ArticlePsyCh journal2022
The golden ratio as an ecological affordance leading to aesthetic attractiveness.
Article in PsyCh journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Beauty Assessment Scale: Psychometric Validation of Italian and English Versions.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- A Narrative Scoping Review of Neuroaesthetics and Objective Understanding of Human Appearance.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- A Kinetic Ecological Approach to Beauty Perception: A Perspective Review on the Case of Symmetry and the Golden Ratio.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Review
- Neuroaesthetics: exploring the role of aesthetic experience in neurorehabilitation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Michelangelo Effect in Virtual Sculpturing: Prospective for Motor Neurorehabilitation in the Metaverse.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Assessing landscape aesthetic values: Do clouds in photographs influence people's preferences?PloS one · 2023Article
- Are neuroaesthetic principles applied in art therapy protocols for neurorehabilitation? A systematic mini-review.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- The golden ratio as an ecological affordance leading to aesthetic attractiveness.PsyCh journal · 2022Article
- Inside the Michelangelo effect: The role of art and aesthetic attractiveness on perceived fatigue and hand kinematics in virtual painting.PsyCh journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The golden ratio (GR) is an irrational number (close to 1.618) that repeatedly occurs in nature as well as in masterpieces of art. The GR has been considered a proportion perfectly representing beauty since ancient times, and it was investigated in several scientific fields, but with conflicting results. This study aims at investigating if this proportion is associated with a judgment of beauty independently of the type of the stimulus, and the factors that may affect this aesthetic preference. In Experiment 1, an online psychophysical questionnaire was administered to 256 volunteers asked to choose among three possible proportions between the parts of the same stimulus (GR, 1.5, and 1.8). In Experiment 2, we recorded eye movements in 15 participants who had to express an aesthetic judgment on the same stimuli of Experiment 1. The results revealed a slight overall preference for GR (53%, p < .001), with higher preferences for stimuli representing humans, anthropomorphic sculptures, and paintings, regardless of the cultural level. In Experiment 2, a shorter dwell time was significantly associated with a better aesthetic judgment (p = .005), suggesting the possibility that GR could be associated with easier visual processing, and it could be hence considered as a visual affordance.
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.