Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts © 2010 American Psychological Association

2011, Vol. 5, No. 2, 126 –134 1931-3896/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021126

The Automatic Aesthetic Evaluation of Different Art

and Architectural Styles
Stefano Mastandrea, Gabriella Bartoli, and Giuseppe Carrus
University of Roma Tre

The subject under discussion concerns the existence of an automatic aesthetic evaluation. When we
encounter an object like an artwork or an architectural structure that activates an aesthetic response,
does the associated evaluation appear in our mind as an automatic process? From the broad field of
aesthetic appraisal, we will be considering a specific aspect that refers only to the positive and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

negative affects related to an individual’s preference between two art styles (figurative vs. abstract)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

and two architectural styles (classic vs. contemporary). The hypothesis is that there is a preexistent
preference within the visual arts and architecture that can clearly be identified using implicit
measurements. Results from two experiments that were conducted with the use of the Implicit
Association Test (IAT) showed that participants’ reaction times were faster in associating positive
words to figurative art and classical architecture (the so-called compatible task) than to abstract art
and contemporary architecture (the so-called incompatible task). The results are in line with the
hypothesis that aesthetic preferences can also be experienced automatically. Prototypicality (i.e., the
degree to which an object is representative of a general class of object), familiarity and the relative
simplicity of figurative art and classical architecture (compared to abstract art and modern archi-
tecture) can explain the shorter reaction time and as a consequence, an implicit aesthetic preference
for these kinds of stimuli.

Keywords: automatic processes, aesthetic evaluation, Implicit Association Test

Many psychological investigations in the field of experimental
aesthetics employ different kinds of explicit measurement meth-
ods, such as questionnaires, focus groups, interviews, and so forth.
As a result, research has focused on explicit cognition processes
involved in the evaluation of different kinds of art stimuli that
occur when the individual makes use of controlled, intentional,
deliberate, and conscious thought.
Nevertheless, there may be other processes that elude these
explicit measurements, which we might define or label as “auto-
matic” or “implicit” cognition. In these cases, although the indi-
vidual is the agent of thoughts and actions, their thoughts and
actions are not the product of conscious will (Nosek & Hansen,
2008). According to Bargh (1989), automatic processes can be
characterized as being unintentional, unaware, uncontrollable, but
still efficient. In the last 30 years, there have been an increasing
number of research projects dedicated to automatic processes in
different psychological domains (e.g., cognitive, social, clinical,
neuroscience, marketing; cfr. Brunel, Tietje, & Greenwald, 2004;
Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powel, & Kardes, 1986; Öhman, 1987; Shif-
This article was published Online First October 11, 2010.
Stefano Mastandrea, Gabriella Bartoli, and Giuseppe Carrus, Depart-
ment of Cultural and Educational Studies, University of Roma Tre.
This research was partially supported by grant funding from the Depart-
ment of Cultural and Educational Studies.
We would like to thank Paul Locher and two anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stefano
Mastandrea, University of Roma Tre, Via Milazzo, 11 B, 00185 Rome,
Italy. E-mail: s.mastandrea@uniroma3.it
126
frin & Schneider, 1977; Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Matthews,
1988). Implicit cognition is considered important because, differ-
ently from explicit cognition, it can cast light on processes that
cannot be observed in a controlled introspective process in which
people do not want to communicate overtly and that can be
expressed in a different way from explicit cognition.
Despite the great number of studies on automatic processes,
research in the field of psychology and the arts is practically
nonexistent. Therefore, we argue that it would be important to
investigate whether automatic aesthetic processes also play a role
in the process of art appreciation.
Indeed, in an information-processing model of aesthetic expe-
rience, Leder, Belke, Oeberst, and Augustin (2004) described a
series of processing stages that an individual goes through during
an aesthetic experience. One of these stages is described as “im-
plicit memory integration,” and refers to implicit processes like
familiarity and typicality that are used to judge art stimuli. Ac-
cording to Locher, Krupinski, Mello-Thoms, and Nodine (2007), a
brief 100-ms glimpse of a digitized artwork presented on a com-
puter screen is enough for the viewer to detect a great amount of
information about it; not only structural characteristics, such as
shape and color, but also more conceptual aspects, such as the
elements of the scene depicted. In another study, Smith and Smith
(2001) reported that visitors to the Metropolitan Museum of New
York spent an average of about 30 seconds looking at individual
artworks. These findings could suggest that in some initial stages
of aesthetic exploration, individuals start building the basis that
orientates their later aesthetic experience.
According to these different two-stage models (Leder et al.,
2004; Locher et al., 2007), the exploration of a work of art begins
 AUTOMATIC AESTHETIC EVALUATION
with a rapid global view to acquire an initial overall impression of
the structural arrangement and the semantic meaning of the com-
position. This tachistoscopic view, that in Neisser’s (1967) term
can be called preattentive, precedes the second stage of the focal
attention of the structural organization of the visual display, which
leads to a deeper aesthetic appreciation (pleasingness, interesting-
ness, etc.).
The way we define the process as automatic or implicit is
different from the tachistoscopic or preattentive perception used in
Locher et al.’s (2007) model. We refer to a process as being
automatic when a person does not have sufficient time to control
the task that s/he has to perform. In the affective priming para-
digm, for instance, if the prime is congruent with the target (both
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
positive or both negative), the response to the target will be faster
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
than the response to incongruent pairs of stimuli (Fazio et al.,
1986). The time latency can occur within a range about between
600 to 1000 ms; this is more than a tachistoscopic view and more
than the average duration of one eye fixation. Nevertheless, the
process can be defined as automatic or implicit because the re-
sponse is “unintentional,” “unaware,” and “uncontrollable”
(Bargh, 1989).
A widely used technique in social cognition research for the
investigation of this kind of automatic affective processes is the
Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz,
1998), which will be used in the present study and described in
more detail in the method section.
The only work we know of that focuses directly on the implicit
evaluation of art stimuli is a study by Cutting (2003) on French
Impressionism and the “mere exposure effect.” In a classical study,
Zajonc (1968) found that repeated exposure to a stimulus increases
the affective preference for it. In everyday life, we unconsciously
acquire information and attitudes by the fact that we repeatedly
encounter objects, pictures, music, and events. The “mere expo-
sure effect” is related directly to implicit learning because we
remain unaware of the learning process, but the effect of repeated
exposure orientates our preferences in general, including aesthetic
preferences. Based on these assumptions, Cutting (2003) selected
66 images from the Caillebotte collection (an Impressionist painter
and collector of Impressionist paintings) and matched each image
with the same style and the subject to another image by the same
artist. He then counted every occurrence of the 132 images in
about 1000 books at Cornell’s University library. The frequency of
occurrence of the 132 pictures ranged from 2 to 278. These results
show that participants preferred the most frequently occurring
picture of each pair on 59% of all trials. To explain these findings,
the author argued for the existence of an implicit learning process,
as the preferred images occurred more frequently in the books at
Cornell University. This experiment also represents a mere expo-
sure effect regarding aesthetic preference.
The question addressed in this paper concerns the existence of
an automatic aesthetic evaluation; namely, is it possible to adopt
implicit measures to study aesthetic preferences? When we en-
counter an object like an artwork or an architectural structure that
activates an aesthetic response, the associated evaluation, in terms
of pleasant/unpleasant or positive/negative, may appear to be an
automatic and uncontrolled process. From the vast field of the
aesthetic experience, we have focused on a specific aspect that
refers to the preference for different styles in visual art and
architecture.
127
Several research projects that have employed explicit measures
have clearly shown a general preference for figurative pictures
compared to abstract ones (Boselie & Cesaro, 1994; Heinrichs &
Cupchik, 1985; Kettlewell, Lipscomb, Evans, & Rosston, 1990).
People who have a preference for abstract art tend also to have
specific sociodemographic characteristics—a higher socioeco-
nomic status, a higher level of education (often related to higher
training in visual arts), and belong, for the most part, to the
professional classes (Feist & Brady, 2004). With regard to person-
ality traits, a preference for abstract art is related to higher scores
on the “mental openness” scale, based on the Big Five Question-
naire, and on Zuckerman’s “Sensation Seeking” scale (Crozier &
Chapman, 1984; Feist & Brady, 2004; Francès, 1979; Mastandrea,
Bartoli, & Bove, 2009).
We are aware that contemporary art may also arouse aesthetic
negative emotions; the aesthetic category of beauty is no longer
suitable for contemporary art or it plays only a secondary role.
Artworks by Francis Bacon, Andres Serrano, and so forth can be
provocative and distressing but also interesting and can be very
much appreciated. In our present research, we have taken into
consideration (from the broad field of aesthetic emotions) only
specific aspects that refer to diffuse positive and negative emotions
related to the preference of two different art styles (figurative and
abstract). Concerning contemporary art, we refer here only to
abstract artworks by well known artists, such as Kandinsky, Klee,
Albers, and so forth.
With regard to architecture, Kameron’s reviews of a great num-
ber of studies on environmental perception would indicate that
architects perceive building design in a very different way from
that of the general public (Kameron, 1973). Concerning architec-
tural styles, several research studies have shown that classical
buildings are preferred to contemporary fashionable ones (Stamps
& Nasar, 1997). Moreover, buildings with a moderate level of
complexity are preferred to overly simple or overly complex ones
(Wohlwill, 1974). Regarding prototypicality (i.e., the degree to
which an object is representative of a general class of object),
laypeople tend to prefer architecture that is representative of the
prototypes (Tinio & Leder, 2009; Whitfield, 1983).
This research consists of two experiments. The first experi-
ment concerns the automatic aesthetic evaluation of two art
styles (figurative vs. abstract art), while the second experiment
is concerned with the automatic aesthetic evaluation of two
architectural styles (classical vs. contemporary). The hypothesis
is that there exists a preference toward figurative art and clas-
sical architecture that will also be reflected in the case of
automatic evaluations.
Experiment 1: Figurative Versus Abstract Art
Method
Participants. The experiment involved a sample that was
composed of 20 students (16 females and 4 males), aged between
19 and 29 years old (M ⫽ 23.6; SD ⫽ 2.6), from the Faculty of
Education within the University of Roma Tre. All participants had
normal or corrected to normal vision. None of them had received
specific training in art or architecture. They all volunteered to
participate in the experiment.
 128 MASTANDREA, BARTOLI, AND CARRUS
Materials. A set of 20 art paintings (10 figurative and 10
abstract) were selected. The images were high quality digital
reproductions of the paintings (see Appendix for list of artworks
used). In a preexperiment picture assessment study (conducted
with 35 participants, other than those of the implicit task experi-
ment), these 10 figurative and 10 abstract pictures were presented
to on a computer screen, without a time limit. Participants were
asked to express their preference, using a 7-point semantic differ-
ential scale on five bipolar categories (figurative/abstract, simple/
complex, typical/non typical, easy/difficult, familiar/unfamiliar).
The results of the picture assessment study are given in Table 1.
Participants expressed significantly divergent evaluations on all
five of the bipolar items, indicating that the style of the pictures
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
employed significantly influenced subjects’ appraisal.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Implicit measure and procedure. To assess the automatic
aesthetic evaluation of pictures, the Implicit Association Test
(IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998) was used. The IAT is a paradigm
employed to measure the strength of the associative links between
concepts and their affective attributes, through reaction times. This
method does not require a conscious awareness of the association
and has been used in various psychological research areas, partic-
ularly in the field of social cognition.
The method consists of classifying stimuli (pictures and words
presented one at a time on the computer monitor-screenshot) into
four categories, using only two response options, by pressing two
keys (“e” and “i”) on the computer keyboard. The two categories
in the present experiment are 10 figurative art pictures and 10
abstract art pictures. The two attributes are aesthetic positive
words and aesthetic negative words. Ten words with a positive
aesthetic meaning (attractive, beautiful, delicious, elegant, fasci-
nating, pleasant, magnificent, marvelous, splendid, wonderful) and
10 with a negative aesthetic meaning (disgusting, dreadful, horri-
ble, repellent, repulsive, revolting, rude, terrible, ugly, unpleasant)
were also chosen.
The logic of IAT is that this sorting task should be easier when
the two concepts that share a response are strongly associated as
compared to when they are weakly associated.
The experimental task consisted of seven blocks of trials pre-
sented in succession, as illustrated in Table 2. From these seven
blocks, five blocks were utilized for familiarization with the dif-
ferent categorization tasks of pictures and words. The other two
blocks are defined as critical and are composed of the so-called
compatible task (block 4) and incompatible task (block 7). In the
block 4, participants had to categorize figurative art with positive
Table 1
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and T-Test Results of the Evaluation of the 20 Art Pictures
on the 5-Item Semantic Differential
Figurative art
M SD
Figurative/Abstract 1.7 0.7
Simple/Complex 3.6 1.4
Typical/Non Typical 2.3 1.0
Easy/Difficult 3.4 1.2
Familiar/Unfamiliar 2.9 1.1
Note. All t-values are significant at p ⬍ .001; df ⫽ 34.
words with the left key, while categorizing abstract art with neg-
ative words with the right key. In block 7, the categorization task
was inverted: participants categorized abstract art with positive
words with the left key and with the right key they categorized
figurative art with negative words.
As we said before, results from explicit research showed a
general preference for figurative art rather than abstract art. Ac-
cordingly, we planned for two possible associations: the first
between figurative art (e.g., artworks by Raffaello, Velasquez,
etc.) and positive words (e.g., beautiful, pleasant, etc.), the second
between abstract art (e.g., artworks by Kandinsky, Pollock, etc.)
and negative words (e.g., ugly, unpleasant, etc.). Therefore, in the
compatible task, participants had to press the left key whenever a
figurative art picture (e.g., Velazquez) or a positive word appeared
on the screen, and the right key whenever an abstract art picture
(e.g., Pollock) or a negative word appeared on the screen; in the
incompatible task the contrary applied; that is, they had to press the
left key for Velasquez and negative words and the right key for
Pollock and positive words.
It is important to note that the terms “compatible” and “incom-
patible” are not used in absolute terms but are relative to the main
hypotheses put forward in our study. The compatible task reflects
the idea of an easier association between figurative art and positive
words and abstract art and negative words, on the one hand;
whereas, the incompatible task should reflect the idea of a more
difficult association (figurative art/negative words and abstract
art/positive words), on the other hand.
Pictures from the two art categories (figurative and abstract) and
word attributes (positive and negative) were presented to the
participants, on a computer monitor, one after the other, in a
random order. Each session always started with a picture. Partic-
ipants were asked to respond as quickly and accurately as they
could. In case of (categorization) errors, a red X appeared in the
center of the screen, and participants had to answer again with
the correct key; the reaction times of errors were not counted, but
the correction was important in order that the categorization task
was made clear (see Table 2).
To monitor for possible learning effects, half of the participants
performed the session with the compatible block first (figurative/
positive and abstract/negative) followed by the incompatible block
(figurative/negative and abstract/positive). For the remaining par-
ticipants, the presentation was reversed: first the incompatible
block (figurative/negative and abstract/positive) was presented,
followed by the compatible task (figurative/positive and abstract/
Abstract art
M SD t-value
6.3 0.8 ⫺25.39
5.2 0.9 ⫺4.05
3.6 1.5 ⫺5.53
4.7 0.7 ⫺4.29
4.8 1.4 ⫺7.27
 AUTOMATIC AESTHETIC EVALUATION
Table 2
Sequence of Blocks for Art Implicit Association Test (IAT). The Test Blocks Are the Fourth (Compatible Task) and the Seventh
(Incompatible Task)
Items assigned to left-key
Block N. of trials response
1 20 Figurative art
2 20 Positive words
3 20 Figurative art ⫹ Positive words
4 40 Figurative art ⫹ Positive words
5 40 Abstract art
6 20 Abstract art ⫹ Positive words
7 40 Abstract art ⫹ Positive words
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
negative). A total of 40 trials (10 figurative pictures ⫹ 10 positive
words ⫹ 10 abstract pictures ⫹ 10 negative words) for each
critical block were conducted. The independent variables consisted
of pictures and words presented on a screen; dependent variables
were the reaction times for each single stimulus, pictures (figura-
tive and abstract) and words (positive and negative).
The software Inquisit 2 (2006) was used to carry out the exper-
iment and record reaction times.
Explicit measures. In addition to the implicit task, we were
also interested in measuring explicit evaluations, to ascertain
whether the implicit and explicit evaluations were correlated. In
particular, participants were asked to state a) how much they liked
the figurative and abstract pictures presented during the IAT task,
and b) how much they liked figurative and abstract art in general
(without presenting any pictures). We asked these two different
questions because participants may have liked the specific pictures
presented but not the art styles, or they might have liked a partic-
ular style but wouldn’t have appreciated the specific pictures
presented. To answer these two questions, a 7-point Likert scale
was used (1 ⫽ do not like at all; 7 ⫽ like very much). In the first
explicit task, the 20 pictures (both figurative and abstract) previ-
ously evaluated in IAT session were presented one by one in a
random order on the computer monitor without time limit. Partic-
ipants were asked to evaluate the pictures from 1 to 7, using the
computer number pad. In rating the second question (“How much
do you like figurative and abstract art in general”) participants
used the same method.
Results
The principal result of the experiment is the difference in the
reaction times between the two critical IAT tasks, the compatible
task (figurative art pictures/positive words and abstract art pic-
tures/negative words) and the incompatible task (figurative art
pictures/ negative words and abstract art pictures/positive words).
Reaction times less than 300 ms and greater than 10,000 ms and
errors were excluded from the analysis (following Nosek, Green-
wald, & Banaji, 2007).
To assess the internal consistency of all the stimuli used, Cron-
bach’s alpha was calculated on the total of all reaction times, with
good results (␣ ⫽ .96).
First, for every participant, two means scores were calculated:
the first score coming from the latency times of the 40 stimuli
(pictures and words) of the compatible task and the second score
from the latency times of the 40 stimuli (pictures and words) of the
129
Items assigned to right-key
response Practice/Test
Abstract art Practice
Negative words Practice
Abstract art ⫹ Negative words Practice
Abstract art ⫹ Negative words Test/Compatible Task
Figurative art Practice inverted
Figurative art ⫹ Negative words Practice
Figurative art ⫹ Negative words Test/Incompatible Task
incompatible task. These mean scores were then compared. It is
important to remember that the test is based on the assumption that
the task is faster when the concept and attribute are strongly
associated. In the compatible task (figurative/positive and abstract/
negative) the mean reaction time was 684 ms (SD ⫽ 82), while in
the incompatible task (figurative/negative and abstract/positive),
the mean reaction time was 840 ms (SD ⫽ 170). The standard
deviation in the incompatible task is greater than in the compatible
task (170 vs. 82) because reaction times are slower and the range
of the responses is wider. The overall IAT effect (the difference
between the incompatible and compatible task) was 156 ms. A
t test showed that the difference between these two tasks was
significant, t(19) ⫽ ⫺4.04; p ⫽ .001, d ⫽ ⫺.986. Moreover, more
errors were made in the incompatible task (N ⫽ 36) than in the
compatible task (N ⫽ 11), showing that the incompatible task was
more difficult.
Explicit evaluations results. With regard to the explicit mea-
surements, our findings showed that the average score in the
evaluation of the likeableness of the figurative pictures was 4.4
(SD ⫽ 1.3), while the average score in the evaluation of the
likeableness of the abstract pictures was 4.0 (SD ⫽ 1.2); the
difference between these two groups of art pictures was not sta-
tistically significant. In the second explicit measurement, the eval-
uations of the likeableness of the art styles in general were as-
sessed. The mean score for figurative art was 5.3 (SD ⫽ 1.3) and
for abstract art was 4.6 (SD ⫽ 1.5); again, the difference between
these two art styles was not statistically significant.
Correlation between implicit and explicit measures. Bi-
variate correlations between implicit and explicit measures on the
evaluation of figurative and abstract art were computed, taking into
consideration the IAT effect for each participant (the difference
between incompatible and compatible task) and the difference
between the average evaluation of figurative and abstract pictures
in the explicit measurements. No significant correlation between
implicit and explicit measures was detected.
Discussion
The IAT effect revealed the existence of significant differences
between the evaluations of the two art styles. Participants were
faster in making automatic associations between figurative art and
positive words than between abstract art and positive words.
This higher speed of the automatic association in the former
case indicate an implicit preference for figurative art, replicating
the findings obtained in literature regarding art explicit cognition
 130 MASTANDREA, BARTOLI, AND CARRUS
measures (Boselie & Cesaro, 1994; Feist & Brady, 2004; Hei-
nrichs & Cupchik, 1985). These findings seem to confirm that, as
a first stage process, aesthetic preference for figurative art can also
be expressed automatically.
In contrast, the results for explicit measurements did not show
significant differences in participants’ preferences either for spe-
cific figurative versus abstract pictures or for figurative versus
abstract art styles in general. Participants liked both art styles
equally, contradicting the results for the implicit measures. The
difference between implicit and explicit tasks might partly be
explained because of the order of presentation of the IAT and
self-report measurements, as suggested by Nosek et al. (2007).
Presenting the explicit measurements first can make information
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
about the topic under investigation more accessible to the subjects.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
but, likewise, performing the implicit task first can provide sub-
jects with relevant information about the topic under investigation,
and this might influence the performance on the following explicit
measurements. This latter effect might have been the case in the
present experiment. Another aspect worthy of consideration relates
to participants’ compliance with the experimental assignment.
Participants might have thought that if an experimenter shows
them some works of art, these must be necessarily of a certain
artistic value or interest; therefore, evaluations of both kinds of
stimuli might have resulted in similar scores because of a so-called
“ceiling” effect. This can be another motive to use implicit mea-
sures, avoiding the possible influence of conformity and compli-
ance effects. Moreover, we found no correlation between implicit
and explicit answers. In any case, the main goal of the study was
to observe implicit appraisal of art stimuli and our findings con-
firm that also an aesthetic evaluation can be activated automati-
cally.
Experiment 2: Classical Versus Contemporary
Architecture
The aim of the second experiment was also to use implicit
measurements in the assessment of preferences for different archi-
tectural styles. It is arguable that a pattern similar to preferences
for figurative versus abstract art styles might also characterize
preferences for different architectural styles. Indeed, a study by
Gifford, Hine, Muller-Clemm, Reynolds, and Shaw (2000) showed
that people prefer classical to contemporary architecture. Confir-
mation of these findings with implicit measurements would cor-
Table 3
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and T-Test Results of the Evaluation of the 10 Architecture
Pictures on the 5-Item Semantic Differential
Classical
architecture
M SD
Classical/Contemporary 2.2 1.2
Simple/Complex 3.8 1.0
Easy/Difficult 3.6 1.2
Familiar/Unfamiliar 2.7 1.1
Typical/Non Typical 2.3 0.8
Note. All t-values are significant at p ⬍ .001; df ⫽ 32.
roborate the importance of automatic aesthetic evaluation in dif-
ferent domains, such as in visual art and architecture.
The question that we addressed utilizing implicit evaluations
was whether classical architecture is preferred to contemporary
architecture. Our hypothesis was that a preference for classical
architecture emerges using automatic measurements.
Method
Participants. The experiment involved a sample that was
composed of 40 students (27 females and 13 males), aged 19 –28
years (M ⫽ 24.6; SD ⫽ 2.2), from the Faculty of Education within
the University of Roma Tre. All participants had normal or cor-
rected normal vision. None of them had received specific training
in art or architecture. They all volunteered to participate in the
experiment.
Materials. A set of 10 architectural pictures, five classical
palaces of the renaissance period and five contemporary buildings,
were selected (see the Appendix for list of architectural buildings
used). The images were high quality digital reproductions of
photographs. In the field of architecture, evaluation is influenced
both by the contextual environment for the building and the formal
characteristics of the building itself (Stamps & Nasar, 1997). The
present research is a laboratory study, and therefore, the ecological
information coming from a real context has been significantly
reduced. All the pictures that we used are reproductions of the
façades of the buildings considered, adopting a procedure common
to the majority of research in this field.
A preexperiment picture assessment study, following the same
procedure (with the same participants from the previous experi-
ment), was conducted (see results in Table 3). Participants ex-
pressed significantly divergent evaluations on all five of the bipo-
lar items, indicating that the style of the architectures significantly
influenced subjects’ appraisal.
Measures and procedure. As in Experiment 1, participants
completed an IAT task that implicitly measured the evaluation of
two architectural styles. The two concept categories were classical
and contemporary architecture, and the two attributes were the
same positive and negative words used in the previous art study.
The experimental procedure was the same as described for Exper-
iment 1. This time, in the compatible task, subjects had to cate-
gorize with the left key classical architectural buildings (e.g., a
Renaissance building façade) and positive words (e.g., fascinating)
Contemporary
architecture
M SD t-value
6.8 0.3 ⫺19,73
6.0 0.6 ⫺9,82
5.2 0.9 ⫺6,96
4.9 1.6 ⫺6,98
3.4 1.6 ⫺4,24
 AUTOMATIC AESTHETIC EVALUATION
and with the right key contemporary architectural buildings (e.g.,
a Calatrava building) and negative words (e.g., disgusting).
Conversely, in the incompatible task, the left key was used for
classical architecture and negative words, while the right key was
used for contemporary architecture and positive words.
As in Experiment 1, after completing the IAT, explicit evalua-
tions were also collected. Participants were asked to evaluate, in
the first question, the likeableness of classical and contemporary
architecture pictures presented in the IAT, and, in the second
question, the likeableness of classical and contemporary architec-
ture in general (without presenting any pictures), using the same 7
points Likert scale described in Experiment 1.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Results
As in Experiment 1, reaction times under 300 ms and above
10,000 ms and errors were excluded from the analysis. Evaluations
for one participant were discarded due to technical problems;
therefore, the final analyses were conducted with 39 partici-
pants. Total errors were 3.5%. Cronbach’s alpha was again
good (␣ ⫽ .94).
In the compatible task (classical architecture/positive words and
contemporary architecture/negative words), the average reaction
time was 623 ms (SD ⫽ 108). In the incompatible task (classical
architecture/negative words and contemporary architecture/
positive words), the average reaction time was 688 ms (SD ⫽ 189).
As in the previous experiment on art, the standard deviation in the
incompatible task is greater than in the compatible task (189 vs.
108) because reaction times are slower and the range of the
responses is wider. The overall IAT effect (the difference between
compatible and incompatible task) was 65 ms. A t test showed that
the difference between the two tasks was significant, t(38) ⫽
⫺2.48; p ⫽ .01, d ⫽ ⫺.442. More errors were made in the
incompatible task (n ⫽ 47) than in compatible task (n ⫽ 38),
showing, as in the previous experiment, that the incompatible task
was more difficult.
Regarding the explicit measures, again no significant differ-
ences emerged between the average scores in the evaluation of the
classical (M ⫽ 4.5; SD ⫽ 1.3) and contemporary architecture
pictures (M ⫽ 4.8; SD ⫽ 1.3). Likewise, the mean scores evalu-
ations of classic (M ⫽ 5.1; SD ⫽ 1.4) and contemporary (M ⫽ 5.1;
SD ⫽ 1.3) architectural styles in general were the same. These
findings may be surprising because previous research indicates
that the general public prefers classical architecture on average
(Gifford et al., 2000). Moreover, in the explicit art appraisal
experiment, there were no significant differences between figura-
tive and abstract art. The reason can be attributed to the fact that
IAT task was performed first, before the explicit evaluation. This
provided participants with relevant information about the topic
under investigation that influenced the following explicit evalua-
tion of the architectural pictures. As we have said for the art
experiment before, implicit measurements are useful to avoid the
possible influence of conformity and compliance effects.
In contrast to the results for Experiment 1, a significant corre-
lation was detected between implicit and explicit measures (r ⫽
.633; p ⬍ .000).
131
Discussion
In line with our expectations, in the IAT task, classic architec-
tural stimuli were processed more rapidly and were more easily
associated with positive words, compared to contemporary archi-
tectural stimuli. An important consideration is that all the partic-
ipants live in the city of Rome and, therefore, are more familiar
with ancient and classical architecture than to contemporary archi-
tecture. It could be argued that they would appreciate images of
classical architecture more than contemporary ones.
No significant differences were found in the explicit task for the
evaluation of the two different styles, either with the pictures
presented or with the general class of stimuli (classic vs. contem-
porary). Moreover, in the art experiment, we did not find any
significant difference between the two classes of stimuli (figura-
tive vs. abstract), whereas in the architecture experiment, we found
a significant correlation between the IAT effect (the latency time
in the incompatible task minus the latency time in the compatible
task) and the explicit task (the difference between the evaluation of
classical and modern architecture), but no correlation was found in
the art experiment. Participants who were fast or slow in associ-
ating positive words to classical or contemporary styles in the IAT
task had the same orientation in the explicit evaluation task. It
means that people with faster associative responses for positive
words and classic stimuli on IAT gave higher scores in the clas-
sical architecture explicit evaluation, and people with faster asso-
ciative responses for positive words and contemporary stimuli on
IAT gave higher scores in the contemporary architecture explicit
evaluation. This correlation was not obtained in the art experiment.
A possible explanation may be attributed to the fact that architec-
tural stimuli are much more similar to one another within the same
category (classic or contemporary) compared to the wide variety of
paintings (figurative and abstract). Building constraints mean that
architects cannot design buildings with just any kind of shape. In
particular, Renaissance architectural palaces share very similar
structural characteristics, whereas figurative paintings can be very
different from one each other because painters have much more
design freedom because they do not have to respond to functional
aims (e.g., from the Venice square by Canaletto to the natural
countryside view by Daubigny). It is probably for this reason that
participants maintain (at an individual level) the same evaluative
trend, both in the implicit and explicit tasks in the architecture
experiment rather than in the art experiment. The different variet-
ies of the compositional features in the two art categories (figura-
tive and abstract) can lead to a differentiated assessment in the two
tasks, implicit and explicit.
Nevertheless, this experiment confirmed the findings of previ-
ous experiments on art pictures; indeed, we can say that in the case
of architectural stimuli, aesthetic evaluations can also be activated
automatically.
General Discussion
The two experiments presented here were conducted with the
aim of exploring the implicit evaluation of different artistic styles
in visual art and architecture, given the lack of empirical data in the
field of automatic aesthetic processes. The central core of the
studies was the two IAT experiments. The main finding was that
reaction times were faster in the compatible task than in the
 132 MASTANDREA, BARTOLI, AND CARRUS
incompatible tasks in both experiments, even though the IAT
effect was stronger in the case of the art stimuli than in the case of
architectural stimuli. These results provide support for the hypoth-
esis that the aesthetic evaluation of stimuli like art and architecture
can also be activated automatically.
But how can we explain why people are faster at making
automatic associations between positive words and figurative art
or classical architecture, on the one hand, compared to abstract art
or contemporary architecture, on the other hand?
The assumption of the IAT measurement is that it is easier (and,
therefore, faster) to categorize stimuli belonging to two associated
categories than when the categories are not associated; for exam-
ple, if figurative and abstract pictures had an equally strong asso-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ciation with positive words, no difference would be found in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
latency times. But suppose instead that the two image categories
had a different appraisal association, figurative art being more
strongly associated with positive words than abstract art; then,
according to our hypothesis, it should be easier to perform the task
that requires pushing the same key for figurative pictures and
positive words (compatible task) than for figurative pictures and
negative words (incompatible task). Moreover, participants were
asked to respond in a very short time (about 1000 ms) and,
therefore, were unable to control their responses, which is why the
process is called automatic (Fiske & Taylor, 2008).
We know from our preexperiment picture assessment study that
figurative art and classical architecture are appraised as more
typical, familiar, easier to understand, and less complex than
abstract art and contemporary architecture. All of these attributes
become important in the processing task because of the well-
established link between figurative pictures and classical architec-
ture with a positive affect in laypersons’ mental schemata, leading
to an implicit association between the two concepts.
To summarize, it is important to outline how, according to the
findings of our studies, the aesthetic response to different kinds of
stimuli, such as visual art and architecture, can also be expressed
automatically. To discuss these results, we will refer to three
different models of aesthetic appreciation: prototypicality, famil-
iarity, and complexity.
Prototypicality is explained as the degree to which an object is
representative of a general class of objects. Several studies have
shown that prototypical forms are preferred over nonprototypical
ones (Winkielman, Halberstadt, Fazendeiro, & Catty, 2006). Pref-
erence for prototypical examples has been found in several areas:
design objects, facial attractiveness, architectural façades, and in
the arts. A number of studies, for example, reveal a positive link
between prototypicality and aesthetic appraisals in colored forms
(Martindale & Moore, 1988), in furniture (Whitfield & Slatter,
1979), and in paintings (Hekkert & vanWieringen, 1996). More-
over, studies from the field of cognitive psychology have shown
that prototypical stimuli are processed faster and more easily than
nonprototypical stimuli (Posner & Keele, 1968). As suggested by
Winkielman, Halberstadt, Fazendeiro, and Catty (2006), prototyp-
ical items are evaluated more positively because they are easier to
process. Prototypical stimuli also have shown stronger EMG re-
sponses from the zygomaticus region, indicating a more positive
affect (Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001). In our study, it can be
argued that figurative art and classical architecture are more typ-
ical than abstract art and contemporary architecture, and therefore,
the former are preferred over the latter.
Familiarity refers to how familiar or novel an object is.
Another characteristic of the aesthetic evaluation is related to
the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968). Several studies have
found that repeated exposure to a stimulus increases the affec-
tive preference for it (Cutting, 2003; Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc,
1980; Zajonc, 1968). Familiar stimuli are processed faster and
preferred to novel stimuli. The association between familiarity
and positive affect may be grounded in a biological predispo-
sition to exercise caution in encounters with potentially harmful
novel objects (Zajonc, 1998). In our study, figurative art and
classical architecture appear to be more familiar and, thus, are
preferred to the less familiar abstract art and contemporary
architecture. According to this explanation, it is plausible that
participants in our studies encounter examples of figurative art
and classical architecture (all participants live in Rome) more
often than abstract art and contemporary architecture; daily
exposure and greater familiarity with these classes of stimuli
would produce a preference for these art styles. We know that
natural and built environments from different geographical lo-
cations (Australia and Italy) were preferred according to the
subjects’ nationality, with the home environment being the
most appreciated (Purcell, Lamb, Mainardi Peron, & Falchero,
1994). It would be worth replicating the present research with
people living in an area with a high concentration of contem-
porary architecture (e.g., New York, Chicago, Berlin, Copen-
hagen, etc.). We might find that exposure to modern and con-
temporary architecture would influence peoples’ evaluation
either at an implicit and explicit level.
Complexity refers to the number and to the perceptual orga-
nization of the elements in a composition. In general, a mod-
erate level of complexity seems to be the most preferred in
artworks, in architectures and also in environmental scenes.
(Berlyne, 1971; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Purcell, Peron, &
Berto, 2001; Ulrich, 1983). In general, people without art
training prefer simple and symmetric visual elements, whereas
people with art training prefer complex and asymmetric visual
elements (Locher & Nodine, 1989; McWhinnie, 1968; Silvia,
2005). Therefore, the appreciation of artistic complexity
(mainly abstract art) by our non art-trained participants takes a
longer time to evaluate. In our case, one might argue that
figurative art and classical architecture (compared to abstract
art and modern architecture) are more symmetrical and less
complex and are, therefore, preferred.
These three plausible explanations of our findings (protypi-
cality, familiarity, and complexity) can be incorporated into a
more general model of aesthetic preference, called Processing
Fluency (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). According to
this model, there is a strong relationship between the quantity
and the type of characteristics observed in the objects (such as
typicality, familiarity, and complexity) and the individual who
is processing the objects: the more the object processing is
fluent (perception of the identity and the meaning), the more
positive the aesthetic answer will be.
In conclusion, we can envisage possible future developments of
the present research. An initial development could be that of
collecting data from expert participants (e.g., artists and archi-
tects). By comparing the results across experts and laypeople, one
could check whether a particular training in art or architecture can
also affect the automatic aesthetic evaluations. One would expect
 AUTOMATIC AESTHETIC EVALUATION
that experts, with their deeper knowledge on art and architectural
styles, would not show a marked preference for a specific style, or
on the contrary, they might express a preference for contemporary
art and architecture.
Another potential extension of the present studies could be to
identify other art category stimuli (e.g., design objects) with the
aim of confirming and broadening these results into other aesthetic
domains.
References
Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic
influence in social perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 3–51). New York, NY: Guilford
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Boselie, F., & Cesaro, A. (1994). Disjunctive ambiguity as a determinant
of the aesthetic attractivity of visual patterns. Empirical Studies of the
Arts, 12(1), 85–94.
Brunel, F. F., Tietje, B. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (2004). Is the Implicit
Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer
social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 385– 404.
Crozier, W. R., & Chapman, A. J. (1984). Cognitive processes in the
perception of art. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Cutting, J. E. (2003). Gustave Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and mere
exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 319 –343.
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powel, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986).
On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 229 –238.
Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-
conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the
Arts, 22(1), 77– 89.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Social cognition: From brains to
culture. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Francès, R. (1979). Psychologie de l’art et de l’esthétique. Paris, France:
PUF.
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D. J., & Shaw,
K. T. (2000). Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for
understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons.
Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163–187.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1464 –1480.
Heinrichs, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual differences as
predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53, 502–
515.
Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert
and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American
Journal of Psychology, 109, 389 – 407.
Inquisit 2.0.60616. (2006). [Computer software]. Seattle, WA: Millisecond
Software.
Kameron, J. (1973). Experimental studies of environment perception. In
W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and cognition (pp. 157–167). New
York, NY: Seminar Press.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psycholog-
ical perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kettlewell, N., Lipscomb, S., Evans, L., & Rosston, K. (1990). The effect
of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for
paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 85–93.
Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of
stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of
133
aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psy-
chology, 95, 489 –508.
Locher, P., Krupinski, E. A., Mello-Thoms, C., & Nodine, C. F. (2007).
Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial
Vision, 21(1–2), 55–77.
Locher, P., & Nodine, C. F. (1989). The perceptual value of symmetry.
Computers and Math Applications, 17, 475– 484.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and prefer-
ence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 14, 661– 670.
Mastandrea, S., Bartoli, G., & Bove, G. (2009). Preferences for ancient and
modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteris-
tics. Psychology of Aesthetic, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 164 –173.
McWhinnie, H. J. (1968). A review of research on aesthetic measure. Acta
Psychologica, 28, 363–375.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit
Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In
J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior
(pp. 265–292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Nosek, B. A., & Hansen, J. J. (2008). The associations in our heads belong
to us: Searching for attitudes and knowledge in implicit evaluation.
Cognition and Emotion, 22(4), 553–594.
Öhman, A. (1987). The psychophysiology of emotion: An evolutionary-
cognitive perspective. Advances in psychophysiology, 2, 79 –127.
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.
Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Mainardi Peron, E., & Falchero, S. (1994).
Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 14(3), 195–209.
Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ
between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93–106.
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 –382.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and
a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). Emotional response to art: From collation and arousal
to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342–357.
Smith, J., & Smith, L. (2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of
the Arts, 19, 229 –236.
Stamps, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design review and public prefer-
ences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation
seeking and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
17(1), 11–32.
Tinio, P. P. L., & Leder, H. (2009). Natural scenes are indeed preferred, but
image quality might have the last word. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 52–56.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environ-
ment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behaviour and the natural
environment (pp. 85–125). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Whitfield, T. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday
objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aes-
thetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221–237.
Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorisation
and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task.
British Journal of Psychology, 70, 65–75.
Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Matthews, A. (1988).
Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders. Chichester, England:
Wiley.
 134 MASTANDREA, BARTOLI, AND CARRUS

Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the
face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to
positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989 –
1000.
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Pro-
totypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological
Science, 17(9), 799 – 806.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1974). Human adaptation to levels of environmental
stimulation. Human Ecology, 2, 127–147.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27.
Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 591– 632). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.

Appendix

Lists of Artworks and Architectures Used in the Two Experiments

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

List of Figurative Paintings selected: 9. Jackson Pollock, Autumn Rhythm (Number 30), 1950

1. Bouguereau, Return From the Harvest, 1878 10. Emilio Vedova, Immagine nel Tempo 58-4V, 1958

List of Classical Buildings selected:

2. Canaletto, Il Campo di Rialto (Venezia), c. 1758 – 63

3. Caravaggio, Basket of Fruit, 1597 1. Biagio Rossetti, Palazzo dei Diamanti, ca. 1493, Fer-
rara, Italy
4. Constable, The Cornfield, 1826
2. Antonio da Sangallo the Young, Palazzo Farnese, ca.
5. Daubigny, Aldeia de Optevoz, 1857 1546, Rome, Italy

6. David, Conte Potocki, 1780 – 81 3. Giovanni Antonio De Rossi, Palazzo Altieri, 1650,
Rome, Italy
7. Raffaello, Bindo Altoviti, c. 1515
4. Michelozzo, Palazzo Medici Riccardi, 1460, Florence,
8. Guido Reni, Lot and His Daughters Leaving Sodom, Italy
1615-16
5. Formentone, Palladio and Sansovino, Palazzo Della
9. Velázquez. Queen Isabel, Standing, 1631/32 Loggia, ca. 1574, Brescia, Italy

10. Vermeer, Street in Delft, c. 1657–1658 List of Contemporary Buildings selected:

1. Frank O. Gehry, Guggenheim Museum, 1997, Bilbao,

List of Abstract Paintings selected:
Spain

1. Josef Albers, Study of Homage to the Square, 1954 2. Santiago Calatrava, Turning Torso, 2005, Malmö, Swe-
den
2. Robert Delaunay, Homage to Bleriot, 1914
3. Norman Foster, London City Hall, 2003, London,
3. Kandinsky, Composition VIII, 1923 United Kingdom

4. Paul Klee, Glass Façade, 1940 4. Zaha Hadid, Phaeno Science Center, 2005, Wolfsburg,
Germany
5. Lissisky, Proun 19D, c. 1922
5. Ben van Berkel, Mercedes-Benz Museum, 2006, Stutt-
6. Kasimir Malevich, Suprematist Painting, 1915 gart, Germany
7. Alberto Burri, Sacco su Tela, 1953
Received June 1, 2010
8. Piet Mondrian, Composition With Black, Red, Gray, Revision received July 27, 2010
Yellow, and Blue, 1920 Accepted July 28, 2010 䡲