Commentary on Corradi et al.’s (2019) new conception of aesthetic sensitivity: Is the ability conception dead?

Abstract

Corradi et al. (British Journal of Psychology, 2019) argue that their new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity (as responsiveness to aesthetic features in one's preferences) presents several advantages in comparison with the current ability view of aesthetic sensitivity, usually defined as the ability to judge aesthetic stimuli in accordance with standards (The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57 and 49). Although the measure they propose is interesting and presents advances to the field, we point to important issues. Notably, the authors conveniently base their comparison between the two conceptions on psychometric double standards, discard a century of research on aesthetic sensitivity by focusing on Eysenck's speculations, and disguise an extension of already existing aesthetic preference tests (e.g., The Journal of Psychology, 1952, 33 and 199; Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2005, 23 and 165) as a redefinition of aesthetic sensitivity. We conclude that both aesthetic preference and aesthetic sensitivity research are legitimate objects of study, that the authors present interesting ideas to further the study of aesthetic preferences, but that their approach is not new and that its proposed renaming only adds confusion to the field.

Using Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Measures in Museum Studies

“…Nevertheless, one can reasonably expect that, as is found empirically, visual aesthetic sensitivity would be positively correlated with intelligencebecause common cognitive processes are likely engaged in both measures (Myszkowski et al, 2018), and because it is common to observe relations between sensory perception in other domains and intelligence (e.g., Troche and Rammsayer, 2009)-or with personality traits like openness to aesthetics (Myszkowski et al, 2014)-because individuals with stronger interest in aesthetics may engage in more extensive processing, leading to higher accuracy, as it was for example found (Myszkowski, 2019) that, in these tests, response speed is negatively correlated with accuracy. Therefore, even though the nomological network of visual aesthetic sensitivity is not sufficiently (nor consistently) discussed, the pattern of relations between aesthetic sensitivity and other measures does suggest that visual aesthetic sensitivity measures present evidence of concurrent validity (Myszkowski et al, 2020).…”

“…The construct validity of tests based on it are however controversial (Gear, 1986;Liu, 1990;Corradi et al, 2019), as it was notably argued that absolute aesthetic standards cannot exist, dismissing any operationalization of Child's definition. Nevertheless, the availability of absolute standards is not a necessary condition for the operationalization of Child's definition (Myszkowski et al, 2020): Aesthetic sensitivity tests rely instead on empirical standards, obtained through expert and/or laypeople consensus. Consequently, they compare an examinees' response with the typical response of experts-as originally suggested by Thorndike (1916)-or use expert agreement to select items-as used in the VAST.…”

“…Another sign of construct validity can be found in the concurrent validity of visual aesthetic sensitivity tests. This point is also quite controversial (Corradi et al, 2019;Myszkowski et al, 2020), but this is mainly because the nomological network of visual aesthetic sensitivity is yet to be clearly defined. Notably, Eysenck introduced confusion by originally discussing the construct as intelligence in the aesthetic domain (1940) to then speculate that the construct should be independent from intelligence (Frois and Eysenck, 1995)-which is contradicted in a recent meta-analysis (Myszkowski et al, 2018), which showed across 23 studies that its correlation with intelligence is significant and around 0.30.…”

Reply to Myszkowski et al. (2020): Some matters of fact concerning aesthetic sensitivity

“…First, Myszkowski et al (2020) claim that 'Since Thorndike (1916), it has been clearly admitted that the aesthetic value of a stimulus is actually only determined by expert consensus'. This statement is wrong historically, psychologically, and neuroscientifically.…”

“…Second, Myszkowski et al (2020) claim that aesthetic sensitivity, 'as the ability to identify (consensually/expertly defined) aesthetic value for over a century, is clearly conceptually defined'. This is misleading.…”