IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures

Author

Listed:
  • David M Sidhu
  • Katrina H McDougall
  • Shaela T Jalava
  • Glen E Bodner

Abstract

Recent research on aesthetics has challenged the adage that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” by identifying several factors that predict ratings of beauty. However, this research has emerged in a piecemeal fashion. Most studies have examined only a few predictors of beauty, and measured either subjective or objective predictors, but not both. Whether the predictors of ratings of beauty versus liking differ has not been tested, nor has whether predictors differ for major distinctions in art, such as abstract vs. representational paintings. Finally, past studies have either relied on experimenter-generated stimuli—which likely yield pallid aesthetic experiences—or on a curation of high-quality art—thereby restricting the range of predictor scores. We report a study (N = 598) that measured 4 subjective and 11 objective predictors of both beauty ratings and liking ratings, for 240 abstract and 240 representational paintings that varied widely in beauty. A crossover pattern occurred in the ratings, such that for abstract paintings liking ratings were higher than beauty ratings, whereas for representational paintings beauty ratings were higher than liking ratings. Prediction was much better for our subjective than objective predictors, and much better for our representational than abstract paintings. For abstract paintings, liking ratings were much more predictable than beauty ratings. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • David M Sidhu & Katrina H McDougall & Shaela T Jalava & Glen E Bodner, 2018. "Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200431
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200431
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200431&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200431?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.