Order, complexity, and aesthetic preferences for neatly organized compositions

Eline Van Geert
Persbericht

Wie vindt netjes georganiseerde afbeeldingen aangenaam en waarom?

Netjes georganiseerde afbeeldingen, afbeeldingen van voorwerpen die geordend voorgesteld worden, zijn al een aantal jaren populair online. Maar waarom vinden veel mensen deze afbeeldingen aangenaam om te bekijken? Deze studie onderzocht welke afbeeldingskenmerken en persoonskenmerken verband houden met de appreciatie van deze afbeeldingen.

Netjes geordende afbeelding schrijfgerief   Iets minder netjes geordende afbeelding schrijfgerief

Algemene voorkeuren voor de meer rustgevende en de meer fascinerende afbeelding in het paar

Naar welke van deze twee afbeeldingen gaat jouw voorkeur? Die vraag werd gesteld aan 415 volwassenen uit zowel binnen- als buitenland, en dat voor 100 afbeeldingsparen. Daarnaast kregen deelnemers ook vragen over hun persoonlijkheid. In een vervolgonderzoek gaven 84 van deze deelnemers ook aan hoe geordend, complex, rustgevend en fascinerend ze elk van de afbeeldingen vonden. Uit de resultaten blijkt dat mensen vaker kozen voor de meer fascinerende en de meer rustgevende afbeelding in het paar dan voor de minder fascinerende of minder rustgevende afbeelding. Maar wat maakt een netjes geordende afbeelding rustgevend of fascinerend?

Orde en complexiteit voorspellen hoe rustgevend en fascinerend een afbeelding is

Hoe fascinerend deelnemers een afbeelding vonden, kon op groepsniveau in verband worden gebracht met hoe geordend en hoe complex deelnemers de afbeelding vonden. Een afbeelding werd als meer fascinerend beoordeeld naarmate de afbeelding als meer geordend en meer complex werd gezien. Verder bleek dat een afbeelding als meer rustgevend werd beoordeeld naarmate de afbeelding als meer geordend en minder complex werd gezien. Deelnemers verschilden echter in hoe sterk orde en complexiteit hun persoonlijke beoordelingen van rustgevendheid en fascinatie konden voorspellen. Wat deze verschillen tussen deelnemers zou kunnen verklaren is momenteel nog niet duidelijk.

Objectieve berekeningen van complexiteit hangen samen met subjectieve beoordelingen van complexiteit

Naast de beoordelingen van de deelnemers werd de complexiteit van de afbeeldingen ook op andere manieren vastgesteld. Er werden een aantal objectieve maten van complexiteit berekend, die onder meer rekening houden met het aantal licht- en kleurveranderingen in de afbeelding. Een aantal van deze objectieve maten van complexiteit vertoonden een sterke positieve samenhang met hoe complex deelnemers de afbeeldingen beoordeelden.

Voorkeuren voor geordende of complexe afbeeldingen hangen samen met persoonlijkheid

Deelnemers verschilden in hoe vaak ze de meer geordende afbeelding verkozen boven de minder geordende afbeelding in de afbeeldingsparen, en ook in hoe vaak ze meer complexe afbeelding verkozen boven de minder complexe afbeelding. Deze verschillen tussen mensen hingen samen met hun score op een aantal persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten.

Hoe hoger iemands score op een vragenlijst die overtuigingen en gedrag in verband met ordenen en rangschikken meet, hoe vaker die persoon de meer geordende afbeelding in het paar koos. Hoe lager iemands score op die vragenlijst, hoe vaker die persoon de meer complexe afbeelding in het paar koos. Ook iemands score op een vragenlijst in verband met nood aan structuur hing samen met hoe vaak die persoon voor de meer geordende of meer complexe afbeelding koos. Hoe hoger iemands nood aan structuur, hoe vaker die persoon voor de meer geordende en hoe minder vaak die persoon voor de meer complexe afbeelding koos.

Het is echter belangrijk om te weten dat het verband tussen een voorkeur voor de meer geordende afbeelding in het paar en de scores op de persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten maar een klein deel van de verschillen tussen mensen kon verklaren.

Het plezier van orde(nen) in een complexe wereld?

Fans van netjes geordende afbeeldingen benadrukken het rustgevende karakter van de afbeeldingen in de drukke en chaotische wereld waarin we leven, maar verwijzen soms ook naar hun eigen persoonlijkheid om de appreciatie te verklaren. Uit deze studie blijkt dat zowel afbeeldingskenmerken als persoonskenmerken belangrijk zijn bij het verklaren van voorkeuren voor bepaalde netjes georganiseerde afbeeldingen. Een afbeelding kan op verschillende manieren aangenaam zijn: ze kan rust geven of net fascinatie opwekken. Hoe rustgevend of fascinerend een afbeelding is, kan op zijn beurt worden gelinkt aan hoe geordend of hoe complex de afbeelding is: hoe meer geordend een afbeelding, hoe meer ze ook gezien wordt als rustgevend en fascinerend; hoe complexer een afbeelding, hoe fascinerender maar ook hoe minder rustgevend de afbeelding wordt beoordeeld. Mensen verschillen in hun voorkeuren voor meer geordende, complexe, rustgevende en fascinerende afbeeldingen. Een deel van die verschillen kunnen we verklaren door verschillen in persoonlijkheid, maar een groot deel van de verschillen tussen mensen blijft momenteel onverklaard.

Bibliografie

Adkins, O. C., & Norman, J. F. (2016). The visual aesthetics of snowflakes. Perception, 45, 1304–1319. doi:10.1177/2041669516661122

Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240–244. doi:10.1037/h0036787

Alleyne, A. (2015, October 12). This is your brain on tidiness: The psychology of 'organization porn'. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/

Arnheim, R. (2004). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye, fiftieth anniversary printing (Rev. ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1954)

Arnheim, R. (1966). Order and complexity in landscape design. In R. Arnheim (Ed.), Toward a psychology of art: Collected essays (pp. 123–135). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Arnheim, R. (1971). Entropy and art: An essay on disorder and order. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Attneave, F. (1957). Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 221–227. doi:10.1037/h0043921

Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., Ramdeny, G. S. D. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 219–223. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003

Barla, A., Franceschi, E., Odone, F., & Verri, A. (2002). Image kernels. Pattern Recognition with Support Vector Machines: First International Workshop, SVM 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2388, 83–96. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45665-1_7

Belke, B., Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2015). When challenging art gets liked: Evidences for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. PLoS ONE, 10, e0131796. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131796

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Berlyne, D. E., Ogilvie, J. C., & Parham, L. C. C. (1968). The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 376–387. doi:10.1037/h0082777

Bielski, Z. (2010, November 1). Organization as art. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/organization-as-art/…

Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bosch, A., Tisserman, A., & Munoz, X. (2007). Representing shape with a spatial pyramid kernel. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval (pp. 401–408). New York, NY: Association of Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1282280.1282340

Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 1–39. doi:10.2307/1422765

Berenbaum, H., Bredemeier, K., & Thompson, R. J. (2008). Intolerance of uncertainty: Exploring its dimensionality and associations with need for cognitive closure, psychopathology, and personality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 117–125. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.01.004

Braun, J., Amirshahi, S. A., Denzler, J., & Redies, C. (2013). Statistical image properties of print advertisements, visual artworks and images of architecture. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 808. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00808

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222–236. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.12.004

Cárdenas, R. A., & Harris, L. J. (2006). Symmetrical decorations enhance the attractiveness of faces and abstract designs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.05.002

Cavazos, J. T., Judice-Campbell, N., & Ditzfeld, C. P. (2012). Differing emotional sensitivities in the two factors of personal need for structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 49–54. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.005

Ceulemans, E., & Meers, K. (2005). HiClas (Version 0.9 beta) [Computer software].

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Burke, C., Hsu, A., & Swami, V. (2010). Personality predictors of artistic preferences as a function of the emotional valence and perceived complexity of paintings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 196–204. doi:10.1037/a0019211

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Reimers, S. (2007). Personality and art. The Psychologist20, 84–87. Retrieved from https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/

Chevrier, J., & Delorme, A. (1980). Aesthetic preferences: Influence of perceptual ability, age and complexity of stimulus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 839–849.  doi:10.2466/pms.1980.50.3.839

Chikhman, V., Bondarko, V., Danilova, M., Goluzina, A., & Shelepin, Y. (2012). Complexity of images: Experimental and computational estimates compared. Perception, 41, 631–647. doi:10.1068/p6987

Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269–301. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.269

Chipman, S. F., & Mendelson, M. J. (1979). Influence of six types of visual structure on complexity judgments in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 365–378. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.5.2.365

Corchs, S. E., Ciocca, G., Bricolo, E., & Gasparini, F. (2016). Predicting complexity perception of real world images. PLoS ONE, 11, e0157986. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157986

Crego, C., Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2015). The FFOCI and other measures and models of OCPD. Assessment, 22, 135–151. doi:10.1177/1073191114539382

Cupchik, G. C. (1986). A decade after Berlyne: New directions in experimental aesthetics. Poetics, 15, 345–369. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(86)90003-3

Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14(2), 38–50.

Dalal, N., & Triggs, B. (2005). Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. International Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, 1, 886–893. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2005.177

De Boeck, P., Rosenberg, S., & Van Mechelen, I. (1993). The hierarchical classes approach: A review. In I. Van Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories            and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 265–286). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Deng, L., & Poole, M. S. (2012). Aesthetic design of e-commerce web pages – Webpage Complexity,   Order and preference. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11, 420–440. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2012.06.004

Denissen, J. J. A., Geenen, R., van Aken, M. A. G., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 152–157. doi:10.1080/00223890701845229

Dugas, M. J., Hedayati, M., Karavidas, A., Buhr, K., Francis, K., & Phillips, N. A. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and information processing: Evidence of biased recall and interpretations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 57–70. doi:10.1007/s10608-005-1648-9

Ellison, K. (2015, April 8). Things Organized Neatly: Meet the internet’s tidiest blogger. Retrieved from http://www.goexplore.net/internet-heroes/things-organized-neatly-interv…

Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J. Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software48(4), 1–18. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i04

Eysenck, H. J. (1941). ‘Type’-factors in aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 262–270. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1941.tb00992.x

Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The experimental study of the 'good Gestalt'—A new approach. Psychological Review, 49, 344–364. doi:10.1037/h0057013

Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik [Elementary aesthetics]. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Fletcher, N. H. (2012). The sound of music: Order from complexity. Acoustics Australia, 40, 188–193.

Forsythe, A., Nadal, M., Sheehy, N., Cela-Conde, C. J., & Sawey, M. (2011). Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 49–70. doi:10.1348/000712610X498958

Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 791–802. doi:10.1016/0191-           8869(94)90048-5

Friedenberg, J., & Liby, B. (2016). Perceived beauty of random texture patterns: A preference for complexity. Acta Psychologica, 168, 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.007

Gibbs, N. A. (1996). Nonclinical populations in research on obsessive-compulsive disorder: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 16, 729–773. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00043-8

Gilbert, K. E., & Kuhn, H. (1972). A history of esthetics: Revised and enlarged (Rev. ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (Original work published 1953)

Goldberg, L. R., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1985). The prediction of semantic consistency in self-descriptions: Characteristics of persons and of terms that affect the consistency of responses to synonym and antonym pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 82–98. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.82

Gombrich, E. H. (1992). The sense of order: A study in the psychology of decorative art (2nd ed.). London, England: Phaidon. (Original work published 1984)

Gordon, J., & Gridley, M. C. (2013). Musical preferences as a function of stimulus complexity of piano jazz. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 143–146. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752303

Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 395–410. doi:10.1177/1088868315574978

Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: The two routes to aesthetic liking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015

Gray, K., Schmitt, P., Strohminger, N., & Kassam, K. S. (2014). The science of style: In fashion, colors should match only moderately. PLoS ONE, 9, e102772. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102772

Green, P. (2013, March 27). The art of unjumbling. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Grenier, S., Barrette, A.-M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of Uncertainty and Intolerance of Ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 593–600. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014

Güçlütürk, Y., Jacobs, R. H. A. H., & van Lier, R. (2016). Liking versus complexity: Decomposing the inverted U-curve. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 112. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00112

Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T., & Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 247–255. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.004

Hay, S. (2015, July 31). The history of knolling. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20150731150518/http://www.lyst.com/longlyst…

Het Nieuwe TeamWerken (2015). Persoonlijke Nood aan Structuur [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from http://hetnieuweteamwerken.be/tools/vragenlijst-structuurbehoefte

Hübner, R., & Fillinger, M. G. (2016). Comparison of objective measures for predicting perceptual balance and visual aesthetic preference. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 335. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00335

Imamoglu, Ç. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 5–16. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0155

Innis, E. (2016, February 29). Creative trends close-up: Flat lay in fashion, food, and social media. Retrieved from http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/

Jacobsen, T. (2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41–56. doi:10.1348/000712604322779451

Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 755–766. doi:10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755

Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Brain correlates of  aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29, 276–285. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five InventoryVersions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Joye, Y., Steg, L., Ünal, A. B., & Pals, R. (2016). When complex is easy on the mind: Internal repetition of visual information in complex objects is a source of perceptual fluency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 103–114. doi:10.1037/xhp0000105

Kein & Aber AG (2012). Tidying up Art (Version 1.0.0) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kunst-aufraumen/id532996706

King, R., Villeneuve, E., Post, L., Flowers, C., & Moonshine, K. (1995). Aesthetic preference and DSM-IIIR personality disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 797–799. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00012-U

Koffka, K. (1940). Problems in the psychology of art. In R. Bernheimer, R. Carpenter, K. Koffka, & M. C. Nahm (Eds.), Art: A Bryn Mawr Symposium. Bryn Mawr Notes and Monographs (Vol. IX, pp. 180–273). New York: Sentry Press.

Kreitler, S., Zigler, E., & Kreitler, H. (1974). The complexity of complexity. Human Development, 17, 54–73. doi:10.1159/000271333

Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundation of social behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 333–368). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508. doi:10.1348/0007126042369811

Lipps, T. (1923). Ästhetik. Psychologie des Schönen und der Kunst. Erster Teil: Grundlegung der Ästhetik [Aesthetics. Psychology of beauty and art. First part: Basics of aesthetics]. Leipzig, Germany: Leopold Voss.

Locher, P. J., Stappers, P. J., & Overbeeke, K. (1998). The role of balance as an organizing design principle underlying adults’ compositional strategies for creating visual displays. Acta Psychologica, 99, 141–161. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00008-0

Lyssenko, N., Redies, C., & Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2016). Evaluating abstract art: Relation between term usage, subjective ratings, image properties, and personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 973. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00973

Mac Donald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26, 791–798. doi:10.2466/pr0.1970.26.3.791

Marin, M. M., & Leder, H. (2013). Examining complexity across domains: Relating subjective and objective measures of affective environmental scenes, paintings and music. PLoS ONE, 8, e72412. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072412

Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80. doi:10.2307/1423259

Mather, G. (2014). The psychology of visual art: Eye, brain and art. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

Moore, H. T. (1917). Pain and pleasure. New York, NY: Moffat, Yard and Company.

Munsinger, H., & Kessen, W. (1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(9), 1–24. doi:10.1037/h0093865

Mureika, J. R., and Taylor, R. P. (2013). The abstract expressionists and les automatistes: a shared multi-fractal depth? Signal Processing, 93, 573–578. doi:10.1016/j.sigpro.2012.05.002

Muth, C., & Carbon, C.-C. (2016). SeIns: Semantic instability in art. Art & Perception, 4, 145–184. doi:10.1163/22134913-00002049

Nadal, M. (2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli. (Doctoral thesis, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain). Retrieved from http://ibdigital.uib.cat/greenstone/cgi-  bin/library.cgi

Nadal, M., Munar, E., Marty, G., & Cela-Conde C. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 173–191. doi:10.2190/EM.28.2.d

Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377–401. doi:10.1177/001391659402600305

Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal Need for Structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113–131.

Nicki, R. M., & Moss, V. (1975). Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 237–249.      doi:10.1037/h0082029

North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1995). Subjective complexity, familiarity, and liking for popular music. Psychomusicology, 14, 77–93. doi:10.1037/h0094090

Oliva, A., Mack, M. L., Shrestha, M., & Peeper, A. (2004). Identifying the perceptual dimensions of visual complexity of scenes. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26, 1041–1046. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/17s4h6w8

Orr, M. G., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Relationship between complexity and liking as a function of expertise. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 583–611. doi:10.1525/mp.2005.22.4.583

Palmer, S. E., & Griscom, W. S. (2013). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 453–461. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0355-2

Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504

Phillips, F., Norman, J. F., & Beers, A. M. (2010). Fechner’s aesthetics revisited. Seeing and Perceiving, 23, 263–271. doi:10.1163/187847510X516412

Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2016). ‘To preserve unity while almost allowing for chaos’: Testing the aesthetic principle of unity-in-variety in product design. Acta Psychologica, 163, 142–152. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.013

Post, R., Nguyen, T., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Unity in variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 103, 48–62. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.003

Radcliffe, A. (2016, October 15). This blog is such a nice place on the internet, thank you for curating it. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://thingsorganizedneatly.tumblr.com/post/151846978729/this-blog-is-…

Radomsky, A. S., & Rachman, S. (2004). Symmetry, ordering and arranging compulsive behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 893–913. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.07.001

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.

R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.

Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

Redies, C., Amirshahi, S. A., Koch, M., & Denzler, J. (2012). PHOG-derived aesthetic measures applied to color photographs of artworks, natural scenes and objects. ECCV 2012 Workshops and Demonstrations, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7583, 522–531. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33863-2_54

Redies, C., Brachmann, A., & Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2014). Changes of statistical properties during the creation of graphic artworks. Art & Perception, 3, 93–116. doi:10.1163/22134913-00002017

Redies, C., Hänisch, J., Blickhan, M., & Denzler, J. (2007). Artists portray human faces with the Fourier statistics of complex natural scenes. Network, 18, 235–248. doi:10.1080/09548980701574496

Redies, C., Hasenstein, J., & Denzler, J. (2007). Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: similarity to natural scenes. Spatial Vision, 21, 137–148. doi:10.1163/156856807782753921

Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236–1256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1236

Rist, J. M. (1967). Plotinus: The road to reality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenberg, S., Van Mechelen, I., & De Boeck, P. (1996). A hierarchical classes model: Theory and method with applications in psychology and psychopathology. In P. Arabie, L. J. Hubert, & G. De Soete (Eds.), Clustering and classification (pp. 123–155). River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.

Rump, E. E. (1968). Is there a general factor of preference for complexity? Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 346–348. doi:10.3758/BF03212482

Sachs, T. (2011, June 21). 10 Bullets, #8: "ALWAYS BE KNOLLING". By Tom Sachs [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-CTkbHnpNQ

Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–   212. doi:10.1177/0022022106297299

Sherman, A., Grabowecky, M., & Suzuki, S. (2015). In the working memory of the beholder: Art appreciation is enhanced when visual complexity is compatible with working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 898–903. doi:10.1037/a0039314

Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041

Stephens, K. D., & Hoffman, D. D. (2016). On visual texture preference: Can an ecological model explain why people like some textures more than others? Perception, 45, 527–551. doi:10.1177/0301006616629026

Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2012). The effects of symmetry and personality on aesthetic preferences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32, 41–57. doi:10.2190/IC.32.1.d

Taylor, C., & Franklin, A. (2012). The relationship between color–object associations and color preference: Further investigation of ecological valence theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 190–197. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0222-1

Taylor, R. P., Spehar, B., Van Donkelaar, P., & Hagerhall, C. M. (2011). Perceptual and physiological responses to Jackson Pollock’s fractals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 60.      doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00060

The Webbys (2015, October 12). An interview with Austin Radcliffe – founder of Webby-winning blog “Things Organized Neatly”. Retrieved from http://webbyawards.com/features/an-interview-with-austin-radcliffe-foun…

Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., & Parker, K. E. (1989). Assessing cognitive need: The development of the Personal Need for Structure and the Personal Fear of Invalidity Scales. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Thompson M. M., Naccarato M. E., & Parker K. E. (1992). Measuring cognitive needs: The development and validation of the Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) measures. Unpublished manuscript.

Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., Parker, K. C. H., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2001). The Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) scales: Historical perspectives, present applications and future directions. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 19–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tinio, P. P. L., & Leder, H. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130, 241–250. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001

Vessel, E. A., & Rubin, N. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 18. doi:10.1167/10.2.18

Wagemans, J. (2011). Towards a new kind of experimental psycho-aesthetics? Reflections on the Parallellepipeda project. i-Perception, 2, 648–678. doi:10.1068/i0464aap

Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1172–1217. doi:10.1037/a0029333

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in Need for Cognitive Closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. doi:10.1037/0022-  3514.67.6.1049

Wehrli, U. (2002). Kunst aufräumen. [Tidying up art]. Zürich: Kein & Aber AG.

Wehrli, U. (2006). Tidying up art [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ursus_wehrli_tidies_up_art

Wehrli, U. (2011). Die Kunst, aufzuräumen. [The art of clean up]. Zürich: Kein & Aber AG.

Wie, T., & Simko, V. (2016). corrplot: Visualization of a correlation matrix. R package (Version 0.77) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=corrplot

Westphal-Fitch, G., Huber, L., Gómez, J. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2012). Production and perception rules underlying visual patterns: Effects of symmetry and hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 367, 2007–2022. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0098

Westphal-Fitch, G., Oh, J., & Fitch, W. T. (2013). Studying aesthetics with the method of production: Effects of context and local symmetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 13–26. doi:10.1037/a0031795

Wilson, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 165–180. doi:10.2190/B1LR-MVF3-F36X-XR64

Wundt, W. (1874). Grundzüge der physiologischen psychologie [Fundamentals of physiological psychology]. Leipzig, Germany: Wilhelm Engelmann.

Universiteit of Hogeschool
Master of Psychology: Theory and Research
Publicatiejaar
2017
Promotor(en)
Prof. Johan Wagemans
Kernwoorden
Share this on: