title: Beauty and the beholder: highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images.
abstract: How individual are visual preferences? For real-world scenes, there is high agreement in observer's preference ratings. This could be driven by visual attributes of the images but also by non-visual associations, since those are common to most individuals. To investigate this, we developed a set of novel abstract, visually diverse images. At the individual observer level both abstract and real-world images yielded robust and consistent visual preferences, and yet abstract images yielded much lower across observer agreement in preferences than did real-world images. This suggests that visual preferences are typically driven by the semantic content of stimuli, and that shared semantic interpretations then lead to shared preferences. Further experiments showed that highly individual preferences can nevertheless emerge also for real-world scenes, in contexts which de-emphasize their semantic associations.
authors.affiliation: Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, USA. ed.vessel@nyu.edu
authors.forename: Edward A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Vessel
authors.forename: Nava
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Rubin
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000465:Algorithms; D001504:Beauty; D002755:Choice Behavior; D004954:Esthetics; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D012660:Semantics; D014796:Visual Perception; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Perception. 1982;10(6):651-66
references.pmid: 7110879
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1973 May;25(2):207-22
references.pmid: 4515818
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2007 Apr 16;18(6):525-9
references.pmid: 17413651
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(4):364-82
references.pmid: 15582859
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Dec;3(12):452-460
references.pmid: 10562724
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Dec;129(4):524-9
references.pmid: 11142866
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Jul;65(1):45-55
references.pmid: 8355141
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1999 Nov;11(6):610-6
references.pmid: 10601742
references.citation: Emotion. 2001 Sep;1(3):320-9
references.pmid: 12934689
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1958 Mar;55(3):289-96
references.pmid: 13513951
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Sep 26;419(6905):359-60
references.pmid: 12353024
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Apr;32(2):199-209
references.pmid: 16634665
references.citation: Perception. 2007;36(11):1674-81
references.pmid: 18265847
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 1980 Nov;71(Pt 4):505-24
references.pmid: 7437674
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2003 Dec;6(12):1317-22
references.pmid: 14608360
references.citation: Curr Biol. 1999 Jul 1;9(13):665-71
references.pmid: 10395537
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 2003 Feb;94(Pt 1):99-110
references.pmid: 12648392
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Dec;129(4):508-23
references.pmid: 11142865
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1986 Nov;12(4):496-516
references.pmid: 2946806
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Nov 26;396(6709):321-2
references.pmid: 9845067
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Aug;17(8):645-8
references.pmid: 16913943
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;81(6):989-1000
references.pmid: 11761320
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 2004 Nov;95(Pt 4):489-508
references.pmid: 15527534
references.citation: Spat Vis. 2007;21(1-2):149-64
references.pmid: 18073056