Эстетическая привлекательность повседневных предметов в эмпирических исследованиях: обзор и перспективы
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/zjd2rr96Ключевые слова:
эстетическая ценность, повседневные предметы, опрятность поверхности, эмпирическая эстетика, эстетика повседневности, нормирование стимуловАннотация
Эстетические характеристики окружающих нас повседневных предметов влияют на когнитивные процессы, поведение и субъективное благополучие человека. Однако их объективное исследование остаётся сложной задачей, поскольку традиционные подходы к эстетике опираются на субъективные оценки, что затрудняет систематический контроль. В данной обзорной работе мы ищем пути к преодолению этих ограничений и выявлению эстетических параметров, поддающихся строгому управлению в экспериментальных условиях.
Рассматриваются основные переменные, используемые в оценке эстетической привлекательности объектов, и их ограничения. Формулируются критерии, которым должен соответствовать эстетический признак, подходящий для экспериментальной манипуляции. В качестве перспективной альтернативы существующим подходам предлагается опрятность поверхности как контролируемый параметр с выраженной валентностью. Анализируются её преимущества, методологические ограничения и перспективы применения в когнитивных науках.
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
Anelli F., Borghi A.M., Nicoletti R. Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 2012, 21(4), 1627–1639. DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.001
Augustin M.D., Wagemans J., Carbon C.C. All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 2012, 139(1), 187–201. DOI:10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2011.10.004
Berlyne D.E. Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, 8(5), 279–286. DOI: 10.3758/BF03212593
Berlyne D.E. Ends and means of experimental aesthetics. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 1972, 26(4), 303. DOI:10.1037/H0082439
Brady T.F., Konkle T., Alvarez G.A., Oliva A. Visual long-term memory has a massive storage ca-pacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008, 105(38), 14325–14329. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803390105
Brodeur M.B., Dionne-Dostie E., Montreuil T., Lepage M. The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a New Set of 480 Normative Photos of Objects to Be Used as Visual Stimuli in Cognitive Research. PLOS ONE, 2010, 5(5), e10773. DOI:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0010773
Brodeur M.B., Kehayia E., Dion-Lessard G., Chauret M., Montreuil T., Dionne-Dostie E., Lepage M. The bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS): Comparison between French and English norms. Behavior Research Methods, 2012, 44(4), 961–970. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0184-7
Brown S., Gao X., Tisdelle L., Eickhoff S.B., Liotti M. Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain areas for aes-thetic appraisal across sensory modalities. NeuroImage, 2011, 58(1), 250–258. DOI:10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2011.06.012
Buccino G., Sato M., Cattaneo L., Rodà F., Riggio L. Broken affordances, broken objects: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 2009, 47(14), 3074–3078. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.003
Campanella F., Shallice T. Manipulability and object recognition: Is manipulability a semantic feature? Experimental Brain Research, 2011, 208(3), 369–383. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-010-2489-7
Cela-Conde C.J., Agnati L., Huston J.P., Mora F., Nadal M. The neural foundations of aesthetic ap-preciation. Progress in Neurobiology, 2011, 94(1), 39–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003
Chang H.J.J., O’Boyle M., Anderson R.C., Suttikun C. An fMRI study of advertising appeals and their relationship to product attractiveness and buying intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2016, 15(6), 538–548. DOI:10.1002/CB.1591
Chemero A. An outline of a theory of affordances. In: How shall affordances be refined? London: Routledge, 2018, 181–195. DOI: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5
Chuquichambi E. G., Vartanian O., Skov M., Corradi G. B., Nadal M., Silvia P. J., Munar E. How universal is preference for visual curvature? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2022, 1518(1), 151–165. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14919
Clay R., Terrizzi J. A. Jr, Shook N. J. Individual differences in the behavioral immune system and the emergence of cultural systems. Social Psychology, 2012. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/A000118
Davies S., Higgins K. M., Hopkins R., Stecker R., Cooper D. E. (Eds.). A companion to aesthetics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. DOI: 10.1002/9781444310436
Dewey J. Art as experience. In: Anthropology of the arts. London: Routledge, 2024. pp. 37–45. DOI: 10.1163/9789087906092_003
Di Muro F., Noseworthy T.J. Money Isn’t Everything, but It Helps If It Doesn’t Look Used: How the Physical Appearance of Money Influences Spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 2013, 39(6), 1330–1342. DOI:10.1086/668406
Ellis R. Bodies and other objects: The sensorimotor foundations of cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. DOI: 10.1017/9781107446809
Filliter J.H., McMullen P.A., Westwood D. Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain and Cognition, 2005, 57(1), 61–65. DOI:10.1016/J.BANDC.2004.08.022
Ghali A., Cunningham A. S., Pridmore T. P. Object and event recognition for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings Volume 5150, Visual Communications and Image Processing 2003: Lugano, Switzer-land, 8–11 June 2003. Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 2003. pp. 980–989. DOI: 10.1117/12.503470
Gómez-Puerto G., Munar E., Nadal M. Preference for curvature: A historical and conceptual frame-work. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2016, 9, 156181. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00712
Haddad L., Wamain Y., Kalénine S. Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2024, 77(1), 29–41. DOI:10.1177/17470218231161310
Han W., Wang J., Gao S. Influence of aesthetics on consumer decision. 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, ICSSSM, 2016. DOI:10.1109/ICSSSM.2016.7538493
Hasegawa K. The Size-Value Compatibility Effect. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1), 1–5. DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-62419-8
Hekkert P., Van Wieringen P.C.W. Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 1996, 109(3), 389–407. DOI:10.2307/1423013
Horoufchin H., Bzdok D., Buccino G., et al. Action and object words are differentially anchored in the sensory motor system – A perspective on cognitive embodiment. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8, 6583. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-24475-z
Huang M., Bridge H., Kemp M.J., Parker A.J. Human cortical activity evoked by the assignment of authenticity when viewing works of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2011, 5, 11050. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00134
Kawabata H., Zeki S. Neural Correlates of Beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 2004, 91(4), 1699–1705. DOI:10.1152/jn.00696.2003
Kirk U., Skov M., Hulme O., Christensen M.S., Zeki S. Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 2009, 44(3), 1125–1132.DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
Kirsch L.P., Urgesi C., Cross E.S. Shaping and reshaping the aesthetic brain: Emerging perspectives on the neurobiology of embodied aesthetics. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2016, 62, 56–68. DOI:10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2015.12.005
Lagerspetz O. A philosophy of dirt. London: Reaktion Books, 2018.
Leddy T. Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: “Neat,” “Messy,” “Clean,” “Dirty.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1995, 53(3), 259. DOI:10.2307/431351
Leddy T. Sparkle and shine. British Journal of Aesthetics, 1997, 37(3), 259. DOI: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/37.3.259
Ledneva T.S., Shtyrov Y.Y., Myachykov A.V. А Database of 126 Images of Everyday Objects Stand-ardized for Visual Attractiveness (BOSS Extension). Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Eco-nomics, 2024, 21(3), 488–501. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2024-3-488-501
Liao H.I., Yeh S.L., Shimojo S. Novelty vs. Familiarity principles in preference decisions: Task-context of past experience matters. Frontiers in Psychology, 2011, 2, 7703. DOI:10.3389/FPSYG.2011.00043
Light A., Smith J.M. The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2005, 64(4), 489–491. DOI:10.1111/J.1540-594X.2006.00226_7.X
Marschallek B. E., Jacobsen T. Smooth and hard or beautiful and elegant? Experts’ conceptual struc-ture of the aesthetics of materials. SAGE Open, 2022, 12(2), 21582440221096130. DOI:10.1177/21582440221096130
Martin A., Wiggs C. L., Ungerleider L. G., Haxby J. V. Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature, 1996, 379(6566), 649–652. DOI:10.1038/379649a0
Martindale C., Moore K., Borkum J. Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous Findings for Berlyne’s Psy-chobiological Theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 1990, 103(1), 53. DOI:10.2307/1423259
Melcionne K. The point of everyday aesthetics. Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Archive), 2014, 12(1), 17. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7523862.0012.017
Monteiro L.C.P., Do Nascimento V.E.F., da Silva A.C., Miranda A.C., Souza G.S., Ripardo R.C. The Role of Art Expertise and Symmetry on Facial Aesthetic Preferences. Symmetry, 2022, 14(2), 423. DOI:10.3390/SYM14020423/S1
Montoya R.M., Horton R.S., Vevea J.L., Citkowicz M., Lauber E.A. A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 2017, 143(5), 459–498. DOI:10.1037/BUL0000085
Mruczek R.E.B., Sheinberg D.L. Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for com-plex stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 2005, 67(6), 1016–1031. DOI:10.3758/BF03193628/METRICS
Ngo C. T., Lloyd M. E. Familiarity influences on direct and indirect associative memory for objects in scenes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2018, 71(2), 471–482. DOI:10.1080/17470218.2016.1255768
O’Reilly L., Rucker M., Hughes R., Gorang M., Hand S. The relationship of psychological and situa-tional variables to usage of a second-order marketing system. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1984, 12(3), 53–76. DOI:10.1007/BF02739319/METRICS
Osiurak F., Badets A. Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based ap-proaches. Psychological Review, 2016, 123(5), 534–568. DOI:10.1037/REV0000027
Ostuzzi F., Salvia G., Rognoli V. The value of imperfection in industrial product. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 2011, pp. 1–8. DOI:10.1145/2347504.2347554
Palmer S.E., Schloss K.B. An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010, 107(19), 8877–8882. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0906172107
Palmer S. E., Schloss K. B., Sammartino J. Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 2013, 64(1), 77–107. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
Palumbo L., Bertamini M. The curvature effect: A comparison between preference tasks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2016, 34(1), 35–52. DOI: 10.1177/0276237415621185
Puolakka K. Dewey and everyday aesthetics – a new look. Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Ar-chive), 2014, 12(1), 18. URL:http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7523862.0012.018
Ramachandran V., Hirstein W. The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Jour-nal of Consciousness Studies, 1999, 6(7), 15–51.
Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the per-ceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2004, 8(4), 364–382. DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0804_3
Reppa I., McDougall S. When the going gets tough the beautiful get going: aesthetic appeal facilitates task performance. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2015, 22(5), 1243–1254. DOI:10.3758/S13423-014-0794-Z
Reppa I., McDougall S. Aesthetic appeal influences visual search performance. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 2022, 84(8), 2483–2506. DOI:10.3758/S13414-022-02567-3
Righi S., Gronchi G., Pierguidi G., Messina S., Viggiano M.P. Aesthetic shapes our perception of every-day objects: An ERP study. New Ideas in Psychology, 2017, 47, 103–112. DOI:10.1016/J.NEWIDEAPSYCH.2017.03.007
Righi S., Orlando V., Marzi T. Attractiveness and affordance shape tools neural coding: Insight from ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2014, 91(3), 240–253. DOI:10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2014.01.003
Rosch E. Principles of categorization. In: Cognition and categorization. Routledge, 2024. pp. 27–48. DOI:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50028-5
Rosch E., Mervis C.B., Gray W.D., Johnson D.M., Boyes-Braem P. Basic objects in natural catego-ries. Cognitive Psychology, 1976, 8(3), 382–439. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
Sacheli L.M., Tomasetig G., Musco M.A., Pizzi S., Bottini G., Pizzamiglio L., Paulesu E. The unex-plored link between aesthetic perception and creativity: A theory-driven meta-analysis of fMRI studies in the visual domain. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2022, 140, 104768. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104768
Saito Y. Everyday Aesthetics. Philosophy and Literature, 2001, 25(1), 87–95. DOI:10.1353/PHL.2001.0018
Scarpaci J. L. Material culture and the meaning of objects. Material Culture, 2016, 48(1), 1–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44507769
Schaller M., Park J.H. The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2011, 20(2), 99–103. DOI:10.1177/0963721411402596
Schloss K.B., Palmer S.E. Aesthetic response to color combinations: Preference, harmony, and simi-larity. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 2011, 73(2), 551–571. DOI:10.3758/s13414-010-0027-0
Sharma N., Kumar A. Drawn to the gloss: Examining the effect of product reflection on product aes-thetics. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2023, 22(2), 329–342. DOI:10.1002/CB.2128
Shi A., Huo F., Hou G. Effects of Design Aesthetics on the Perceived Value of a Product. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, 12, 670800. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670800
Silvia P.J., Christensen A.P., Cotter K.N., Jackson T.A., Galyean C.B., McCroskey T.J., Rasheed A.Z. Do People Have a Thing for Bling? Examining Aesthetic Preferences for Shiny Objects. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2018, 36(1), 101–113. DOI:10.1177/0276237417712808
Skov M., Nadal M. Art is not special: An assault on the last lines of defense against the naturalization of the human mind. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 2018, 29(6), 699–702. DOI:10.1515/revneuro-2017-0085
Skov M., Nadal M. A Farewell to Art: Aesthetics as a Topic in Psychology and Neuroscience. Per-spectives on Psychological Science, 2020, 15(3), 630–642. DOI:10.1177/1745691619897963
Sopov M.S., Starodubtsev A.S., Miroshnik K.G., Shindrikov R.Y. The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS): Adaptation for Use in Russian-Language Studies Russian Norms for the BOSS Images. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 2019, 16(4), 690–704. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2019-4-690-704
Souza C., Garrido M.V., Carmo J.C. A Systematic Review of Normative Studies Using Images of Common Objects. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 11, 573314. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573314
Stich C., Eisermann J., Knäuper B., Leder H. Aesthetic properties of everyday objects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2007, 104(3_suppl), 1139–1168. DOI:10.2466/PMS.104.4.1139-1168
Stoll M., Baecke S., Kenning P. What they see is what they get? An fMRI-study on neural correlates of attractive packaging. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2008, 7(4–5), 342–359. DOI:10.1002/CB.256
Strappini F., Fagioli S., Mastandrea S., Scorolli C. Sustainable materials: a linking bridge between material perception, affordance, and aesthetics. Frontiers in Psychology, 2024, 14, 1307467. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1307467
Van Geert E., Wagemans J. Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2020, 14(2), 135. DOI:10.1037/ACA0000224
Wassiliwizky E., Menninghaus W. Why and How Should Cognitive Science Care about Aesthetics? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2021, 25(6), 437–449. DOI:10.1016/J.TICS.2021.03.008
Weichselbaum H., Leder H., Ansorge U. Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a func-tion of art expertise. i-Perception, 2018, 9(2), 2041669518761464. DOI:10.1177/2041669518761464
Weninger J., Arnst I., Dick M., Ascher M. Mechanisms of Aesthetics: On the Perception of Materials and Their Properties. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2024, 1320(1), 012023. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/1320/1/012023
Xenakis I., Arnellos A. The relation between interaction aesthetics and affordances. Design Studies, 2013, 34(1), 57–73. DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2012.05.004
Zajonc R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. DOI:10.1037/h0025848
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0 Всемирная.
