CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Aesthetic Perception and AnalysisPersonality Traits and PsychologyCreativity in Education and Neuroscience

The Big Five, aesthetic judgment styles, and art interest

Open access
Afhami, Reza, Mohammadi-Zarghan, Shahin·2018·Europe’s Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1479PMC PMC6266521
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The current study aimed to examine the associations between the Big Five personality dimensions, aesthetic judgment styles, and art interest. Participants (N = 253) were university students in Tehran, Iran. All participants completed measures of personality, aesthetic Judgment styles, and general interest in art. Results suggested that Openness to Experience was related to advanced styles of art judgment and interest in art-related activities. Regression analyses showed that sex (β = .18, t = 3.18, p = .002), Emotional Stability (β = .14, t = 2.47, p = .01), Openness to Experience (β = .18, t = 3.14, p = .002), symbolic aesthetic judgment style (β = .31, t = 4.63, p < .001), and concrete aesthetic judgment style (β = -.19, t = -3.25, p = .001) significantly predicted art interest. The role of personality and individual difference constructs in aesthetic judgment and art interest is discussed and future directions are outlined.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1479

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Afhami R. Mohammadi-Zarghan S. Atari M. (2017). Self-Rating of Religiosity (SRR) in Iran: Validity, reliability, and associations with the Big Five. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 20, 879- 887. doi:. 10.1080/13674676.2017.1313825 · DOI
  2. Atari M. Barbaro N. Sela Y. Shackelford T. K. Chegeni R. (2017). The Big Five personality dimensions and mate retention behaviors in Iran. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 286– 290. doi:. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.029 · DOI
  3. Atari M. Yaghoubirad M. (2016). The Big Five personality dimensions and mental health: The mediating role of alexithymia. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 59– 64. doi:. 10.1016/j.ajp.2016.08.008 27931909 · DOI
  4. Axelsson Ö. (2007). Individual differences in preferences for photographs. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 1, 61– 72. doi:. 10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.61 · DOI
  5. Bahrami-Ehsan H. Mohammadi-Zarghan S. Atari M. (2015). Aesthetic judgment style: Conceptualization and scale development. International Journal of Arts, 5, 33– 39. doi:. 10.5923/j.arts.20150502.01 · DOI
  6. Chamorro-Premuzic T. Furnham A. (2004). Art judgement: A measure related to both personality and intelligence? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 24, 3– 24. doi:. 10.2190/U4LW-TH9X-80M3-NJ54 · DOI
  7. 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– 516. doi:. 10.1348/000712608X366867 19026107 · DOI
  8. Chatterjee A. Widick P. Sternschein R. Smith W. B. Bromberger B. (2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 207– 222. doi:. 10.2190/EM.28.2.f · DOI
  9. De Smedt J. De Cruz H. (2010). Toward an integrative approach of cognitive neuroscientific and evolutionary psychological studies of art. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 695– 719. doi:. 10.1177/147470491000800411 22947828 · DOI
  10. DeYoung C. G. Quilty L. C. Peterson J. B. Gray J. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 46– 52. doi:. 10.1080/00223891.2013.806327 23795918 · DOI
  11. DiMaggio P. Mukhtar T. (2004). Arts participation as cultural capital in the United States, 1982–2002: Signs of decline? Poetics, 32, 169– 194. doi:. 10.1016/j.poetic.2004.02.005 · DOI
  12. Eysenck H. J. Castle M. (1971). Comparative study of artists and non artists on the Maitland Graves Design Judgement Tests. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 389– 392. doi:. 10.1037/h0031469 · DOI
  13. Frois J. P. Eysenck H. (1995). The visual aesthetic sensitivity test applied to Portuguese children and fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 277– 284. doi:. 10.1207/s15326934crj0803_6 · DOI
  14. Furnham A. Chamorro-Premuzic T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 705– 715. doi:. 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00128-4 · DOI
  15. Gosling S. D. Rentfrow P. J. Swann W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504– 528. doi:. 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Graf L. K. Landwehr J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 395– 410. doi:. 10.1177/1088868315574978 25742990 · DOI
  17. Habibi A. Damasio A. (2014). Music, feelings, and the human brain. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 24, 92– 102. doi:. 10.1037/pmu0000033 · DOI
  18. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issue. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY, USA: Guilford.
  19. Leder H. Belke B. Oeberst A. Augustin D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489– 508. doi:. 10.1348/0007126042369811 15527534 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Maddi S. R. Berne N. (1964). Novelty of productions and desire for novelty as active and passive forms of the need for variety. Journal of Personality, 32, 270– 277. doi:. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1964.tb01340.x 14155502 · DOI
  21. McCrae R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 5– 11. doi:. 10.1007/s11031-007-9053-1 · DOI
  22. McCrae R. R. Costa P. T. de Lima M. P. Simões A. Ostendorf F. Angleitner A. Chae J. H. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466– 477. doi:. 10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.466 10082017 · DOI · Paper page
  23. McManus I. C. Furnham A. (2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 555– 587. doi:. 10.1348/000712606X101088 17018189 · DOI
  24. Myszkowski N. Storme M. Zenasni F. (2016). Order in complexity: How Hans Eysenck brought differential psychology and aesthetics together. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 156– 162. doi:. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.034 · DOI
  25. Myszkowski N. Storme M. Zenasni F. Lubart T. (2014). Is visual aesthetic sensitivity independent from intelligence, personality and creativity? Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 16– 20. doi:. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.021 · DOI
  26. Nusbaum E. C. Silvia P. J. (2011). Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of openness to experience? A test of the O/I model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 571– 574. doi:. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.013 · DOI
  27. Osberg T. M. (1987). The convergent and discriminant validity of the Need for Cognition Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 441– 450. doi:. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5103_11 16372844 · DOI
  28. Oshio A. Abe S. Cutrone P. Gosling S. D. (2013). Big Five content representation of the Japanese version of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Psychology, 4, 924– 929. doi:. 10.4236/psych.2013.412133 · DOI
  29. Oyserman D. Sorensen N. Reber R. Chen S. X. (2009). Connecting and separating mind-sets: Culture as situated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 217– 235. doi:. 10.1037/a0015850 19634972 · DOI
  30. Pourhosein R. Mohammadi-Zarghan S. Soufiabadi M. Atari M. (2017). Ego development and aesthetic judgment styles in Iranian adults. Psychological Thought, 10, 80– 89. doi:. 10.5964/psyct.v10i1.213 · DOI
  31. Rawlings D. Barrantes-Vidal N. Furnham A. (2000). Personality and aesthetic preference in Spain and England: Two studies relating sensation seeking and openness to experience to liking for paintings and music. European Journal of Personality, 14, 553– 576. doi:. 10.1002/1099-0984(200011/12)14:6<553::AID-PER384>3.0.CO;2-H · DOI
  32. Reber R. Schwarz 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. doi:. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 15582859 · DOI
  33. Saucier G. (1992). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing? European Journal of Personality, 6, 381– 386. doi:. 10.1002/per.2410060506 · DOI
  34. Saucier G. (1994). Trapnell versus the lexical factor: More ado about nothing? European Journal of Personality, 8, 291– 298. doi:. 10.1002/per.2410080406 · DOI
  35. Silvia P. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139– 161. doi:. 10.2190/DX8K-6WEA-6WPA-FM84 · DOI
  36. Silvia P. J. (2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 247– 249. doi:. 10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.247 · DOI
  37. Silvia P. J. Nusbaum E. C. (2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 208– 214. doi:. 10.1037/a0021914 · DOI
  38. Soto C. J. John O. P. (in press). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10.1037/pspp0000096 27055049 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Stallings B. Anderson F. (1969). Some characteristics and correlates of the Meier Art Test of Aesthetic Perception under two systems of scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 6, 179– 185. doi:. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1969.tb00676.x · DOI
  40. Storme M. Tavani J. L. Myszkowski N. (2016). Psychometric properties of the French Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI). Journal of Individual Differences, 37, 81– 87. doi:. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000204 · DOI
  41. Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and aesthetic experiences. In P. P. L. Tinio & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 540-561). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Swami V. Stieger S. Pietschnig J. Voracek M. (2010). The disinterested play of thought: Individual differences and preference for surrealist motion pictures. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 855– 859. doi:. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.013 · DOI
  43. Tschacher W. Bergomi C. Tröndle M. (2015). The Art Affinity Index (AAI): An instrument to assess art relation and art knowledge. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33, 161– 174. doi:. 10.1177/0276237415594709 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Afhami, R., & Mohammadi-Zarghan, S.
Affiliations
Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
Corresponding author
Afhami, Reza
ORCID
Afhami, Reza
Venue
Europe’s Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)
Published
2018-11-30
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
764-775
ISSN
1841-0413 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1479
PMC
PMC6266521
OpenAlex
W2903328703
Cited by
28
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Europe’s Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PsychOpen Gold (Leibniz Institute for Psychology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Psychology Archives (cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Keywords
Big Five personality traits, art interest, openness to experience, emotional stability, sex differences, individual differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review