Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33732544›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

The role of gender and academic degree on preference for smooth curvature of abstract shapes.

Letizia Palumbo, Giulia Rampone, Marco Bertamini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Lorenz's classic 'baby schema': a useful biological concept?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Letizia Palumbo *Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Giulia Rampone *Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Marco BertaminiDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreference for smooth contours occurs for a variety of visual stimuli. However, there are individual differences. Openness to experience, a trait associated with aesthetic appreciation, emotional sensitivity and abstract thinking, correlates with this preference. The evaluation of meaningless stimuli entails automatic associations influenced by knowledge, intellectual interests and individual experiences which are diverse. However, it is difficult to capture this variability in studies restricted to Undergraduate students in Psychology with a prevalence of female participants.

methodsHere we examined preference for curvature with 160 undergraduate students in Psychology, Mathematics, Engineering and Computer Science, balanced for gender. Participants viewed abstract shapes varying for contour (angular vs. curved). The shapes presented variations in Vertices (10, 20, 30) and Concavity (30%, 40%, 50%) to increase complexity. Participants rated how much they liked each shape on a 0 (dislike) to 100 (like) scale. Furthermore, because students in pure Science disciplines present autistic-like traits as measured with the Autism Quotient (AQ), and there is evidence that individuals with autism respond positively to edgy abstract shapes, participants also completed the AQ.

resultsOverall participants preferred curved shapes to angular shapes. We confirmed past research showing that complexity played a key role, with simple shapes with less vertices (10 vertices) being preferred over shapes with larger number of vertices (20 and 30 vertices). Furthermore, simple shapes (10 vertices) were preferred more with more concavities (50%). Importantly, an interaction between academic degree and gender revealed that preference for smooth curvature was stronger for Psychology female participants. Science students scored higher than Psychology students on the AQ. Interestingly, multilevel analyses showed that the variability of AQ traits in the sample did not contribute to this interaction. The results are discussed in relation to theories of preference formation and individual differences.

Indexed as

Academic degreeCurvatureGenderIndividual differencesVisual preference

Identifiers

PMID33732544
PMCPMC7953868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.