Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts.

Abstract

Much evidence suggests that preference for curvilinear visual contour is robust. We collected data from experts (i.e., self-identified architects and designers) and nonexperts to test the hypothesis that expertise moderates one's sensitivity to curvilinear contour within architectural spaces. When assessing beauty, experts found rectilinear spaces less beautiful than curvilinear spaces, whereas contour had no effect on beauty judgments among nonexperts. In contrast, when making approach-avoidance decisions, nonexperts were more likely to opt to enter curvilinear than rectilinear spaces, whereas contour had no effect on approach-avoidance decisions among experts. These results bolster the case for the importance of contour as an important and potentially adaptive feature in architecture and design, but stress the impact of expertise on its aesthetic and motivational relevance.

A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity

“…Linear mixed‐effects models are, thus, well suited to analyse preference responses, given that these often vary from one person to another and also from one objet to another (Silvia, ). For this reason they have been used successfully in experimental aesthetics (Brieber, Nadal, Leder, & Rosenberg, ; Cattaneo et al ., ; Mühlenbeck, Jacobsen, Pritsch, & Liebal, ; Mühlenbeck, Liebal, Pritsch, & Jacobsen, , ; Vartanian et al ., ; Wagner, Menninghaus, Hanich, & Jacobsen, ). They are especially well suited to the purposes of the current study, because they provide estimates for group‐level effects, which can be compared with previous studies, and estimates for participant‐level effects, which constitute our measure of individual aesthetic sensitivity.…”

The effects of presentation time on preference for curvature of real objects and meaningless novel patterns

“…When asked to choose between two similar objects, differing only in the curvature or angularity of their contours, people tend to choose the curved contour alternative (Gómez‐Puerto, Munar, & Nadal, ; Gómez‐Puerto et al ., ; Munar, Gómez‐Puerto, Call, & Nadal, ; Munar, Gómez‐Puerto, & Gomila, ). Using different experimental paradigms, people also prefer curvature in lines (Bertamini, Palumbo, Gheorghes, & Galatsidas, 2016; Hevner, ; Lundholm, ; Poffenberger & Barrows, ), typefaces (Kastl & Child, ; Velasco, Woods, Hyndman, & Spence, ), car interior designs (Leder & Carbon, ), familiar objects (Bar & Neta, , ; Leder, Tinio, & Bar, ; Munar et al ., ), meaningless patterns (Bertamini et al ., ; Fantz & Miranda, ; Jadva, Hines, & Golombok, ; Palumbo & Bertamini, ; Palumbo, Ruta, & Bertamini, ; Silvia & Barona, ; Velasco et al ., ), furniture (Dazkir & Read, ), interior architecture (Vartanian et al ., , ), and product designs (Westerman et al ., ). Preference for curvature is common to western and non‐western adults (Bertamini et al ., ; Dazkir & Read, ; Gómez‐Puerto et al ., ; Hevner, ; Kastl & Child, ; Leder & Carbon, ; Leder et al ., ; Lundholm, ; Munar et al ., ; Palumbo & Bertamini, ; Palumbo et al ., ; Poffenberger & Barrows, ; Silvia & Barona, ; Tinio & Leder, ; Vartanian et al ., ; Velasco et al ., ; Westerman et al ., ), toddlers (Jadva et al ., ), newborns (Fantz & Miranda, ), and even to great apes (Munar et al ., ).…”

A Study of Objects With Smooth or Sharp Features Created as Line Drawings by Individuals Trained in Design

“…It has been suggested that experts are less affected by properties of the stimuli and more sensitive to compositional and historical features (e.g., Lundy, 2010; Parsons, 1987). Vartanian et al. (2019) compared experts (architects and designers) and nonexperts on preference for curvature.…”