Measuring “Good Taste” with the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test-Revised (VAST-R)

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).…”

“…Given these problems with the construct of aesthetic sensitivity and the instruments used to measure it, Myszkowski and colleagues (Myszkowski & Zenasni, 2016;Myszkowski & Storme, 2017) suggested two mutually compatible ways forward. One option is to revise the VAST to produce a better instrument.…”

“…One option is to revise the VAST to produce a better instrument. Myszkowski and Storme (2017) introduced an abridged and improved version of the VAST, consisting of 25 items, with better internal consistency and structural validity. The other option is to conceive aesthetic aptitude as a complex of multiple abilities and to turn to a composite measure that includes aesthetic sensitivity (aesthetic balance recognition) together with aesthetic exploration, art expertise, sensitivity to complexity, and aesthetic empathy (Myszkowski & Zenasni, 2016).…”

“…Myszkowski and colleagues (Myszkowski & Storme, 2017;Myszkowski & Zenasni, 2016) argued that it is worth holding on to Eysenck's notion of aesthetic sensitivity-or good taste-and revise the VAST because of its usefulness in explaining phenomena (Myszkowski 6 & Storme, 2017). Here we argue for a different course forward.…”

Using Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Measures in Museum Studies

“…For over a century, differential psychologists (e.g., Cattell, 1890;Eysenck, 1940), educational psychologists (e.g., Thorndike, 1916;Seashore, 1929) and art theorists (e.g., Graves, 1948;Götz, 1985) have attempted to capture one's ability to form judgments of aesthetic objects that agree with external standards defined by stimulus construction criteria, layperson consensus, and/or expert consensus. In the visual domain, this ability-generally discussed as visual aesthetic sensitivity (Child, 1964) and measured through (notably) the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST; Götz, 1985), its revision (VAST-R; Myszkowski and Storme, 2017), the Meier Art Tests (MAT; Meier, 1928) and the Design Judgment Test (DJT; Graves, 1948)-has recently regained interest, but has been mainly studied through its relations with individual differences in art expertise, personality, and intelligence among adults (e.g., Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004;Myszkowski et al, 2014), and has remained unstudied in museum settings. In this paper, we review the current state of research on the validity of visual aesthetic sensitivity tests, and propose how to best implement them in museum studies.…”