ArticlePloS one2018
Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inducing preference reversals in aesthetic choices for paintings: Introducing the contrast paradigm.PloS one · 2018Trial
- Is there any (emotional) difference between seeing art in the museum vs. in the lab? A comparative study of phenomenal art experiences of original artworks and digital reproductions.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A toolbox for calculating quantitative image properties in aesthetics research.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Using machine learning to predict judgments on Western visual art along content-representational and formal-perceptual attributes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Machine learning revealed symbolism, emotionality, and imaginativeness as primary predictors of creativity evaluations of western art paintings.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Chromatic and spatial image statistics predict infants' visual preferences and adults' aesthetic preferences for art.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Statistical image properties and aesthetic judgments on abstract paintings by Robert Pepperell.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- The role of expertise and culture in visual art appreciation.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Swipes and Saves: A Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Aesthetic Assessments and Perceived Beauty of Mobile Phone Photographs.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- The Effect of Painting Beauty on Eye Movements.Advances in cognitive psychology · 2020Article
- Cognitive basis for the development of aesthetic preference: Findings from symmetry preference.PloS one · 2020Article
- Global Image Properties Predict Ratings of Affective Pictures.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- And the nominees are: Using design-awards datasets to build computational aesthetic evaluation model.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research on aesthetics has challenged the adage that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" by identifying several factors that predict ratings of beauty. However, this research has emerged in a piecemeal fashion. Most studies have examined only a few predictors of beauty, and measured either subjective or objective predictors, but not both. Whether the predictors of ratings of beauty versus liking differ has not been tested, nor has whether predictors differ for major distinctions in art, such as abstract vs. representational paintings. Finally, past studies have either relied on experimenter-generated stimuli-which likely yield pallid aesthetic experiences-or on a curation of high-quality art-thereby restricting the range of predictor scores. We report a study (N = 598) that measured 4 subjective and 11 objective predictors of both beauty ratings and liking ratings, for 240 abstract and 240 representational paintings that varied widely in beauty. A crossover pattern occurred in the ratings, such that for abstract paintings liking ratings were higher than beauty ratings, whereas for representational paintings beauty ratings were higher than liking ratings. Prediction was much better for our subjective than objective predictors, and much better for our representational than abstract paintings. For abstract paintings, liking ratings were much more predictable than beauty ratings. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.