Is better beautiful or is beautiful better? Exploring the relationship between beauty and category structure
Tóm tắt
We evaluate two competing accounts of the relationship between beauty and category structure. According to the similarity-based view, beauty arises from category structure such that central items are favored due to their increased fluency. In contrast, the theory-based view holds that people’s theories of beauty shape their perceptions of categories. In the present study, subjects learned to categorize abstract paintings into meaningfully labeled categories and rated the paintings’ beauty, value, and typicality. Inconsistent with the similarity-based view, beauty ratings were highly correlated across conditions despite differences in fluency and assigned category structure. Consistent with the theory-based view, beautiful paintings were treated as central members for categories expected to contain beautiful paintings (e.g., art museum pieces), but not in others (e.g., student show pieces). These results suggest that the beauty of complex, real-world stimuli is not determined by fluency within category structure but, instead, interacts with people’s prior knowledge to structure categories.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for participants and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629–654.
Berggren, N., Henrik, J., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 8–15.
Danto, A. (1981). Transfiguration of the commonplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davis, T., & Love, B. C. (2010). Memory for category information is idealized through contrast with competing options. Psychological Science, 21(2), 234–242.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.
Duerksen, G. L. (1972). Some effects of expectation on evaluation of recorded musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20(2), 268–272.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128.
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 304–341.
Halberstadt, J. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 166–183.
Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2003). It's not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 149–156.
Heit, E. (1997). Knowledge and concept learning. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 7–41). Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Isham, E. A., Ekstrom, A. D., & Banks, W. P. (2010). Effects of youth authorship on the appraisal of paintings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 235–246.
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125–1132.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.
Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Medin, D. L. (2000). Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 41–50.
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 700.
Palmeri, T. J., & Blalock, C. (2000). The role of background knowledge in speeded perceptual categorization. Cognition, 77(2), B45–B57.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–82.
Rosch, E. H. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 104(3), 192–233.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., & Ruts, W. (2000). Prototype and Exemplar-Based Information in Natural Language Categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 51–73.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error on psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29.
Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. (2006). Judging a book by its cover: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 189–202.
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799–806.
Wisniewski, E. J., & Medin, D. L. (1994). On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning. Cognitive Science, 18(2), 221–282.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27.