A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and visual “taste” measures.

Abstract

What makes individuals experts in judging aesthetic value is actively researched in a variety of ways. In the visual domain, one classical paradigm-used in "T" (for Taste) tests (Eysenck, 1983)-consists in comparing one's evaluative judgments of beauty with a standard judgment-provided by consensual or expert agreement. The association between general intelligence (g) and performance in "T" tests has been investigated since over 70 years (Eysenck, 1940;Myszkowski, Storme, Zenasni, & Lubart, 2014), but has led to a variety results, from negative weak to positive strong correlations. We aimed at clearing the resulting confusion through a meta-analysis of the correlations observed in the literature (k ϭ 23, N ϭ 1,531). We found a significant positive weak to moderate correlation between g and "T" ( ϭ .30, 95% CI (confidence interval) ϭ [.23, .36], z ϭ 9.00, p Ͻ .001), suggesting that common cognitive processes are involved in both g and "T". Reinforcing this conclusion, no publication bias was found through the regression test, and none of the tested moderators-year of publication, gender, age, "T" measure, and g measure-had a significant effect on the correlation.

A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity

“…The VAST was designed intending to overcome the psychometric problems common to earlier design and art judgement tests that presented participants with pairs of correct and incorrect alternatives (e.g., the Graves Design Judgment Test, Graves, ; or the Meier–Seashore Art Judgment Test, Meier & Seashore, ). The fact is, however, that like the tests it intended to surpass, the VAST exhibits low internal consistency and structural validity, and its scores are explained by intelligence, figural creativity, and personality traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, or openness to experience (Chamorro‐Premuzic & Furnham, ; Furnham & Chamorro‐Premuzic, ; Myszkowski, Çelik, & Storme, ; Myszkowski, Storme, Zenasni, & Lubart, ). Contrary to Eysenck's (1941a, ) claims, thus, this notion of aesthetic sensitivity appears not to be a distinct ability.…”

Corradi, Chuquichambi, Barrada, Clemente, & Nadal. (2019). A New Conception of Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity

“…Eysenck's VAST (Götz et al, 1979) was conceived to provide a valid and reliable measure of aesthetic sensitivity. Recent studies, however, revealed the VAST's psychometric weaknesses (Myszkowski et al, 2018;Myszkowski & Storme, 2017;Myszkowski et al, 2014;Myszkowski & Zenasni, 2016). Contrary to Eysenck's conception, aesthetic sensitivity as measured with the VAST is not a distinct ability: It is related to general intelligence, certain personality traits, and certain aspects of creativity (Myszkowski et al, 2018;Myszkowski et al, 2014).…”

“…Recent studies, however, revealed the VAST's psychometric weaknesses (Myszkowski et al, 2018;Myszkowski & Storme, 2017;Myszkowski et al, 2014;Myszkowski & Zenasni, 2016). Contrary to Eysenck's conception, aesthetic sensitivity as measured with the VAST is not a distinct ability: It is related to general intelligence, certain personality traits, and certain aspects of creativity (Myszkowski et al, 2018;Myszkowski et al, 2014). In addition to these measurement problems, Eysenck's notion of aesthetic sensitivity stands upon premises that have been rendered invalid with advances in neuroscience and psychology in general and empirical aesthetics in particular (Skov & Nadal, 2018).…”

“…The VAST was designed intending to overcome the psychometric problems common to earlier design and art judgment tests that presented participants with pairs of correct and incorrect alternatives (e.g., the Graves Design Judgment Test, Graves, 1948;or the Meier-Seashore Art Judgment Test, Meier & Seashore, 1929). The fact is, however, that like the tests it intended to surpass, the VAST exhibits low internal consistency and structural validity, and its scores are explained by intelligence, figural creativity, and personality traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, or openness to experience (Chamorro-Premuzic Myszkowski, Çelik, & Storme, 2018;Myszkowski, Storme, Zenasni, & Lubart, 2014). Contrary to Eysenck's (1941aEysenck's ( , 1942 claims, thus, this notion of aesthetic sensitivity appears not to be a distinct ability.…”

Using Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Measures in Museum Studies

“…Notably, Eysenck introduced confusion by originally discussing the construct as intelligence in the aesthetic domain (1940) to then speculate that the construct should be independent from intelligence (Frois and Eysenck, 1995)-which is contradicted in a recent meta-analysis (Myszkowski et al, 2018), which showed across 23 studies that its correlation with intelligence is significant and around 0.30. Nevertheless, one can reasonably expect that, as is found empirically, visual aesthetic sensitivity would be positively correlated with intelligencebecause common cognitive processes are likely engaged in both measures (Myszkowski et al, 2018), and because it is common to observe relations between sensory perception in other domains and intelligence (e.g., Troche and Rammsayer, 2009)-or with personality traits like openness to aesthetics (Myszkowski et al, 2014)-because individuals with stronger interest in aesthetics may engage in more extensive processing, leading to higher accuracy, as it was for example found (Myszkowski, 2019) that, in these tests, response speed is negatively correlated with accuracy. Therefore, even though the nomological network of visual aesthetic sensitivity is not sufficiently (nor consistently) discussed, the pattern of relations between aesthetic sensitivity and other measures does suggest that visual aesthetic sensitivity measures present evidence of concurrent validity (Myszkowski et al, 2020).…”