實驗審美心理研究領域多以化約的簡單刺激物進行系統性的研究，在影像日益繁複的現代社會中，此形式之研究恐怕存在外部效度的推論問題。本研究目標即以視覺心理的角度，透過實徵方法檢視台灣出版之流行插圖與個體審美回應之差異和關係。
實驗中主要的變項有三大類，分別為插圖種類、受試者變項，以及審美回應尺標，共募集254位自願受試者。30張插圖刺激物來自於三本台灣出版、通行的平面設計刊物中超過2000張的角色類插圖。歸納出「主題內容」與「表現形式」兩個風格軸向：「主題內容」細分為暴力戰鬥、嘲諷荒謬、運動競技、魔幻神秘、濃情密意、時尚摩登等六個類別；「表現形式」細分為：具象寫實、表現變形、圖案裝飾、卡通漫畫、立體公仔等五個類別。審美七點尺度量表則透過審美文獻調查蒐集而成，共計10題，分別為：喜歡的、美麗的、複雜的、有趣的、情感的、愉悅的、熟悉的、有意義的、溫暖的、動態的及其對應的形容詞。受試者變項則為成人與青少年，以及男性與女性。實驗數據在經控管的實驗室中進行電腦問卷施測後取得。資料蒐集完成後進行多變項變異數分析、相關分析以及探索性因素分析。各審美回應指標相關程度頗高，信度分析、因素結構與效度測試良好。因素分析結果可得三個潛在的心理變因，分別是「感情」、「認知」與「描述」。第一個因素包含愉悅、溫暖、美麗和偏好尺標；第二個因素包含情感、意義和興趣指標；第三個因素則為熟悉尺標。結果頗為符合先前文獻討論與本研究之推論。
研究結果可知，流行插圖種類、參與者本身特質與參與者的審美回應具有的相互關係及其各自扮演的角色。而審美心理可區分出數個層次，在非藝術類的流行插圖設計中亦獲得了證實。此外，對於審美的認識也獲得了進一步的證據與發現。相信本研究對於審美與設計領域提供相當正面的參考價值。

Studies of reductionist in empirical aesthetics frequently used artworks that in few variables have often revealed little disappointing results. In modern society which contains numerous sophisticated visual images, this tendency of research presents a problem about ecological validity. The aim of this study is to examine the differences and relations among aesthetic responses, illustration properties, and generations and genders in Taiwan and give the answer from a psychological perspective.
The sample of the experiment was constituted by 254 subjects. They took part in the testing of the hypothesis concerning the influence of the kind of stimuli, generation, and gender dimensions on aesthetic responses. The thirty stimuli were selected by three experts from a pool of over 2,000 illustrations which were collected from three popular graphic magazines. These illustrations were classified into two dimensions of popular illustration: six themes and five styles. The themes are violent combat, sneering irony, sporty athletics, magic mystery, sweet romance, and modern fashion. The styles are realism, deformity, ornament, comic, and 3D figure. Four independent, two within (theme and style) and two between (generation and gender), variables and ten dependent aesthetic responses were employed in the experiment. The subjects were tested individually in the laboratory and were asked to fill out a computer questionnaire. A series of multiple ANOVA, correlation analysis and factor analysis were carried out. The exploratory factor analysis seemed to be the suitable method to determine an appropriate number of underlying factors, and found that viewers’ aesthetic psychology consist of three dimensions, which were termed “affection”, “cognition” and “description”. The first factor was the dominant factor that was accounted for by the items of pleasantness, warmth, beauty, and preference. The second factor was accounted for by the items of emotion, meaning, and interestingness. The third factor was accounted for by the single dimension of familiarity. The reliabilities, factor structure and validity tests indicated that these responses reflect the aesthetic dimensions adequately.
The present study explored several possible reasons for the diverging results to clarify the relation between visual stimulus properties, individual characteristics and aesthetic experiences. These results suggest the kind of stimuli plays a role in determining the aesthetic ratings of participants; generation and gender base their aesthetic assessments of popular illustration on different stimulus features; and there seem to be three main factors behind the aesthetic ratings to present the psychological construct. The aesthetic psychology is better understood as a multidimensional concept, and people tend to base their aesthetic rating of popular illustrations on different aspects, depending on their age, gender and the types of illustration.

Arnheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception. Berkeley, CA: University of Califonia Press.
Arnheim, R. (1985). The other Gustav Theodor Fechner. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp.856-865). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baltissen, R., & Ostermann, B. M. (1998). Are the dimensions underlying aesthetic and affective judgement the same? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16(2), 97-113.
Beaton, A. (1985). Left side, right side. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274-290.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward and objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Berlyne, D. E. & Ogilvie, J. C. (1974). Dimensions of perceptions of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Hemisphere. Wiley.
Bornstein, R. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265-289.
Boyatzis, C., & Eades, J. (1999). Gender differences in preschoolers’ and kindergartners’ artistic production and preference. Sex Roles, 41(7-8), 627-638.
Calkins, M. (1990). An attempted experiment in psychological aesthetics. Psychological Review, 7(6), 580-591.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum.
Chen, C. & I, B. (2002). Psychology and arts education. In R. Huang (Ed.) education of arts and humanity (pp. 155-168). Taipei: Laureate Book.
Chao, H. (2005). A study of the response toward visual images among children and adolescent in Taiwan. Research in Arts Education, 9, 33-70.
Chen, C. (2000). How children and adolescents talk about art: Children and adolescents’ conceptions in designing, preferring, and judging works of arts. Taipei: San Min Book.
Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A course in factor analysis. Hillsalde, New Jersey; Erlbaum.
Connellan, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Batki, A., & Ahluwalia, J. (2001). Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 23(1), 113-118.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter. Malibu, Calif.: J.P. Getty Museum.
Cupchik. G. C. (1986). A decade after Berlyne: New direction in experimental aesthetics. Poetics, 15, 345-369.
Cupchik, G. C. (1992). From perception to production: a multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process. In G.C. Cupchik & J. Laszlo (Eds), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process: Psychology, semiology, and philosophy (pp.61-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cupchik, G. C., & Berlyne, D. E. (1979). The perception of collative properties in visual stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20, 93-104.
Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8(1), 1-14.
Cupchik, G. C., & Laszlo, J. (1992). Emerging visions of the aesthetic process: Psychology, semiology, and philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cupchik, G. C., & Gignac, A. (2007). Finding meaning and expressing emotion in response to artworks, Visual Arts Research, 33(1), 56-71.
Cureton, F. E. & D’Agostino, R. B. (1983). Factor Analysis: A Applied Approach. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch.
Dewey, J. (1934). Arts as Experience. New York: Minton, Blach.
Diana, D. S. (2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis? Statistics and Data Analysis 31, 200-231
Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Anchor Books.
Everitt, B. S. (1975). Multivariate analysis: the need for data and other problems. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 237-240.
Fechner, G. T. (1871). Vorschule der Ästhetik [Elements of Aesthetics]. ildesheim: Olms.
Feinburg, S. G. (1979). The significance of what boys and girls choose to draw: Explorations of fighting and helping. In J. Loeb (Ed.), Feminist collage: Educating women in the visual arts (pp. 185-195). New York: Teachers College Press.
Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows. London – Thousnad Oaks – New Delhi: Sage publications.
Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51.
Flynn, J.R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin,101, 171-191.
Funch, B. S. (1997). The psychology of art appreciation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Gardner, H. (1981). Children’s perceptions of works of art: a developmental portrait. In D. O’Hare (Ed.), Psycholoy and the arts (pp. 123-147). Brighton: The Harvester Press.
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T., Evans, A. C., Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescent: A longitudinal MRI study. Natural Neuroscience 2, 861-863.
Giedd, N. J., Snell, J. W., Lange, N., Rajapakse, J. C., Casey, B. J., Kozuch, P. L., Vaituzis, A. C., Vauss, Y. C., Hamburger, S. D., Kaysen, D., & Rapoport, J. L. (1996). Quantitative MRI of the temporal lobe, amygdala, and hipponcampus in normal human development: Ages 4-18 years. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 366, 223-230.
Gogtay, N.; Giedd, J. N.; Lusk, L.; Hayashi, K. M.; Greenstein, D.; Vaituzis, A. C.; Nugent, T. F. III; Herman, D. H.; Clasen, L. S.; Toga, L. S.; Rapoport, A. W., & Thompson, J. L. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 101(21), 8174-8179.
Gorsuch, R. L, (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Eelbaum.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
Habingm B. (2003). Exploratory factor analysis. Website: http://www.stat.sc.edu/~habing/courses/530EFA.pdf (accessed 10 May 2004). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hargreaves, D. J., & Galton, M. J. (1992). Aesthetic learning: Psychological theory and educational practice. In B. Reimer & R. A. Smith (Eds.), The arts, education and aesthetic knowing (pp. 124-150). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
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.
Holbrook, M. B., & Zirlin, R. B. (1985). Artistic creation, artworks, and aesthetic appreciation: Some philosophical contributions to nonprofit marketing. Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, 1, 1-54.
Housen, A. (1983). The eye of the bachelor: Measuring aesthetic development. Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Housen, A. (1992). Validating a measure of aesthetic development for museums and schools. ILVS Review, 2, 213-237.
Hsu, H. (2000). The development of representational strategies in children’s and adolescents’ expressive drawings. Journal of National Hualien Teachers College, 10, 337-358.
Hutcheson, G. D. & Sofroniou, N. (1999).The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
I, B. (2008). Empirical Aesthetics of illustration and TV commercials. Taipei: Airiti Press.
I, B., Lin, Y., & Chang, W. (2006). Aesthetic judgment and preference for popular images to adolescents in Taiwan. Communication Research Newsletter, 45, 10-13.
Iijima, M., Arisaka, O., Minamoto, F., & Yasumasa, A. (2001). Sex differences in children’s free drawings. Hormones and Behavior, 40(2), 99-104.
Jacobsen, T. (2002). Kandinsky’s questionnaire revisited: Fundamental correspondence of basic color and form. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 903-913.
Kawecki, I. (1994). Gender differences in young children’s artwork. British Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 485-490.
Kemp S. W. G., & Cupchik, G. C. (2007). The emotionally evocative effects of paintings. Visual Arts Research, 33, 72-82.
Kinder, A., Shanks, D. R., Cock, J., & Tunney, R. J. (2003). Recollection, fluency, and the explicit/implicit distinction in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 551-565.
King, R., Meganathan, J., Nagahara, J., & Boscolo, M. (1998). Individual differences in complexity preference and artistic style: neoclassical versus expressionistic aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 15-23.
Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the art. Durham: Duke University Press.
Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1984). Meaning assignment in perception. In W. D. Frohlich, G. J. W. Smith, J. G. Dragung & U. Henschel (Eds.), Psychological processes in cognition and personality (pp. 173-190). New York: Hemisphere /McGraw-Hill.
Krupinski E, & Locher P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to nonrepresentational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 355-358
Kubovy, M. (2000). Visual aesthetics. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, 8 (pp. 188-193). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557-558.
Leder, H. (2002). Explorationen in der Bildästhetik [Explorations in Visual Aesthetics]. Lengerich: Pabst.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489-508.
Locher P. J., & Nodine, C. F. (1987). Symmetry catches the eye. In J.K. O’Regan & A. Lévy-Scjoen (Eds). Eye movements: from physiology to cognition (pp. 353-361). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Locher, P., & Nagy, Y. (1996). Vision spontaneously establishes the percept of pictorial balance. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 17-31.
Locher, P. J. (2003). An empirical investigation of the visual rightmess theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147-164.
Lin, Y. & I, B. (2011) (in press). Generation and gender differences in aesthetic responses to popular illustration. Visual Arts Research, 37(1).
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.
McGuinness, D. (1976). Sex differences in the organization of perception and cognition. In B. Lloyd & J. Archer (Eds.), Exploring sex differences (pp. 25-47). London: Academic Press.
MacCallum, R. C. & Widaman K. F. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.
Majewski, M. M. (1979). Female art characteristics: Do they really exist? In J. Loeb (Ed.), Feminist collage: Educating women in the visual arts (pp. 197-201). New York: Teachers College Press.
Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49-80.
Martindale, C. (1996). A note on the relationship between prototypicality and preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 109-113.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53-80.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79-96.
May, R. (1975). The course to create. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mead, A. M., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1992). The roles of handedness and stimuli asymmetry in aesthetic preference. Brain and Cognition,20, 300-307.
Messinger. S. (1998). Pleasure and complexity: Brelyne revisited. The journal of Psychology, 132, 558-560.
McLaughlin, J. P., Dean, P., & Stanley, P. (1983). Aesthetic preference in dextrals and sinistrals. Neuropsychologia, 21, 147-153.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: A Signet Book.
Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1, 320-329.
Mingroni, M. A. (2004). The secular rise in IQ: Giving heterosis a closer look, Intelligence, 32, 65-83.
Moles, A. (1968). Information theory and aesthetic perception. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Neperud, R., & Marschalek, D. G. (1988). Informational and affect bases of aesthetic response, Leonardo, 21(3), 305-312.
Nicki, R. M., & Moss, V. (1975). Preference for non-representational art as a function of measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 237-249.
Nicki, R. M., Lee, P. L., & Moss, V. (1981). Ambiguity, cubist works of art, and preference. Acta Psychologica, 49, 27-41.
Osborne, H. (1988). Some theories of aesthetic judgment. In G. Hardiman & T. Zernich (Eds.), Discerning art: Concepts and issues (pp. 281-294). Illinois: University of Illinois Press. (Original work published in 1979)
Osborne, J. W., & Farley, F. H. (1970). The relationship between aesthetic preference and visual complexity in abstract art. Psychonomic science 19, 69-70.
Parsons, M. (1987). How we understand art. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1952)
Polzella, D. J., Hammar, S. H., & Hinkle, C. W. (2005). The effect of color on viewer’s ratings of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23(2), 153-163.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 15-51.
Read, H. (1972). The meaning of art. London: Faber & Faber.
Russell, P. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 99-110.
Russell, P. A., & George, D. A. (1990). Relationship between aesthetic response scales applied to paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 15-30.
Saklofske, D. W. (1975). Visual aesthetic complexity, attractiveness and diversive exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 813-814.
Salkind, L., & Salkind, N. J. (1997). Gender and age differences in preference for works of art. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 246-256.
Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday.
Simon, R. M. (1992). The symbolism of style: Art of theory. London: Routledge.
Strauch, B. (2003). The primal teen. New York: Anchor Books.
Smith, L.F. & Smith, J. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman (Eds.), New direction in aesthetic, creativity, and the arts (pp. 47-58). New York: Baywood.
Temme, J. E. (1992). Amount and kind of information in museums: Its effect on visitors satisfaction and appreciation of art. Visual Art Research, 18(2), 74-81.
Tuman, D. (1999). Sing a song of sixpence: An examination of sex differences in the subject preference of children’s drawings. Visual Arts Research, 25, 51-62.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Pscychological Review, 84, 327-350.
Van Meel-Jansen, A. (2006). The magic number five in art appreciation. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(1), 107-118.
Veryzer, R. W. J. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 224-228.
Vitz, P. C. (1966). Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105-114.
Walsh, D. (2005). Why do they act that way? New York: Free Press.
Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1-14.
Winner, E. (1982). Invented worlds: The psychology of the arts. Cambridge: Havard University Press.
Wohlwill, J. (1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4(5), 307-312.
Wölfflin, H. (1950). Principle of art history: The problem of the development of style in later art (M. D. Hottinger, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1915).
Woods, W. A. (1991). Parameters of aesthetic objects: Applied aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9(2), 105-114.
Worringer, W. (1953). Abstraction and empathy: A contribution to the psychology of the style (M. Bullock, Trans). New York: International Universities Press. (Original work published 1908).
Wundt, W. (1999). Principles of physiological psychology. (B. T. Edward, Trans.). Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House. (Original work published 1874)
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.