Development and validation of the Aesthetic Processing Preference Scale (APPS).

Abstract

Numerous theoretical frameworks argue that engaging in controlled cognitive processing of artwork is an important aspect of the aesthetic experience. However, most research on controlled processing has examined controlled processing based on situational factors that can be experimentally manipulated. While this is a valuable endeavor, it does not capture important differences that naturally exist between art viewers. To rectify this, the current study developed a measure of individual differences in controlled processing within aesthetics, the Aesthetic Processing Preference Scale (APPS). The APPS was constructed along three dimensions of controlled processing in aesthetic experience: Appreciation for Complexity in art, Intolerance for Ambiguity in art, and the Propensity to Contextualize artworks. In two studies, participants completed the APPS as well as convergent and divergent validity measures. Across both studies, the APPS was found to be a reliable and valid measure of controlled processing. The utility of the APPS to future researchers and educators is in accounting for the reasons that someone is likely to engage in controlled processing, providing further insight into human motivation.

Narrativity and Literariness Affect the Aesthetic Attitude in Text Reading

“…In contrast, in Experiment 2 openness to experience, a trait that has been proposed to involve high levels of aesthetic sensitivity, did not impact on the aesthetic attitude. To further elucidate the relationship between personality traits and reception attitudes, future research could consider more general traits that have been associated with aesthetic experiences, including education level (see Hartung, Withers, Hagoort, & Willems, 2017), tolerance of ambiguity and alexithymia (see Pietras & Czernecka, 2018), as well as more domain-specific traits, including preference for perspective-taking (see Hartung et al, 2017), aesthetic processing preference (see Kopatich, Steciuch, Feller, Millis, & Siegesmund, 2021), aesthetic responsiveness (see Schlotz et al, 2020), and art affinity (see Tschacher, Bergomi, & Tröndle, 2015). To achieve this, it would be desirable to work with more heterogeneous samples.…”

The mediating effect of the need for cognition between aesthetic experiences and aesthetic competence in art

“…The reception of artworks requires reflection and focused engagement. Controlled cognitive processing of an artwork is identified as an important aspect of aesthetic experience 29 . The question is, what makes some people prefer ambiguous art?…”

The unexplored territory of aesthetic needs and the development of the Aesthetic Needs Scale

“…As mentioned above, despite there being 13 hits in PsycInfo for “aesthetic needs,” there has been no substantial empirical study focused on addressing the need for contact with aesthetic stimuli (by "aesthetic stimuli," we mean any stimulus interpreted by an individual as aesthetic). In the context of art, there are studies that developed an aesthetic processing preferences scale [ 35 ] and also an aesthetic responsiveness scale [ 36 ]. However, both these scales focus on art, and not the broad range of possible aesthetic needs (which can include nature, interior décor, urban spaces, etc.).…”