ArticlePloS one2023
Updating the Aesthetic Fluency Scale: Revised long and short forms for research in the psychology of the arts.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the Art Engagement Reflection Scale.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A Personal Perspective on Psychology of Aesthetics and the Arts: Ecologically Valid, Interdisciplinary, and Diverse Methodologies.Creativity research journal · 2025Article
- Empathy strengthens the effect of emotion on beauty.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People's knowledge about the arts shapes how they experience and engage with art. Since its introduction, the 10-item Aesthetic Fluency Scale has been widely used to measure self-reported art knowledge. Drawing from findings and researchers' experience since then, the present work develops and evaluates a Revised Aesthetic Fluency Scale using item response theory to broaden its scope (36 items) and refine its response scale. In a large sample (n = 2,089 English-speaking adults), Study 1 found strong evidence for unidimensionality, good item fit, and a difficulty level suitable for its targeted population; Study 2 (n = 392) provided initial evidence for score validity via relationships with art engagement, Openness to Experience, and aesthetic responsiveness; and Study 3 derived a brief, 10-item form for time-constrained projects. Taken together, the revised scales build upon lessons learned from the original and appear promising for the next generation of research.
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.