Impact of contextualizing information on aesthetic experience and psychophysiological responses to art in a museum: A naturalistic randomized controlled trial.

Krauss, Louisa; Ott, Celine; Opwis, Klaus; Meyer, Andrea; Gaab, Jens

doi:10.1037/aca0000280

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, after completing the study, participants were asked to list as many painters as they could name within 60 s, a technique which has been previously employed (e.g., Krauss et al, 2019) to provide a quick estimation of relative art expertise or knowledge. Additionally, participants rated their interest in art via the 11-item "interest" battery from the VAIAK (Specker et al, 2020).…”

Section: Art-expertise Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Aesthetic Evaluation of Digitally Reproduced Art Images

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most people encounter art images as digital reproductions on a computer screen instead of as originals in a museum or gallery. With the development of digital technologies, high-resolution artworks can be accessed anywhere and anytime by a large number of viewers. Since these digital images depict the same content and are attributed to the same artist as the original, it is often implicitly assumed that their aesthetic evaluation will be similar. When it comes to the digital reproductions of art, however, it is also obvious that reproductions do differ from the originals in various aspects. Besides image quality, resolution, and format, the most obvious change is in the representation of color. The effects of subjectively varying surface-level image features on art evaluation have not been clearly assessed. To address this gap, we compare the evaluation of digital reproductions of 16 expressionist and impressionist paintings manipulated to have a high color saturation vs. a saturation similar to the original. We also investigate the impact of viewing time (100 ms vs. unrestricted viewing time) and expertise (art experts vs. laypersons), two other aspects that may impact the perception of art in online contexts. Moreover, we link these dimensions to a recent model of aesthetic experience [the Vienna Integrated Model of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes in Art Perception (VIMAP)]. Results suggest that color saturation does not exert a major influence on liking. Cognitive and emotional aspects (interest, confusion, surprise, and boredom), however, are affected – to different extents for experts and laypersons. For laypersons, the increase in color saturation led to more positive assessments of an artwork, whereas it resulted in increased confusion for art experts. This insight is particularly important when it comes to reproducing artworks digitally. Depending on the intended use, increasing or decreasing the color saturation of the digitally reproduced image might be most appropriate. We conclude with a discussion of these findings and address the question of why empirical aesthetics requires more precise dimensions to better understand the subtle processes that take place in the perception of today’s digitally reproduced art environment.

show abstract

Section: Art-expertise Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Aesthetic Evaluation of Digitally Reproduced Art Images

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the nine between groups designs, six used a no artwork control group as a comparator, 9 10 17 20 22 23 and one used scrambled versions of the artworks. 25 Krauss et al 16 gave different viewing directives to each group and de Jong 14 had groups with different art experience levels. Four of these between groups studies were considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies investigated healthy participants in the form of students, 14 17 22 office workers 15 or the general public. 16 18 19 25 Other research used patient populations known to have high stress levels. Four studies investigated hospitalised patients, 9 21 with two being paediatric samples.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 826 participants; however, only two studies conducted a power analysis to determine their sample size. Krauss et al ’s 16 power analysis gave a required sample size of at least 68, and a final sample of 75 was recruited. The power analysis in McCabe et al 9 gave 200 participants and a sample of 199 were recruited; however, only 164 were included in the analyses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Krauss et al 16 Participants viewed six Flemish expressionism artworks in an art museum, while heart rate and skin conductance were continuously measured. Participants were randomly assigned to either receive descriptive information about the artworks (described the artwork in a declarative way) or elaborative information about the artworks (described the context and deeper meaning behind the artworks).…”

Section: Clow and Fredhoi 15mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence for the effects of viewing visual artworks on stress outcomes: a scoping review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo review the existing evidence on the effects of viewing visual artworks on stress outcomes and outline any gaps in the research.DesignA scoping review was conducted based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and data extraction.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Google Scholar, Google, ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Database, APA PsycExtra and Opengrey.eu were searched in May 2020.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included if they investigated the effects of viewing at least one visual artwork on at least one stress outcome measure. Studies involving active engagement with art, review papers or qualitative studies were excluded. There were no limits in terms of year of publication, contexts or population types; however, only studies published in the English language were considered.Data extraction and synthesisInformation extracted from manuscripts included: study methodologies, population and setting characteristics, details of the artwork interventions and key findings.Results14 primary studies were identified, with heterogeneous study designs, methodologies and artwork interventions. Many studies lacked important methodological details and only four studies were randomised controlled trials. 13 of the 14 studies on self-reported stress reported reductions after viewing artworks, and all of the four studies that examined systolic blood pressure reported reductions. Fewer studies examined heart rate, heart rate variability, cortisol, respiration or other physiological outcomes.ConclusionsThere is promising evidence for effects of viewing artwork on reducing stress. Moderating factors may include setting, individual characteristics, artwork content and viewing instructions. More robust research, using more standardised methods and randomised controlled trial designs, is needed.Registration detailsA protocol for this review is registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gq5d8).

show abstract

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

Kopatich¹,

Steciuch²,

Feller³

et al. 2023

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Impact of contextualizing information on aesthetic experience and psychophysiological responses to art in a museum: A naturalistic randomized controlled trial.

Cited by 13 publications

References 54 publications

Aesthetic Evaluation of Digitally Reproduced Art Images

Aesthetic Evaluation of Digitally Reproduced Art Images

Evidence for the effects of viewing visual artworks on stress outcomes: a scoping review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About