EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE ARTS, Vol.

26(2) 197-218, 2008

THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION

OF VISUAL ART

HENRIK HAGTVEDT
University of Georgia, Athens

REIDAR HAGTVEDT
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
VANESSA M. PATRICK
University of Georgia, Athens

ABSTRACT

Visual art is a complex stimulus. Drawing on extant theory that the interplay
of affect and cognition evoked by a stimulus drives evaluations, we develop
a generalizable model for the perception and evaluation of visual art. In
three stages, we develop scaled measurements for the affective and cognitive
components involved in the perception of visual art and present a structural
equation model that integrates these components in art evaluation.

The nature of art has been a topic of philosophical interest since the days of the
ancient Greeks. Yet the experience of art, and consequently the perception and
evaluation of art, seems particularly challenging to comprehend within a scientific
framework. Previous research has nonetheless made much progress toward
a psychological understanding of art perception and aesthetic appreciation
(Funch, 1997). The current research builds on this work to develop a struc-
tural model for the perception and evaluation of visual art. Since the visual
experience of art arguably includes both cognitive and emotional components
(Baltissen & Ostermann, 1998; Silvia 2005a), the proposed model incorporates
both these elements.

197

Ó 2008, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/EM.26.2.d
http://baywood.com
198 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

This research relies on visual art, specifically paintings, as stimuli. Further,

it is restricted to participants without formal art training, because it seems reason-
able that different types of training may affect cognitive judgments enough to
unduly complicate a general model. Indeed, Bezruczko and Schroeder (1994)
noted that professional artists and non-artists differ on various dimensions of
visual preferences. Silvia (2006) similarly noted that although people high and
low in training make the same emotional appraisals of art, they differ in their
appraisals of what makes art interesting. Thus, it seems reasonable to concentrate
on the untrained category of viewers first, while the effects of training may be
added at a later stage. After all, some form of art appreciation appears to be a
general human phenomenon (Dutton, 2002; Tansey & Kleiner, 1996), while
different schools of art may have more specific influences on how artworks are
perceived and judged.
Perception is generally referred to as the process of making sense of the world
around us. It involves the acquisition, interpretation, selection, and organization
of sensory information. Since Plato’s allegory of the cave, explained in the
Republic, the importance of perception in understanding a human being’s inter-
action with the world has been well established. Although perception is dependent
on a host of physiological (e.g., age, health, hunger) and social (e.g., cultural
differences, social roles, self-concept) factors, the perception of “art itself is a
cultural universal” (Dutton, 2002).
Given the complexity and variety of art, it may seem naïve to attempt to capture
the perception of visual art in a single model. However, the present research
represents an initial attempt at this endeavor. For the purposes of this research,
we characterize art perception as the acquisition, interpretation, and organization
of the affective and cognitive elements stimulated by an artwork and the interplay
of these elements in forming the evaluation of art. After a brief discussion about
what constitutes art in the context of this research, as well as a theoretical
discussion of the interplay between affect and cognition, scales are developed
for both emotions and perceived attributes involved in the perception of visual
art, and a structural equation model is presented that integrates these components
in the evaluation process.

IDENTIFYING ART
An antecedent to the notion of art as a distinct category was merely the
perceived difference between nature and human activity, and throughout much of
history the modern distinction between “art” and “craft” was virtually nonexistent
(Hauser, 1999). During medieval times, painting and sculpture were taught in
artisans’ guilds, music was often placed in the same category as math, and poetry
was grouped with rhetoric and grammar. It was not until the mid-eighteenth
century that Abbé Batteux presented a separate classification of fine arts con-
sisting of music, poetry, painting, sculpture, and dance (Shrum, 1996). One of the
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 199

distinguishing marks of these disciplines was that they had pleasure rather
than utility as the main goal, and their classification as the fine arts came to be
disseminated throughout Europe.
Today the notion of art as a special category of human activity, with a unique
influence on viewers, still remains. However, it seems doubtful whether scholars
will ever agree on a definition for this category. For instance, Wartenberg (2006)
discusses 29 different perspectives on what does or does not constitute art.
He draws on philosophical viewpoints describing art as “imitation” (Plato),
“redemption” (Nietzsche), or “the communication of feeling” (Tolstoy), to more
recent views of art as “fetish” (Adrian Piper) or “virtual” (Douglas Davis).
However, in the current context it seems appropriate to define art from the
viewers’ perspective: that art is that which is categorized by the viewers as
such (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1997; Dewey, 1989).
In a descriptive survey conducted by Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008), 77 par-
ticipants representative of our sample population were given a sorting task and
asked to distinguish art images from non-art images and to describe why they
considered certain images to be art and others to be non-art. A variety of artworks,
ranging from Renaissance to modern works, were used as stimuli. Respondents
consistently asserted that art images are expressive (“emotion,” “expression”),
that the manner of creation is a central feature of an artwork (“talent,” “creativity
and skill,” “I couldn’t do it”), while making a statement without this manner
(“symbol . . . not creativity and skill”) is not enough to constitute art. Based on
these self-reports, on a review of art history (e.g., Tansey & Kleiner, 1996), and
on our own experience and research, we suggest that artworks may be identified
as works perceived as embodying human expression, where a perceived main
feature of the work is the manner of its creation and/or execution rather than
just a concept, idea, or message underlying it or conveyed by it, and where this
manner is not primarily driven by any other contrived function or utility. Other
works may depend on a context, such as being placed in a gallery, for their
impact, but in the current research it seems more useful to focus on works
considered to be art by the viewer whether they are hanging in a museum or
anywhere else.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this section, we discuss the conceptual background for the main components
of the art perception and evaluation process: cognition and affect.

Cognition: Perceived Attributes

A great deal of previous research has focused on art perception and visual
aesthetics (Pickford, 1972), often dealing with specific aspects of aesthetic judg-
ments such as the appeal of certain constellations of facial lineaments depicted in
200 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

portraiture, or the appeal of certain colors in connection with certain shapes.

Funch (1997) asserts that Fechner, Lipps, Arnheim, and Berlyne deserve special
mention for their contributions toward the development of art appreciation as
a field of study.
Fechner’s (1871) proposal to supplement philosophical speculations with
empirical observation paved the way for psychological aesthetics as an inde-
pendent discipline. Thus, formal judgments of beauty and harmony should be
measured rather than only postulated or deduced from philosophical concepts.
Lipps (1906) contributed to this trend with his empathy theory, suggesting that
aesthetic appreciation is experienced as belonging to the work of art rather than
to the observer. This idea would also suggest that emotions, which per force
belong to the individual experiencing them, should influence the cognition of
attributes belonging to an artwork. Indeed, some researchers have argued that
observers must be emotionally primed to look for categories before they are
even able to perceive them (Damasio, 1994). Thus, the attributes of an artwork
that underlie its aesthetic or intellectual appeal may be perceived as belonging to
the artwork itself, although the experience of these attributes is partially shaped
by the emotions elicited in the viewer. These components thus represent distinct
yet interlinked aspects of the experience of an art object. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to include both emotions and judgments of aesthetic and intellectual
appeal in measurements of art perception.
Arnheim (1974) also emphasizes cognition in perception and creativity. As a
representative of Gestalt theory concentrating on visual art, he develops an
understanding of the mind as primarily visual in regards to art. Arnheim defines
perception as the experiencing of “visual forces.” He places dynamic perception,
as opposed to mere mechanical recording of visual elements, at the very root
of aesthetic experience. Berlyne (1971) expands on such notions with novel
interpretations of measurable responses to art objects. He gives rise to a kind
of experimental aesthetics that in many ways supplants Fechner’s approach to
art appreciation. In Berlyne’s psychobiological framework, aesthetic pleasure is
tied to changes in level of arousal, and motivational factors such as novelty,
surprise and complexity replace formal beauty or harmony as the fundamental
basis of psychophysical aesthetics.

Affect

Oatley and Duncan (1992) estimate that 7% of emotion experienced in daily

life stems from dealing with cultural artifacts. It is well established that visual art
is an aesthetic stimulus that evokes an emotional response (Tan, 2000). What
remains a question unanswered, and forms a focus of the current research, is the
role that an individual’s emotional response to an artwork has in its evaluation.
Affective states differ not only in how and when they arise but are differen-
tiated from each other in valence and arousal. The valence of an emotion refers to
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 201

how positive or negative it is. The influence of affect is typically congruent with
its valence, such that a positive feeling leads to a positive evaluation while a
negative feeling gives rise to a negative evaluation. The arousal potential of
an emotion is defined as a feeling state of activation that varies from drowsiness
to frantic excitement (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), and LeDoux (1996) dis-
cusses the existence of at least five arousal systems in the brain contributing
to emotional experience. Previous research has established that arousal, in
addition to the valence of emotion, may influence information processing and
evaluation (Sonbonmatsu & Kardes, 1988). Pham, Cohen, Pracejus, and Hughes
(2001) argue that while many studies show that the direction of preferences
may be tied to the valence of feelings toward a given target, the strength of these
preferences may be tied to the level of arousal elicited by that target. Indeed,
a substantial amount of research suggests that the arousal experienced at a
given point in time accentuates or polarizes subsequent affective and evaluative
responses (Reisenzein, 1983).

The Interplay of Cognition and Emotions

Several affective-cognitive models proposed by Cohen and Areni (1991),

Berkowitz (1993), Forgas (1995), LeDoux (1995, 1996) and Wyer, Clore, and
Isbell (1999) suggest that an interplay between the affect elicited by the stimulus
and the cognitive responses to the stimulus give rise to the overall evaluation of
the stimulus. However, these models differ in how this interplay occurs.
For instance, Berkowitz (1993) proposes a three-stage reaction to a stimulus:
first, basic and automatic associative processes; second, more deliberative, higher-
order cognitive processing; and third, higher-order affective reactions. Built on
neuropsychological evidence, LeDoux’s (1995) model supports Berkowitz to
propose that “low-road affective processes,” “high-road cognitive processes” and
“high-road affective responses” may arise in response to a stimulus. In contrast,
Zajonc (1980) supports the idea of relatively automatic affective reactions but
does not support the notion of post-cognitive affective reactions resulting from
higher-order processing.
Irrespective of this debate, it is generally agreed that on exposure to a stimulus,
two processes may occur (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). First, when an individual is
exposed to a stimulus, he often appraises it globally as a whole without doing a
detailed assessment of its individual features (Lazarus, 1991). This spontaneous
appraisal may include cognitive and affective responses that can provide the basis
for an initial impression of the stimulus (often referred to as a lower-order route:
Berkowitz, 1993; Wyer et al., 1999). This initial impression is accounted for in
forming a detailed evaluation when additional information, specific and relevant
to the judgment, becomes available (often referred to as a higher-order route:
Berkowitz; Wyer et al.). Notably, the first process occurs relatively automatically
while the second process is more deliberate and controlled. The current research
202 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

does not focus on lower-order cognitions, but it investigates how emotions inform
the more detailed cognitive assessment of perceived attributes. We would expect
that while the cognitive assessment of an artwork’s perceived attributes does
not depend entirely on the emotions evoked from viewing it, the evoked emotions
are likely to influence the cognitive judgment to some degree.
The current research thus continues an investigation of arts and aesthetics with
roots in Berlyne’s (1971, 1974) tradition of experimental aesthetics; a tradition
that has sparked a variety of debates about alternative theories of aesthetic
experience (e.g., Boselie, 1991; Martindale, Moore, & Borkum, 1990; North
& Hargreaves, 2000; Silvia, 2005b). Indeed, as Cupchik (1988) noted,
Berlyne’s suspicion of cognitive psychology may have hindered the study of
how cognitions and emotions interact in aesthetic contexts. Later work, although
indebted to Berlyne’s pioneering efforts, has reopened this rich and promising
area of research.
An alternative to Berlyne’s psychobiological framework is the prototypicality
model of aesthetic experience (Martindale et al., 1990). According to this model,
preference for an artwork is determined by the work’s perceived typicality
rather than by its collative features. However, as Silvia (2005a) argues, this model
shares many of the arousal model’s limitations, and it does not seem nuanced
enough to capture the complexity of aesthetic experience. For instance, even if
high typicality leads to positive emotions, it seems difficult to predict what kinds
of negative emotions will arise as a result of low typicality, as well as what this
may entail for the overall perception and evaluation of the artwork. This is
arguably also true of a model of aesthetic emotions according to which viewers
deem an artwork beautiful when they find it easy to process (Reber, Schwartz, &
Winkielman, 2004). It seems difficult to explain the diverse emotional reactions
to an artwork with a single cause, that is, ease of processing. A more nuanced
approach to experimental aesthetics is that of appraisal theory (Silvia, 2005a,
2005b), which assumes that evaluations of events, rather than the events
themselves, cause the emotional experience. In this view, artworks may be said
to affect emotions via their influence on appraisals. This diverges from the
Berlyne tradition, in which aesthetic response is tied to objective features of the
art object (Cupchik, 1988).
The interplay of affect and cognition is complex, and neither past research nor
the current research can be said to have captured this interplay fully. While it
seems reasonable that cognitive evaluations may give rise to emotional responses,
as suggested by, for instance, the prototypicality model and appraisal theory, the
current research emphasizes how emotions inform cognitive evaluations. For
instance, a viewer might deem an object fascinating in part because of the
excitement or thrill he feels upon viewing it, whether or not this thrill has yet
been explained by a conscious appraisal. This view is in line with neuropsycho-
logical evidence suggesting that preliminary affective responses precede cog-
nition (Damasio, 1994; LeDoux, 1996).
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 203

OVERVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

The objective of the empirical investigation was to develop an understanding

and scaled measurements of the various components that we theorize influence art
evaluation, how these components relate to one another, and how they inform art
evaluation as a summary judgment. The empirical investigation was conducted
in three stages. Our approach may be considered to conform to what Tan
(2000) refers to as the “reverse-design approach” consistent with other work in
psychological aesthetics and psychology of the arts. Specifically, we reconstruct
the emotional and cognitive processes underlying the experience of visual art from
characteristics of the stimuli and then extend this understanding to develop a
confirmatory model that more robustly tests these relationships using a single
stimulus. Stage 1 involved preliminary item generation in which lists of emotions
and attributes involved in the perception and evaluation of art were elicited using
a variety of artworks. Stage 2 was designed to refine and further develop the scales
for the emotional and cognitive components involved in consumers’ perception of
visual art, as well as to develop a structural equation model that combines these
components in the evaluation process. Finally, Stage 3 involved conducting a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a test of the structural model using a single
stimulus. These three stages of the empirical investigation are described next.

STAGE 1: PRELIMINARY ITEM GENERATION

Based on the above perspectives, the first step in the empirical investigation
was to generate a list of emotions and perceived attributes involved in the
perception and evaluation of artworks to use in the main studies. The initial stage
of item generation was entirely exploratory, relying on informal interviews with
a convenience sample of five art experts (artists and curators) and ten non-experts
to supply a list of items. Two separate pilot studies were conducted using these
emotions and attributes, with respondents viewing works of art and indicating
on 8-point Likert scales (0 = do not agree at all, 7 = agree strongly) the degree
to which they agreed that the artwork evoked the various emotions in them and
the degree to which they agreed that the various attributes were descriptive of the
artwork. The artworks used were chosen to represent a large range of differences
in style, medium and emotional content. The first pilot study was conducted
with a convenience sample of 11 respondents, aged 22 to 67, each filling out
three separate questionnaires based on three different artworks, resulting in
33 completed questionnaires. The second pilot study was conducted with a
convenience sample of 16 respondents, aged 20 to 68, each filling out four
separate questionnaires based on four different artworks, resulting in 64
completed questionnaires. This preliminary research was not intended to draw
any conclusions, but it supplied enough data to conduct exploratory factor
204 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

analyses and get rough indications of which emotions and attributes to include
for further evaluation.
The next step was to draw on extant literature to refine the list of emotions
(Ekman, 1999) and attributes (Funch, 1997; Tansey & Kleiner, 1996). This
refined list was additionally evaluated by a panel of ten experts: 6 artists, curators,
and/or art professors with higher education in fine arts and/or art theory, and
four PhDs with an interest in art. The resulting list of emotions and attributes was
used as the basis of a larger study in Stage 2.

STAGE 2: SCALE AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The objective of this study was to further develop scales for the emotional
and cognitive components involved in the perception of visual art, as well as to
develop a structural equation model that combines these components in the
evaluation process.

Method

Stimuli. Five figurative paintings were chosen as the stimuli, pre-tested to

maximize the variability in emotional valence and arousal. The pretests were
conducted with a convenience sample of ten undergraduate students, four PhD
students, and two professors. Respondents reported on 9-point semantic dif-
ferential scales their perception of the artworks as eliciting negative or positive
emotion, and as eliciting low or high arousal. Saturn Devouring his Son by
Francisco Goya was pre-tested as eliciting negative emotion (M = 2.6) and
high arousal (M = 7.0). Mourning Man by Käthe Kollwitz elicited negative
emotion (M = 3.3), low arousal (M = 4.0). Moscow by Wassily Kandinsky elicited
positive emotion (M = 6.7), high arousal (M = 6.3). Madame Monet and Her
Son by Pierre-Auguste Renoir elicited positive emotion (M = 7.2), low arousal
(M = 3.9). Self-portrait by Käthe Kollwitz elicited neutral emotion (M = 4.8),
low arousal (M = 3.6).
Participants and Procedure. One hundred and fifty undergraduates partici-
pated, each randomly assigned to one of the five paintings. They were each given a
high resolution color print of this painting, and the questionnaires to be completed
were otherwise identical. Participants reported on 9-point Likert scales (1 = not at
all, 9 = a great deal) the extent to which the artwork awoke the various emotions
in them, and on 9-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely) how well
the various attributes described the artwork. Additionally, they reported on 9-point
semantic differential scales [unfavorable – favorable, negative – positive, bad –
good, unpleasant – pleasant, dislike very much – like very much (a = .94)] their
overall evaluation of the painting.
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 205

Results

Factor Analysis. Exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation, Kaiser

normalization, and the suppression of loadings lower than .40 resulted in 17
emotions, splitting into four factors, with 78% of cumulative variance explained
(see Table 1), and 19 perceived attributes, also splitting into four factors, with
71% of cumulative variance explained (see Table 2).
Structural Model. Based on the above theoretical perspectives, the emotions
are likely to inform the first impressions of the artwork’s aesthetic appeal and
interestingness (Cupchik & Gebotys, 1990). For instance, pleasurable emotions
elicited when viewing an object may influence the judgment that this object
is aesthetically pleasing. Next, it seems reasonable that these appeals would
influence critical judgments of the artwork. For instance, the impression of an
artwork as thought provoking and interesting may cause this artwork to be viewed

Table 1. Emotions Factor Loadings (Stage 2)

Negative – Positive – Positive – Negative –

Emotion High arousal Low arousal High arousal Low arousal

Agitation .87
Stress .86
Anxiety .85
Tension .82
Uncertainty .56
Serenity .90
Contentment .89
Happiness .80
Joy .76
Stimulation .84
Eagerness .83
Enthusiasm .79
Excitement .75
Loneliness .87
Melancholy .77
Sadness .75
Despair .70

Cronbach a .89 .81 .87 .87

206 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

Table 2. Perceived Attributes Factor Loadings (Stage 2)

Aesthetic Formal Curiosity

Attribute Creativity appeal execution appeal

Imaginative .86
Creative .87
Inventive .80
Innovative .80
Original .75
Novel .66
Distinct .65
Beautiful .95
Aesthetically pleasing .95
Attractive .91
Elegant .62
Symmetrical .88
Rhythmic .79
Patterned .68
Unified .65
Balanced .60
Thought provoking .80
Intellectually stimulating .63
Interesting .53

Cronbach a .92 .90 .81 .84

as creative and original. Similarly, the impression of an artwork as aesthetically

pleasing may influence the evaluation of the artwork’s formal execution (e.g.,
balance, unity), or the technical skill with which the artwork has been executed.
These two variables, creativity and skill/formal execution, are viewed as
fundamental building blocks of the overall evaluation of artworks. Indeed,
“Artistic quality is often thought of in terms of two components: originality
and technical skill” (Kozbelt, 2004, p. 1). See Figure 1 for the intermediate
structural model.
Fit Indices. Fit judgments are per force subjective measures involving a number
of different indicators (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Four indicators were
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART /
207

Figure 1. Intermediate structural model (Stage 2). Please see Tables 1 and 2 for items.
208 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

used for this research: c2/df ratio, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the comparative
fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). For
the chi-square test it is difficult to obtain non-significant values in complex
problems (Marsh et al.). However, dividing the chi-square by the degrees of
freedom provides a measure of model fit, sometimes called the normed chi-square,
which is less sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2005). Values of 2.0, 3.0, or even
as high as 5.0 have been recommended as indicating reasonable fit (Bollen,
1989). The TLI was chosen based on Vandenberg and Scarpello (1990) and
on Marsh et al.’s evaluation of commonly used fit indices against the criteria
that ideal indices are ones that (a) are relatively independent of sample size,
(b) correctly mirror differences in fit, and (c) require an appropriate penalty
function for the inclusion of additional parameters. Popular indices such as the
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted GFI (AGFI) and the root-mean-square
residual (RMSR) performed poorly in light of these criteria, while the TLI
closely meets the ideal criteria. Generally speaking, TLI values of .90 or higher
indicate adequate fit (Vandenberg & Scarpello). The CFI, one of the most widely
used fit statistics in structural equation modeling (SEM), assesses the relative
improvement in fit of the model in question compared with a baseline model.
Values greater than approximately .90 indicate reasonably good fit (Kline).
The RMSEA is a parsimony-adjusted index, with a noncentrality parameter
that reflects the degree of misspecification of the model in question. Values
between .05 and .08 suggest reasonable fit, while RMSEA £ .05 indicates close
approximate fit (Kline). The intermediate structural model resulted in a prom-
ising but inadequate fit (c2/df = 1699.24/759 = 2.24, TLI = .81, CFI = .82,
RMSEA = .09).

Discussion

The fit indices revealed an inadequate model fit. Although the c2/df ratio
was convincing, the other statistics were slightly outside of the acceptable
range. However, the model clearly showed promise, especially given that
it was based on five different stimuli. Recall that this was done to
maximize variability, to help ensure that the model would be generalizable
rather than specific to a particular stimulus. Although this was a reasonable
intermediate step, a fair test of the model must still be conducted with a single
stimulus.
Before conducting the final data collection, the factors were scrutinized,
and final minor adjustments were made in the items. The largest changes
concerned the Creativity factor, where three of the seven items were
deemed as redundant, and the Formal Execution factor, where it was
deemed that this factor only partially reflected a more general aspect of
evaluation, namely the perception of the technical skill with which the
artwork was executed.
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 209

STAGE 3: CFA AND TEST OF THE MODEL

The objective of the final stage was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis
and a test of the structural model using a single stimulus.

Method
Stimulus and Procedure. A figurative painting, Bal du Moulin de la Galette
by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, identified as art in a pre-test with 12 undergraduates
(M = 7.6; 1 = no, 9 = yes), was chosen as the stimulus. Two hundred and eighty-
seven undergraduates participated in the survey. One participant answered with
a single score throughout the survey and was therefore removed. Thus, 286
surveys were included in the analysis. The procedure was the same as in the
previous study, except that this time the survey was completed online.

Results
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on each individual construct
before combining them in the structural model. See Table 3 for fit indices and
factor loadings.
The structural model was set up following the same pattern as that of the
intermediate model (see Figure 2). As noted above, the only visible difference
between the two models is that the Formal Execution variable from the inter-
mediate model has been replaced with a general Skill variable in the final model.
Further, the same fit indices were used as those chosen for the intermediate model
(c2/df = 1093.82/540 = 2.03, TLI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06). See Appendix 1
for the covariance matrix.

Discussion
All fit indices confirmed adequate fit for the final structural model. It
should be noted that any structural equation model is one of several possible
solutions, and that there may be alternative models which could conceivably
explain the same data. For instance, one might argue that there may be more
direct effects on overall evaluation, or that certain variables may correlate.
However, the current results represent strong support for the underlying theory
and the proposed model.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research develops scales for the emotional and cognitive components
involved in the perception of visual art and presents a structural equation model
that integrates these components in the evaluation process. Drawing on extant
theory regarding the interplay of affect and cognition, we develop a theoretical
210 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

Table 3. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Stage 3)

Construct c2/df TLI CFI RMSEA Items Loading
N-H .82/2 = .41 1.00 1.00 0 Unease .92
Anxiety .80
Uncertainty .78
Disquiet .77

N-L .89/2 = .45 1.00 1.00 0 Sadness .95

Despair .86
Gloom .85
Loneliness .73

P-H 0 1.00 1.00 NA Excitement .96

Enthusiasm .82
Thrill .70

P-L 5.00/2 = 2.50 .99 1.00 .07 Happiness .94

Joy .91
Gladness .77
Serenity .43

Curiosity .93/2 = .47 1.00 1.00 0 Interesting .89

Arou. Curiosity .84
Fascinating .74
Int. Stim. .74

Aesthetic 2.95/2 = 1.48 1.00 1.00 .04 Aesthetically .95

Attractive .94
Beautiful .86
Appealing .77

Creativity 6.36/2 = 3.18 .98 .99 .09 Original .86

Distinct .82
Creative .74
Inventive .71

Skill 0 1.00 1.00 NA Workmanship .97

Well Crafted .91
Skillfully Made .81

Evaluation 9.04/2 = 1.81 1.00 1.00 .05 Good .92

Positive .92
Favorable .91
Pleasing .89
Like .87
Notes: TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation, N-H = Negative Emotion High Arousal, N-L = Negative
Emotion Low Arousal, P-H = Positive Emotion High Arousal, P-L = Positive Emotion
Low Arousal, Arou. Curiosity = Arousing Curiosity, Int. Stim. = Intellectually Stimulating,
Aesthetically = Aesthetically Pleasing, Appealing = Appealing to the Senses, Workman-
ship = Of Excellent Workmanship.
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART /
211

Figure 2. Final structural model (Stage 3). Please see Table 3 for items.
212 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

framework to help guide the empirical investigation. Following the preliminary

item development and exploratory factor analysis, a structural model is developed
based on five artworks which maximize variability in terms of arousal and valence
of emotion. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis is conducted, and the structural
model is tested using a single artwork as the visual stimulus. Four emotion factors
(positive or negative with high or low arousal) and four cognitive factors (curiosity
appeal, aesthetic appeal, creativity, and skill), together with an evaluation index,
represent the latent variables of the model.
The cognitive factors found here have strong parallels in past research. The
curiosity appeal and aesthetic appeal appear similar to previous interesting and
pleasing factors (Cupchik & Gebotys, 1990), and the creativity and skill factors
are similar to originality and technical skill components discussed in the extant
literature (Kozbelt, 2004). Other attributes from previous research, such as com-
plexity, typicality, or familiarity, did not take part in the final factors, although
they were included in the initial item generation. This may be understood as
resulting from the current focus on basic and universal aspects of visual art. For
instance, the impact of complexity on the experience or appreciation of an artwork
may depend on the interaction of this attribute with other attributes of the artwork.
Sometimes the artwork will benefit from increased complexity, other times it will
not. It seems reasonable, however, that for instance interestingness will enhance
a viewer’s experience with an artwork as a general rule. As for the emotion factors,
researchers disagree on whether the experience of art and aesthetics should
be viewed in terms of global affect or discrete emotional states. The current model
finds support for the former view, but a great deal more research is necessary to
shed light on this issue and on the area of emotions in general. For instance, in his
research on core affect, Russell (2003, p. 1) discusses “a broad framework that
includes perception of the core-affect-altering properties of stimuli, motives,
empathy, emotional meta-experience, and affect versus emotion regulation.” As
research on emotions progresses, it will contribute to the evolving understanding
of art and aesthetics.
The generalizability of this model needs verification through further research.
Indeed, considering the complexity and variety of visual art, it may not even be
feasible to capture the perception of visual art in its entirety with a single model.
At the very least, such a model will always entail a tradeoff between compre-
hensiveness and parsimony, and various approaches should be attempted in the
future. For instance, it may be that non-linear relationships play an important
role, such that non-linear statistical tools should be employed to measure them.
In other research, the various aspects of art perception may be given a more
in-depth treatment, for instance through qualitative analysis. However, the current
research represents a step toward a more thorough understanding of how visual
art is perceived and evaluated. Only untrained viewers participated in the research,
because while some form of art appreciation is a general human phenomenon,
different schools of art may have more specific influences on how artworks are
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 213

perceived and judged. Future research may also expand on the current findings
by investigating how the perception and evaluation of visual art differs from
that of other arts. Further, within the category of visual art there are many
subcategories, in terms of for instance styles and time periods. Future research
may focus on differences in perception for the various categories. Finally, while
the current research focuses on untrained viewers, future research may investi-
gate more closely how training and expertise affect the perception and evaluation
of visual art.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their helpful
insights on improving the manuscript and Robert J. Vandenberg and George M.
Zinkhan for their valuable comments.
 APPENDIX 1: Covariance Matrix (Stage 3)
Ser Hap Joy Glad Lone Desp Sad Gloo Enth Exci Thri Anx Unce Unea Disq
Ser 3.51
Hap 1.32 2.72
Joy 1.12 2.34 2.77
Glad 1.00 2.03 2.04 2.94
Lone 0.32 –0.61 –0.42 –0.50 3.23
Desp 0.21 –0.67 –0.50 –0.57 1.60 2.16
Sad 0.12 –0.65 –0.45 –0.55 1.64 1.68 1.88
Gloo –0.05 –0.77 –0.58 –0.64 1.55 1.55 1.68 2.05
Enth 0.28 1.54 1.66 1.50 –0.35 –0.20 –0.33 –0.38 3.50
Exci 0.32 1.67 1.74 1.62 –0.62 –0.27 –0.45 –0.54 2.78 3.59
Thri 0.23 1.33 1.54 1.48 –0.43 –0.01 –0.07 –0.20 2.21 2.62 4.21
Anx –0.39 –0.63 –0.50 –0.51 1.45 1.41 1.41 1.61 0.06 –0.12 0.29 3.00
Unce –0.03 –0.81 –0.71 –0.56 1.74 1.58 1.56 1.64 –0.48 –0.48 –0.17 2.23 4.09
Unea –0.55 –1.03 –0.82 –0.84 1.53 1.55 1.51 1.62 –0.44 –0.44 –0.11 2.38 2.62 3.19
Disq 0.05 –0.51 –0.42 –0.45 1.43 1.40 1.42 1.56 –0.21 –0.29 –0.08 1.77 2.02 1.96 3.02
Inve 0.82 1.05 1.07 1.20 –0.01 1.18 0.10 –0.06 0.94 1.24 1.28 –0.09 0.05 –0.18 –0.30
Orig 0.55 0.87 0.82 0.81 –0.19 0.06 –0.06 –0.24 0.65 0.82 0.68 –0.36 –0.22 –0.29 –0.48
214 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

Dist 0.69 0.84 0.92 0.83 –0.13 0.04 –0.01 –0.18 0.68 0.92 0.77 –0.26 –0.13 –0.14 –0.54
Crea 0.64 1.10 1.14 0.99 –0.42 –0.38 –0.29 –0.41 0.73 0.99 0.74 –0.63 –0.42 –0.59 –0.71
Beau 1.15 1.53 1.43 1.36 –0.63 –0.64 –0.59 –0.72 0.88 1.15 0.73 –1.25 –0.91 –1.41 –0.97
Aest 1.18 1.52 1.39 1.41 –0.47 –0.68 –0.64 –0.80 1.07 1.13 0.82 –1.23 –0.84 –1.40 –1.00
Attr 1.07 1.45 1.35 1.28 –0.55 –0.72 –0.62 –0.78 0.95 1.10 0.82 –1.20 –0.92 –1.36 –0.93
Appe 1.19 1.30 1.20 1.28 –0.39 –0.59 –0.50 –0.66 1.18 1.25 0.91 –0.90 –0.82 –1.14 –0.80
Intl 0.97 0.72 0.62 0.56 –0.10 –0.09 0.01 –0.19 0.67 0.73 0.78 –0.41 –0.42 –0.55 –0.43
Intr 0.61 1.11 1.06 1.03 –0.50 –0.58 –0.41 –0.50 0.85 0.96 1.01 –0.63 –0.59 –0.74 –0.66
Cur 0.53 0.96 0.96 0.94 –0.40 –0.36 –0.16 –0.25 0.85 1.10 1.18 –0.42 –0.19 –0.45 –0.49
Fasc 0.98 1.17 1.31 1.15 –0.20 –0.08 –0.06 –0.19 1.01 1.33 1.70 –0.33 –0.35 –0.46 –0.45
Skil 0.58 0.99 0.87 0.87 –0.37 –0.51 –0.37 –0.46 0.82 0.89 0.63 –0.51 –0.58 –0.61 –0.64
Work 0.74 1.18 1.12 1.10 –0.39 –0.51 –0.47 –0.53 0.82 0.91 0.59 –0.60 –0.72 –0.71 –0.61
craf 0.72 1.21 1.16 1.14 –0.39 –0.57 –0.49 –0.60 0.87 0.92 0.65 –0.73 –0.78 –0.82 –0.68
Fav 1.12 1.63 1.49 1.46 –0.57 –0.66 –0.48 –0.64 0.93 1.10 0.77 –0.89 –0.76 –1.01 –0.74
Pos 0.99 1.64 1.53 1.43 –0.71 –0.69 –0.66 –0.81 1.07 1.33 1.00 –1.00 –0.93 –1.18 –0.81
Good 0.98 1.44 1.28 1.32 –0.49 –0.51 –0.47 –0.62 0.87 1.08 0.84 –0.71 –0.63 –0.86 –0.54
Plea 1.13 1.53 1.41 1.44 –0.51 –0.65 –0.58 –0.71 0.87 1.03 0.75 –1.03 –0.77 –1.18 –0.68
Like 1.11 1.61 1.46 1.46 –0.53 –0.58 –0.51 –0.66 0.99 1.21 0.90 –1.09 –0.92 –1.25 –0.83
 APPENDIX 1: (Cont’d.)
Inve Orig Dist Crea Beau Aest Attr Appe Intl Intr Cur Fasc Skil work craf Fav Pos Good Plea Like

Inve 3.46
Orig 2.10 3.50
Dist 1.87 2.46 3.39
Crea 1.83 1.98 1.93 2.98
Beau 1.26 1.16 1.24 1.76 3.39
Aest 1.15 1.11 1.18 1.50 2.81 3.45
Attr 1.26 1.06 1.16 1.48 2.63 2.93 3.14
Appe 1.21 1.14 1.17 1.41 2.25 2.41 2.36 3.30
Intl 1.05 0.82 0.84 1.11 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.33 3.17
Intr 1.13 1.16 1.11 1.49 1.63 1.55 1.49 1.51 1.86 2.63
Cur 1.19 1.20 1.12 1.52 1.43 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.92 2.14 3.13
Fasc 1.66 1.28 1.21 1.69 1.73 1.56 1.54 1.62 1.89 1.99 2.04 3.54
Skil 0.80 1.05 1.04 1.30 1.49 1.61 1.63 1.51 0.87 1.34 1.21 1.23 2.39
work 0.94 1.02 1.00 1.29 1.72 1.73 1.73 1.54 0.88 1.32 1.21 1.30 1.87 2.40
craf 1.06 1.15 1.13 1.32 1.82 1.80 1.78 1.66 0.81 1.36 1.27 1.26 1.81 2.17 2.54
Fav 1.27 1.11 1.05 1.48 2.17 2.06 2.07 1.91 1.15 1.58 1.37 1.58 1.44 1.60 1.60 2.65
Pos 1.15 0.98 0.97 1.45 1.88 1.82 1.83 1.69 1.02 1.42 1.20 1.50 1.28 1.43 1.39 2.13 2.42
Good 1.08 0.99 0.96 1.33 1.77 1.75 1.78 1.49 0.92 1.35 1.11 1.35 1.29 1.39 1.36 2.03 1.96 2.23
Plea 1.06 0.93 0.85 1.25 1.90 1.93 1.89 1.73 1.07 1.33 1.18 1.37 1.27 1.38 1.37 1.96 1.95 1.88 2.31
Like 1.41 1.24 1.12 1.67 2.40 2.32 2.29 2.00 1.19 1.68 1.49 1.75 1.48 1.69 1.65 2.39 2.22 2.16 2.11 3.25
THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART
/ 215
216 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

REFERENCES
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the consumption of negative feelings. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(3), 283-300.
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Baltissen, R. D., & Ostermann, B.-M. (1998). Are the dimensions underlying aesthetic
and affective judgment the same? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16(2), 97-113.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Towards a general theory of anger and emotional aggression:
Implications of the Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Perspective for the analysis of
anger and other emotions. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social
cognition (Vol. 6, pp. 1-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward
an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation.
Bezruczko, N., & Schroeder, D. H. (1994). Differences in visual preferences and cognitive
aptitudes of professional artists and nonartists. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12(1),
19-39.
Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C., & Wolk, M. (1996). Mood
and the use of scripts: Does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 665-679.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Boselie, F. (1991). Against prototypicality as a central concept in aesthetics. Empirical
Studies of the Arts, 9, 65-73.
Bourdieu, P., & Darbel, A. (1997). The love of art: European art museums and their
public. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cohen, J. S., & Areni, C. S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. In T. S. Robertson &
H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 188-240). New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Cupchik, G. C. (1988). The legacy of Daniel E. Berlyne. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6,
171-186.
Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic
response. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8(1), 1-14.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York:
Penguin.
Dewey, J. (1989). Having an experience. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The
later works. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dutton, D. (2002). Aesthetic universals. In B. Gaut & D. M. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge
companion to aesthetics. London: Routledge.
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. P. Dalgleish (Ed.), Handbook of cognition and
emotion. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fechner, G. T. (1871). Zur Experimentalen Aesthetik. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
Funch, B. S. (1997). The psychology of art appreciation. Copenhagen: Museum Tuscu-
lanum Press.
 THE PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF VISUAL ART / 217

Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the
perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research,
forthcoming.
Hauser, A. (1999). The social history of art. London: Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
Kozbelt, A. (2004). Originality and technical skill as components of artistic quality.
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 157-170.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
LeDoux, J. E. (1995). In search of an emotional system in the brain: Leaping from fear
to emotion and consciousness. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neuroscience
(pp. 1049-1061). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lipps, T. (1906). Ästhetik: Psychologie des Schönen und der Kunst. Hamburg: Leopold
Voss.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in
confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,
103(3), 391-410.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings
for Berlyne’s Psychobiological Model. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53-80.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2000). Collative variables versus prototypicality.
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 13-17.
Oatley, K., & Duncan, E. (1992). Episodes of emotion in daily life. In K. T. Strongman
(Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 2, pp. 249-293). Chichester:
Wiley.
Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect monitoring
and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 167-188.
Pickford, R. W. (1972). Psychology and visual aesthetics. London: Hutchinson Educational.
Reber, R., Schwartz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic
pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 364-382.
Reisenzein, R. (1983). The Schacter theory of emotion: Two decades later. Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 239-264.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psycho-
logical Review, 110, 145-172.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278-292.
Shrum, W. M. (1996). Fringe and fortune: The role of critics in high and popular art.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2005a). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition
and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342-357.
Silvia, P. J. (2005b). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an Appraisal
Theory of Aesthetic Emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119-133.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the Appraisal
Model of Aesthetic Emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(2), 139-161.
218 / HAGTVEDT, HAGTVEDT AND PATRICK

Sonbonmatsu, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1988). The effects of physiological arousal on

information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 379-385.
Tan, E. S. (2000). Emotion, art and the humanities. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 116-136). New York: Guilford Press.
Tansey, R. G., & Kleiner, F. S. (1996). Gardner’s art through the ages. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The Matching Model: An examination of the
processes underlying realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),
60-67.
Wartenberg, T. E. (2006). The nature of art: An anthology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wyer, R. S., Clore, G. L., & Isbell, L. M. (1999). Affect and information processing. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 1-77).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist, 35, 151-175.

Direct reprint requests to:

Henrik Hagtvedt
132 Brooks Hall
Terry College of Business
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
e-mail: [email protected]