A Model of Art Perception Evaluation and Emotion in Transformative Aesthetic Experience

Front end Psychol. 2021; 12: 613391.

Aesthetic Experience of Representational Art: Liking Is Affected by Audio-Information Naming and Explaining Inaccuracies of Historical Paintings

Received 2020 Oct 2; Accepted 2021 Jun 28.

Information Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will exist fabricated available by the authors, without undue reservation. Datasets are available on asking.

Abstract

Paintings in museums are often accompanied by additional information, such every bit titles or audio-texts. Previous inquiry has reported mostly positive effects of boosted information on the liking and subjective understanding of a painting. Withal, some studies accept also reported negative effects when additional information introduces inconsistencies between the painting's content and the represented reality. Therefore, the nowadays study examined the negative furnishings of naming a painting'due south historical inaccuracies, which are inconsistencies between the content of the painting and the real historic event, and whether these negative furnishings can be compensated by an explanation for the inaccuracies. The results revealed that liking was lower with inaccuracies named and that this effect was compensated by an explanation for the inaccuracies. No meaning effects were observed for subjective understanding and artful emotions. The results corroborate parts of the Vienna integrated model of art perception and have practical implications for the pattern of audio-texts in museums.

Keywords: liking, aesthetic experience, historical inaccuracies, representational art, audio-text

Introduction

Artworks in museums are often presented together with additional information, such as titles, text labels, or oral explanations in the grade of personal or audio guides. In the by years a number of studies focused on the effects of titles on the aesthetic feel of paintings just did not examine the effects of longer additional information such every bit accompanying audio-texts. However, since art- and fine art-history museums do not change the titles only oftentimes provide their visitors with audio guides that include longer explanations of the paintings, examining the viewer'southward aesthetic feel of paintings in combination with longer accompanying audio-texts is both of theoretical and applied relevance. Such sound-texts are intended to educate the viewers, to help them to understand the artworks and thereby heighten the visitors' aesthetic experience in the gallery. They thus differ from other additional information, such as information about the prices of paintings or opinions of other people that could also influence the artful feel, but in a different way, namely via priming the viewers expectations (Lauring et al., 2016). Research corroborates positive effects of titles and short text labels on the viewer's subjective understanding of paintings (Russell, 2003; Leder et al., 2006; Swami, 2013; Bubić et al., 2017) and their aesthetic appreciation (Millis, 2001; Russell, 2003; Belke et al., 2010; Swami, 2013; Gerger and Leder, 2015; Bubić et al., 2017). Withal, a recent review (Chmiel and Schubert, 2019) points out a substantial number of studies that did non detect effects of additional data on subjective understanding and aesthetic appreciation in the form of liking. Other research even shows negative effects of mismatching titles on liking (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015). For this reason, conditions demand to be specified when and how additional information related to an artworks' meaning influences subjective agreement and liking of artwork every bit two main aspects of the aesthetic experience (Leder et al., 2004).

Get-go, the furnishings of titles on subjective understanding and liking more often than not employ for abstract rather than for representational art (Chmiel and Schubert, 2019). This has been corroborated by several studies showing effects for highly abstract simply not for representational art (Leder et al., 2006; Moore and West, 2012; Swami, 2013). This could indicate, that the iconicity of representational fine art could provide the viewers with a feeling of an piece of cake and high understanding, whereas abstract art needs clarification of what the painting represents. The absence of effects of additional information on the subjective agreement and liking of representational fine art might thus exist due to the viewers feeling of an already highly subjective agreement and liking even if no boosted information is provided.

Second, furnishings of boosted information on the subjective understanding and liking of artwork may depend on the type of the additional information. Comparing descriptive and elaborative titles to a control grouping without titles, an experiment (Leder et al., 2006) revealed that both titles improved the subjective agreement of paintings compared to the control group. Elaborative titles had the highest effect on subjective understanding just neither of the titles increased liking. Comparing title, wide genre data, and content specific data to a control group without additional information, an experiment (Experiment 1 of Swami, 2013) found that all iii types of data improved the subjective understanding of abstract paintings compared to the control condition. In this experiment, content specific information had the highest effect and was the merely type of data that improved liking. In addition, the type of additional information can influence whether the additional information affects the liking of a painting positively or negatively. Studies show that paintings are liked more when the provided title semantically matches the content of the painting than if the title does non semantically lucifer the content and this mismatch remains unexplained (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015). I of the studies showed this for representational paintings (Belke et al., 2010). But when comparing the grouping with matching titles and the grouping with unexplained non-matching titles to the control condition that did not receive whatever titles, it can be ended that this effect was mainly driven by representational paintings beingness less liked due to the unexplained mismatch of title and content than paintings being more liked due to a match between the title and content. In other words, while the loftier liking typical for representational art is non easily enhanced past titles, unexplained inconsistencies such as mismatching titles can substantially decrease the liking of representational art. The authors (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015) assume that the reduced liking is caused either past lower processing fluency and meaning making or past a reduced understanding of the painting. Higher liking in contrast is assumed to exist acquired past better understanding, higher processing fluency and disfluency reduction.

That unexplained inconsistencies can pb to a disfluent processing is supported by research outside the field of aesthetics. For example, discrepancies betwixt a picture of a map and a related text led to longer fixation times on the text and the picture of the map than text and picture of the map providing similar data. This was interpreted as a hampered procedure of information integration (Schüler, 2017). Disfluency due to unexplained inconsistencies might not only ascend when boosted information does not match the content of a picture or painting merely also when the content of a seemingly realistic representational painting does not match reality. Historical paintings oft contain historical inaccuracies, which are inconsistencies between the depiction of a historic effect in a painting and a more plausible version of the effect based on today's historians' opinions (Burke, 2001). Museums of art and history often provide additional data in the form of audio-texts naming the paintings inaccuracies. Without high groundwork noesis, the inaccuracies cannot exist seen or inferred by looking at the painting. Therefore, mentioning them in the form of additional information is of import for interpreting and understanding the painting. Nonetheless, this could affect art processing and the evaluation of the representational artwork especially when the inconsistencies remain unexplained.

Fine art Processing, Artful Emotions, and the Evaluation of Artworks

The studies on the subjective understanding and liking of art described in the previous section are by and large discussed in the context of two frameworks. Commencement, the fluency theory (Reber et al., 2004) proposes that the easier the viewer's processing, meaning making, and understanding of an artwork is, the more than the artwork will be liked by the viewer. Fluency can thereby issue from early processing stages such as the classification of the artwork or the perceptual analysis of symmetry simply also from later college social club processing stages, such every bit the cerebral mastery of an artwork. Like to the hypothesis of the fluency theory is the simplified hypothesis derived from the psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation (Bullot and Reber, 2013). The psycho-historical framework states that college understanding of an artwork is positively linked to its aesthetic liking. In both frameworks, additional information, such as titles or explanations of the style and the art historical context, is assumed to enhance simply also lower the liking of artworks, depending on whether the additional data contributes to a fluent processing and better understanding or to a less fluent processing and lower understanding.

The two frameworks have been recently incorporated into a more than complex theoretical model proposing positive and negative effects of boosted data on the subjective agreement and liking of artworks as well as aesthetic emotions. These outcomes are assumed to mainly depend on two cerebral appraisals made during the higher order processing stage of cognitive mastery of an artwork. The Vienna integrated model of art perception (VIMAP) (Pelowski et al., 2017) proposes seven stages of art processing. The get-go phase is the pre-nomenclature, which includes factors of context (museum, laboratory, social or individual setting) and personal factors (mood, personality, and expectations) that influence the viewers processing and emerge before a person deals with an artwork. In the 2nd stage, the perceptual analysis, the low-level features of an artwork are processed, such as complexity, contrasts, and color. In the 3rd phase, the implicit retentivity integration, elements of the painting are combined to more than or less meaningful patterns. Thereby, factors such as familiarity and prototypicality play a part. In the fourth stage, the explicit classification, viewers place the content in accord with the painting's context, style, and information learned about the creative person. In all these stages, the focus is mainly on bottom-upwardly processes that influence the art perception of a viewer.

For furnishings of additional information on subjective understanding and liking, especially the fifth phase, the cognitive mastery, is important. Cognitive mastery is characterized by tiptop-downwardly processes that consider and combine the data gathered by the bottom-up processing in order to form coherent meaning of the artwork together with an appropriate evaluation and concrete response. The outcome of this mastery procedure depends on two processing checks: schema congruency check and cocky-relevancy check. For the schema congruency check, viewers consider their schemas about their noesis, expectations, understanding, and opportunities for learning (Silvia, 2009). Thereby they as well consider the success of the processing during the former stages of basic perceptual processing, object identification, explicit nomenclature, and integrating these elements. The match for each of these elements can be more or less coinciding. A good overall friction match results in a subjective feeling of fluency and an efficient processing and understanding. For example, viewers could check whether their understanding of the artwork matches the level of understanding they expected. The second bank check proposed by the model is the self-relevancy bank check. With this check, the viewers consider the personal importance of the artwork for their self-image. The viewers decide whether the outcome of their viewing is relevant to them and whether they really take an interest or need to process the artwork. Stage six, the secondary control, is only relevant if viewers feel low congruency and high self-relevancy and cannot resolve the incongruency by direct mastery. In this phase, viewers try to reduce the incongruency by different strategies. They tin can re-classify the artwork or the context by reducing the importance of the incongruent artwork. They can also but leave the gallery physically to escape the feel of incongruency. Phase seven, the metacognitive self-reflection just takes identify if viewers cannot undo from viewing the artwork during stage six. In this phase, the viewers remember about the difficulties in processing the artwork and reverberate on expectations and failed attempts to master or reduce the incongruency. This volition allow for a new and likely more harmonious arroyo in processing the artwork.

The self-relevancy cheque and therefore stages 6 and 7 are only relevant for experts in existent art situations. When considering laypersons outcomes of art processing, the self-relevancy bank check can be neglected, since art processing does rarely threaten their cocky-image. The model and so suggests two different outcomes based on the congruency-check during the cognitive mastery stage. The first outcome results from high schema congruency together with depression cocky-relevance. It is characterized by a default or facile reaction. This is probably the nearly mutual consequence of viewers not finding something new or questioning in the artwork. The result is a sufficient classification, easy processing and agreement of the artwork with little emotional engagement, and a facile feeling of pleasance. The second result results from low schema congruency together with low self-relevance. It is characterized past a reaction of novelty and small insight due to a minor incongruency in the congruency-check. Certain artful emotions are thereby triggered, depending on whether or not the viewers are able to resolve the incongruency. Viewers accept different option to resolve the incongruency: (a) Viewers can resolve incongruency by continuing their processing to discover more information that contributes to a college match. (b) Viewers can render the incongruency equally irrelevant. (c) Viewers tin can change their schema past generalizing definitions, classes, or expectations to include the novel elements. (d) Viewers can accept the incongruency every bit a mystery and accept the ambivalence and not seek a resolution. (eastward) Sometimes the incongruency is explained past further additional information. In these cases, the viewers tin can rate the risk loftier that incongruencies are resolved and might observe pleasure and interest for the incongruency. Alternatively, the viewers assess the hazard of finding a resolution to be low and feel a need for a resolution in gild to restore coherence. This volition result in confusion, in lower interest, and probably in a lower subjective understanding and liking of the artwork. Hence, confusion and interest are reverse outcomes of the same cause, depending on the viewer's appraised chance to form a coherent understanding afterwards an incongruency was encountered (cf. Silvia, 2009). Independent of the appraised take a chance to solve the incongruency, all viewers should experience surprise when confronted with incongruency.

Empirical evidence of effects of additional information on aesthetic emotions is deficient. The present literature has mostly reported no effects of additional information in the course of titles on the emotional feel (Bubić et al., 2017) and interest (Leder et al., 2006; Gerger and Leder, 2015). One study considered fine art appreciation as a calibration of interest and liking ratings together and reported significant effects of additional data (Swami, 2013). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated the effects of additional information on surprise and confusion. Therefore, nosotros found at that place was a need to empirically examination the assumptions of the VIMAP with regard to emotional outcomes. We thereby expected non but that an incongruency in the congruency-check tin can arise from inconsistencies, such as titles semantically mismatching the content, merely likewise by naming the historical inconsistencies of the content of a representational painting mismatching reality.

Transportation equally a Result of Processing a Narrative Artwork

As we used historical paintings in our written report that depict a story and are therefore inherently narrative, we also considered theories of narrative processing to investigate the influence of additional inconsistent information on processing outcomes. According to the model of narrative comprehension and engagement (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008), the fluent processing of a narrative, presented either in the form of texts, films, or pictures, leads to the feeling of being transported into the story. The phenomenon of being transported is described as the readers' or viewers' experience of being mentally captivated in the story world (Gerrig, 1993) and consists of a cerebral, emotional, and imaginary component (Green and Brock, 2002). Transported individuals focus their cognitive processing on the events of the story; they place and feel with the characters and create bright mental images of the places and characters. They tin can feel a period-like state and lose sensation of what is going on around them (Green and Brock, 2000). Transportation is enjoyed by the recipients (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008; Bilandzic and Busselle, 2011) and is therefore an essential experience also when processing narrative artworks. Transportation was mostly investigated with written text and movies but is assumed to apply to narratives presented in all modalities (Greenish and Brock, 2000). The model of narrative engagement assumes that readers and viewers fluently process and experience transportation when the story is coherent. However, when the recipients encounter incoherence or implausibilities that are not explained by the story world, processing fluency is diminished and transportation is lowered (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008). This link betwixt perceived realism and transportation is supported by empirical results (Green, 2004; Bilandzic and Busselle, 2011). Based on the model of narrative comprehension and appointment (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008) and the related empirical studies, we expected that naming a paintings' inconsistencies reduces transportation and that explaining these inconsistencies past benevolent intentions of the painter will compensate for this negative effect.

The Present Study

In our study, we investigated the effects of boosted information naming a painting's inconsistencies on the viewers' art evaluation and aesthetic emotions when viewing representational art, that is, in specific historical paintings. Based on the VIMAP and related empirical findings (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015), we expected that the naming of a painting's inconsistencies and leaving them unexplained lowers the subjective understanding and the liking of the historical painting. Additionally, we assumed that informing the viewers about the artists' intentions in society to explain these inconsistencies can assistance the viewer to restore coherence. Hence, the information nigh the artists' intentions should compensate for the negative effects of naming inconsistencies without explaining them. This should be manifest in a 2-way interaction between the factors naming of inconsistencies and explanation for subjective understanding (P1) and liking (P2) of the historical paintings. Based on the VIMAP, we further expected that surprise volition more often than not be higher with inconsistencies named compared to without inconsistencies named, indicated by a main effect of naming inconsistencies (P3). Additionally, the viewers should experience lower interest and higher defoliation with inconsistencies named compared to without inconsistencies named when no explanation is given, merely these furnishings on interest (P4) and confusion (P5) should be compensated for by the provision of an explanation about the artists' intentions. Lastly, based on the model of narrative comprehension and engagement (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008), we expected that naming the painting's inconsistencies without explaining them reduces the viewers experienced transportation compared to not naming and explaining the inconsistencies, but explaining these inconsistencies past mentioning the artists' intentions should recoup for this effect (P6). Hence, for Predictions 4, five, and 6 we again predicted two-fashion interactions betwixt the factors naming of inconsistencies and explanation.

Method

Participants

The experiment was done online and could be accessed with all mutual browsers. We recruited 196 participants on Prolific and instructed them simply to participate via computer or tablet and not via smartphone due to the small screen size, which nosotros considered insufficient for noticing the details of the paintings and for an advisable artful feel of the paintings. The available participants were pre-filtered to include but native speakers of German language. From the 196 participants, 41 participants were excluded because they already knew at least one of the three paintings we used in the present report. Iv were excluded because they participated via smartphone. Half-dozen were excluded because they gave l% or less correct answers in a retentivity check, indicating that they had guessed the answers and had not listened closely to the audiotexts commenting on the moving picture. The memory bank check presented several statements about the celebrated upshot, for example, that it was summer when Washington crossed the Delaware and asked if this was depicted in the painting or not. The painting clearly depicts floating ice floes on the river, and the audio-texts likewise states that information technology was winter. Iv participants were excluded because they studied or worked in the field of history or art-history. Subsequently, 139 participants remained for the analysis: 64 (46%) females, 75 (54%) males; aged between xviii and 67 years (M = 30.78, SD = 9.95).

Blueprint

We tested our predictions using a 2 × 2 blueprint with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and explanation (yes vs. no) equally the betwixt-subjects factors. The 139 participants were randomly assigned to one of our four conditions (I−E−: without inconsistencies named and no caption provided, north = 40; I+E−: with inconsistencies named and no caption provided, n = 30; I−E+: without inconsistencies named and an explanation provided, northward = 40; I+E+: with inconsistencies named and an explanation provided, n = 29).

Material

Every bit research textile, we used pictures of 3 historical paintings: "Valdemar Atterdag Belongings Visby to Ransom" by Carl Gustaf Hellqvist, "The Death of General Wolfe" by Benjamin Due west, and "Washington Crossing the Delaware" by Emanuel Leutze. All of these paintings comprise pictorial elements that are consistent and pictorial elements that are inconsistent with a plausible version of the historical consequence based on today's historians' opinions.

We created iv different versions of audio-texts for each painting, depending on the respective condition. The audio-texts in all conditions commented on eight pictorial elements for each painting. This consisted of information virtually the location of the pictorial element in the painting, its description, and an estimation of the element regarding the celebrated effect. The audio-text's interpretation of four pictorial elements of each painting was manipulated co-ordinate to the condition. These elements were either named as being inconsistent to the bodily historic event (with inconsistencies named) or non (without inconsistencies named). Directly after this, either information about the intention of the artist followed that was able to explicate the inconsistency (explanation provided) or a text of similar length and verbal content followed that did not inform the participants about the intention of the artist and did not explain the inconsistency (no explanation provided). The information about the artists' intentions was formulated in a way that made sense even when no inconsistencies were named. The intention of the creative person was e'er benevolent, for case, by stating that the artist wanted to make a certain signal clearer to the viewer (see Table 1 for an audio-text example). The audio texts had different durations for the paintings (4:29 min for Hellqvist, four:41 min for Leutze, iv:35 min for Due west) but were of equal length for the four weather condition with merely minor changes in the sentences.

Tabular array 1

Example of text for the native American in wests painting "the expiry of general wolfe" for the four conditions.

On the left kneels a Native American wearing loincloth and a red plumage. Information technology is ane of the Iroquois who were centrolineal to the British. The Iroquois were engaged as scouts earlier the battle
*Without inconsistencies named (I−)*	*With inconsistencies named (I+)*

During the combat they did indeed leave the camp and took office in the battle.	During the combat they did not get out the camp and did not take part in the battle.
*Without explanation (E−)*	*With caption (East+)*

Benjamin West painted the film in London 11 years after the upshot for an English audience. The appearance of the Northward American Iroquois was not very well known at that time, and the viewers could therefore not recognize Northward America equally the place of the action in West's painting.	Benjamin Westward painted the moving picture in London 11 years after the issue for an English audience. The advent of the Northward American Iroquois was already very well known at that time and West helped the viewers to recognize North America as the place of activity with his depiction.

Measures

To control for a priori differences between the weather, nosotros measured the participants' general interest in art using the corresponding function of the German version of the Vienna Fine art Involvement and Art Knowledge Questionnaire (Specker et al., 2018). Participants answered the questions on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ane (not at all) to seven (completely) for their self-reported interest and from one (less than once a year) to seven (once a calendar week or more) for their self-reported activities in the context of art. Nosotros calculated the hateful score for full general interest in fine art. The internal consistency of the general interest in fine art scale was good equally indicated by a Cronbach'southward Alpha of α = 0.88.

Nosotros measured the subjective understanding for each painting with a 2-item scale. Answers had to be given on a vii-indicate Likert calibration ranging from one (not at all) to seven (very much). These items were similarly used by Swami (2013) and adapted from Silvia (2005). We calculated the hateful score of subjective agreement. The internal consistency of the subjective understanding scale was skilful, as indicated by a Cronbach's Alpha of α = 0.88.

We measured liking, surprise, interest, and defoliation for each of the 3 paintings with the two items of the corresponding sub-scales of the High german Version of the Aesthemos scale (Schindler et al., 2017). We used the original teaching of the Aesthemos to focus the participants on their own aesthetic experience. The instruction states in High german: "Welche gefühlsmäßige Wirkung hatte x auf Sie? Bitte kreuzen Sie zu jedem Gefühl unten die Kategorie an, dice auf Ihr persönliches Erleben am besten zutrifft. Bitte geben Sie nur an, wie Sie sich tatsächlich gefühlt haben. Beschreiben Sie nicht die Gefühle, welche im zuletzt gesehenen Gemälde ausgedrückt wurden, wenn Sie diese nicht selbst empfunden haben. [Which emotional consequence did ten have on y'all? For each emotion listed beneath, please marking the response category that best matches your personal experience. Please but bespeak how y'all really felt. Do not characterize the emotions expressed in x if you did not feel them yourself]." We replaced ten with "das zuvor gesehene Gemälde [the previously seen painting]." For each emotion (liking, interest, defoliation, surprise), answers were given on ii items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (not at all) to seven (very much). The two items of liking were "Empfand ich als schön [I constitute it cute]" and "Gefiel mir [I liked it]." We calculated the hateful scores of liking, interest, confusion, and surprise. The internal consistency of all subscales of the Aesthemos were acceptable to good every bit indicated by Cronbach's Alphas of α = 0.85 for liking, α = 0.88 for interest, α = 0.73 for confusion, and α = 0.eighty for surprise.

We measured transportation into the celebrated event with the adapted version of the six-detail transportation short-scale (Appel et al., 2015) after each painting. For item 5 and vi stating "While viewing the painting, I could imagine […] vividly," nosotros inserted one of the manipulated pictorial elements into the gaps, for example, "Fraser wearing a kilt" for the West painting. We calculated the mean score of transportation. The internal consistency of the transportation scale was excellent as indicated past a Cronbach's Alpha of α = 0.92.

Procedure

At the outset of the experiment, the participants were instructed to focus on the paintings equally artworks. For this, they were informed that they will see three paintings, of which the originals are exhibited in museums. Therefore, they can imagine the study to be like to a visit in an art museum. The participants were further informed that the paintings depict historic events and that an accompanying audio-text will present further information virtually the painting, the artist, and the celebrated event. They were instructed that the audio-text for each painting could only be listened to in one case, and later viewing the paintings, they volition exist asked questions about the paintings. After this, the participants were asked well-nigh their full general interest in art. Before the presentation of the paintings, they were able to test and adjust their speakers with a curt audio-text. Each painting was introduced by a written instruction of the title and the name of the creative person. The participants clicked the continue-button when they had read the data. After this they had to click the play-button to start the presentation of the painting together with the respective audio-text. Directly subsequently the presentation of each painting, the participants were asked to written report their experienced transportation, their aesthetic evaluation including liking, surprise, confusion, and interest, and their subjective agreement of the painting. The presentation of the iii paintings was done in random gild to prevent order furnishings. Later the presentation of all 3 paintings, the participants filled out their demographics, a question about prior cognition of the paintings, and whether they work or report in the field of art, history, or art-history. They were and then debriefed and paid 4.50 £. The study received institutional research ethics committee approval.

Results

Control Variable: General Involvement in Art

A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated with status (I−East− vs. I+E− vs. I−Eastward+ vs. I+E+) as the between-subjects cistron. The analysis revealed no differences in general art interest between the four conditions, F(3, 135) = 0.45, p = 0.721, η² _p = 0.010. Therefore, differences between the conditions cannot be explained past differences in full general art interest.

Subjective Understanding

A two-fashion ANOVA was calculated across the iii paintings with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and an explanation of the intentions of the creative person (yes vs. no) as between-subjects factors. The analysis revealed no significant main upshot of naming inconsistencies, F(ane, 135) = 0.79, p = 0.376, η² _p = 0.006. Subjective understanding did non differ significantly with inconsistencies named (Thou = v.27, SD = 0.99) compared to without inconsistencies named (M = five.42, SD = 0.97). The master effect of caption was not significant, F(ane, 135) = 0.38, p = 0.540, η^two _p = 0.003. Subjective understanding did not differ significantly when an explanation was provided (M = 5.40, SD = 0.90) compared to when no explanation was provided (M = 5.32, SD = 1.05). In contrast to our expectations, the ii-way interaction between naming inconsistencies and explanation was also non significant, F(1, 135) = 0.97, p = 0.326, η² _p = 0.007. The Bonferroni-adapted comparison showed neither a significant difference between with inconsistencies named (I+E−: Thou = v.14, SD = 1.02) and without inconsistencies named (I−Due east−: M = 5.45, SD = 1.06) when no caption was given, p = 0.186, nor between with inconsistencies named (I+E+: Chiliad = 5.41, SD = 0.96) and without inconsistencies named (I−E+: M = five.39, SD = 0.88) when an caption was given, p = 0.946.

Liking

A 2-fashion ANOVA was calculated across the three paintings with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and an explanation of the intentions of the artist (yes vs. no) as between-subjects factors (see Figure 1). The analysis revealed no significant principal effect of naming inconsistencies, F(1, 135) = 3.23, p = 0.074, η² _p = 0.023. Liking did non differ significantly with inconsistencies named (M = iii.twenty, SD = 0.82) compared to without inconsistencies named (One thousand = 3.47, SD = 0.91). The master issue of caption was non significant, F(i, 135) = 0.xi, p = 0.736, ηⁱⁱ _p = 0.001. Liking did not differ significantly when an explanation was provided (M = 3.36, SD = 0.89) compared to when no caption was provided (K = 3.35, SD = 0.88). However, the two-mode interaction betwixt naming inconsistencies and explanation was significant, F(1, 135) = four.89, p = 0.029, η² _p = 0.035. As it was expected, the Bonferroni-adapted comparison showed a pregnant lower liking with inconsistencies named (I+E−: M = iii.01, SD = 0.84) than without inconsistencies named (I−Due east−: K = 3.61, SD = 0.83) when no caption was given, p = 0.005, but when an explanation was given, liking was equally high with (I+Eastward−: 1000 = 3.39, SD = 0.77) and without inconsistencies named (I−East+: K = 3.33, SD = 0.98), p = 0.771. To bank check whether the result was similar across the paintings, we calculated an additional ANOVA including painting as a inside-factor. The ANOVA with the iii factors inconsistencies named, explanation, and painting revealed no significant three-way interaction F(two, 270) = 0.01, p = 0.994, η^two _p < 0.001. The two-mode interaction was therefore valid for all iii paintings. Further we checked the linkage between liking, subjective understanding and other aesthetic emotions. Liking ratings correlated positively with subjective agreement (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), interest (r = 0.71, p < 0.001), surprise (r = 0.54, p < 0.001), and also transportation (r = 0.65, p < 0.001).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fpsyg-12-613391-g001.jpg

Interaction betwixt discrepancy and explanation with regard to liking. The mistake bars signal standard errors.

Surprise

A two-way ANOVA was calculated across the iii paintings with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and an explanation of the intentions of the artist (yes vs. no) as the between-subjects factors. The analysis revealed no significant chief outcome of naming inconsistencies, F(1, 135) = 0.18, p = 0.669, η² _p = 0.001. In contrast to our expectations, surprise did non differ with inconsistencies named (M = 2.37, SD = 0.82) compared to without inconsistencies named (Chiliad = 2.43, SD = 0.87). The primary result of explanation was not significant, F(one, 135) = 0.43, p = 0.512, η² _p = 0.003. Surprise did not differ significantly when an explanation was provided (Thousand = 2.35, SD = 0.80) compared to when no caption was provided (M = 2.47, SD = 0.89). The two-manner interaction between naming inconsistencies and explanation was not meaning, F(1, 135) = 1.37, p = 0.245, η² _p = 0.010. The Bonferroni-adjusted comparison showed neither a significant difference betwixt with inconsistencies named (I+East−: K = 2.33, SD = 0.89) and without inconsistencies named (I−Due east−: M = 2.57, SD = 0.89) when no caption was given, p = 0.258, nor between with inconsistencies named (I+E+: M = ii.41, SD = 0.76) and without inconsistencies named (I−E+: M = two.30, SD = 0.84) when an explanation was given, p = 0.603.

Involvement

A 2-manner ANOVA was calculated across the 3 paintings with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and an explanation of the intentions of the creative person (yeah vs. no) as the between-subjects factors. The analysis revealed no significant main effect of naming inconsistencies, F(ane, 135) = 0.46, p = 0.499, η^two _p = 0.003. Interest did non differ significantly with inconsistencies named (Thousand = iii.57, SD = 0.xc) compared to without inconsistencies named (M = 3.46, SD = 0.99). The main upshot of explanation was not pregnant, F(i, 135) = 0.01, p = 0.913, η^two _p < 0.001. Interest did not differ significantly when an caption was provided (Grand = 3.52, SD = 0.94) compared to when no explanation was provided (Chiliad = three.52, SD = 0.94). In contrast to our expectations, the two-way interaction between naming inconsistencies and explanation was non meaning, F(ane, 135) = 0.57, p = 0.453, η² _p = 0.004. The Bonferroni-adjusted comparison showed neither a significant difference between with inconsistencies named (I+E−: One thousand = 3.39, SD = ane.06) and without inconsistencies named (I−E−: G = three.62, SD = 0.85) when no explanation was given, p = 0.311, nor between with inconsistencies named (I+E+: M = 3.53, SD = 0.94) and without inconsistencies named (I−E+: M = 3.52, SD = 0.96) when an caption was given, p = 0.958.

Defoliation

A two-way ANOVA was calculated across the 3 paintings with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and an explanation of the intentions of the creative person (yes vs. no) every bit the between-subjects factors. The analysis revealed no pregnant main issue of naming inconsistencies, F(i, 135) = 0.xix, p = 0.661, η² _p = 0.001. Defoliation did not differ significantly with inconsistencies named (M = i.64, SD = 0.59) compared to without inconsistencies named (M = ane.59, SD = 0.58). The main effect of explanation was not significant, F(i, 135) = 0.09, p = 0.760, ηⁱⁱ _p = 0.001. Defoliation did not differ significantly when an explanation was provided (One thousand = 1.sixty, SD = 0.54) compared to when no explanation was provided (M = ane.63, SD = 0.62). In dissimilarity to our expectations, the two-way interaction betwixt naming inconsistencies and caption was not significant, F(1, 135) = 0.07, p = 0.792, η² _p = 0.001. The Bonferroni-adjusted comparing showed neither a pregnant difference between with inconsistencies named (I+Due east−: M = ane.67, SD = 0.68) and without inconsistencies named (I−E−: 1000 = 1.60, SD = 0.58) when no explanation was given, p = 0.975, nor between with inconsistencies named (I+E+: M = ane.61, SD = 0.50) and without inconsistencies named (I−E+: K = ane.59, SD = 0.58) when an caption was given, p = 0.707.

Transportation

A two-way ANOVA was calculated across the iii paintings with naming of inconsistencies (with vs. without) and an explanation of the intentions of the artist (yes vs. no) as the between-subjects factors. The analysis revealed no pregnant main effect of naming inconsistencies, F(1, 135) = 0.38, p = 0.540, η² _p = 0.003. Transportation did not differ significantly with inconsistencies named (Chiliad = 4.19, SD = 1.thirteen) compared to without inconsistencies named (Thousand = iv.31, SD = 1.17). The chief issue of explanation was not meaning, F(1, 135) = 0.01, p = 0.917, η^two _p < 0.001. Transportation did non differ significantly when an explanation was provided (Grand = iv.26, SD = 1.sixteen) compared to when no explanation was provided (1000 = 4.25, SD = one.15). In contrast to our expectations, the ii-way interaction betwixt naming inconsistencies and explanation was not pregnant, F(1, 135) = 0.11, p = 0.739, η² _p = 0.001. The Bonferroni-adjusted comparison showed neither a significant deviation betwixt with inconsistencies named (I+E−: Thousand = 4.fourteen, SD = 1.15) and without inconsistencies named (I−Due east−: M = 4.33, SD = one.xv) when no explanation was given, p = 0.501, nor betwixt with inconsistencies named (I+E+: Thousand = 4.23, SD = 1.13) and without inconsistencies named (I−E+: 1000 = 4.29, SD = one.xix) when an explanation was given, p = 0.844.

Discussion

Presently, show of the furnishings of additional information that is intended to foster pregnant making on subjective understanding and liking of artworks is mixed (Chmiel and Schubert, 2019). Positive effects on liking are shown for highly abstruse paintings but seldom for representational art (Leder et al., 2006; Moore and Due west, 2012; Swami, 2013). In two previous studies, negative effects on liking were found for unexplained mismatching titles, indicating that the processing of inconsistencies can lower the liking of abstract but likewise representational artworks (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015). Following these findings, nosotros presented historical paintings together with additional data either naming their historical inconsistencies or non. In addition, we either provided an caption for the inconsistencies or not. Based on the nowadays results and theories of fine art processing (VIMAP; Pelowski et al., 2017), we expected that the naming of a historical paintings' inconsistencies and leaving them unexplained would produce a similar effect like the unexplained mismatching titles. In both cases subjective understanding and liking of the artwork should exist lower, due to the viewer's processing of inconsistent data. In improver, we expected that the provision of an explanation would compensate for the negative effects of the naming of unexplained inconsistencies on subjective understanding (P1) and liking (P2).

Although subjective agreement was not significantly affected by the boosted information in our experiment, liking was significantly lower when the inconsistencies of a painting were named merely remained unexplained compared to when the inconsistencies were not but named, but likewise explained. In contrast, no similar difference in liking for authentic elements were found when explanations were provided or not provided. Because liking nether conditions of naming and explaining inconsistencies was similar to weather condition of not naming inconsistencies, we conclude that the explanations did compensate for the detrimental furnishings of naming inconsistencies. Our event of a lower liking when inconsistencies are named but not explained is in line with the assumptions of the fluency theory, VIMAP, and previous empirical evidence (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015). The consequence indicates that the negative effects in cases of missing explanations not only apply to semantically mismatching titles just also to longer explanations of representational art that require the viewer to process inconsistencies. Furthermore, our results show that the negative effects of unexplained inconsistencies on liking can exist compensated for by an explanation of these inconsistencies. Hence, our study provides indication against the assumption that only the liking of abstract art can profit from additional information (Leder et al., 2006; Swami, 2013). In add-on, it supports the claim that the reason for rare evidence of boosted information affecting liking of representational art might be a frequent ceiling effect resulting from the already high liking of representational art (Chmiel and Schubert, 2019).

Our results of a significant two-fashion interaction between inconsistency named and explanation for liking without a significant two-way interaction for subjective understanding seem to exist more than compatible with the VIMAP than with the psycho-historical framework for the scientific discipline of art appreciation. While the latter emphasizes the office of understanding on the liking of artworks the old assumes that liking is a production of the congruency-cheque, which includes understanding, merely besides other factors, such every bit whether the painting matches the viewers expectations. Also, in accordance with the fluency theory (Reber et al., 2004), a less fluent processing remains to be a possible explanation, that needs to be examined more directly with additional processing measures in future studies. Fluency was also considered to exist the underlying mechanism in the studies using unexplained mismatching titles (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015).

Regarding aesthetic emotions, we expected that surprise volition be higher when inconsistencies are named than when they are not named, independent of whether these inconsistencies are explained or not (P3). We expected that involvement will be lower when inconsistencies are named just unexplained than when they are non named and explained and that this outcome volition be compensated by an caption for the inconsistencies (P4). On the contrary, we expected that confusion volition be higher when inconsistencies are named and unexplained than when they are not named and explained, and that this effect is compensated again by an explanation for the inconsistencies (P5). In contrast to our expectations, nosotros could non show any effects of naming the painting'due south inconsistencies on any of these emotional outcomes. Neither surprise nor interest were lowered, nor did confusion increment by informing the viewers well-nigh inconsistencies when no explanation was provided. Subsequently, we could also not show a compensating effect of explanations for interest and confusion. Research on aesthetics often reported non-significant furnishings of boosted information, such every bit titles, on emotional outcomes (Bubić et al., 2017) or more specifically interest (Leder et al., 2006; Gerger and Leder, 2015). These results, yet, are surprising since a close link between liking and the experience of artful emotions tin be causeless to be based on the models (Pelowski et al., 2017). Indeed, in our study, interest, surprise, and also transportation correlated significantly and highly positively with liking.

Yet, if our manipulation afflicted liking but neither subjective understanding nor aesthetic emotions, by which means was liking afflicted? In line with Gerger and Leder (2015) who found similar effects on liking but not on interest, we speculate that viewers based their lower liking on a greater disfluency in the condition in which inconsistencies were named and no explanation was given than in the atmospheric condition in which inconsistencies were not named. In addition, if inconsistencies were named but an caption was given, the explanation may have reinstated fluency for subsequent processing. The caption thereby may have compensated for the negative outcome of naming unexplained inconsistencies on ratings of liking. This result is in line both with the fluency theory and the VIMAP. Co-ordinate to the VIMAP, this pattern would exist expected if viewers base of operations their liking judgments mainly on bottom-upwardly processing (stage ii to stage 4) such as fluency just do not engage in higher gild cerebral processes. Because particularly laypersons tend to rely on lower stages of art processing for their evaluation of artworks (Mullennix and Robinet, 2018), nosotros speculate that our manipulation affected art processing on lower stages just not on college stages where agreement and artful emotions would take been affected. Since audio explanations are intended to exist used primarily by non-experts information technology would be interesting for future research to investigate whether and how audio explanations can also essentially affect laypersons higher order processing and thereby aesthetic emotions and the subjective understanding.

Based on theories of narrative processing (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008), we expected lower transportation when unexplained inconsistencies are named than when they are non named, merely this effect should be compensated for past an explanation (P6). We could non show that the naming of unexplained inconsistencies lowers transportation. Hence, our experiment provides no support for the model of narrative appointment (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008) for static pictorial narratives. Moreover, the effects on liking in our study are not comparable to effects on transportation being associated with enjoyment.

Some limitations must exist noted: For aesthetics, we relied solely on cocky-reports. Physiological or other process measures, nonetheless, could exist helpful as additional indicators of emotions, liking, and the possibly less fluent processing. For spoken text, it might be important to consider not only what boosted information is presented, but also how it is presented. In our study, nosotros stressed the words similarly whether inconsistencies were presented or non. In a realistic context, surprising facts can be presented with a voice emphasizing this surprise which could foster effects of additional data on artful emotions. Farther, regarding emotions, it might be that the between-blueprint of our study with participants either ever viewing inaccurate paintings or participants e'er viewing accurate paintings prevented effects of the naming of unexplained inconsistencies. A within-design might be more suitable for investigating these effects on emotions. For instance, Russell (2003) did non detect effects on artful evaluation in the offset experiment by using a betwixt design only did in the second experiment by using a within design. Regarding the effects of an explanation of inconsistencies on liking, we e'er explained the inconsistencies by mentioning the adept intentions of the artists. It would be interesting whether malevolent intentions would have like effects or not. This could assist to disentangle whether the effects issue from the explanation itself or the additional positive data nigh the artist.

The reported consequence sizes in previous studies for liking varied greatly in magnitude, depending on the information provided. Studies using titles as additional information oftentimes reported small effect sizes (Belke et al., 2010; Gerger and Leder, 2015), whereas loftier outcome sizes are reported for content-specific information (Swami, 2013). Every bit the additional information that we manipulated was a content specific interpretation and due to scarce previous studies on the effects of additional information on emotions, such as surprise and confusion, we decided to assume a medium upshot of f = 0.25 for our written report. Based on a power analysis using G-Power, 128 participants were required for a ability (1-β) of 0.80 to detect a medium event of f = 0.25 and α = 0.05. Due to our strict exclusion criteria, we had to exclude more participants than expected, and the remaining 139 participants were not equally distributed across the atmospheric condition, resulting in a sufficient simply slightly lower power than we had aimed for. Regarding generalizability, we only considered laypersons of fine art. We would not expect the aforementioned results on liking for viewers more expert in art and art-history due to their college gild processing or considering they might be able to explain the inconsistencies themselves without the need for an external explanation by the audio-text (Bullot and Reber, 2013).

In determination, we could show that the naming of unexplained inconsistencies impairs the liking of representational paintings. All the same, an caption about the inconsistency was able to compensate for this negative issue of boosted information on the liking of representational artworks. Our results corroborate theories of art processing, such as the VIMAP (Pelowski et al., 2017), and prove that non only abstract art tin can profit from additional information but also representational art. Our results extend the present literature by showing that negative furnishings of additional information hold not only for unexplained mismatching titles (Belke et al., 2015; Gerger and Leder, 2015) just also for informing about the inconsistencies of the content of a painting with regard to reality and at the same fourth dimension leaving these inconsistencies unexplained. In contrast to unexplained mismatching titles, information about a painting's historical inconsistencies is oft provided in museums of art as this is an important part of the interpretation of a painting's content. Therefore, our results accept practical implications for the blueprint of information accompanying representational artworks in museums. First, additional information tin not only enhance the liking of artworks but also lower the liking of artworks if it requires a layperson to process unexplained inconsistencies. Second, if inconsistencies of a representational painting are first named unexplained, the liking can be restored when an caption for the inconsistencies is added in a second step.

Information Availability Statement

The raw information supporting the conclusions of this article will be made bachelor by the authors, without undue reservation. Datasets are available on request.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and canonical by Ethics Committee of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this written report.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to writing the manuscript. MK performed the research and nerveless and analyzed the data.

Disharmonize of Interest

The authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or fiscal relationships that could be construed equally a potential conflict of involvement.

Footnotes

Funding. All funding was provided past the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien.

References

Appel 1000., Gnambs T., Richter T., Greenish M. C. (2015). The transportation scale–short form (TS–SF). Media Psychol. 18 243–266. 10.1080/15213269.2014.987400 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Belke B., Leder H., Carbon C. C. (2015). When challenging art gets liked: evidences for a dual preference formation procedure for fluent and not-fluent portraits. PLoS One ten i–34. 10.1371/journal.pone.0131796 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Belke B., Leder H., Strobach T., Carbon C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: high-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 4 214–222. ten.1037/a0019648 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bilandzic H., Busselle R. Westward. (2011). Enjoyment of films as a function of narrative feel, perceived realism and transportability. Communications 36 29–fifty. x.1515/comm.2011.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bubić A., Sušac A., Palmović One thousand. (2017). Observing individuals viewing fine art: the effexts of titles on viewers' center-move profiles. Empir. Stud. Arts 35 194–213. x.1177/0276237416683499 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bullot Due north. J., Reber R. (2013). The artful listen meets art history: toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behav. Encephalon Sci. 36 123–137. ten.1017/S0140525X12000489 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shush P. (2001). Eyewitnessing. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. [Google Scholar]
Busselle R., Bilandzic H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: a model of narrative comprehension and appointment. Commun. Theory xviii 255–280. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chmiel A., Schubert E. (2019). Psycho-historical contextualization for music and visual works: a literature review and comparison betwixt artistic mediums. Front end. Psychol. 10:182. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00182 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gerger Chiliad., Leder H. (2015). Titles modify the artful appreciations of paintings. Forepart. Hum. Neurosci. 9:464. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gerrig R. J. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. New Haven, CT: Yale Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
Green Yard. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: the role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Process. 38 247–266. ten.1207/s15326950dp3802_5 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dark-green 1000. C., Brock T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 701–721. ten.1037/0022-3514.79.five.701 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Green M. C., Brock T. C. (2002). "In the listen'south eye: transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion," in Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations , eds Green M. C., Strange J. J., Brock T. C. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 315–341. [Google Scholar]
Lauring J. O., Pelowski M., Forster K., Gondan G., Ptito 1000., Kupers R. (2016). Well, if they similar it … effects of social groups' ratings and price information on the appreciation of art. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 10 344–359. x.1037/aca0000063 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br. J. Psychol. 95 489–508. 10.1348/0007126042369811 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Leder H., Carbon C. C., Ripsas A. L. (2006). Entitling art: influence of championship information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychol. 121 176–198. x.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Millis K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: the influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion 1:320. 10.1037/1528-3542.ane.3.320 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Moore K. M., West A. N. (2012). Global perception, meaning, and aesthetic appreciation. Empir. Stud. Arts thirty 23–38. 10.2190/EM.xxx.1.d [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mullennix J. Due west., Robinet J. (2018). Art expertise and the processing of titled abstract art. Perception 47 359–378. ten.1177/0301006617752314 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pelowski Chiliad., Markey P. S., Forster M., Gerger M., Leder H. (2017). Move me, astonish me…please my eyes and brain: the Vienna Integrated Model of top-down and bottom-up processes in Art Perception (VIMAP) and corresponding melancholia, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Phys. Life Rev. 21 lxxx–125. 10.1016/J.PLREV.2017.02.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Reber R., Schwarz North., Winkielman P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. eight 364–382. ten.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Russell P. A. (2003). Effort afterward meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. Brit. J. Psychol. 94 99–110. 10.1348/000712603762842138 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Schindler I., Hosoya Grand., Menninghaus W., Beermann U., Wagner V., Eid Yard., et al. (2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: a review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PLoS Ane 12:e0178899. 10.1371/periodical.pone.0178899 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Schüler A. (2017). Investigating gaze behavior during processing of inconsistent text-picture information: evidence for text-picture integration. Acquire. Instr. 49 218–231. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Silvia P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal construction of involvement. Emotion 5 89–102. x.1037/1528-3542.five.one.89 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Silvia P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 3 48–51. x.1037/a0014632 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Specker Due east., Forster Thou., Brinkmann H., Boddy J., Pelowski Thou., Rosenberg R., et al. (2018). The Vienna Art Interest and Fine art Noesis Questionnaire (VAIAK): a unified and validated measure of fine art interest and fine art knowledge. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts xiv 172–185. 10.1037/aca0000205 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Swami V. (2013). Context matters: investigating the impact of contextual data on artful appreciation of paintings past Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts vii 285–295. 10.1037/a0030965 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Psychology are provided hither courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

ortegaguis2001.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8326964/