Psychology of Aesthetics: Overview of Theories

psychology of Aesthetics Overview of TheoriesHow is artistic experience linked to familiarity and information? critically discuss at least two theoretical perspectives and provide evidence base on the literature.The phenomenon of esthetical experience refers to a pickence judgement to sensory experience. This hedonic response has its roots from the philosopher Baumgarten 1750 (as cited in Reber et al, 2004) who likened the archetype of sensation and perception pertaining to beauty, appreciation and art. The philosophical approaches influenced the endeavor to discover contributors to esthetical experience. Conversely, Fechner adopted an empirical approach rather than the entangled philosophical approaches to understanding aesthetic experiences. For instance, experimentation on input signal properties and preference responses provided a more than organized bottom up approach. (Shimura and Palmer, 2014)Gestalt psychologists took on a holistic approach to the teachings of p erceptual organization. For instance, the teaching of familiarity suggests that objects appear to be classed if the groups are assured to be familiar or meaningful. (Goldstein, 2002) An opposite principle proposed is that stimulus patterns are pictured in a style that is the most simplistic. For example the Olympic figure is not usually perceived as nine shapes within five circles but simply as five circles. Thus, Gesalt fib does provide a reason into the perception of stimulus. and, Gesalt principles do not explain the use of goods and services of familiarity and simplicity of information in aesthetic experience. (Goldstein, 2002)One explanation introduced by the process volubility is the quietus of processing information which consists of perceptual fluency and conceptual fluency. (Reber et al. 2004) Perceptual fluency refers to the ease of processing the perceptual marks of a stimulus (Jacoby and Kelley,1987). Whilst, Conceptual fluency is the ease of processing the mean ing of a stimulus, or the fluency of conceptually driven processing (Whittlesea, 1993). Prior photograph to stimuli backside increase processing fleuncy this is the chaste exposure effect report by Zajonc (1968)He theorized the more often an individual is exposed to an object the more likely they are to develop a preference for stimulus that is familiar than unfamiliar. He demonstrated the causative relation between mere exposure and attitude enhancement. Through a series of experiments nonsense words, Chinese ideographs and photographs of faces were presented in counter balanced order to participants and rated on a scale of how good or unfavorable stimulus words meant and how favorable photographs were. Liking for a stimulus was found to be positively link to the amount of stimulus exposure.The proximity of experienced fluency and preference judgment can lead participants to be amiss fluency as their preference reaction to the stimulus. Hence, repeated exposure of a stimulus increases perceptual fluency, which in turn increases the likelihood of misattribution to preference for stimulus. (Bornstein and DAgostino, 1994).The mere exposure effect can provide an account for, different cultural preferences seen in society. For instance, Hannon et al. (2012) used unprejudiced rhythms common in American and Turkish music, tangled rhythms common in Turkish music and extremely complex rhythms not found in Turkish and American music. Turkish participants acted accurately in simple and complex conditions. However, they performed less accurately in highly complex condition. Conversely, Americans performed accurately when detecting disruptions to the simple rhythm. However, they performed less accurately on the complex and highly complex conditions.Nonetheless , the robustness of the mere exposure effect is controversial. Kali (1974) exposed children aged seven, nine and eleven years old to Chinese characters. Children thus ranked the stimuli according to lik ing. The seven and nine year olds favourite(a) the familiar characters and the eleven year olds preferent the novel stimuli. Another set of ranks taken three weeks afterwards indicated that eleven year olds preferred the more familiar characters. It was proposed boredom effects intervened on preference ranks. Indeed, Borstein et al. (1990) suggests That, simple stimuli become boring in comparison to complex stimuli.Berlyne 1960,1974 (as cited in Messinger,1998) proposed that intermediate levels of information produce the highest ratings.Thus, disbelief of information is connect to aesthetic preference in the inverted U shape function rather than the linear function proposed by the mere exposure effect. Whilst, preference was based on stimulus associate arousal, preference increases to maximal liking, as arousal potential reaches the optimal level. Furthermore, arousal leads to a decrease in liking thus displeasure increases. ( Martindale et al. 1990) This idea of informatio n on preference derived from information hypothesis which is based on mathematical principles. (Berlyne,1957) utilizing a logarithmic equation to measure information yielded by all attainable combinations of a given repress of stimuli. When there are equally likely possibilities in a stimulus set, the higher the figure the more informational stimulus tends to be, since more combinations are involved.Martindale et al. (1990) tested Berlynes predictions. In the start-off experiment they asked participants to rate their liking for a series of random polygons varying in size and number of turns. A rating scale has the advantage that it provides a degree of opinion rather than a double star response. Results indicated that polygons with ten turns were preferred and that size had no effect on preference. However, when the same experiment was repeated with a larger range of size and complexity levels. orientation was linearly related to complexity. This questioned the ecological valid ity and generalizability of Berlynes model. Martindale et al. (1990) This contradiction challenges the processing fluency account as a simple stimulus should be preferred as there is less information compared to complex stimulus. Perhaps the mediation of other factors plays an important power, much(prenominal) as expertise and expectation. Reber et al (2004) when expectections of complex stimuli are vituperated by easy processing then this creates pleasure. Reber et al. (2004) Asethetic pleasure has been found to vary among experts and novices. People who are novices tend to prefer simple, protypical stimuli such as isotropy whereas experts prefer complex, a isosceles stimuli. (McWhinnie, 1968)Preference for symmetrical sequences in body movement was investigated by Orgs et al. (2013). Participants were exposed to all symmetrical or asymmetrical sequences. Both groups, then rated the sequences. Results indicated that both groups rated symmetrical sequences higher. Participants in the asymmetrical group displayed an increase preference for asymmetrical sequences. This can be explained by the mere exposure effect. The influence of aesthetic preference on compositional structure and postural information may differ among novice and experts. Moreover, other behaviours such as the ability to identify the structure in aesthetic experience and if participants are asked to perform actions instead of using rating scales is to be explored.Jacobsen and Hoefel (2003) showed symmetrical and non symmetrical patterns and recorded whether participants judged them as beautiful or not beautiful. They correlated this to Event related potentials. The results indicated that symmetrical patterns were positively correlated to beautiful judgements. Aesthetic judgements related to anterior frontomedian and right hemisphere activation. This does provide an account of processing aesthetic appreciation occurring in specialise brain areas. Nevertheless, this correlation does not mean that specialized brain activation causes aesthetic preference for symmetrical patterns. Event related potentials (ERP) are difficult to detect in the electroencephalograms (EEGS) the ERP is combined with other electrical signals. However the procedure offers a non-invasive technique compared to other procedures which expose participants to radiation or injection. (Kolb and Wishaw, 2009) In addition, the variety of aesthetic preferences are not captured by the forced choice methods. Preference for symmetrical patterns may be delinquent to fluent processing as there is less information to process. (Reber et al. 2004)The preference towards a given feature over another is not well explained.Bar and Neta (2006) Adopted an evolutionary perspective, they proposed sharp objects signal peril and curved objects signal safety. They found a preference for curved objects. Furthermore, there was no difference in reaction time, which challenges the perceptual fluency account. Findings support th e mere exposure effect as real objects was preferred over novel patterns. Evolutionary perspective poses issues of falsification however, Carbon (2010) used realistic images of cars from 1950 to 1999 and found a preference for curved models, although fashion trends can also have an impact. The stimuli used is more realistic than rating polygons. In addition, this illustrates aesthetic experiences can alternate over time.The majority of the studies discussed explore aesthetic liking, however, many dimensions of aesthetic experiences exist. Such as, the pleasure of negative emotions is not captured well. In overview, the studies discussed suggest that the familiarity, novelty, complexity, simplicity of information plays an important role in aesthetic experiences. ( Zajonc,1968 Messinger ,1998) That is, preference for something is in between familiarity and novelty. As boredom intervenes with preference and familiarity. (Borstein et al.1990)Novelty can violate expectations and signal danger. (Reber et al.2004Bar and Neta, 2006) This is similar for complex and simple information. Preference for something is between easy and challenging stimulus. ((McWhinnie,1968) Preference for things that is known can explain cultural differences in aesthetic experiences. (Hannon et al, 2012) Through neuroaesthetic approaches, specialized brain areas can be linked to aesthetic experience. (Jacobsen and Hoefel, 2003) Despite, different tastes neuroaesthetics can offer a way of investigating the underlie mechanisms involved in the aesthetic experience to generate a set of principles that influence aesthetic experiences. In a nutshell, the theoretical perspectives indicates detecting regularities and understanding information is something humans find aesthetically pleasing.ReferencesBar.M,Neta.M (2006) Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological science,17,645-648.Berlyne.D.E. (1957) Uncertainity and conflict A point of contact between information-theory and behaviour theo ry concepts. The psychological review. 64,6. 329-339.Borstein.E.R,Kale.R.A,Cornell.R.K. (1990) Boredom as a Limiting Condition on the Mere Exposure Effect.Journal of reputation and Social Psychology.58, 5, 791-800Borstein.R.F, DAgostino.P.R. (1992) Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of personality and genial psychology, 63, 545-552.Carbon.C.C. (2010) The roulette wheel of preference long term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta psychologica, 134, 233-244.Goldstein.B.E (2002) Sensation and perception (6th edn) USA Wadsworth.Hannon, E. E., Soley, G., Ullal, S. (2012, February 20). Familiarity Overrides Complexity in Rhythm Perception A Cross-Cultural Comparison of American and Turkish Listeners. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance.Jacobsen.T, Hoefel.L. (2003) Descriptive and evaluative judgement processes behavioral and electrophysical indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive and Behavioural Neuroscience .4, 289- 299.Jacoby, Larry L. and Colleen M. Kelley (1987),Unconscious Influences of Memory for a Prior Event, Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 13 (March), 314-336.Kali.V.R (1974) Familarity and attraction to stimuli Developmental change or methological artifact ? Journal of experimental child psychology. 18, 504 511.Kolb.B,Whishaw.Q.I (2009) Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology. (6th edn) New York Worth publishers.McWhinnie.J.H. (1968) A review of research on aesthetic measure. Acta psychologica. 28, 363-375.Martindale.C,Moore.K,Borkum.J. (1990) Aesthetic preference Anomalous findings for berlynes psychobiological theory. The American ledger of psychology. 103,1, 53-80.Messinger.M.S (1998) pleasure and complexity Berlyne revisted. The journal of psychology. 132, 5, 558-560.Orgs.G,Hagura.N,Haggard.p (2013) learning to like it Aesthetic perception of bodies, movements and choreographic structure. Consciousness and cogition. 22, 603-612.Reber.R,Schwarz.N,Winkielman.P. (2004 ) processing fleuncy and aesthetic pleasure is beauty in the perceivers processing experience ? Personality and social psychology review, vol 8, 4, 364-382.Shimaura. P.A,Palmer. E.S.(2014) Aesthetic science connecting Minds, Brains and Experience. New York Oxford university press.Whittlesea. A.W.B (1993) Illusions of familiarity. Journal of experimental psychology Learning, memory and cognition. 19,6,1235-1253.Zajonc. R.B (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology. 9, 1- 27.