Click here to download

Assessing artistic familiarity: proposal for a questionnaire
Journal Title: RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA  
Author/s: Monica Gatti, Gabriella Gilli, Lucia Colombo, Simona Ruggi 
Year:  2015 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  22 Pg. 281-302 FullText PDF:  203 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIP2015-002001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Studies on pictorial preferences, artistic comprehension, aesthetic judgment and artistic behaviors often highlight the role of artistic familiarity, i.e. the socio- cultural dimension that mediates the relationship between the individual’s features and the artworks. Literature shows how the origin of the artistic familiarity is linked to the stimulation coming from the family and the educational agencies. Particularly, school could promote its development by encouraging debate and discussion among peers. Over time the familiarity can be further fostered by some artistic behaviors (both production and fruition) and by the unintentional exposure to artistic stimuli. Familiarity, although recognized as fundamental, has never been systematically explored, but its recognition was relegated to a few questions, or was controlled through the partition of experimental subjects in "experts" or "non-experts". The aim of this work is to present a questionnaire designed to assess the artistic familiarity in all its aspects, in order to collect more reliable and comparable research data. The questionnaire, in its final version consisting of 44 items, was administered to 680 subjects and subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. It shows evidence for internal validity, external validity (through the correlation with a recognition test) and discriminant validity (differences in gender and age). Therefore we recommend its adoption in studies pertaining to the psychology of art.
Keywords: Artistic familiarity, questionnaire, validity analysis.

  1. Bagozzi, R.P., & Edwards, J.R. (1998). A General Approach for Representing Constructs in Organizational Research. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 45-87., 10.1177/109442819800100104DOI: 10.1177/109442819800100104
  2. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246., 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  3. Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetic and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Callaghan, T.C. (2000). The role of context in preschoolers’ judgments of emotion in art. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 465-474., 10.1348/026151000165805DOI: 10.1348/026151000165805
  4. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004-2005). Art judgement: A measure related to both personality and intelligence?. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 24(1), 3-24., 10.2190/U4LW-TH9X-80M3-NJ54DOI: 10.2190/U4LW-TH9X-80M3-NJ54
  5. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009), Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 501-16., 10.1348/000712608X366867DOI: 10.1348/000712608X366867
  6. Child, L. (1965), Personality correlates of aesthetic judgment in college students. Journal of personality, 33, 476-511., 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01399.xDOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01399.x
  7. Cutting, J.E. (2003). Gustave Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and mere exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 319-343., 10.3758/BF03196493DOI: 10.3758/BF03196493
  8. Eysenck, H.J. (1940a). The general factor in aesthetics judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 94-102., 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1940.tb00977.xDOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1940.tb00977.x
  9. Eysenck, H.J. (1940b). Some factors in the appreciation of poetry, and their relation to temperamental qualities. Character and Personality, 9, 160-167., 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1940.tb02206.xDOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1940.tb02206.x
  10. Freeman, N.H. (1995). Teoria della mente, teoria delle rappresentazioni pittoriche: un progresso concettuale nell’infanzia. Età evolutiva, 50.
  11. Freeman, N.H. (2004). Aesthetic judgment and reasoning. In E. Eisner & M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of Research and policy in art education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  12. Frumkin, R.M. (1963). Sex, familiarity and dogmatism as factors in painting preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 17(1), 12-12., 10.2466/pms.1963.17.1.12DOI: 10.2466/pms.1963.17.1.12
  13. Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 705-715., 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00128-4DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00128-4
  14. Furnham, A., & Rao, S. (2002). Personality and the aesthetic of composition: A study of Mondrian Camp; Hirst. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 233-242.
  15. Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001a). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57-72., 10.1002/per.340DOI: 10.1002/per.340
  16. Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001b). The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 997-1017., 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00202-6DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00202-6
  17. Gordon, D.A. (1951). Methodology in the study of art evaluation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 10, 338-352., 10.2307/426064.Graves,M.(1948).DesignJudgmenttest.SanAntonio:PsychologicalCorporationDOI: 10.2307/426064.Graves,M.(1948).DesignJudgmenttest.SanAntonio:PsychologicalCorporation
  18. Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P.C.W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 483-495., 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02374.xDOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02374.x
  19. Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P.C.W. (1996). The impact level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. ActaPsychologica, 94, 117-131., 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
  20. Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8. User’s Reference Guide. Lincolnwood, USA: Scientific Software International.
  21. Karefilaki, K.D. (2001). The development of image understanding: Implications for visual literacy in older adolescents and young adults. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(8-B), 4449.
  22. Kaser, U., & Rohr-Sendlmeier, U.M. (2002). Incidental learning in different age groups. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 49(3), 225-236.
  23. Knapp, R., & Wulff, A. (1963). Preferences for Abstract and Representational Art. Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 255-262., 10.1080/00224545.1963.9922196DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1963.9922196
  24. Leder, H. (2003). Familiar and fluent! Style-ralated processing hypothesis in aesthetic appreciation. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 21(2), 165-175.
  25. Lin, S.F., & Thomas, G.V. (2002). Development of understanding of popular graphic art: A study of everyday aesthetics in children, adolescents, and young adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(3), 278-287., 10.1080/01650250143000157aDOI: 10.1080/01650250143000157a
  26. Marty, G. (2002). The appearance of schemes when recognizing aesthetic stimuli. Psicothema, 14(1), 19-25.
  27. Parsons, M.J. (1987). How we understand art: a cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  28. Peel, E.A. (1945). On identifyng aesthetic types. British Journal of Psychology, 35, 61-69., 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1945.tb01092.xDOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1945.tb01092.x
  29. Rawlings, D., Twomey, F., Burns, E., & Morris, S. (1998). Personality, creativity, and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychotism, sensation seeking, schizotypy, and openess to experience. EmpiricalStudies of Art, 16, 153-178., 10.2190/8GVJ-ERL3-HYUM-EH88DOI: 10.2190/8GVJ-ERL3-HYUM-EH88
  30. Santi, M. (1997). Filosofare per capire l’arte? Uno studio esplorativo sulla comprensione artistica in diverse eta scolari. Scuola e Città, 8, 321-335.
  31. Smith, J.K., & Smith, L.F. (2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 229-236., 10.2190/5MQM-59JH-X21R-JN5JDOI: 10.2190/5MQM-59JH-X21R-JN5J
  32. Washburn, D., & Hunphrey, D. (2001). Symmetries in the mind: Production, perception, and preference for seven one – dimensional patterns. Visual Arts Research, 27(2, issue 54), 57-68.
  33. Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences needs no interferences. American Psychologist, 34, 151-174., 10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151.Zizak,D.M.,&Reber,A.S.(2004).Implicitpreferences:therolesoffamiliarityinthestructuralmereexposureeffect.CounsciousnessandCognition:AnInternationalJournal,13(2),336-362.DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2003.12.00DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151.Zizak,D.M.,&Reber,A.S.(2004).Implicitpreferences:therolesoffamiliarityinthestructuralmereexposureeffect.CounsciousnessandCognition:AnInternationalJournal,13(2),336-362.DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2003.12.00

Monica Gatti, Gabriella Gilli, Lucia Colombo, Simona Ruggi, Assessing artistic familiarity: proposal for a questionnaire in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA " 2/2015, pp. 281-302, DOI:10.3280/RIP2015-002001

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content