, I. & 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 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T. & Herskovits, M. J. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Swami, V. & Furnham, A. (2012). The effects of symmetry and personality on aesthetic preferences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.1.d First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64, 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046162 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar