ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review


This is the in-press version of an article that will soon be published in Psychological Review. It is the first comprehensive theoretical article on aesthetic emotions. Following Kant’s definition, we propose that it is the first and foremost characteristic of aesthetic emotions to make a direct contribution to aesthetic evaluation/appreciation. Each aesthetic emotion is tuned to a special type of perceived aesthetic appeal and is predictive of the subjectively felt pleasure or displeasure and the liking or disliking associated with this type of appeal. Contrary to the negativity bias of classical emotion catalogues, emotion terms used for aesthetic evaluation purposes include far more positive than negative emotions. At the same time, many overall positive aesthetic emotions encompass negative or mixed emotional ingredients. Appraisals of intrinsic pleasantness, familiarity, and novelty are preeminently important for aesthetic emotions. Appraisals of goal relevance/conduciveness and coping potential are largely irrelevant from a pragmatic perspective, but in some cases highly relevant for cognitive and affective coping. Aesthetic emotions are typically sought and savored for their own sake, with subjectively felt intensity and/or emotional arousal being rewards in their own right. The expression component of aesthetic emotions includes laughter, tears, and facial and bodily movements, along with applause or booing and words of praise or blame. Aesthetic emotions entail motivational approach and avoidance tendencies, specifically, tendencies toward prolonged, repeated, or interrupted exposure and wanting to possess aesthetically pleasing objects. They are experienced across a broad range of experiential domains and not coextensive with art-elicited emotions.
What Are Aesthetic Emotions?
Winfried Menninghaus1, Valentin Wagner1, Eugen Wassiliwizky1, Ines Schindler1, Julian
Hanich2, Thomas Jacobsen3, Stefan Koelsch4
1) Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2) University of Groningen, The Netherlands
3) Helmut Schmidt University / University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Germany
4) University of Bergen, Norway
Author Note
Winfried Menninghaus, Ines Schindler, Valentin Wagner, and Eugen Wassiliwizky,
Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics,
Grüneburgweg 14, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Julian Hanich, Department of Arts,
Culture and Media, University of Groningen, Oude Boteringestraat 23, 9712 EK Groningen, The
Netherlands; Thomas Jacobsen, Experimental Psychology Unit, Helmut Schmidt University /
University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg,
Germany; Stefan Koelsch, University of Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 91, Postboks 7807, 5020 Bergen,
We wish to thank John T. Cacioppo, Philipp Ekardt, Arthur M. Jacobs, Christine A.
Knoop, Klaus R. Scherer, Mira Shah, and Melanie Wald-Fuhrmann for their helpful comments
on earlier versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Winfried Menninghaus,
Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, 60322 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. E-mail:
This is the first comprehensive theoretical article on aesthetic emotions. Following Kant’s
definition, we propose that it is the first and foremost characteristic of aesthetic emotions to
make a direct contribution to aesthetic evaluation/appreciation. Each aesthetic emotion is tuned
to a special type of perceived aesthetic appeal and is predictive of the subjectively felt pleasure
or displeasure and the liking or disliking associated with this type of appeal. Contrary to the
negativity bias of classical emotion catalogues, emotion terms used for aesthetic evaluation
purposes include far more positive than negative emotions. At the same time, many overall
positive aesthetic emotions encompass negative or mixed emotional ingredients. Appraisals of
intrinsic pleasantness, familiarity, and novelty are preeminently important for aesthetic emotions.
Appraisals of goal relevance/conduciveness and coping potential are largely irrelevant from a
pragmatic perspective, but in some cases highly relevant for cognitive and affective coping.
Aesthetic emotions are typically sought and savored for their own sake, with subjectively felt
intensity and/or emotional arousal being rewards in their own right. The expression component
of aesthetic emotions includes laughter, tears, and facial and bodily movements, along with
applause or booing and words of praise or blame. Aesthetic emotions entail motivational
approach and avoidance tendencies, specifically, tendencies toward prolonged, repeated, or
interrupted exposure and wanting to possess aesthetically pleasing objects. They are experienced
across a broad range of experiential domains and not coextensive with art-elicited emotions.
Keywords: aesthetic emotions; aesthetic evaluation/appreciation; liking; beauty; being
What Are Aesthetic Emotions?
Ever since the Greek and Latin treatises on poetics (for a compendium, see Quintilian, 1920), it
has been widely assumed that emotions play a crucial role in the processing of artworks, and
specifically, in the enjoyment associated with them. Accordingly, recent models of processing
visual artworks (Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014; Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004;
Pelowski, Markey, Forster, Gerger, & Leder, 2017), literature (A. M. Jacobs, 2015), and music
(Brattico, Bogert, & Jacobsen, 2013; Juslin, 2013) all include a component called “aesthetic
emotions.At the same time, none of these models provide a detailed definition or discussion of
what aesthetic emotions actually are. The same holds by and large for the studies of individual
aesthetic emotions to which we refer throughout this article.
The present article is the first to offer an in-depth theoretical discussion of the distinctive
nature of aesthetic emotions. We propose that aesthetic emotions are primarily defined by four
mandatory features that are largely in accord with Kant’s foundational introduction of the
concept (1790/2001, pp. 89–159):
1. Aesthetic emotions are full-blown discrete emotions that, for all their differences in affective
nature, relevant appraisals, and other emotion components, always include an aesthetic
evaluation/appreciation of the objects or events under consideration. For example, feelings of
suspense experienced in literary or filmic narratives are aesthetic emotions, if they not only refer
to varying degrees of uncertainty experienced in a sequence of events (=ordinary meaning), but
contribute, by virtue of being suspenseful, to appreciating the elicitors as well-made and
powerfully engaging narratives (=aesthetic emotion meaning).
2. Each aesthetic emotion is differentially tuned to, and predictive of, a specific type of aesthetic
virtue (for the classical theory of aesthetic virtues and vices, see Quintilian, 1920), or, defined in
subjective terms, a specific type of aesthetic appeal (for the notion of appeal, see Knobloch-
Westerwick & Keplinger, 2006; Muth, Hesslinger, & Carbon, 2015; Oliver & Sanders, 2004).
These are reflected in the attributes differentially assigned to the eliciting objects or events. The
majority of these attributes are derivatives of the respective emotion category, such as “moving,”
“fascinating,” “surprising,” “shocking,” “suspenseful,” etc.
3. As a function of their bearing on subjective aesthetic appreciation, aesthetic emotions are
associated with subjectively felt pleasure or displeasure during the emotional episode.
4. For the same reason, aesthetic emotions are an important (though certainly not the only)
predictor of resultant liking or disliking.
After Kant, the construct of aesthetic emotions went largely untreated for some two
hundred years. Neither Fechner (1876) nor Berlyne (1971) included it in their foundational work
on empirical aesthetics. It is only in the past two decades that the frequency of the term aesthetic
emotions in science journals has surged from 11 in 1990–1999 over 73 in 2000–2009 to 194 in
A closer look at Berlyne’s Aesthetics and Psychobiology (1971) reveals reasons both for
the long absence and the renewed interest in “aesthetic emotions.” Berlyne (1971) starts his
chapter on “Emotion and Arousal” in aesthetic perception and evaluation with a brief and very
selective review of earlier theorizing. A quote from the influential 18th century author Dubos
opens the panorama; it highlights a topical blend of emotional affection and aesthetic
appreciation that we will later treat as a key example of an aesthetic emotion: “The first aim at
painting is to move us. A work which moves us greatly must be excellent on the whole”
We submitted a query on with the default settings, searching for TITLE-ABS-KEY
(“*esthetic emotion*” OR “*esthetic feeling*”).
(Berlyne, 1971, p. 61; for Dubos’ original sentence which includes poetry, too, see Dubos, 1719,
p. 305). Additional brief remarks bring up Herder, Wordsworth, Stravinsky, and the art critic
Clive Bell. The latter, Berlyne notes, has “recognized something called ‘aesthetic emotion’ as the
proper intermediary through which art does its work” (Berlyne, 1971, p.61). For Bell, aesthetic
emotions are about evaluating visual artworks regarding the artistic “rightness and necessity” of
their “lines and colors,” and, in accord with Dubos, the potentially resulting “aesthetically
moving forms” (Bell, 1947, p. 8 & 26).
In Berlyne’s subsequent own treatment of “Emotion and Arousal” in aesthetic perception
and evaluation, the authors and topics of his one-page literature survey do not play a role
anymore. Berlyne exclusively focuses on general psychological mechanisms of emotional
activation, arousal, intensity, hedonic value and motivation in aesthetic evaluation, and he
systematically disregards the role specific discrete emotions might play in this context. In
contrast, the renewed interest in aesthetic emotions over the past two decades is associated with a
focus on individual discrete emotions. Moreover, many of the relevant authors are informed by
appraisal theories of emotions (Arnold, 1960; Lazarus, Averill, & Opton, 1970; Scherer, 1984)
which became more influential only after Berlyne’s seminal works (see also Silvia, 2005a).
(Notably, Berlyne does not consider interest which he does extensively treat as an emotion; the
latter understanding was proposed only in more recent years (Izard, 1992; Silvia, 2005b).)
Like the more recent models of art-reception quoted above, the present article endorses
the assumption that aesthetic emotions are a special class of discrete emotions that can explain
additional variance of the process of aesthetic perception and evaluation which Berlyne left
unaccounted for. We analyze the conceptual underpinnings and the theoretical implications of
the construct of “aesthetic emotions,” propose ways of operationalizing such emotions, and,
based on existing empirical evidence, emphasize their value for a more comprehensive
understanding of aesthetic evaluation. In this process, we adopt many of the other predictors of
aesthetic evaluation that Berlyne actually did treat.
In addition to the four mandatory features identified above, we propose a greater variety
of prototypical features in the sense defined by Fehr and Russell (1984). Even though none of
these prototypical features alone allow to determine whether a given emotional episode is an
“aesthetic emotion,” they further delineate the overall range and nature of aesthetic emotions and
hence make important contributions to a detailed and multicomponent characterization. At the
conclusion of this article, 19 bullet points summarize the mandatory and prototypical features in
the order of their treatment.
As we spell out our model, we project all hypothetical characteristics of aesthetic
emotions onto the framework of multicomponent models of emotions (cf. Frijda, 1986; Scherer,
2005). The resultant model is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The multicomponent model of aesthetic emotions. Note that only the boxes highlighted
in yellow and light blue are more extensively treated in the main part of this article. The other
boxes reflect additional desiderata that are briefly discussed in the section “Limitations and
Directions for Future Research.”
Aisthesis, Aesthetics, Aesthetic Emotions, Aesthetic Evaluation, Aesthetic Stance
In order to understand what is at stake in the concept of aesthetic emotions, it is helpful to
reconsider what is at stake in aesthetics as a whole. The concept of aesthetic emotions was
introduced against the background of the distinction between theoretical, practical (moral), and
aesthetic cognition, which first motivated philosophers from Baumgarten through Kant to
establish aesthetics as a third and separate discipline in addition to theoretical and practical
philosophy. For Kant as well as for the modern sciences, theoretical cognition strives for valid
judgments of truth (correctness) by means of strictly concept-guided lines of argument and
interpretations of available empirical evidence. In this process, theoretical cognition abstracts
from the particulars of individual phenomena. In contrast, aesthetic judgments are in the end––
regardless of the regularities they also imply––about individual objects, and they try to do justice
to subtle nuances in appearance rather than abstract from these individualizing nuances
(Baumgarten, 1735/1954, 1750/2007; Kant, 1790/2001); they are hence based on the full
richness of the perceptual input. For this reason, Baumgarten took recourse to the Greek word for
sensory perception in general, namely, aisthesis, as he proposed a new field of philosophy under
the name of “aesthetics.”
At the same time, aesthetics in this modern sense entails a special judgmental focus on
aspects of the objects under consideration that are subjectively perceived as pleasing to our
senses and/or our cognitive capacities. The Greek word aisthesis and the broader modern notion
of sensory perception entail no such special judgmental focus. As a result, the modern discipline
of aesthetics blends sensory perception and an evaluative focus that does not rely on abstraction
from the richness (Latin: copia) of the sensory perceptual input.
Baumgarten and Kant proposed that the special task demands of aesthetic perception and
evaluation call for special faculties and processing routines. Both authors assumed a stronger
involvement of emotional processes in this task compared to purely perceptual processes, on the
one hand, and abstraction-based theoretical cognition, on the other. Put briefly, aesthetic
emotions were attributed the power to evaluate, in a largely intuitive way, phenomena that by
definition partially defy a strictly conceptual derivation—namely, the aesthetic virtues of
individual objects or performances in all their richness and individuality.
Mathematical solutions for difficult problems can serve to highlight the difference
between theoretical and aesthetic judgments. In the end, a mathematical solution must be correct
and valid, regardless of how many steps were needed to arrive at it and how complex it is.
However, some solutions to cognitive problems are not only correct, but also appreciated for
their elegance, and hence for a genuine aesthetic virtue. Typically, such solutions have an
appearance of a surprising lightness, ease, and parsimoniousness considering the cognitive
challenge to be solved (Chatterjee, 2013; Montano, 2014; Silver & Metzger, 1989). Newton’s
F = ma, Einstein’s e = mc2, and Heisenberg’s E = hf are classical examples of elegance in
cognitive achievements. Even for individuals who do not fully understand the meaning of these
equations, the elegance of the concrete phenomenal form of the equation and possibly of the
daring lines of thought that led to them is likely to contribute to the emotional coloring—which
involves astonishment and admiration—in the appreciation of such outstanding cognitive
This example also serves to highlight that virtually everything––and by no means only
artworks––can be viewed with a focus on its aesthetic virtues. Kant (1790/2001, pp. 91–92) was
very meticulous about separating aesthetically judgmental feelings from nonaesthetic interests,
yet this did not prevent him from considering human faces and bodies, flowers, landscapes, and
animals as elicitors of aesthetic feelings, no less so than poems, music, paintings, architecture,
cognitive achievements, and so forth (for a systematic account of these examples, see
Menninghaus, 1999, pp. 78–83; for studies on everyday aesthetics see for example Yeh, Hsu, &
Li, 2018; Yeh, Lin, Hsu, Kuo, & Chan, 2015). We see no reason to be less inclusive (see Figure
1 ).
We likewise do not adopt another limitation, namely, that aesthetically evaluative
feelings require a top-down activation of an “aesthetic stance” or “attitude” (Juslin, 2013). We
can well be inadvertently struck by a beautiful face or a beautiful building we come across or by
an unexpected view opening at the turn of a trail, without any apparent necessity to consciously
activate an aesthetic stance (Höfel & Jacobsen, 2007). Moreover, the neural circuitry for
aesthetic evaluation has been shown to be essentially always and automatically “on,and hence
appears not to be in need of a special task- or focus-driven activation (Bohrn, Altmann, Lubrich,
Menninghaus, & Jacobs, 2013; Chatterjee, Thomas, Smith, & Aguirre, 2009).
On a terminological note, the concept of an aesthetic judgment of taste retained
substantial class-based implications throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, with good taste
converging with the taste of the higher social classes. To avoid such implications, we instead use
the terms “aesthetic evaluation” (Berlyne, 1971) and “aesthetic appreciation” (Berlyne, 1974;
Fingerhut & Prinz, 2018; Scherer, 2012), without making a strict distinction between these terms
(for a slightly different use of the term “appreciation,” see Oliver & Bartsch, 2010).
The Structure of This Article
The first main section of our article, “Distinguishing the Concept of Aesthetic Emotions
from Related Concepts,” sets aesthetic emotions categorically apart from several concepts with
which they have been frequently identified: art-represented and art-elicited emotions, form-
versus content-focused emotions, art as art emotions, and fiction-related, quasi-, and make-
believe emotions. In the second section, “Two Classes of Aesthetic Emotion Terms,” we propose
a linguistic taxonomy that helps to disentangle the fuzziness of the term aesthetic emotion.
In the third section, “Being Moved as an Exemplary Aesthetic Emotion,” we show how
empirical analyses can provide evidence that an emotional response is directly predictive of
overall liking and/or the attribution of specific aesthetic virtues to the objects or events under
consideration. We singled out emotional episodes of being moved as an exemplary test case for
three reasons. First, being moved has a particularly long-standing tradition as an aesthetic
emotion, dating back to Latin rhetoric and poetics. Second, the concept has been lexicalized with
a largely convergent meaning across many Western, Slavic, and Asian languages. And third,
several studies on being moved have already specifically focused on the role of feelings of being
moved in aesthetic appreciation contexts. Our choice does not imply that we consider being
moved the preeminent aesthetic emotion.
The fourth and most extensive section, “Prototypical Properties of Aesthetic Emotions,”
analyzes general properties of aesthetic emotions with regard to the following components and
dimensions of emotions: cognitive appraisals, subjective feelings, and peripheral physiology as
well as neural substrates, expression components, and motivational tendencies.
Distinguishing the Concept of Aesthetic Emotions from Related Concepts
Art-Represented, Art-Elicited, and Aesthetic Emotions
Many recent uses of the term “aesthetic emotions” equate these with art-elicited emotions
(Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008; Konečni, 2005; Perlovsky, 2014; Scherer, 2004b; Scherer
& Coutinho, 2013; Silvia, 2005a, 2010; Silvia & Brown, 2007; Silvia, Fayn, Nusbaum, & Beaty,
2015; but also see Juslin, 2013 and Marković, 2010). Some studies consider all music-elicited
emotions to be simultaneously musical aesthetic emotions (Trost, Ethofer, Zentner, &
Vuilleumier, 2012; Zentner, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2008; but see Payne, 1961, 1973). However,
in the absence of any specific evidence that a given music-elicited emotion actually influences
aesthetic evaluation, this conceptual equation is not sufficiently justified. Following Kant and in
agreement with Juslin (2013; see also Kivy, 1991; Payne, 1980; J. Robinson, 2009), we
systematically distinguish between art-represented emotions, art-elicited emotions, and aesthetic
emotions proper.
Emotions are often represented, displayed, portrayed, or alluded to in works of art, be this
through protagonists’ expressions of emotion (Dijkstra, Zwaan, Graesser, & Magliano, 1995),
musical cues—for example, of sadness or happiness (Juslin & Laukka, 2003), or semantic
allusions, symbolic hints, and other subtle cues of mood and emotional atmosphere (cf. Bartsch,
2008; Bartsch & Viehoff, 2003; Fitch, von Graevenitz, & Nicolas, 2009; G. M. Smith, 1999). All
such art-represented emotions and emotion cues can be (cognitively) perceived or decoded
without the emotions necessarily being shared and felt by the art recipients. For instance, we can
feel moral indignation as a protagonist displays profound satisfaction with a cruel act of murder;
inversely, we can be satisfied if a vicious murder plot finally fails and the criminal is deeply
disappointed (cf. Sherman & Morrissey, 2017). To be sure, emotions represented or displayed in
artworks can also elicit conforming emotions in the audience—research on the role of empathy
and theory of mind in the processing of artworks has provided evidence for this (e.g., Eerola,
Vuoskoski, & Kautiainen, 2016). However, such a convergence of art-represented emotions and
emotions actually felt by the art recipient is far from being a necessary outcome (cf. Gabrielsson,
2001-2002; Pelowski et al., 2017).
In the context of art reception, aesthetic emotions are a subgroup of the emotions that
artworks actually elicit in recipients. Again, it is distinctive of this subgroup of emotional
responses that they are appreciative of specific aesthetic virtues, such as the power of an artwork
to move, fascinate, and surprise us, and predictive of overall liking. By no means do all art-
elicited emotions meet these criteria. For instance, in the case of a thriller, feelings of moral
contempt regarding the murderer are not likely to predict how well made and enjoyable we find
the thriller as a whole.
Given the pivotal importance of distinguishing art-elicited and aesthetic emotions, our
theoretical review does not discuss in any detail studies on art-elicited emotions that either do not
specifically address aesthetic emotions or simply treat the terms art-elicited emotions and
aesthetic emotions interchangeably.
Form- Versus Content-Focused Emotions
Several authors have identified the emotions that specifically appraise the artistic virtues
of artworks as emotions that focus on the form of artworks rather than on their content (Frijda,
1989; Plantinga, 2009; Tan, 1996, 2000; Visch, Tan, & Molenaar, 2010). We do not fully adopt
this distinction for two reasons. First, the form–content distinction is commonly limited to the
representational arts, and specifically to narrative art forms, including film. However, some art
forms are not representational in any narrower sense, let alone narrative (for example, abstract
painting and music that neither involves words nor follows a representational “program”).
Second, we contend that it is problematic, even with regard to the representational arts, to
categorically set apart emotional responses to content on the one hand and to form on the other.
After all, artworks are widely held to be integrative wholes featuring high levels of interaction
between form and content rather than consisting of neatly separable layers of form and content
that can be orthogonally rotated (for empirical evidence in favor of this assumption, see
Menninghaus, Wagner, Wassiliwizky, Jacobsen, & Knoop, 2017).
“Art as Art” Emotions
Fingerhut and Prinz’s (2018) definition of “aesthetic emotions” as evaluating “art as art”
is reminiscent of Clive Bell’s definition (1947) quoted above. Like the concept of “form”-
focused emotions, it places the prime focus on the “appreciation” of aesthetic “goodness,” yet it
avoids a clear-cut dissociation of form and content. The authors propose that wonder is the
preeminent aesthetic emotion in that it is only elicited by artworks that combine highly
extraordinary sensory, cognitive, and spiritual features and effects. The emotional nature of art-
elicited wonder is circumscribed as “filling us with confusion” and perplexity, similar to awe,
disturbing, harrowing, and “awakening existential thoughts about the fragility of life” as well as
“a sense of our smallness,” and in the end eliciting spiritual feelings of reverence. Even though
not fully convergent, this analysis shows substantial overlap with Kant’s analysis of the feeling
of the sublime (Kant, 1790/2001, pp. 128–159).
We do not challenge the notion that some great artworks specifically elicit feelings of
wonder and awe, along with some deep and potentially life-changing thoughts (see also Konečni,
2005; Marković, 2012; Pelowski, 2015; Perlovsky, 2014; Prinz, 2011). However, empirical
evidence suggests that only a small fraction of actual responses to artworks and media products
are of such a profound nature (Gabrielsson, 2010; Juslin, 2013; Juslin, Liljeström, Laukka,
Västfjäll, & Lundqvist, 2011). Consequently, Fingerhut and Prinz’s (2018) proposal is decidedly
selective and limited in scope. It cannot––and does not claim to––account for the great majority
of aesthetic emotions in response to artworks and media products, and it programmatically
disregards all aesthetic emotions beyond the domain of the arts.
Fiction-Related, Quasi-, and Make-Believe Emotions
Finally, in order to avoid potential confounds, we also distinguish aesthetic emotions
from the theoretical concept of fiction-related emotions. Since the beginning of the 20th century,
researchers in the field of psychological aesthetics (cf. Bawden, 1908; Clay, 1908; Kirschmann,
1900; Külpe, 1903; Ritoók, 1910; Stratton, 1902) and also philosophers (Geiger, 1914, 1922;
Lange, 1901; Meinong, 1917; Witasek, 1901, 1904) have discussed potentially distinctive
characteristics of emotional responses to fictional artworks using terms such as as-if, quasi,
inauthentic, and phantasy emotions. Walton’s concept of make-believe emotions (1990) was later
added to these classifications (cf. Mulligan, 2009; Solomon, 2003).
All these terms focus exclusively on the special ontology of emotions elicited by fictional
artworks. Some authors explicitly acknowledged that this focus needs to be clearly distinguished
from a focus on aesthetic evaluation proper and the concomitant feelings (Külpe, 1921; Witasek,
1904). After all, the aesthetic virtues of a beautiful work of fiction are no less real (or at least
perceived as real) than those of a beautiful car or a beautiful human face. Thus, in our
understanding, aesthetic emotions proper are not quasi- or make-believe emotions, even if other
art-elicited emotions might be. We therefore disregard this distinction in our theorizing about
aesthetic emotions (for a similar stance, see Juslin, 2013).
Two Classes of Aesthetic Emotion Terms
Natural languages do not provide a special and nuanced vocabulary for aesthetic
emotions (but see the Indian concept of rasa and the Chinese concept of pin wei; cf.
Sundararajan, 2010; Thampi, 1965). As a result, most aesthetic emotion terms cannot but draw
on “ordinary” emotion terms and hence are linguistically no different from the latter. This may
have contributed to the conceptual confusion regarding aesthetic emotions. In order to reduce or
fully avoid this confusion, we propose a taxonomy of two complementary classes of aesthetic
emotion terms and elucidate the cognitive challenges that come with each class: linguistic terms
used for designating aesthetic emotions either superimpose an aesthetically evaluative meaning
on ordinary emotion terms (Class 1) or an emotional meaning on prototypical aesthetic virtue
terms (Class 2).
The first class of aesthetic emotion terms directly draws on emotion terms that are also,
and mostly primarily, used with an “ordinary” emotion meaning, such as joy, amusement,
nostalgia, surprise, being moved, being shattered, fascination, boredom, disgust, and anger.
Importantly, with regard to artworks, the use of these emotion terms is not just descriptive of
emotional contents and effects but is also (implicitly) meant to be evaluative of the artwork qua
artwork (cf. Hanich, Wagner, Shah, Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2014; Oliver & Bartsch, 2010;
Wassiliwizky, Wagner, Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2015). That is, we enjoy and like a work of
art because it moves, fascinates, elevates, shocks, or surprises us, and we dislike an artwork
because it bores us or makes us angry (for a critical epistemological discussion of this double use
of emotion terms in aesthetic contexts, see Prinz, 2004).
In the second class, the key semantic constituent is not an emotion term, but a term that
primarily designates an object’s aesthetic virtue, with beauty being the most significant example.
By itself, the attribution of beauty to any given object does not amount to simultaneously
designating an emotional response that may come with this attribution. Therefore, treating beauty
itself “as an emotion” (cf. Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008; Tan, 2000) seems to be odd
from a linguistic point of view (see also Fingerhut & Prinz, 2018). Kant (1790/2001) solved this
terminological issue by adding the expression the feeling of, and hence by speaking of the feeling
of beauty and the feeling of the sublime. Essentially, many classical aesthetic virtue terms that are
not emotion terms––such as the attribution of vividness to special kinds of artistic representation
(cf. Belfi, Vessel, & Starr, 2017; Menninghaus, 2009)––can in this way be reformulated as
emotional experiences (feelings of vividness, etc.). The same applies to a great variety of other
concepts that capture dimensions of aesthetic processing. For instance, groove––at least in the
meaning which focuses on the subjective feeling of “groove” rather than on an objective
rhythmical property only––could well be considered as a distinct aesthetic feeling (e.g., Janata,
Tomic, & Haberman, 2012; Stupacher, Hove, & Janata, 2016; Witek, Clarke, Wallentin,
Kringelbach, & Vuust, 2014).
To be sure, emotion terms of this latter type are clearly non-prototypical as emotion
terms. At the same time, Kant’s detailed analyses of the feelings of the beautiful and of the
sublime leave no doubt that they are meant to designate full-blown discrete emotions/feelings
distinguished by characteristic appraisal structures and affective profiles. Put very briefly,
feelings of beauty arise when we intuitively experience a good fit, or a free harmonious
interplay, between our sensory and cognitive dispositions and the objects perceived to be
beautiful (Kant, 1790/2001, pp. 68–78, 89–130). In contrast, feelings of the sublime (Kant,
1790/2001, pp. 128–159) involve some mismatch between our relative smallness and the
grandeur and potentially devastating might of both nature and social conflicts. At the same time,
feelings of the sublime precisely activate our determination to withstand these seemingly
incommensurate challenges rather than feel dwarfed by them. As a result, the liking
(Wohlgefallen) associated with feelings of the sublime integrates negative feelings of facing
almost overwhelming challenges with the pleasure of nevertheless mentally living up to them
(Kant, 1790/2001, pp. 143-148; Menninghaus, 1991; for similar analyses of feelings of the
sublime and awe, see Eskine, Kacinik, & Prinz, 2012; Gordon et al., 2016; Keltner & Haidt,
2003; Konečni, 2005). Notably, Kant’s analyses of feelings of the sublime and the beautiful,
respectively, can be readily projected onto Berlyne’s distinction of “two mechanisms of positive
hedonic value” in aesthetic appreciation: one entails an overcoming and integration of markedly
“unpleasant” processing ingredients, whereas the other does not (Berlyne, 1971, pp. 81-82).
The two classes of aesthetic emotion terms strongly differ in how linguistically salient
they make their bearing on subjectively evaluated aesthetic virtues. In the second class (feelings
of beauty, etc.), it is crystal clear that the feelings are about aesthetic virtues. In the first class,
however, this is far less obvious and in fact not necessarily the case. Rather, it is only in special
contexts that self-reported feelings of being emotionally moved, for example, can simultaneously
be both meant and understood as implying a positive aesthetic appreciation of the eliciting
stimulus (for further treatment of this point, see the section “Being Moved as an Exemplary
Aesthetic Emotion”). In this sense, our linguistic taxonomy also has theoretical importance for
understanding the use and functioning of aesthetic emotion terms.
In expressions such as the feeling of beauty, the term beauty is an objective genitive. By
itself, it designates an aesthetic virtue of the object of the feeling; it is only in combination with
the feeling of that it becomes a genuine emotion term. In contrast, in the expression the
emotion/feeling of surprise, the term surprise is a subjective genitive: it is by itself the specific
emotion that is here subsumed under the general category emotion. Importantly, in cases of
objective genitives, the English language prefers the word feeling over emotion. Therefore,
expressions such as feeling of beauty and feeling of the sublime sound far more idiomatic than
emotion of beauty and emotion of the sublime. Accordingly, translations of Kant’s treatises on
the Gefühle of beauty and the sublime consistently use the term feeling rather than emotion (see
also Starr, 2013).
Regarding these subtle differences in language use, a terminological convention
established in the more recent psychology of emotions may give rise to potential confusion. In
this special scientific context, only the relatively recent term emotion is used as a broad concept
that encompasses multiple components of emotion (physiology, expression, action tendency,
etc.), whereas the older term feeling has been narrowed down to exclusively designating the
“subjective feeling component” of an emotion (Scherer, 2004a, 2005). Setting apart two near-
synonyms in the service of a theory-guided distinction is a smart move. Nevertheless, in
everyday language use, the words emotion and feeling are far less categorically set apart along
these lines, and again, linguistic expressions such as emotions of the sublime sound far less
natural than feelings of the sublime.
We honor this prevalent common language use throughout this article. At the same time,
we retain the distinction between the broader terms emotion and feeling, on the one hand, and the
more narrowly defined subjective feeling component, on the other. Thus, whenever we use the
term subjective feeling (mostly in conjunction with terms such as component or dimension), we
refer to the subjective feeling component only. In contrast, when we use the term feeling without
such specification, it encompasses all components of an emotion and is in this sense synonymous
with the term emotion.
Being Moved as an Exemplary Aesthetic Emotion
Newly released films or novels are frequently advertised as being “deeply moving.
Much like in earlier uses of this term in Latin poetics (Cicero, 1962; Quintilian, 1920), 18th-
century aesthetics (Schiller, 1792), and beyond, this attribute clearly implies that the respective
films or novels stand out as being well made, powerful, and emotionally engaging artistic
achievements (see also Pelowski et al., 2017). At the same time, many real-life episodes can
likewise be experienced as deeply moving, including weddings, funerals, acts of separation and
reconciliation, and many others (Cova & Deonna, 2014; Kuehnast, Wagner, Wassiliwizky,
Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2014). Importantly, this dual capacity is by no means exceptional.
Rather, in the case of the aesthetic emotion terms that are linguistically based on ordinary
emotion terms (i.e., being moved, surprise amazement, awe, etc.), the aesthetically evaluative
dimension mostly comes not as an alternative to, or instead of, the nonaesthetic meaning of that
emotion term, but on top of it. This makes it all the more urgent to distinguish the aesthetic and
nonaesthetic meanings of labeling something as deeply moving.
To begin, it is a key feature of states of being moved that they activate feelings of social
connectedness and prosocial values (Fiske, Seibt, & Schubert, 2017; Kuehnast et al., 2014;
Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2015; Seibt, Schubert, Zickfeld, & Fiske, 2017). Accordingly,
experimental studies have shown that experiencing states of being moved can enhance prosocial
behavior (Fukui & Toyoshima, 2014; Stel, van Baaren, & Vonk, 2008). Something similar
appears to hold for literature-induced empathy (Kidd & Castano, 2013; Mumper & Gerrig, 2017,
but see Bal & Veltkamp, 2013; Panero et al., 2016; Samur, Tops, & Koole, 2018), which is often
an integral component of states of being moved.
Moreover, ample evidence suggests that music, films, and poems can elicit feelings of
being moved along with feelings such as joy, peacefulness, nostalgia, or sadness (Eerola,
Vuoskoski, Peltola, Putkinen, & Schäfer, 2017; Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2017a; Panksepp,
1995; Taruffi & Koelsch, 2014; Zentner et al., 2008). Are all these feelings automatically
aesthetic feelings by virtue of being experienced in contexts of art and media reception, as
occasionally suggested (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2014; Nusbaum et al., 2014)?
Since feelings of being moved are often experienced independently of aesthetic
evaluation, Fingerhut and Prinz (2018, pp. 114-115) have pointed out that it is therefore unclear
in which cases and to what extent feelings of being moved are actually specifically about the
“goodness” of an artwork as an aesthetic achievement. We agree that this is the crucial question
to be asked when it comes to distinguishing aesthetic from nonaesthetic emotions (see also
Xenakis, Arnellos, & Darzentas, 2012). Like all aesthetic emotions that are linguistically derived
from ordinary emotion terms (further examples being suspense, surprise, interest, boredom),
being moved can be an “everyday” emotion, an art-elicited emotion in the broader sense, and, to
the extent that it directly predicts aesthetic appreciation, an aesthetic emotion in the narrower
sense. In all of these cases, the aesthetically evaluative dimension comes not as an alternative to,
or instead of, the nonaesthetic meaning of that emotion term, but on top of it. Again, as
languages quite generally do not offer separate lexical items for each meaning they can
communicate, they cannot but rely on context-specific activations of different meanings of the
same lexical items.
Importantly, explicit efforts aimed at distinguishing these multiple meanings of the same
lexical emotion items have provided strong empirical evidence that, in many cases, labeling a
speech or an artwork as moving does indeed entail a genuine aesthetically evaluative dimension
and that this aesthetic emotion dimension allows for a straightforward empirical confirmation.
Thus, in a study by Hanich and colleagues (2014), participants who had given high ratings for
being moved by deeply sad film clips were expressly asked whether these ratings implied a
positive or a negative appreciation of the clips as artworks. The response was unambiguous: the
emotional response of being moved was expressly identified as implying appreciation of the
clips as well-made films and hence as aesthetic achievements.
Another experimental study (Menninghaus, Wagner, Wassiliwizky, et al., 2017) provided
even stronger evidence for this assumption. While keeping the content constant, 20 sadly and 20
joyfully moving poems were presented to participants in their original and modified versions.
The modifications specifically targeted metrical regularity and rhyme, and hence stylistic
features of poetic diction. Average ratings for being moved were significantly affected by these
formal modifications of diction. Moreover, across both versions of the poems, ratings for being
moved were strongly and directly predictive of ratings of overall liking as well as of differential
degrees of perceived beauty and melodiousness. Hence, in these contexts, feelings of being
moved clearly have a stake in genuine aesthetic appreciation, on top of their involvement in the
processing of the poems’ contents.
On a similar vein, a study on the physiology and neural correlates of reading emotionally
moving poems revealed that peak moments of states of being moved––as marked by chills and
goosebumps––are sensitive to an important compositional feature: they typically occurred
towards the ends of lines and stanzas, with the intensity increasing the more the poem
approached its closure in the final line (Wassiliwizky, Koelsch, Wagner, Jacobsen, &
Menninghaus, 2017). Hence, feelings of being moved appear also to be sensitive to the music-
analogous tension–resolution structure (Huron, 2006; Meyer, 1961) of poems: with each
additional line, the predictions of readers regarding the poem’s formal patterning and its overall
trajectory, including its content, become increasingly strong, and so do the rewards of the
resolution perceived both at intermediate closing points of the composition (cadences of lines
and stanzas) and at the poem’s final conclusion.
Path analyses performed on the results of the above-reported studies provided further
insight into the distinction between aesthetic and nonaesthetic emotions. They revealed that
sadness ratings for film clips made no direct contribution to liking ratings once the common
variance with ratings of being moved was accounted for, but only via the mediation of feelings
of being moved (Hanich et al., 2014; Wassiliwizky et al., 2015). This pattern of results has been
replicated for sad-sounding music (Vuoskoski & Eerola, 2017). Moreover, Taruffi and Koelsch
(Taruffi & Koelsch, 2014) have shown that sad-sounding music elicits predominantly positive
feelings because it is associated with feelings of nostalgia and tenderness in Western listeners
and feelings of peacefulness and tenderness in Eastern (Asian) listeners. We interpret these
findings as implying that, in such contexts, feelings of sadness are not aesthetic emotions per se
simply because they are elicited by an artwork, but, more specifically, only because and to the
extent that these negative feelings contribute to other emotional responses that are either positive
or mixed in affective valence (Juslin, 2013). Only the latter emotions are, in turn, directly
predictive of both beauty ratings and overall liking (cf. Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2017a;
Wald-Fuhrmann, 2010).
However, the indirect contributions made by sadness are by no means negligible (cf. the
section “The Role of Negative and Mixed Emotions”). It may therefore be worth investigating to
what extent the understanding of aesthetic emotions could profit from a threefold distinction
between emotions that are directly predictive of aesthetic appreciation (as measured by liking
ratings and/or the attribution of specific aesthetic virtues to the objects or events under
consideration), emotions that contribute to such appreciation via a detour through other
emotions, and emotions that do not at all contribute to genuine aesthetic appreciation.
Notably, for joyfully moving films, path analysis revealed that joy does make a direct
contribution to measures of self-reported liking; in addition, joy––like sadness––also contributes
to liking via mediation through feelings of being moved (Wassiliwizky et al., 2015). The finding
lends empirical support to the assumption that more than one aesthetic emotion can be elicited by
the same stimulus. It also raises an interesting question for future research: namely, whether or
not negative emotions, contrary to positive ones, routinely only make indirect contributions to
perceived liking and enjoyment. Evidence in favor of this distinction between positive and
negative emotions would further strengthen the positivity bias of aesthetic emotions (see the
section “Pleasure, reward, and positivity bias”). However, this outcome appears to be not readily
predictable considering the complex relations of positive and negative emotional response
dimensions discussed in the section “Intrinsic Pleasantness and the Special Role of Negative and
Mixed Emotions.”
To be sure, mediation analyses of the type referred to above do not prove a causal relation
between the respective feelings and aesthetic liking. Still, they do impose higher standards on the
statistical correlations by controlling them for the potential influence of other co-occurrent
response dimensions. We therefore consider path analyses an important and helpful tool in
research on aesthetic emotions. Essentially, great progress could be made in identifying aesthetic
emotions if existing and published datasets that include multiple emotion ratings (such as
suspense, fascination, or horror ratings) along with liking and aesthetic virtue ratings were
reanalyzed for the direct, indirect, or absent contributions the respective emotions make to the
ratings for liking and aesthetic virtues. Performing such analyses is likewise a means to test our
underlying conceptual assumptions about aesthetic emotions being a proxy for aesthetically
evaluative emotions.
Summing up, research on being moved strongly supports the notion that experiencing
specific emotions can in some contexts be directly predictive of aesthetic appreciation,
concomitant liking and the attribution of a special range of aesthetic virtues. This predictive
power of specific discrete emotions cannot be derived from Berlyne’s model of aesthetic
evaluation (1971) but constitutes an explanatory factor of its own.
Prototypical Properties of Aesthetic Emotions
In this section, we analyze prototypical properties of aesthetic emotions with regard to the
following components and dimensions of emotions: cognitive appraisals, subjective feeling
qualities, peripheral physiology and neural substrates, expression components, and motivational
Cognitive Appraisals
Throughout various psychological theories, prototypical emotions are conceived as
processes comprising a broad variety of cognitive appraisals (novelty, intrinsic pleasantness,
relevance, attributions of agency, coping potential, conduciveness to our goals/needs, conformity
to social standards and self-ideals, and so forth; see Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987; Frijda, 1986;
Lazarus, 1991; Reisenzein, 2001; Russell, 2003; Russell & Feldman Barrett, 1999; Scherer,
2005; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). In this section, we focus only on those appraisals that we
propose to have particular importance across all aesthetic emotions and, by implication, for
aesthetic evaluation. By definition, this effort requires substantial abstraction from the many
features that are likely not to be shared across the broad spectrum of aesthetic emotions.
Intrinsic pleasantness and the special role of negative and mixed emotions.
From 19th century psychophysics (Fechner, 1860; Wundt, 1896) to Berlyne (1971, p. 81)
and beyond, the experiential dimension of pleasantness vs. unpleasantness has time and again
become a key topic in conceptualizations of pleasure and hedonic reward, and in the cases
referred to above partly or even wholly with a special focus on aesthetic evaluation. Typically,
however, specific discrete aesthetic emotions did not play a role in this context. Scherer has
adopted the (un)pleasantness dimension for an appraisal account specifically of aesthetic
emotions. In Scherer’s view, the appraisal of “intrinsic pleasantness” is the cognitive appraisal
for perceived aesthetic appeal and concomitant aesthetic emotions (Scherer, 2005; Scherer &
Zentner, 2001). In general, appraisals of intrinsic pleasantness are an individual’s evaluation of a
stimulus in itself and independently of the individual’s current needs and goals. In the case of
aesthetic emotions, intrinsic pleasantness appraisals are specifically predictive of “the
appreciation of the intrinsic qualities of the beauty of nature, or the qualities of a work of art or
an artistic performance” (Scherer, 2005, p. 706).
Many findings and hypotheses in empirical aesthetics can be interpreted as supporting the
importance of subjectively perceived pleasantness for aesthetic evaluation. Thus, it has been
shown that, in aesthetic evaluation, perceived intrinsic pleasantness and concomitant liking are
often driven by optimal arousal levels (Berlyne, 1971, 1974), optimal innovation levels (Giora et
al., 2004; Hekkert, Snelders, & van Wieringen, 2003; Jacobsen, 2010; Loewy, 2002, p. 278),
familiarity and mere exposure effects (Bornstein, 1989; Reber, Winkielman, & Schwarz, 1998;
Zajonc, 1968), processing fluency (Reber, 2016; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004; Silvia,
2007; Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001; Winkielman, Schwarz, Fazendeiro, & Reber, 2003), and
perceptual processes such as contrast extraction, figure–ground separation, grouping, closure,
and segmentation (Birkhoff, 1933; Eysenck, 1942; Köhler, 1929; Ramachandran & Hirstein,
1999). None of these findings and hypotheses refer to extrinsic goals or needs of observers;
rather, they are based on intrinsic stimulus qualities as well as on genetic and learned processing
dispositions on the part of observers, which are also included in Scherer’s definition of the
intrinsic pleasantness appraisal (Scherer, 2005; Scherer & Zentner, 2001). Comparing aesthetic
emotions with moral emotions makes the distinctive importance of the appraisal of intrinsic
pleasantness all the more obvious: moral emotions are not about sensory and cognitive
pleasantness, but are rather, and even at the expense of some unpleasantness, about compatibility
with socially accepted moral norms and (self-)ideals.
Although the appraisal of intrinsic pleasantness is of key importance, our understanding
of aesthetic emotions differs from Scherer’s in that we do not define aesthetic emotions by
exclusive reference to this appraisal. Rather, we argue that all appraisals discussed in the present
subsection make substantial and distinctive contributions to determining specific aesthetically
evaluative emotions. Moreover, the emphasis on intrinsic pleasantness cannot by itself account
for the important role of mixed and negative emotions––which typically are not experienced as
(thoroughly) pleasant––in a broader range of aesthetic emotions. Kant already
emphasized that the pleasure associated with aesthetic emotions is not limited to mere
pleasantness and purely positive valence (1790/2001, pp. 91–92), but in many cases is
compatible with a dual process of “being attracted” and “repelled” (1790/2001, p. 129). For other
authors, as well, intellectual and emotional pleasures (including those of art reception) routinely
“encompass negative emotions like sadness [...] and positive emotions that entail complex
appraisal” (Dubé & Le Bel, 2003, p. 291; see also Berenbaum, 2002; Frijda & Sundararajan,
2007; Kubovy, 1999). In line with this understanding, the pleasure taken in the tension–
resolution trajectories of music (Huron, 2006; Meyer, 1961; Salimpoor et al., 2013) often
involves and integrates (temporarily) disappointed expectations. The temporal trajectories (for
this concept, see Fitch et al., 2009) of narratives in different media as well as poems typically
also include many unhappy and unpleasant events, including tragic endings.
As negative emotions are particularly powerful in securing attention, intense emotional
involvement, and privileged access to and retrieval from memory (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999;
Frijda, 1988; R. J. Larsen & Prizmic, 2008; Musch & Klauer, 2003; Rozin & Royzman, 2001;
Vaish, Grossmann, & Woodward, 2008), they are in fact conducive to, if not indispensable for,
the very goals of art which are not least about access to these three resources: attention,
emotional involvement, and memory. Accordingly, artworks that involve both positive and
negative emotions are often experienced as more intense, more interesting, more emotionally
moving, more profound, less prone to causing boredom, and occasionally even more beautiful
than artworks that exclusively elicit positive emotions (for a comprehensive model of the
psychological mechanisms that support the positive embracing of negative emotions, including a
review of relevant literature, see Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2017a, 2017b).
Mixed emotions (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999; Gonzalez, Smith, & Nielsen,
2017; J. T. Larsen, 2017; J. T. Larsen, Coles, & Jordan, 2017; J. T. Larsen, McGraw, &
Cacioppo, 2001; Man, Nohlen, Melo, & Cunningham, 2017) are of particular importance in this
context. They often help adopt the powers of negative emotions for affectively positive and
aesthetically pleasurable purposes (Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2017a), specifically in the
many cases in which mixed emotions are not associated with strict ambivalence and a need for
making difficult decisions, but show an overall prevalence of positive over negative affect, such
as in nostalgia (Routledge et al., 2011; Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, & Routledge, 2006; Zhou,
Wildschut, Sedikides, Chen, & Vingerhoets, 2012), being moved (Hanich et al., 2014;
Wassiliwizky et al., 2015), and suspense (Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2017a).
Importantly, the inclusion of negative emotional response dimensions in predominantly
positive emotional episodes is by no means limited to art reception. Experiences of the sublime
and of awe in response to nature similarly entail such dimensions (Kant, 1790/2001, pp. 128–
149; Gordon et al., 2016; Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Konečni, 2005; Silvia et al., 2015).
We therefore propose that the appraisal of intrinsic pleasantness is only a key predictor of
perceived aesthetic appeal, and consequently of specific aesthetic emotions, if a special provision
is added to its general definition: it should allow for integrating select unpleasant and affectively
negative ingredients as resources that can enrich and altogether deepen positively valent aesthetic
emotions, rather than being invariably detrimental to them. Such license is likely to differ for
individual aesthetic emotions. (The example of being moved given above specifically allows for
an integration of sadness into an overall positive feeling.)
It follows from these considerations that measures for aesthetic emotions should include
separate unipolar ratings for positive and negative response dimensions rather than bipolar scales
(for the use of such unipolar ratings, see Hunter, Schellenberg, & Schimmack, 2010; J. T. Larsen
& Stastny, 2011; Menninghaus, Wagner, Wassiliwizky, et al., 2017). Alternatively, the two-
dimensional Evaluative Space Grid (J. T. Larsen, Norris, McGraw, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2009)
could serve the same purpose. We predict that in the majority of cases, the results for positive
and negative response dimensions, including ratings for pleasant and unpleasant, will not be
strictly reciprocal.
Novelty and familiarity. Today’s psychology of emotion widely holds that detecting
something novel and unpredictable in one’s environment is a fundamental prerequisite for
triggering an emotion episode (Huron, 2006; Juslin, 2013; Scherer, 2005). Ever since its
foundation as an academic discipline, aesthetics has also stressed the expectation that
aesthetically appealing objects should be novel and unique in one way or another. Although
falling under the same heading, the novelty requirements of emotion psychology and aesthetics
need to be clearly distinguished. Most of the time, novelty checks in the sense of emotion theory
determine degrees of novelty regarding our present situation and by no means some categorically
innovative (supernormal, deviant) feature on the part of the object or event under consideration.
By contrast, the latter meaning of novelty is prevalent in aesthetics (Berlyne, 1971, pp. 142-143;
Darwin, 1871/1981, vol. 2, p. 230; Fayn, MacCann, Tiliopoulos, & Silvia, 2015). Specifically, it
has been shown that novelty of this sort supports interest, as long as it does not push cognitive
challenges beyond individual tolerance levels; if very high degrees of novelty exceed such levels,
confusion may result (Silvia, 2010).
At the same time, familiarity and familiarity-driven ease of processing are strong
predictors of aesthetic appreciation-driven liking (Bornstein, 1989; Margulis, 2014; Reber et al.,
1998; Zajonc, 1968), with combinations of familiarity and novelty often being particularly
appealing (Giora et al., 2004; Hekkert et al., 2003). An entire research line—the investigation of
peak physiological and emotional responses to artworks––relies on both the familiarity of self-
selected artworks and the absence of wear-out effects due to repeated exposure (Benedek &
Kaernbach, 2011; Blood & Zatorre, 2001; Goldstein, 1980; Grewe, Nagel, Kopiez, &
Altenmuller, 2007; Panksepp, 1995; Rickard, 2004; Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher, Dagher, &
Zatorre, 2011). Similarly, many viewers seek repeated exposure to their favorite suspenseful
films. In these cases, intense repeated enjoyment is even more of a “paradox” (Carroll, 1996;
Yanal, 1996), as feelings of suspense are typically understood to be dependent on not knowing
the outcome in advance (see Lehne & Koelsch, 2015).
Thus, contrary to the assumption of Armstrong and Detweiler-Bedell (2008), high
familiarity does not necessarily predict only a “mild” and relatively flat type of aesthetic
appreciation-driven pleasure; rather, it is clearly compatible with experiencing strong emotional
responses. Moreover, recent research suggests that fluency is by no means always an antidote to
disfluency, but that both routinely cooccur, specifically, in the processing of poetic and rhetorical
language (Menninghaus, Bohrn, et al., 2015; Wallot & Menninghaus, 2018). It follows that
measures of aesthetic emotions should profit from being accompanied by rating items that are
designed to separately capture aspects of fluency and disfluency of processing, and hence cover
the whole spectrum of familiarity and novelty. We expect that in many cases, the measures for
both poles of the spectrum should correlate positively with ratings for liking and special aesthetic
Repeated exposure can enrich and expand our familiarity with both artworks and natural
sceneries by providing opportunities to discover ever new dimensions and consolidate them over
time (for empirical evidence, see Dixon, Bortolussi, Twilley, & Leung, 1993). In this sense,
novelty and familiarity appear not to be strict opposites in aesthetic perception and evaluation,
and precisely this may constitute a distinctive role for novelty and familiarity appraisals in the
context of aesthetic emotions.
Goal relevance and goal conduciveness. From an evolutionary perspective, beauty
judgments and their affective correlates are highly relevant for mate choice and reproductive
success (Darwin, 1871/1981). By contrast, a feature frequently suggested to be distinctive of art-
elicited emotions (including aesthetic emotions proper) is a presumed lack of “goal relevance”
for practical purposes (cf. Scherer’s opposition of “aesthetic” vs. “utilitarian” emotions, 2004b,
However, this lack of pragmatic goal relevance and goal conduciveness has been
embraced too easily as reflecting art’s much-acclaimed “autonomy” and the “disinterested
pleasure” associated with it. Kant’s emphasis on the disinterestedness of aesthetic judgment
exclusively meant that “pure” aesthetic judgments should be independent of any pragmatic
interests. This does not imply that aesthetic emotions/feelings are, or should be, wholly devoid of
personal relevance. In fact, Kant stipulated that feelings of beauty “directly bring with them a
feeling of the promotion of life” (1790/2001, p. 128). And he attributed to the less intellectual
arts and forms of play––among which he counted music––the power to literally “promote the
feeling of health” and “the restoration of balance,” thus directly affecting physical and
psychological “well- or ill-being” (1790/2001, pp. 208–209).
Typically, individuals are not aware of any mid- or long-term goals they might promote
through aesthetic experiences. By contrast, short-term goals—such as pleasure seeking, mood
enhancement, avoiding boredom, self-distinction through aesthetically appealing self-
presentation (dance, self-ornamentation, displaying objects of high cultural and aesthetic
prestige)—can well be hypothesized as being pursued in a more self-conscious fashion. For
example, we often go to the movies or to a theater performance with the conscious goal of
experiencing some excitement and/or emotional uplift (Oliver, 2003; Strizhakova & Krcmar,
2007; Zillmann, 1988). If our anticipations are not met, negative aesthetic emotions arise,
ranging from dislike to frustration or even anger about a poor performance.
Artworks may also activate—and occasionally challenge—an individual’s social norms
and highly esteemed values in ways that allow—by means of empathy, identification, or
affective transference—for the feeling that the individual’s own goals are at stake in the artistic
representation (Silvia & Brown, 2007). In a similar vein, a recent neuroscientific study on
images that were rated as more or less emotionally moving arrived at the conclusion that the
neural activation patterns indicated a sense of “this matters to me” and hence of personal
relevance, dependent on how emotionally moving the images were rated to be (Vessel, Starr, &
Rubin, 2013; see also Starr, 2013). Finally, engagement with music often satisfies a wish or need
to experience emotions in social interaction while synchronizing one’s movements with those of
others (Koelsch, 2013; see also DeNora, 2010).
Coping potential. Regarding our chances of coping with given or upcoming changes in
the environment, we have no means to alter the plots of narrative artworks, which may well
include undesirable events. In ordinary-life scenarios, such a lack of coping potential will
typically elicit mildly to markedly negative emotions. However, the top-down activation of a
cognitive art framing (Apter, 1992, 1993; Gerger, Leder, & Kremer, 2014; Wagner et al., 2015;
Wagner, Menninghaus, Hanich, & Jacobsen, 2014) extends the realm of pleasurability by
structurally suspending any concern regarding a threat to ourselves and concomitant evaluations
of our personal chances of coping with this threat. (Similar to the appraisal of pragmatic coping
potential, appraisals of “own causation” are also mostly of low relevance for aesthetic emotions,
which are typically tied to an observer stance.)
At the same time, the aesthetic enjoyability of objects and events that are not under our
control is limited to situations in which our own safety is not at stake (see also Pelowski et al.,
2017). We will not admire the beauty of a tiger as he jumps on us in attack. Similarly, the
curvature and movement of giant waves are superbly beautiful and sublime to behold from a
distance, but barely so in the moment where they are about to come crashing down on us. In such
cases, we would need to give a negative answer to both the “Power” and “Adjustment” items of
the factor “Coping Potential” in the Geneva Appraisal Questionnaire (see http://www.affective-; Scherer, 2001), for we would neither be able to avoid the
imminent disaster through our own action nor could we live with the consequences that result
from it. Only when one of these two conditions holds is there a chance to experience aesthetic
Beyond such concerns about control, safety, and sheer survival, some artworks can also
challenge our capacities for cognitive and affective coping on less dangerous dimensions (Leder
et al., 2004; Pelowski et al., 2017). Thus, to the extent that “the aesthetic experience can be
understood as a challenging perceptual problem-solving process” (Carbon & Leder, 2005, p.
499; see also Muth & Carbon, 2013; Muth et al., 2015), our perceptual and intellectual coping
potential with respect to this challenge appears to have a direct bearing on the emotional reward
or frustration associated with the processing effort (see also Silvia, 2006, 2010 on the role of
comprehensibility). With “difficult” works of art, successful intellectual coping may in itself be a
specific emotional reward for the connoisseur.
Artworks can also challenge our coping potential with respect to our personal preferences
and tolerances regarding specific contents (Silvia & Brown, 2007). Thus, film scenes of graphic
violence may exceed our tolerance and our potential to cope with such images in ways that are
disruptive to the enjoyment of the media products that include these (Oliver & Sanders, 2004;
Tamborini, Stiff, & Heidel, 1990). In such cases, a lack of coping potential regarding the
challenges the movie exerts on the viewer will most likely result in the viewer’s motivational
tendency to temporarily close his or her eyes and thus, through an act of avoidance, regain
control over the situation (on this “control hypothesis,” see Andrade & Cohen, 2007; Apter,
1992, 1993; Eaton, 1982; Morreall, 1985; Tan, 2008; Witasek, 1904, pp. 116-117).
To be sure, engagement in physical and intellectual activities is likely to share some of
the coping-potential-related characteristics of aesthetic emotions. Still, when viewed in their
entirety, the general appraisal characteristics of aesthetic emotions add up to a complex profile
that shows a systematic tension between two overarching tendencies. At first glance, the majority
of the appraisals discussed above set aesthetic emotions clearly apart from the more pragmatic
emotions in ordinary-life contexts. However, upon second inspection, aesthetic emotions often
imply a distinct, autochthonous variant of the very appraisals that are at first sight irrelevant for
Subjective Feeling Qualities of Aesthetic Emotions
Pleasure, reward, and positivity bias. As highlighted in the introductory section,
“feelings of pleasure and displeasure” are for Kant closely associated with aesthetically
evaluative emotions (1790/2001, p. 83; for an empirical test of Kant’s theoretical assumption, see
Brielmann & Pelli, 2017). Importantly, however, the two poles pleasure and displeasure do not
play a symmetrical role in aesthetically evaluative emotions. Kant does not even use terms that
might be understood as antidotes to beauty and the sublime (such as ugliness and the ridiculous).
In fact, throughout the entire tradition of aesthetics, aesthetic emotion terms that designate
unambiguously negative emotions have been far less nuanced and frequently used than those of
the positive spectrum, with boredom and anger as elicited by artworks being the most
pronounced exceptions.
Moreover, the tradition of aesthetics even includes numerous serious attempts to interpret
strongly negative emotions––such as horror (Oliver & Sanders, 2004; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987;
Zuckerman, 1996) and disgust (Hemenover & Schimmack, 2007; Korsmeyer, 2011;
Menninghaus, 2003)––as positive resources for enjoyment. Experiencing genuine anger—which
in most cases amounts to a marked dislike of an artwork—can in certain cases also be embraced
as part of enjoying an innovative theater performance (Wagner et al., 2015). Thus, aesthetic
emotions show a marked positivity or hedonic bias, much as the very notion of art reception does
(Arnold, 1960; Berenbaum, 2002; Dubé & Le Bel, 2003; Jacobsen, Buchta, Kohler, & Schröger,
2004; Knobloch-Westerwick & Keplinger, 2006; Zillmann & Vorderer, 2000). This stands in
marked contrast to the quantitative prevalence of negative emotion terms in prototypical emotion
catalogues and the great attention they have received in psychological research (Cacioppo &
Gardner, 1999; Clore et al., 1987; Frijda, 1988; Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998; Shaver,
Schwartz, Kirson, & O'Connor, 1987).
Finally, if a lengthy novel does not meet our preferences or expectations after we have
read a few pages, we can readily stop reading it. In contrast, we do not have similarly good
control over negative emotions in our personal and work–life relations. Thus, on top of being far
less diverse and plentiful as positive aesthetic emotions, negative aesthetic emotions are also far
more easily prevented from running their full course than “ordinary” negative emotions.
Distinguishing immediately pleasant and positive experiences from others which require
some efforts of overcoming, or at least accommodating, unpleasant processing dimensions,
Berlyne (1971, pp.81-82) proposed that they might be designated as “pleasure“ versus “reward”
(for similar distinctions, see Graf & Landwehr, 2015, 2017; James, 1890). However, Berlyne
(1971, p. 80) also maintained that, specifically in contexts of aesthetic evaluation, pleasure and
reward “tend to go together.” Other authors use the concept of pleasure in ways that are broad
enough to include the interesting, the sublime, awe, and other feelings that (often) feature both
affectively positive and affectively negative ingredients (Frijda, 2010; Frijda & Sundararajan,
2007; Kubovy, 1999). Like these latter authors and Kant, we also do not limit the concept of
aesthetic pleasure to mere pleasantness/pleasingness and purely positive ingredients.
Notably, in a theoretical paper on the neural underpinnings of music-induced “pleasure”
and “aesthetic rewards,” Salimpoor and Zatorre (2013) did not make any categorical distinction
between the two concepts. Similarly, while the notion of “reward circuitry” is far more
frequently used in neuroscientific research than that of “pleasure circuitry,” this difference in
wording does not imply any consistent conceptual distinction. Against this background, it lies
beyond the ambition of the present article to re-establish a firm distinction of the two concepts
specifically for our purposes.
Arousal and intensity. The great importance of feelings of mixed and negative valence
for deeper aesthetic enjoyment also shows in conceptualizations of the subjective feeling
component of aesthetic emotions. Specifically, subjectively perceived “arousal” and “intensity”
are often understood as sources of subjective pleasure and liking on their own, that is,
irrespective of, or at least in some abstraction from, the valence of the respective emotions (we
provide references below in this section).
In general, the broad range of aesthetic emotions/feelings covers the entire spectrum from
high arousal (suspense, thrills, shock, excitement, anger) to low arousal (feelings of being sadly
moved, melancholia, relaxation, peacefulness, calmness; cf. Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell,
2008; Schindler et al., 2017). It is therefore not possible to define aesthetic emotions in general
in terms of being either high or low in arousal. This fully accords with the diagnosis Berlyne
arrived at through an analysis of the general emotional factors of aesthetic evaluation irrespective
of specific aesthetic emotions: namely, that arousing and “de-arousing” stimulus properties
(Berlyne, 1971, p. 81) can likewise positively affect aesthetic evaluation and concomitant
pleasure and liking. It is therefore not possible to define aesthetic emotions in general in terms of
being either high or low in arousal. Importantly, while we agree with Berlyne’s general analysis
of a broad arousal range, it is only in the context of analyzing discrete aesthetic emotions that
specific predictions can be made as to whether aesthetic perception and evaluation is driven in
special cases more by arousing or by “de-arousing” emotional factors.
A different perspective emerges if aesthetic feelings are considered as dynamic responses
to unfolding aesthetic trajectories. Many compositional trajectories entail the elicitation of a
variety of different emotions, and they involve both high- and low-arousal emotions in different
gradations and hierarchies and in great dynamic change. Accordingly, we hypothesize that their
distinctive arousal profiles should typically involve well-composed interplays of high- and low-
arousal emotions rather than only one or the other. This can be readily tested by collecting
ongoing online measures for emotional arousal. In fact, existing data of this sort (Salimpoor,
Benovoy, Longo, Cooperstock, & Zatorre, 2009) already lend support to this expectation.
Most aesthetic perceptions of landscapes, natural scenes like sunrises and sunsets, and
individual plants tend to elicit positive feelings of peacefulness, relaxation, and harmony and
hence feelings of low emotional arousal (Chenoweth & Gobster, 1990; Grinde & Patil, 2009;
Heerwagen & Orians, 1993; Joye & van den Berg, 2011; Kellert & Wilson, 1995; Ulrich, 1979,
1983, 1993; Wynn, 1997). In contrast, horror films and other suspenseful narratives rely on high-
arousal emotions with substantial levels of negative affect. The psychological construct of
sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979) and some studies on the rewards sought by horror film
viewers support this notion (T. Robinson, Callahan, & Evans, 2014; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987).
Moreover, many artworks clearly elicit strong emotional arousal even in the absence of
classical high-arousal emotions such as horror. Studies on chills, goosebumps, and tears in
physiological response to music and poems show this in a particularly pronounced fashion
(Blood & Zatorre, 2001; Grewe et al., 2007; Rickard, 2004; Salimpoor et al., 2011;
Wassiliwizky, Jacobsen, Heinrich, Schneiderbauer, & Menninghaus, 2017; Wassiliwizky,
Koelsch, et al., 2017). Accordingly, it has been proposed that emotional arousal may already, qua
arousal, be experienced as self-rewarding, at least within certain levels (Berlyne, 1971;
Salimpoor et al., 2009).
Concepts of subjectively felt “intensity” play an even greater role in the tradition of
theorizing aesthetic pleasure in relative abstraction not only from a narrow concept of
pleasantness and positive valence, but also from arousal (for this tradition in classical aesthetics,
see Kleinschmidt, 2004). After all, positive and negative emotions of both high and low arousal
can all be experienced with high and low intensity (for the dissociation of arousal and intensity
see Clore, 1994; Reisenzein, 1994; Sonnemans & Frijda, 1995; for combinations of both high
and low arousal with high intensity, see Berlyne, 1971). Frijda credited the subjective feeling
component of emotional responses to artworks with a distinct potential to be “savored” and
indulged in for its own sake (Frijda & Sundararajan, 2007). Supporting this understanding, the
suspension of prototypical action tendencies that results from the absence of challenges to one’s
safety in most situational contexts of aesthetic feelings has been hypothesized as supporting a
higher, second-order awareness of one’s felt sensations (Lambie & Marcel, 2002) and an
increased intensity of subjectively felt emotions (Gross & Levenson, 1997; Maslow, Frager,
Fadiman, McReynolds, & Cox, 1970; Oatley, 1994; Tan, 2000, p. 117; Visch et al., 2010).
The nonprototypical action tendencies of aesthetic emotions likewise support a stronger
focus on the subjective feeling component, as they are precisely about extending and renewing
these feelings (for more details, see the section “Motivational Tendencies”). Moreover, a recent
experimental study has revealed that the beauty of poetic diction pushes overall felt intensity to
higher levels and that these levels of subjectively felt intensity correlate positively with ratings
for aesthetic virtues and liking (Menninghaus, Wagner, Wassiliwizky, et al., 2017). For all these
reasons, the subjective feeling component makes up the very center of our model.
In contrast to the hypothesis of often intensely felt and savored subjective feelings,
several authors have suggested that emotion episodes in art contexts should have a lower
intensity in terms of subjective feeling, motor expression, and peripheral physiological measures
than emotional responses to analogous stimuli in real-life contexts, because the eliciting events
do not challenge the individual’s personal goals and safety nor those of other real persons (cf.
Frijda, 1988, p. 352; Lange, 1901, pp. 100-105; Lazarus, 1991; Martindale, 1984; Scherer,
2005). Clearly, we are not likely to respond as intensely to a fictional murder in a movie as to a
real murder taking place right before our eyes.
However, during the two- to four-hour course of a tragedy’s performance, audiences
experience emotional conflicts of an extreme type that most spectators will most likely never
experience in their entire “real” life. Similarly, novels can take a few hours or days of reading
time, during which the reader often goes through the entire emotional trajectory of a
protagonist’s lifetime. This quantitative condensation is routinely complemented by an increased
salience of both the represented emotional conflicts and the possible gratifications or negative
consequences they might entail for the lives of the protagonists. Hence, it is only when the
compositional patterns of artworks are disregarded and isolated emotion episodes are compared
with real analogues that the hypothesis of reduced levels of intensity in response to the arts
appears plausible. Yet such a comparison is misleading because it ignores what is distinctive of
the arts: their highly condensed composition of emotional episodes (Mar & Oatley, 2008) and
their tendency to push levels of tension and conflict to extremes.
Liking. In Kant’s theory, aesthetically evaluative feelings, feelings of
pleasure/displeasure, and subjective “liking” or “disliking” form a triad. Essentially, no current
model challenges the understanding that experienced positive aesthetic emotions associated with
inherent processing pleasure prime the resultant liking. While liking is typically measured based
on post hoc ratings, evaluations for liking and disliking already emerge and consolidate (or not)
during an aesthetic trajectory. Subjective liking of specific stimuli can translate into stable
person- or group-specific preferences that may motivate subsequent acts of seeking repeated
exposure (see the section “Motivational Tendencies”).
Importantly, the concept of liking used in psychological aesthetics is typically broad
enough to encompass aesthetic feelings that combine positive and negative emotional
ingredients, at least as long as their interaction is overall experienced as pleasurable (cf. Berlyne,
1971; Frijda & Sundararajan, 2007; Graf & Landwehr, 2015).
Peripheral Physiological Correlates and Neural Substrates of Aesthetic Emotions
Under the assumptions of our model, research into the physiological and neural correlates
of aesthetic emotions should include evidence that the respective emotions under consideration are
indeed predictive of aesthetic liking ratings. We do not discuss studies that do not meet this crucial
Moreover, regarding aesthetic emotions such as the feeling of beauty or the feeling of the
sublime, it would be important to specifically collect ratings for emotional responses rather than
for object-focused attributions of aesthetic virtues only. After all, individuals could well
acknowledge in a somewhat detached manner that a given object meets conventional beauty
standards without necessarily personally feeling this beauty in any pronounced way. Therefore, as
long as it is not shown that object-oriented beauty attributions and subjective feelings of beauty
always and reliably converge, it is not meaningful to treat the two interchangeably. As the great
variety of neuroscientific studies on visual beauty shows a consistent focus on object-focused
beauty attributions only, we do not discuss this large body of literature in any detail (for reviews
see Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014; Christensen & Gomila, 2018; Pearce et al., 2016).
In the many cases in which hypothetical aesthetic emotions under scrutiny are not derived
from aesthetic virtue terms (such as feelings of beauty), but from emotion terms that are also
used with an ordinary (nonaesthetic) emotion meaning (such as suspense, being moved, or awe),
two additional requirements on top of correlations with liking ratings would clearly strengthen
claims that the physiological and neural activations found are, in fact, specifically correlates of
aesthetic emotions. First, ratings for these emotions should be predictive of ratings for specific
aesthetic virtues (for examples, see Hanich et al., 2014; Menninghaus, Wagner, Wassiliwizky, et
al., 2017), and, second, physiological and neural activations associated with the emotions under
consideration should be contrasted for episodes with and episodes without an aesthetic
evaluation dimension of the respective emotions. We expect that neural activations of aesthetic
emotions will largely overlap with those distinctive of their nonaesthetic counterparts, but will in
addition differentially recruit brain areas that are known to be associated with aesthetic
evaluation (see Brown, Gao, Tisdelle, Eickhoff, & Liotti, 2011; Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2016;
Hu, Huang, Eickhoff, Peng, & Sui, 2016).
To date, there is no study of physiological and neural correlates of aesthetic emotions that
meets all of these criteria. Specifically, no neuroscientific study has ever contrasted episodes of
specific emotions both with and without an aesthetic evaluation dimension. This may well be
doable using the same stimuli under different situational framings.
Still, there are important pieces of physiological and neuroscientific evidence that at least
meet some of the criteria identified above. For example, highly intense experiences of being moved
in response to paintings have been shown to be accompanied by a reuptake of neural activity in
the default-mode network (DMN), comparable to (“resting”) states without experimental
stimulation (Vessel, Starr, & Rubin, 2012; Vessel et al., 2013). The authors interpret this finding
in light of one assumed function of the DMN: the processing of self-relevant information. This
interpretation is in line with other research on being moved that highlights the importance of
personal involvement and self-relevance for experiencing a stimulus as emotionally moving (Cova
& Deonna, 2014; Menninghaus, Wagner, et al., 2015).
At the same time, a study on the appreciation of paintings alone cannot determine the extent
to which the reported activations are distinctive of all emotional episodes of being moved or only
of being moved as an aesthetically evaluative emotion. Moreover, the instructions that Vessel and
colleagues used further limit the generalizability of their results. First, they activated a fictional
scenario that includes responsibility for both the prestige and the finances of a museum (“Imagine
that the images you see are of paintings that may be acquired by a museum of fine art. The curator
needs to know which paintings are the most aesthetically pleasing”; Vessel et al., 2012, p. 3), and
second, they paraphrased the state of being moved by several adjectives that are all aesthetic virtue
terms on their own (powerful, beautiful, compelling, pleasing, profound). For the time being, it is
not clear to what extent the findings obtained under these very special instructions can be replicated
if unspecified ratings for being moved are collected.
Two more recent studies have addressed physiological and neural correlates of responses
to emotionally moving film clips and poems (Wassiliwizky, Jacobsen, et al., 2017; Wassiliwizky,
Koelsch, et al., 2017). They reported the occurrence of tears, shivers down the spine (chills), and
goosebumps, along with high activation levels of the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous
system, including heightened skin conductance and accelerated heart beats, and increased neural
activity in the reward network, including the dorsal and ventral striatum. Notably, these studies
effectively replicated and extended––by adding two new variables: tears and “goosetears”
(cooccurences of tears and goosebumps)––the results of earlier work showing similar activations
of the reward circuitry in strong emotional responses to music (Mas-Herrero, Zatorre, Rodriguez-
Fornells, & Marco-Pallarés, 2014; Salimpoor et al., 2011; Salimpoor et al., 2009). However, these
earlier studies did not address any specific discrete emotion, be it aesthetic or not. Does this
convergence in results mean that a focus on a specific aesthetic emotion is superfluous and does
not yield additional insight?
We propose a different explanation. Given that it is now known that peak levels of being
moved are often accompanied by tears, chills, and goosebumps and that, in a great number of
studies on responses to music, participants were instructed to bring self-selected pieces of music
to the lab that reliably elicit chills, it is likely that they ended up selecting emotionally moving
pieces of music. Supporting this assumption, these pieces of music were actually expressly labeled
as being emotionally moving in several of these studies (Fukui & Toyoshima, 2014; Goldstein,
1980; Maruskin, Thrash, & Elliot, 2012; Panksepp, 1995; Panksepp & Bernatzky, 2002; Rickard,
Finally, an elaborate study by Tschacher et al. (2012) performed in an art museum likewise
provides empirical evidence for a link between aesthetically evaluative emotions reported when
looking at certain paintings and physiological correlates measured during these episodes.
Taken together, there is substantial evidence that emotional responses with an aesthetically
evaluative implication—be they directed at artworks or other antecedents—involve increased
activations of classical physiological indicators of emotional arousal and the neural reward
circuitry. To date, however, the relevant findings are either not at all related to specific aesthetic
emotions or bear on only a very small subset of these (specifically, feelings of being moved and,
with the reservations noted above, feelings of beauty).
Emotion Expression
Smiling and (positive) laughter frequently accompany delight and amusement in response
to humoristic poetry, comedies, and other artworks and media products (Owren & Amoss, 2014;
Ruch & Ekman, 2001; Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, Scott, & Smith, 2010). Ridiculing laughter may
occasionally be found when artworks or media products are considered to be outright failures,
for example, overly pretentious, or poorly performed. At the opposite end of expressions of
emotions, moist eyes and (silent) shedding of a few tears have repeatedly been shown to
accompany art recipients’ emotional states, particularly in response to sad films (e.g., Frey,
Desota-Johnson, Hoffman, & McCall, 1981; Gračanin et al., 2015; Hanich et al., 2014; Oliver,
1993; van der Veen, Jorritsma, Krijger, & Vingerhoets, 2012).
Two recent studies on responses to self-selected emotionally moving poems
(Wassiliwizky, Koelsch, et al., 2017) and film scenarios (Wassiliwizky, Jacobsen, et al., 2017)
show strong simultaneous increases of both corrugator activity and zygomaticus activity, as
measured by electromyography (Fridlund & Cacioppo, 1986), in moments that are intensely
moving and intensely pleasurable at the same time. These findings corroborate the notion that
concomitant negative affect often deepens and intensifies positive emotional responses to
artworks rather than being a mere antidote to pleasurable processing (Menninghaus, Wagner, et
al., 2017a).
Applause, booing, and words of praise or blame can be considered to be post hoc
expressions of aesthetic emotions. Whether occurring in personal communications or in internet
fora, comments that praise or blame are made, as Kant suggested (1790/2001, pp. 96–104), with
the insinuation that others feel or have felt the same way, or with at least a latent stipulation of
potential future consent. Negotiating one’s aesthetic preferences with those of others can even
constitute an entire level of social discourse in which aesthetic feelings fuel both taste-related
agreement/social bonding and disagreement/social distinction (Bourdieu, 1984).
Listening to music often makes us move with the beat, join the song, or dance (Hodges,
2009; Janata & Grafton, 2003; Janata et al., 2012; Witek et al., 2014; Zentner & Eerola, 2010).
Apart from the highly restrictive behavioral rules for listening to classical music in Western
concert halls, music elicits not just inwardly experienced emotions but also responding
movements on the part of the audience (cf. Clynes & Nettheim, 1982; Davidson & Correia,
2001; Epstein, 1995; Jackendoff & Lerdahl, 2006; Konečni, 2008). Similarly, quiet, inactive
attendance became a rule of decent theater behavior only during the 19th century (Heim, 2015,
p. 66–67; Levine, 1988). In many non-Western cultural contexts, a more expressive and active
behavior of the audience is the rule rather than an exception (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1972). In such
responses, dimensions of emotion expression are often blended with tendencies to actually join
in the musical performance or even influence the trajectory of a dramatic plot. However, unlike
applause, booing, and words of praise or blame, such blends of participatory, expressive, and
genuine action responses may also be supported by art-elicited emotions in the broader sense,
and not only by the aesthetically appreciative emotions.
Motivational Tendencies
Aesthetic emotions’ lack of goal conduciveness in its predominant meaning and the
concomitant cognitive appraisal that no “urgent” response is called for in exposure to artworks
and media products are closely connected with another hypothetically distinctive feature:
aesthetic emotions are widely believed to lack a motivational component (Frijda, 1989; Meinong,
1902/1977; Scherer, 2005). In contrast, we propose that aesthetic emotions do entail pronounced
and important motivational tendencies and actually prime subsequent actions.
Kant succinctly defined the motivational “causality” of positive aesthetic feelings as the
capacity to make us seek extended exposure: “We linger in and extend the observation of beauty,
because this observation reinforces and reproduces itself” (Kant, 1790/2001, p. 107). The
tendency to seek out a previously experienced pleasure once again is another approach behavior
driven by aesthetic feelings. Both types of approach tendency may be interpreted as operations of
our “SEEKING system,” in Panksepp’s (1998) sense. In contrast, negative aesthetic feelings prime
disruption rather than continuation of actual exposure and/or future avoidance. Both the
approach and the avoidance consequences of specific aesthetic emotions in Kant’s sense are in
full accord with the motivational tendencies of aesthetic evaluation Berlyne stipulated in his
multi-factor model of aesthetic evaluation (1971, p. 78). They might likewise be explained as
results of operant conditioning driven by positive or negative reinforcement (Skinner, 1938;
Thorndike, 1898).
In any event, there is sound empirical evidence in support of Kant’s view that positive
aesthetic emotions favor a prolonged and self-reinforcing exposure. Museum visitors tend to
spend more time looking at the artworks they like most compared to the others on display
(Tschacher et al., 2012), and viewing time has been found to be predicted by self-reported
interest and liking (Brieber, Nadal, Leder, & Rosenberg, 2014). To be sure, recorded songs and
other pieces of music do not vary in listening time per exposure for different listeners, as the
temporal trajectory is fully controlled by the musical performance itself. However, preferred
songs are clearly listened to more often than disliked ones and hence likewise differ in absolute
exposure time (for studies on optimal and excessive levels of repeated exposure to various types
of stimuli, see Deutsch, Lapidis, & Henthorn, 2008; Huron, 2006; Szpunar, Schellenberg, &
Pliner, 2004; Tinio, Gerger, & Leder, 2013; Tinio & Leder, 2009).
Two studies on short excerpts from feature films (Hanich et al., 2014; Wassiliwizky et
al., 2015) used the self-reported action tendency “I would like to see the entire movie” as a
measure for aesthetic appreciation/liking. In cases where an even greater expenditure of time is
called for than just viewing a feature movie––such as reading novels of several hundred pages––
the repeated decision to return to the reading of such novels and to keep doing this until their
very end, can likewise be interpreted as a motivational consequence of prior enjoyment.
Inversely, experienced negative aesthetic emotions, such as boredom and anger, may
motivate art recipients to stop reading a book or to walk out on a performance (see also Kirk,
Skov, Hulme, Christensen, & Zeki, 2009; Silvia, 2009; Silvia & Brown, 2007), and anticipated
negative aesthetic emotions are likely to predict avoidance of exposure. In all of these cases,
aesthetic emotions have a direct bearing on motivational tendencies and decision-making (cf.
Pearce et al., 2016). Moreover, both Kant’s theory and the studies referred to above imply the
notion that aesthetic emotions entail a “causality” that bears not only on the liking system but
also on the wanting system (for the classical distinction between liking and wanting, see
Berridge & Kringelbach, 2008, 2013), as they may motivate a wish to seek prolonged and
repeated exposure (“I want to see it again”) to a beautiful stimulus. In cases of fascination and
high levels of suspense, aesthetic emotions may even appear to dominate action control in that
“one cannot stop looking or listening” (Frijda, 1989, p. 1546).
Seeing a nice piece of clothing or a beautiful car may moreover stimulate a wish and a
concomitant action tendency to personally own such objects of design and hence to buy them.
The aesthetics of consumer-oriented design and fashion is largely devoted to triggering such
straightforward action tendencies that translate into buying decisions. Similarly, it is fairly usual
to pay money for access to songs one likes. Accordingly, Marković (2010) collected data on the
self-reported wish to possess a painting presented in a study as a proxy for liking. Salimpoor and
colleagues (2013) even offered an option to actually buy pieces of music during an experiment as
a motivational consequence of liking them and as an indication of a wish to hear these pieces of
music again. Importantly, approach tendencies of this type do not by themselves compromise the
notion that “pure” aesthetic evaluations should not depend on nonaesthetic interests. After all,
the approach tendencies arise from, rather than precede, aesthetic evaluation.
Summing up, contrary to widely held assumptions, aesthetic emotions do entail marked
motivational tendencies of approach and avoidance.
Integrating philosophical and a broad variety of psychological perspectives, this article
presents a comprehensive definition of aesthetic emotions that may guide future research on the
topic. Before outlining directions for future research, we summarize the components of our
model in 19 bullet points, following the order of appearance of these components in our text (see
also Figure 1). Bullet points 1 through 4 reflect the mandatory features of aesthetic emotions, and
the remaining bullet points concern the prototypical features as defined in the introductory
1. Aesthetic emotions are full-blown discrete emotions that, for all their differences in
multiple emotion components, always include an aesthetic evaluation/appreciation of
the objects or events under consideration.
2. Individual aesthetic emotions are differentially tuned to a plethora of various types of
aesthetic virtues, or, defined in subjective terms, various types of aesthetic appeal.
Perceived beauty is only one of these, even if it is the preeminent one across a broad
variety of cases.
3. As a function of their bearing on subjective aesthetic appreciation, aesthetic emotions
are associated with subjectively felt pleasure or displeasure during the emotional
4. For the same reason, aesthetic emotions are predictive of resultant liking or disliking.
5. Aesthetic emotions evaluate different types of perceived aesthetic appeal across a
broad variety of experiential domains, including nature, the arts, design, fashion,
social customs and events, and so forth.
6. The class of aesthetic emotions is categorically different from other classes of
emotions with which it has often been conflated, such as art-represented and art-
elicited emotions, form- versus content-focused emotions, art as art emotions, and
fiction-related, quasi-, and make-believe emotions.
7. Aesthetic emotion terms are formed either by superimposing an aesthetically
evaluative meaning on emotion terms (e.g., an emotionally moving film, a fascinating
book) or by superimposing an emotional meaning on prototypical aesthetic virtue
terms (e.g., feelings of beauty).
8. The appraisal of intrinsic pleasantness is of preeminent importance for aesthetic
9. At the same time, many aesthetic emotions are not simply positive in a bipolar
affective valence space. Rather, they include substantial negative ingredients and
hence are of a mixed affective nature. This is likely to reflect the great importance of
negative emotions for making aesthetic experiences more intense, more varied, and
more memorable.
10. The seemingly antithetical factors novelty and familiarity are important predictors of
both positive aesthetic appreciation and concomitant aesthetic emotions. Balanced
combinations of these two factors are often perceived as particularly appealing.
Specifically, in the case of favorite artworks, repeated exposure often does not lead to
wear-out effects on the intensity of emotional responses.
11. In many but by no means all contexts, feelings of beauty and other aesthetic feelings
are devoid of any direct pragmatic interest or goal relevance. However, even in the
absence of pragmatic goals, they can still be relevant for other important concerns,
goals, dispositions, and needs of the viewer/reader/listener. Specifically, they can be
instrumental for short-term mood regulation, but potentially also promote mid- and
long-term emotional capacities and dispositions (for the latter, see the section
“Limitations and Directions for Future Research”).
12. Like other emotional responses, aesthetic emotions are sensitive to both our cognitive
and our affective coping potential. Moderate challenges to our cognitive and affective
coping potential––and hence combinations of factors of fluent and disfluent
processing––are not detrimental but often conducive to experiencing positive
aesthetic emotions. At the same time, individual tolerance levels vary greatly.
13. The association of aesthetic emotions with feelings of pleasure and displeasure is
strongly asymmetrical and shows a clear positivity (pleasure) bias. The negative poles
are treated with far less nuance, if at all. This stands in marked contrast to the
quantitative prevalence of negative emotion terms in prototypical emotion catalogues
and the great attention they have received in psychological research.
14. Aesthetic emotions cover the whole spectrum from low to high affective arousal. On
the temporal axis, emotional responses to the same objects or events may involve
substantial variation in both affective valence and arousing versus relaxing (soothing)
15. Aesthetic emotions can support high levels of subjectively felt emotional intensity,
regardless of whether the respective emotion is high (e.g., suspense, horror) or low
(e.g., relaxation, calm, peacefulness) on the arousal axis in affective space. The
intensity of emotional involvement is by itself a prime factor of aesthetic enjoyment
and liking.
16. Aesthetic emotions can elicit strong physiological responses, including increases in
heart rate, skin conductance, zygomaticus and corrugator activity, tears, shivers
(chills), and goosebumps.
17. Positive aesthetic emotions are associated with activation of the neural reward
circuitry, at least if they reach relatively high intensity.
18. The expression component of aesthetic emotions includes laughter, tears,
goosebumps, smiling, and other facial expressions, along with applause, booing, and
words of praise or blame.
19. Contrary to widely held assumptions, aesthetic emotions also include motivational
tendencies of approach or avoidance, most notably the tendency to end, extend, or
repeat exposure, and in some cases also the wish to possess the eliciting object.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Individual aesthetic emotions vary greatly in their appraisals, arousal, positive and
negative affect, and cognitive demand. At the same time, a general definition of aesthetic
emotions can only include what all of these different emotions share in their capacity as aesthetic
emotions. For this reason, our general model clearly needs to be enriched by work on individual
aesthetic emotions. At the same time, it can be used to identify potential conceptual
shortcomings of already existing studies on aesthetic emotions.
Survey studies are needed to determine which specific aesthetic emotions occur most
frequently and are most relevant in different experiential domains. Scales that have been used to
measure perceived aesthetic virtues and affective appeal in specific domains (cf. the overview of
such scales in Schindler et al., 2017) and studies on aesthetic virtue terms commonly used in
reference to music, literature, and various fields of visual aesthetics (Augustin, Wagemans, &
Carbon, 2012; Istók et al., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2004; Knoop, Wagner, Jacobsen, &
Menninghaus, 2016) provide some guidance for such efforts. Existing comparative research on
music and painting suggests substantial variance in the target emotions (Miu, Pițur, &
Szentágotai-Tătar, 2016). Extending such research across a broader range of aesthetic domains
(including non-art domains) would be a next step.
It is also worth investigating which other aesthetic as well as nonaesthetic emotions tend
to cooccur with specific aesthetic emotions. Thus, feelings of being awestruck both by artworks
and by nature (Silvia et al., 2015), responses to emotionally moving poems (cf. Menninghaus,
Wagner, Wassiliwizky, et al., 2017) and music-elicited feelings of sadness have already all been
shown to cooccur with subjectively perceived beauty (Eerola et al., 2017; Garrido & Schubert,
2011; Panksepp, 1995; Panksepp & Bernatzky, 2002; Schellenberg, Peretz, & Vieillard, 2008;
Schubert, 2013; Taruffi & Koelsch, 2014). We hypothesize that a copresence of feelings of
beauty may likewise routinely be found specifically in artworks that are experienced as
enchanting, happiness-inducing, joyful, cheerful, relaxing, inspiring, peaceful, sentimental, and
nostalgic. This hypothesis is straightforwardly testable.
On a more general note, what surprises us can at the same time interest or move us and
strike us as beautiful, or it can first surprise us, subsequently interest us, and then move us
(Hanich & Menninghaus, 2017). Applying all of the aesthetic emotion terms identified by
Schindler and colleagues (2017) to any given object or event of aesthetic perception and
appreciation therefore has the potential to reveal a complex interplay and hierarchy of multiple
aesthetic emotions and hence fairly distinctive emotional profiles of aesthetic perception and
appreciation (cf. Perlovsky, 2014). While we do not expect that factor analyses performed on the
42 aesthetic emotion items of the AESTHEMOS scale would yield convergent factor solutions
across the great variety of domains, genres, and individual objects/events, it is also likely that
groups of select objects and events could be identified for which a starkly reduced set of the
scale items might already yield sufficiently complex and distinct profiles.
Little is known to date regarding the time course of individual aesthetic emotions.
Collecting continuous ratings for both feelings of beauty and liking could provide insight into the
temporal dynamics involved in the experiencing of aesthetic emotions and in the build-up of
their predictive power regarding self-reported liking. This issue is even more complex in the case
of aesthetic emotions of the being-moved type, that is, those that are based on ordinary emotion
terms. As in these cases the aesthetic emotion meaning emerges only on top rather than instead
of the ordinary emotion meaning, the following hypothesis calls for an appropriate test: in
aesthetic perception and appreciation, ordinary feelings of being moved need to reach a critical
threshold of both duration and intensity in order to turn into predictors of liking, thereby (also)
becoming aesthetic emotions.
Interindividual differences (in terms of personality and culture) in experiencing aesthetic
emotions are another important desideratum. To date, only a few studies have linked personality
traits to aesthetic emotions (Fayn et al., 2015; Silvia et al., 2015; Vuoskoski & Eerola, 2011). We
propose that differences in susceptibility to (aesthetically) rewarding experiences (as captured,
for instance, by the Big Five trait openness to experience, cf. McCrae, 2007, or by the SEEKING
scale of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales, Davis & Panksepp, 2011) should be
linked to the overall intensity and frequency of experiencing aesthetic emotions. Such
associations might well generalize beyond the reported associations of openness with interest,
awe, beauty, being moved, and lower levels of boredom (Fayn et al., 2015; Silvia et al., 2015).
Other personality traits may be linked only to experiencing specific aesthetic emotions.
For instance, being moved and nostalgia have been associated with empathy in prior studies
(Eerola et al., 2016; Zhou, Wildschut, Sedikides, Shi, & Feng, 2012; Zickfeld, Schubert, Seibt, &
Fiske, 2017), and agreeableness has been linked to more intense emotional responses to tender
music (Vuoskoski & Eerola, 2011). Comparative empirical studies on cultural differences in
seeking and experiencing specific aesthetic emotions are also an important topic that has gone
untreated to date.
Finally, music and art therapies often aim to take advantage of the regenerative effects of
art-evoked peacefulness or relaxation (MacDonald, Kreutz, & Mitchell, 2013). There is also
some evidence that reading literature enhances human capacities for feeling and communicating
increasingly subtle emotional nuances (Kumschick et al., 2014) as well as the theory of mind and
empathic feelings (Kidd & Castano, 2013; Mumper & Gerrig, 2017; Sherman & Morrissey,
2017; but see also Bal & Veltkamp, 2013; Panero et al., 2016; Samur et al., 2018) and that art
reception is conducive to overall well-being (Bavishi, Slade, & Levy, 2016; Bygren et al., 2009;
Bygren, Konlaan, & Johansson, 1996; Cuypers et al., 2012; J. M. Jacobs, Hammerman-
Rozenberg, Cohen, & Stessman, 2008; Konlaan, Bygren, & Johansson, 2000; Martínez-Martí,
Hernández-Lloreda, & Avia, 2016; Rieger, Reinecke, Frischlich, & Bente, 2014; Wilkinson,
Waters, Bygren, & Tarlov, 2007; but see also Węziak-Białowolska, 2016). To date, however,
research on such benefits does not specifically consider aesthetic emotions. Future research on
the mid- and longer-term benefits of aesthetic experiences for psychological and physical health,
well-being, and cognitive functioning may profit from considering aesthetic emotions as an
important variable.
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the consumption of negative feelings. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(3), 283300. doi:10.1086/519498
Apter, M. J. (1992). The dangerous edge: The psychology of excitement. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Apter, M. J. (1993). Phenomenological frames and the paradoxes of experience. In J. H. Kerr, S.
J. Murgatroyd, & M. J. Apter (Eds.), Advances in reversal theory (pp. 27–39).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Armstrong, T., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect
of mastering a challenging world. Review of General Psychology, 12(4), 305329.
Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality: Psychological aspects. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Augustin, M. D., Wagemans, J., & Carbon, C.-C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs.
specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 187201.
Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An
experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8(1),
e55341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055341
Bartsch, A. (2008). Meta-emotion: How films and music videos communicate emotions about
emotions. Projections, 2(1), 4559. doi:10.3167/proj.2008.020104
Bartsch, A., & Viehoff, R. (2003). Meta-emotion: In search of a meta-account for entertainment
by negative emotions. SPIEL, 22(2), 309328.
Baumgarten, A. G. (1735/1954). Reflections on poetry: Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten's
Meditationes Philosophicae de Nonnullis Ad Poema Pertinentibus (K. Aschenbrenner &
W. B. Holther, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work
published 1735)
Baumgarten, A. G. (1750/2007). Aesthetica (D. Mirbach, Ed.). Hamburg, Germany: Meiner.
(Original work published 1750)
Bavishi, A., Slade, M. D., & Levy, B. R. (2016). A chapter a day: Association of book reading
with longevity. Social Science & Medicine, 164, 4448.
Bawden, H. H. (1908). The nature of aesthetic value; with a critique of Miss Puffer's theory of its
alleged absoluteness. Psychological Review, 15(4), 217236. doi:10.1037/h0073010
Belfi, A. M., Vessel, E. A., & Starr, G. G. (2017). Individual ratings of vividness predict
aesthetic appeal in poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1037/aca0000153
Bell, C. (1947). Art. London, England: Chatto & Windus. (Original work published 1914)
Benedek, M., & Kaernbach, C. (2011). Physiological correlates and emotional specificity of
human piloerection. Biological Psychology, 86(3), 320329.
Berenbaum, H. (2002). Varieties of joy-related pleasurable activities and feelings. Cognition &
Emotion, 16(4), 473494. doi:10.1080/0269993014000383
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Meredith Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an
objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of pleasure: Reward in
humans and animals. Psychopharmacology, 199(3), 457480. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2013). Neuroscience of affect: Brain mechanisms of
pleasure and displeasure. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 294303.
Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with
activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(20), 11818–11823.
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). When we
like what we know: A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain and
Language, 124(1), 18. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–
1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265289. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brattico, E., Bogert, B., & Jacobsen, T. (2013). Toward a neural chronometry for the aesthetic
experience of music. Frontiers in Psychology: Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(206).
Brieber, D., Nadal, M., Leder, H., & Rosenberg, R. (2014). Art in time and space: Context
modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS ONE, 9(6),
e99019. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
Brielmann, A. A., & Pelli, D. G. (2017). Beauty requires thought. Current Biology, 27(10),
15061513.e1503. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018
Brown, S., Gao, X., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S. B., & Liotti, M. (2011). Naturalizing aesthetics:
Brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. NeuroImage, 58(1), 250
258. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.012
Bygren, L. O., Johansson, S.-E., Konlaan, B. B., Grjibovski, A. M., Wilkinson, A. V., &
Sjöström, M. (2009). Attending cultural events and cancer mortality: A Swedish cohort
study. Arts & Health, 1(1), 6473. doi:10.1080/17533010802528058
Bygren, L. O., Konlaan, B. B., & Johansson, S.-E. (1996). Attendance at cultural events, reading
books or periodicals, and making music or singing in a choir as determinants for survival:
Swedish interview survey of living conditions. BMJ, 313(7072), 15771580.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191214.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and
integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76(5), 839855. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.839
Carbon, C.-C., & Leder, H. (2005). When feature information comes first! Early processing of
inverted faces. Perception, 34(9), 11171134. doi:10.1068/p5192
Carroll, N. (1996). The paradox of suspense. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen
(Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations
(pp. 7191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chatterjee, A. (2013). The aesthetic brain: How we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, A., Thomas, A., Smith, S. E., & Aguirre, G. K. (2009). The neural response to facial
attractiveness. Neuropsychology, 23(2), 135143. doi:10.1037/a0014430
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7),
370375. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 172194. doi:10.1111/nyas.13035
Chenoweth, R. E., & Gobster, P. H. (1990). The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in
the landscape. Landscape Journal, 9(1), 18. doi:10.3368/lj.9.1.1
Christensen, J. F., & Gomila, A. (2018). Introduction: Art and the brain: From pleasure to well-
being. In J. F. Christensen & A. Gomila (Eds.), Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 237,
pp. xxviixlvi). Cambridge, MA: Academic Print.
Cicero. (1962). Orator (H. M. Hubbell, Trans.). In T. E. Page & E. Capps (Eds.), Cicero, Brutus/
Orator. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clay, F. (1908). The origin of the aesthetic emotion. Sammelbände der Internationalen
Musikgesellschaft, 9(2), 282290.
Clore, G. L. (1994). Why emotions vary in intensity. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The
nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 386393). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The psychological foundations of the affective
lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 751766.
Clynes, M., & Nettheim, N. (1982). The living quality of music. In M. Clynes (Ed.), Music,
mind, and brain: The neuropsychology of music (pp. 4782). New York, NY: Springer
Cova, F., & Deonna, J. A. (2014). Being moved. Philosophical Studies, 169(3), 447466.
Cuypers, K., Krokstad, S., Lingaas Holmen, T., Skjei Knudtsen, M., Bygren, L. O., & Holmen, J.
(2012). Patterns of receptive and creative cultural activities and their association with
perceived health, anxiety, depression and satisfaction with life among adults: The HUNT
study, Norway. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66(8), 698703.
Darwin, C. (1871/1981). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1871)
Davidson, J. W., & Correia, J. S. (2001). Meaningful musical performance: A bodily experience.
Research Studies in Music Education, 17(1), 7083.
Davis, K. L., & Panksepp, J. (2011). The brain's emotional foundations of human personality and
the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,
35(9), 19461958. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.04.004
DeNora, T. (2010). Music in everyday life (9th ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Deutsch, D., Lapidis, R., & Henthorn, T. (2008). The speech-to-song illusion. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 124(4), 2471. doi:10.1121/1.4808987
Dijkstra, K., Zwaan, R. A., Graesser, A. C., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Character and reader
emotions in literary texts. Poetics, 23(1–2), 139157. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(94)00009-
Dixon, P., Bortolussi, M., Twilley, L. C., & Leung, A. (1993). Literary processing and
interpretation: Towards empirical foundations. Poetics, 22(1–2), 533. doi:10.1016/0304-
Dubé, L., & Le Bel, J. L. (2003). The content and structure of laypeople's concept of pleasure.
Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 263295. doi:10.1080/02699930244000309
Dubos, J.-B. (1719). Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, Partie 2 [Critical
reflections on poetry and painting, part 2]. Paris, France: J. Mariette.
Eaton, M. M. (1982). A strange kind of sadness. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 41(1),
5163. doi:10.2307/430823
Eerola, T., Vuoskoski, J. K., & Kautiainen, H. (2016). Being moved by unfamiliar sad music is
associated with high empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1176.
Eerola, T., Vuoskoski, J. K., Peltola, H.-R., Putkinen, V., & Schäfer, K. (2017). An integrative
review of the enjoyment of sadness associated with music. Physics of Life Reviews.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2017.11.016
Epstein, D. (1995). Shaping time: Music, the brain, and performance. New York, NY: Schirmer
Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2012). Stirring images: Fear, not happiness or
arousal, makes art more sublime. Emotion, 12(5), 10711074. doi:10.1037/a0027200
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The experimental study of the ‘good Gestalt’: A new approach.
Psychological Review, 49(4), 344364. doi:10.1037/h0057013
Fayn, K., MacCann, C., Tiliopoulos, N., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic
people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and
pleasure. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01877
Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik [Elements of psychophysics]. Leipzig,
Germany: Breitkopf und Härtel.
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik [Elementary aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(3), 464486. doi:10.1037/0096-
Fingerhut, J., & Prinz, J. J. (2018). Wonder, appreciation, and the value of art. In J. F.
Christensen & A. Gomila (Eds.), Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 237, pp. 107128).
Cambridge, MA: Academic Print.
Fiske, A. P., Seibt, B., & Schubert, T. (2017). The sudden devotion emotion: Kama muta and the
cultural practices whose function is to evoke it. Emotion Review. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/1754073917723167
Fitch, W. T., von Graevenitz, A., & Nicolas, E. (2009). Bio-aesthetics and the aesthetic
trajectory: A dynamic cognitive and cultural perspective. In M. Skov, O. Vartanian, C.
Martindale, & A. Berleant (Eds.), Neuroaesthetics (pp. 59102). Amityville, NY:
Frey, W. H., Desota-Johnson, D., Hoffman, C., & McCall, J. T. (1981). Effect of stimulus on the
chemical composition of human tears. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 92(4), 559
567. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(81)90651-6
Fridlund, A. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Guidelines for human electromyographic research.
Psychophysiology, 23(5), 567589. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00676.x
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349358.
Frijda, N. H. (1989). Aesthetic emotions and reality. American Psychologist, 44(12), 15461547.
Frijda, N. H. (2010). On the nature and function of pleasure. In M. L. Kringelbach & K. C.
Berridge (Eds.), Pleasures of the brain (pp. 99112). New York, NY: Oxford University
Frijda, N. H., & Sundararajan, L. (2007). Emotion refinement: A theory inspired by Chinese
poetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 227241. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
Fukui, H., & Toyoshima, K. (2014). Chill-inducing music enhances altruism in humans.
Frontiers in Psychology: Cognition, 5, 1215. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01215
Gabrielsson, A. (2001-2002). Emotion perceived and emotion felt: Same or different? Musicae
Scientiae, 5(suppl. 1 ), 123147. doi:10.1177/10298649020050S105
Gabrielsson, A. (2010). Strong experiences with music. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.),
Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 547574). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Garrido, S., & Schubert, E. (2011). Individual differences in the enjoyment of negative emotion
in music: A literature review and experiment. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 28(3), 279296. doi:10.1525/mp.2011.28.3.279
Geiger, M. (1914). Das Problem der ästhetischen Scheingefühle [The problem of aesthetic quasi-
emotions]. In Kongreß für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Berlin 7.-9.
Oktober 1913 (pp. 191195). Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.
Geiger, M. (1922). Beiträge zur Phänomenologie des ästhetischen Genusses [Contributions to
the phenomenology of aesthetic enjoyment]. Halle, Germany: M. Niemeyer.
Gerger, G., Leder, H., & Kremer, A. (2014). Context effects on emotional and aesthetic
evaluations of artworks and IAPS pictures. Acta Psychologica, 151, 174183.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass
distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115
141. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
Goldstein, A. (1980). Thrills in response to music and other stimuli. Physiological Psychology,
8(1), 126129. doi:10.3758/BF03326460
Gonzalez, R., Smith, J., & Nielsen, L. (2017). Editorial overview: Theories, methods, and
applications of mixed emotions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 15, ivvi.
Gordon, A. M., Stellar, J. E., Anderson, C. L., McNeil, G. D., Loew, D., & Keltner, D. (2016).
The dark side of the sublime: Distinguishing a threat-based variant of awe. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 310328. doi:10.1037/pspp0000120
Gračanin, A., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., Kardum, I., Zupčić, M., Šantek, M., & Šimić, M. (2015).
Why crying does and sometimes does not seem to alleviate mood: A quasi-experimental
study. Motivation and Emotion, 39(6), 953960. doi:10.1007/s11031-015-9507-9
Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based
aesthetics: The pleasure–interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 395–410. doi:10.1177/1088868315574978
Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: The two
routes to aesthetic liking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(15). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015
Grewe, O., Nagel, F., Kopiez, R., & Altenmuller, E. (2007). Listening to music as a re-creative
process: Physiological, psychological, and psychoacoustical correlates of chills and
strong emotions. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 297314.
Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health
and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
6(9), 23322343. doi:10.3390/ijerph6092332
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative
and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95103.
Hanich, J., & Menninghaus, W. (2017). Beyond sadness: The multi-emotional trajectory of
melodrama. Cinema Journal, 56(4), 76101. doi:10.1353/cj.2017.0041
Hanich, J., Wagner, V., Shah, M., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2014). Why we like to
watch sad films: The pleasure of being moved in aesthetic experiences. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 130143. doi:10.1037/a0035690
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E.
O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138172). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Heim, C. (2015). Audience as performer: The changing role of theatre audiences in the twenty-
first century. London, England: Routledge.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). 'Most advanced, yet acceptable':
Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design.
British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111124. doi:10.1348/000712603762842147
Hemenover, S. H., & Schimmack, U. (2007). That's disgusting!..., but very amusing: Mixed
feelings of amusement and disgust. Cognition & Emotion, 21(5), 11021113.
Hodges, D. A. (2009). Bodily responses to music. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 121130). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Höfel, L., & Jacobsen, T. (2007). Electrophysiological indices of processing aesthetics:
Spontaneous or intentional processes? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65(1),
2031. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.02.007
Hu, C.-P., Huang, Y., Eickhoff, S. B., Peng, K., & Sui, J. (2016). Shared neural basis for
experiencing the beauty of human faces and visual art: Evidence from a meta-analysis of
fMRI studies. Retrieved from
Hunter, P. G., Schellenberg, E. G., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Feelings and perceptions of
happiness and sadness induced by music: Similarities, differences, and mixed emotions.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(1), 4756. doi:10.1037/a0016873
Huron, D. B. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Istók, E., Brattico, E., Jacobsen, T., Krohn, K., Muller, M., & Tervaniemi, M. (2009). Aesthetic
responses to music: A questionnaire study. Musicae Scientiae, 13(2), 183206.
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs
more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887900. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887
Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations.
Psychological Review, 99(3), 561565. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.561
Jackendoff, R., & Lerdahl, F. (2006). The capacity for music: What is it, and what’s special
about it? Cognition, 100(1), 3372. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.005
Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In R. M.
Willems (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 135159).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, J. M., Hammerman-Rozenberg, R., Cohen, A., & Stessman, J. (2008). Reading daily
predicts reduced mortality among men from a cohort of community-dwelling 70-year-
olds. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 63(2), S73S80.
Jacobsen, T. (2010). Beauty and the brain: Culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic
appreciation. Journal of Anatomy, 216(2), 184191. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
Jacobsen, T., Buchta, K., Kohler, M., & Schröger, E. (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging
the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94(3), 12531260.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London, England: Macmillan.
Janata, P., & Grafton, S. T. (2003). Swinging in the brain: Shared neural substrates for behaviors
related to sequencing and music. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 682. doi:10.1038/nn1081
Janata, P., Tomic, S. T., & Haberman, J. M. (2012). Sensorimotor coupling in music and the
psychology of the groove. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 5475.
Joye, Y., & van den Berg, A. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of
evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 10(4), 261268. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
Juslin, P. N. (2013). From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: Towards a unified theory of
musical emotions. Physics of Life Reviews, 10(3), 235266.
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2003). Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music
performance: Different channels, same code? Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 770814.
Juslin, P. N., Liljeström, S., Laukka, P., Västfjäll, D., & Lundqvist, L.-O. (2011). Emotional
reactions to music in a nationally representative sample of Swedish adults: Prevalence
and causal influences. Musicae Scientiae, 15(2), 174207.
Kant, I. (1790/2001). Critique of the power of judgment (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790)
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis (new ed.). Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion.
Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297314. doi:10.1080/02699930302297
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science,
342(6156), 377380. doi:10.1126/science.1239918
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic
value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 11251132.
Kirschmann, A. (1900). Concepts and laws of aesthetics. University of Toronto Studies,
Psychological Series, 1, 100200.
Kivy, P. (1991). Music alone: Philosophical reflections on the purely musical experience. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Kleinschmidt, E. (2004). Die Entdeckung der Intensität: Geschichte einer Denkfigur im 18.
Jahrhundert [The discovery of intensity: History of a figure of thought in the 18th
century]. Göttingen, Germany: Wallstein.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Keplinger, C. (2006). Mystery appeal: Effects of uncertainty and
resolution on the enjoyment of mystery. Media Psychology, 8(3), 193212.
Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Mapping the aesthetic
space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 56, 3549. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001
Koelsch, S. (2013). From social contact to social cohesion: The 7 Cs. Music and Medicine, 5(4),
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.
Konečni, V. J. (2005). The aesthetic trinity: Awe, being moved, thrills. Bulletin of Psychology
and the Arts, 5(2), 2744.
Konečni, V. J. (2008). Does music induce emotion? A theoretical and methodological analysis.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 115129. doi:10.1037/1931-
Konlaan, B. B., Bygren, L. O., & Johansson, S.-E. (2000). Visiting the cinema, concerts,
museums or art exhibitions as determinant of survival: A Swedish fourteen-year cohort
follow-up. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 28(3), 174178.
Korsmeyer, C. (2011). Savoring disgust: The foul and the fair in aesthetics. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz
(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 134154). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
Kuehnast, M., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2014). Being
moved: Linguistic representation and conceptual structure. Frontiers in Psychology:
Emotion Science, 5, 1242. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01242
Külpe, O. (1903). Ein Beitrag zur experimentellen Aesthetik [A contribution to experimental
aesthetics]. The American Journal of Psychology, 14(3/4), 215231.
Külpe, O. (1921). Grundlagen der Ästhetik [Foundations of aesthetics]. Leipzig, Germany: S.
Kumschick, I. R., Beck, L., Eid, M., Witte, G., Klann-Delius, G., Heuser, I., . . . Menninghaus,
W. (2014). READING and FEELING: The effects of a literature-based intervention
designed to increase emotional competence in second and third graders. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 1448. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01448
Lambie, J. A., & Marcel, A. J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: A
theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109(2), 219259. doi:10.1037//0033-
Lange, K. (1901). Das Wesen der Kunst: Grundzüge einer realistischen Kunstlehre [The nature
of art: Outline of a realistic theory of art]. Berlin, Germany: Grote.
Larsen, J. T. (2017). Introduction to the Special Section on Mixed Emotions. Emotion Review,
9(2), 9798. doi:10.1177/1754073916672523
Larsen, J. T., Coles, N. A., & Jordan, D. K. (2017). Varieties of mixed emotional experience.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 15, 7276. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.021
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the
same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 684696.
Larsen, J. T., Norris, C. J., McGraw, A. P., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). The
evaluative space grid: A single-item measure of positivity and negativity. Cognition &
Emotion, 23(3), 453480. doi:10.1080/02699930801994054
Larsen, J. T., & Stastny, B. J. (2011). It's a bittersweet symphony: Simultaneously mixed
emotional responses to music with conflicting cues. Emotion, 11(6), 14691473.
Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2008). Regulation of emotional well-being: Overcoming the
hedonic treadmill. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being
(pp. 258289). New York, NY: Guilford.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive–motivational–relational theory of emotion.
American Psychologist, 46(8), 819834. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton, E. M. (1970). Towards a cognitive theory of emotion. In
M. B. Arnold (Ed.), Feelings and emotions: The Loyola symposium (pp. 207232). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, M. D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation
and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489508.
Lehne, M., & Koelsch, S. (2015). Toward a general psychological model of tension and
suspense. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 79. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00079
Levine, L. W. (1988). Highbrow/lowbrow: The emergence of cultural hierarchy in America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Loewy, R. (2002). Never leave well enough alone. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University
MacDonald, R., Kreutz, G., & Mitchell, L. (Eds.). (2013). Music, health, and wellbeing. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Man, V., Nohlen, H. U., Melo, H., & Cunningham, W. A. (2017). Hierarchical brain systems
support multiple representations of valence and mixed affect. Emotion Review, 9(2), 124
132. doi:10.1177/1754073916667237
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of
social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173192.
Margulis, E. H. (2014). On repeat: How music plays the mind. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Marković, S. (2010). Aesthetic experience and the emotional content of paintings. Psihologija,
43(1), 4764. doi:10.2298/PSI1001047M
Marković, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: Aesthetic fascination, aesthetic
appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3(1), 117. doi:10.1068/i0450aap
Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of
Mind and Behaviour, 5(1), 4980.
Martínez-Martí, M. L., Hernández-Lloreda, M. J., & Avia, M. D. (2016). Appreciation of beauty
and excellence: Relationship with personality, prosociality and well-being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 17(6), 26132634. doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9709-6
Maruskin, L. A., Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The chills as a psychological construct:
Content universe, factor structure, affective composition, elicitors, trait antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 135157.
Mas-Herrero, E., Zatorre, Robert J., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Marco-Pallarés, J. (2014).
Dissociation between musical and monetary reward responses in specific musical
anhedonia. Current Biology, 24(6), 699704. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.068
Maslow, A. H., Frager, R., Fadiman, J., McReynolds, C., & Cox, R. (1970). Motivation and
personality (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience.
Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 511. doi:10.1007/s11031-007-9053-1
Meinong, A. (1902/1977). Über Annahmen [On assumptions]. In R. Haller & R. Kindinger
(Eds.), Alexius Meinong Gesamtausgabe (Vol. 4). Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck-
und Verlagsanstalt. (Original work published 1902)
Meinong, A. (1917). Über emotionale Präsentation [On emotional presentation]. Wien, Austria:
A. Hölder.
Menninghaus, W. (1991). Zwischen Überwältigung und Widerstand: Macht und Gewalt in
Longins und Kants Theorien des Erhabenen [Between being overwhelmed and
withstanding the challenge: Power and violence in Longin's and Kant's theories of the
sublime]. Poetica, 23(1/2), 119.
Menninghaus, W. (1999). In praise of nonsense: Kant and Bluebeard. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Menninghaus, W. (2003). Disgust: Theory and history of a strong sensation (H. Eiland & J.
Golb, Trans.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Menninghaus, W. (2009). "Ein Gefühl der Beförderung des Lebens": Kants Reformulierung des
Topos lebhafter Vorstellung ["A feeling of life’s being furthered:" Kant's reformulation
of the topos of vivid imagination]. In A. Avanessian, W. Menninghaus, & J. Völker
(Eds.), Vita aesthetica. Szenarien ästhetischer Lebendigkeit [Vita aesthetics. Scenarios of
aesthetic vividness] (pp. 7794). Berlin, Germany: Diaphanes.
Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Knoop, C. A., Kotz, S. A., Schlotz, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2015).
Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic
comprehension. Cognition, 143, 4860. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S.
(2017a). The Distancing–Embracing model of the enjoyment of negative emotions in art
reception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e347. doi:10.1017/S0140525X17000309
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S.
(2017b). Negative emotions in art reception: Refining theoretical assumptions and adding
variables to the Distancing-Embracing model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e380.
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Kuehnast, M., & Jacobsen, T.
(2015). Towards a psychological construct of being moved. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0128451.
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Knoop, C. A. (2017). The
emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics, 4759.
Meyer, L. B. (1961). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Miu, A. C., Pițur, S., & Szentágotai-Tătar, A. (2016). Aesthetic emotions across arts: A
comparison between painting and music. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1951.
Montano, U. (2014). Case analysis II: Elegance. In U. Montano (Ed.), Explaining beauty in
mathematics: An aesthetic theory of mathematics (pp. 179195). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International.
Morreall, J. (1985). Enjoying negative emotions in fiction. Philosophy and Literature, 9(1), 95
103. doi:10.1353/phl.1985.0118
Mulligan, K. (2009). Emotions and values. In P. Goldie (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
philosophy of emotion (pp. 475500). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Mumper, M. L., & Gerrig, R. J. (2017). Leisure reading and social cognition: A meta-analysis.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 109120.
Musch, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in
cognition and emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Muth, C., & Carbon, C.-C. (2013). The aesthetic Aha: On the pleasure of having insights into
Gestalt. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 2530. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.001
Muth, C., Hesslinger, V. M., & Carbon, C.-C. (2015). The appeal of challenge in the perception
of art: How ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity, and the opportunity for insight affect
appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 206216.
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Unusual aesthetic states. In P. P. L. Tinio & J. K. Smith
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 519
539). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., Beaty, R. E., Burgin, C. J., Hodges, D. A., & Kwapil, T. R. (2014).
Listening between the notes: Aesthetic chills in everyday music listening. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 104109. doi:10.1037/a0034867
Oatley, K. (1994). A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification
in fictional narrative. Poetics, 23(1-2), 5374. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(94)P4296-S
Oliver, M. B. (1993). Exploring the paradox of the enjoyment of sad films. Human
Communication Research, 19(3), 315342. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00304.x
Oliver, M. B. (2003). Mood management and selective exposure. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-
Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf
Zillmann (pp. 85106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment
gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 5381.
Oliver, M. B., & Sanders, M. (2004). The appeal of horror and suspense. In S. Price (Ed.), The
horror film (pp. 243259). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Owren, M. J., & Amoss, R. T. (2014). Spontaneous human laughter. In M. M. Tugade, M. N.
Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds.), Handbook of positive emotions (Vol. 9, pp. 159178). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., &
Winner, E. (2016). Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory
of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
111(5), e46e54. doi:10.1037/pspa0000064
Panksepp, J. (1995). The emotional sources of "chills" induced by music. Music Perception: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 171207. doi:10.2307/40285693
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J., & Bernatzky, G. (2002). Emotional sounds and the brain: The neuro-affective
foundations of musical appreciation. Behavioural Processes, 60(2), 133155.
Payne, E. (1961). Emotion in music and in music appreciation. The Music Review, 22, 3950.
Payne, E. (1973). The nature of musical emotion and its place in the appreciative experience.
British Journal of Aesthetics, 13(2), 171181.
Payne, E. (1980). Towards an understanding of music appreciation. Psychology of Music, 8(2),
Pearce, M. T., Zaidel, D. W., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., & Nadal, M.
(2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 265279. doi:10.1177/1745691615621274
Pelowski, M. (2015). Tears and transformation: Feeling like crying as an indicator of insightful
or “aesthetic” experience with art. Frontiers in Psychology: Emotion Science, 1006.
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2017). Move me, astonish
me… delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna Integrated Model of top-down and bottom-
up processes in Art Perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and
neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80125.
Perlovsky, L. (2014). Mystery in experimental psychology, how to measure aesthetic emotions?
Frontiers in Psychology: Emotion Science, 5, 1006. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01006
Plantinga, C. (2009). Moving viewers: American film and the spectator's experience. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Prinz, J. J. (2004). Gut reactions: A perceptual theory of emotion. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Prinz, J. J. (2011). Emotion and aesthetic value. In E. Schellekens & P. Goldie (Eds.), The
aesthetic mind: Philosophy and psychology (pp. 7188). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Quintilian. (1920). The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian (H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of
aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 1551.
Reber, R. (2016). Critical feeling: How to use feelings strategically. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
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(4), 364382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective
judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 4548. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00008
Reisenzein, R. (1994). Pleasure–arousal theory and the intensity of emotions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 525539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.525
Reisenzein, R. (2001). Appraisal processes conceptualized from a schema-theoretic perspective:
Contributions to a process analysis of emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T.
Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 187
201). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Rickard, N. S. (2004). Intense emotional responses to music: A test of the physiological arousal
hypothesis. Psychology of Music, 32(4), 371388. doi:10.1177/0305735604046096
Rieger, D., Reinecke, L., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2014). Media entertainment and well-
being—linking hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience to media-induced
recovery and vitality. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 456478.
Ritoók, E. v. (1910). Zur Analyse der ästhetischen Wirkung auf Grund der Methode der
Zeitvariation [On the analysis of aesthetic effects based on the method of time variation].
Zeitschrift für Ästhetik Und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, 5(4), 512544.
Robinson, J. (2009). Emotional responses to music: What are they? How do they work? And are
they relevant to aesthetic appreciation? In P. Goldie (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
philosophy of emotion (pp. 651680). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, T., Callahan, C., & Evans, K. (2014). Why do we keep going back? A Q method
analysis of our attraction to horror movies. Operant Subjectivity, 37(1/2), 4157.
Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hart, C. M., Juhl, J., . . . Schlotz, W.
(2011). The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential resource.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 638652. doi:10.1037/a0024292
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296320.
Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of laughter. In A. Kaszniak (Ed.),
Emotions, qualia, and consciousness (pp. 426443). Singapore: World Scientific.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological
Review, 110(1), 145172. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145
Russell, J. A., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and
other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(5), 805819.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, Robert J. (2011).
Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak
emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 257262. doi:10.1038/nn.2726
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Longo, G., Cooperstock, J. R., & Zatorre, Robert J. (2009). The
rewarding aspects of music listening are related to degree of emotional arousal. PLoS
ONE, 4(10), e7487. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007487
Salimpoor, V. N., van den Bosch, I., Kovacevic, N., McIntosh, A. R., Dagher, A., & Zatorre,
Robert J. (2013). Interactions between the nucleus accumbens and auditory cortices
predict music reward value. Science, 340(6129), 216219. doi:10.1126/science.1231059
Salimpoor, V. N., & Zatorre, R. J. (2013). Neural interactions that give rise to musical pleasure.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(1), 6275. doi:10.1037/a0031819
Samur, D., Tops, M., & Koole, S. L. (2018). Does a single session of reading literary fiction
prime enhanced mentalising performance? Four replication experiments of Kidd and
Castano (2013). Cognition & Emotion, 32(1), 130144.
Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., Scott, S. K., & Smith, E. E. (2010). Cross-cultural
recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(6), 24082412.
Schellenberg, E. G., Peretz, I., & Vieillard, S. (2008). Liking for happy- and sad-sounding music:
Effects of exposure. Cognition & Emotion, 22(2), 218237.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). Emotion as multicomponent process. A model and some cross-cultural
data. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 3763).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking. In
K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory,
methods, research (pp. 92120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R. (2004a). Feelings integrate the central representation of appraisal-driven response
organization in emotion. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. H. Frijda, & A. H. Fischer (Eds.),
Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium (pp. 136157). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Scherer, K. R. (2004b). Which emotions can be induced by music? What are the underlying
mechanisms? And how can we measure them? Journal of New Music Research, 33(3),
239251. doi:10.1080/0929821042000317822
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science
Information - Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 44(4), 695729.
Scherer, K. R. (2012). Emotion in action, interaction, music and speech. In M. Arbib (Ed.),
Language, music and the brain: A mysterious relationship (pp. 107140). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Scherer, K. R., & Coutinho, E. (2013). How music creates emotion: A multifactorial process
approach. In T. Cochrane, B. Fantini, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The emotional power of
music: Multidisciplinary perspectives on musical arousal, expression, and social control
(pp. 121145). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R., & Zentner, M. R. (2001). Emotional effects of music: Production rules. In P. N.
Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 361392).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Schiller, F. (1792). Über den Grund des Vergnügens an tragischen Gegenständen [On the reason
for our enjoyment of tragic subjects]. In Neue Thalia, erstes Stück (pp. 92125). Leipzig,
Germany: Georg Joachim Göschen.
Schindler, I., Hosoya, G., Menninghaus, W., Beermann, U., Wagner, V., Eid, M., & Scherer, K.
R. (2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment
tool. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0178899. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178899
Schubert, E. (2013). Loved music can make a listener feel negative emotions. Musicae Scientiae,
17(1), 1126. doi:10.1177/1029864912461321
Seibt, B., Schubert, T. W., Zickfeld, J. H., & Fiske, A. P. (2017). Interpersonal closeness and
morality predict feelings of being moved. Emotion, 17(3), 389394.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further
exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(6), 10611086. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061
Sherman, A., & Morrissey, C. (2017). What is art good for? The socio-epistemic value of art.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(411). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00411
Silver, E. A., & Metzger, W. (1989). Aesthetic influences on expert mathematical problem
solving. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem
solving: A new perspective (pp. 5974). New York, NY: Springer New York.
Silvia, P. J. (2005a). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and
emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342357. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.342
Silvia, P. J. (2005b). What is interesting? - Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion,
5(1), 89102.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Silvia, P. J. (2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic
fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(4), 247249.
Silvia, P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other
unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 48
51. doi:10.1037/a00146320
Silvia, P. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic
experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 7580.
Silvia, P. J., & Brown, E. M. (2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions:
Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 100106.
Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and awe
in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376384.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY:
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813838. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.48.4.813
Smith, G. M. (1999). Local emotions, global moods, and film structure. In C. Plantinga & G. M.
Smith (Eds.), Passionate views: Film, cognition, and emotion (pp. 103120). Baltimore,
MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (2003). I. Emotions, thoughts and feelings: What is a ‘cognitive theory’ of the
emotions and does it neglect affectivity? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 52,
118. doi:10.1017/S1358246100007864
Sonnemans, J., & Frijda, N. H. (1995). The determinants of subjective emotional intensity.
Cognition & Emotion, 9(5), 483506. doi:10.1080/02699939508408977
Starr, G. G. (2013). Feeling beauty: The neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Stel, M., van Baaren, R. B., & Vonk, R. (2008). Effects of mimicking: Acting prosocially by
being emotionally moved. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 965976.
Stratton, G. M. (1902). Eye-movements and the aesthetics of visual form. Philosophical Studies,
XX(Festschrift), 336359.
Strizhakova, Y., & Krcmar, M. (2007). Mood management and video rental choices. Media
Psychology, 10(1), 91112. doi:10.1080/15213260701301152
Stupacher, J., Hove, M. J., & Janata, P. (2016). Audio features underlying perceived groove and
sensorimotor synchronization in music. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
33(5), 571589. doi:10.1525/mp.2016.33.5.571
Sundararajan, L. (2010). Two flavors of aesthetic tasting: Rasa and savoring a cross-cultural
study with implications for psychology of emotion. Review of General Psychology, 14(1),
2230. doi:10.1037/a0018122
Szpunar, K. K., Schellenberg, E. G., & Pliner, P. (2004). Liking and memory for musical stimuli
as a function of exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 30(2), 370381. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.370
Tamborini, R., & Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of horror film attendance and appeal: An analysis of
the audience for frightening films. Communication Research, 14(4), 415436.
Tamborini, R., Stiff, J., & Heidel, C. (1990). Reacting to graphic horror: A model of empathy
and emotional behavior. Communication Research, 17(5), 616640.
Tan, E. S. H. (1996). Emotion and the structure of narrative film: Film as an emotion machine.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tan, E. S. H. (2000). Emotion, art, and the humanities. In M. D. Lewis (Ed.), Handbook of
emotions (Vol. 3, pp. 116134). New York, NY: Guilford.
Tan, E. S. H. (2008). Entertainment is emotion: The functional architecture of the entertainment
experience. Media Psychology, 11(1), 2851. doi:10.1080/15213260701853161
Taruffi, L., & Koelsch, S. (2014). The paradox of music-evoked sadness: An online survey.
PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110490
Thampi, G. B. M. (1965). "Rasa" as aesthetic experience. Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 24(1), 7580. doi:10.2307/428249
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes
in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), 1109.
Tinio, P. P. L., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2013). Birds of a feather… Generalization of facial
structures following massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 463471.
Tinio, P. P. L., & Leder, H. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry,
complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130(3), 241250.
Trost, W., Ethofer, T., Zentner, M., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Mapping aesthetic musical
emotions in the brain. Cerebral Cortex, 22(12), 27692783. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr353
Tschacher, W., Greenwood, S., Kirchberg, V., Wintzerith, S., van den Berg, K., & Tröndle, M.
(2012). Physiological correlates of aesthetic perception of artworks in a museum.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 96103. doi:10.1037/a0023845
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research, 4(1),
1723. doi:10.1080/01426397908705892
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J.
F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85125). New York, NY:
Springer US.
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O.
Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73137). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The
negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 383
403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383
van der Veen, F. M., Jorritsma, J., Krijger, C., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2012). Paroxetine reduces
crying in young women watching emotional movies. Psychopharmacology, 220(2), 303
308. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2477-z
Vessel, E. A., Starr, G. G., & Rubin, N. (2012). The brain on art: Intense aesthetic experience
activates the default mode network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(66).
Vessel, E. A., Starr, G. G., & Rubin, N. (2013). Art reaches within: Aesthetic experience, the self
and the default mode network. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 258.
Visch, V., Tan, E. S. H., & Molenaar, D. (2010). The emotional and cognitive effect of
immersion in film viewing. Cognition & Emotion, 24(8), 14391445.
Vuoskoski, J. K., & Eerola, T. (2011). Measuring music-induced emotion: A comparison of
emotion models, personality biases, and intensity of experiences. Musicae Scientiae,
15(2), 159173. doi:10.1177/1029864911403367
Vuoskoski, J. K., & Eerola, T. (2017). The pleasure evoked by sad music is mediated by feelings
of being moved. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 439. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00439
Wagner, V., Klein, J., Hanich, J., Shah, M., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobsen, T. (2015). Anger
framed: A field study on emotion, pleasure, and art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 10(2), 134146. doi:10.1037/aca0000029
Wagner, V., Menninghaus, W., Hanich, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Art schema effects on
affective experience: The case of disgusting images. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 8(2), 120129. doi:10.1037/a0036126
Wald-Fuhrmann, M. (2010). "Ein Mittel wider sich selbst": Melancholie in der
Instrumentalmusik um 1800 ["A means against oneself": Melancholy in instrumental
music around 1800]. Kassel, Germany: Bärenreiter.
Wallot, S., & Menninghaus, W. (2018). Ambiguity effects of rhyme and meter. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1037/xlm0000557
Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., Heinrich, J., Schneiderbauer, M., & Menninghaus, W. (2017).
Tears falling on goosebumps: Co-occurrence of emotional lacrimation and emotional
piloerection indicates a psychophysiological climax in emotional arousal. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8(41). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00041
Wassiliwizky, E., Koelsch, S., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2017). The
emotional power of poetry: Neural circuitry, psychophysiology and compositional
principles. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(8), 12291240.
Wassiliwizky, E., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2015). Art-elicited chills
indicate states of being moved. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4),
405416. doi:10.1037/aca0000023
Węziak-Białowolska, D. (2016). Attendance of cultural events and involvement with the arts—
Impact evaluation on health and well-being from a Swiss household panel survey. Public
Health, 139, 161169. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.06.028
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: Content, triggers,
functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975993.
Wilkinson, A. V., Waters, A. J., Bygren, L. O., & Tarlov, A. R. (2007). Are variations in rates of
attending cultural activities associated with population health in the United States? BMC
Public Health, 7(1), 226. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-226
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face:
Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 9891000. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of
processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer
(Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp.
189217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Witasek, S. (1901). Zur psychologischen Analyse der ästhetischen Einfühlung [On the
psychological analysis of aesthetic empathy]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie
der Sinnesorgane, 25, 149.
Witasek, S. (1904). Grundzüge der allgemeinen Ästhetik [Fundamentals of aesthetics in
general]. Leipzig, Germany: Barth.
Witek, M. A. G., Clarke, E. F., Wallentin, M., Kringelbach, M. L., & Vuust, P. (2014).
Syncopation, body-movement and pleasure in groove music. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94446.
Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der Psychologie [Outlines of psychology]. Leipzig, Germany:
Wynn, M. (1997). Beauty, providence and the biophilia hypothesis. The Heythrop Journal,
38(3), 283299. doi:10.1111/1468-2265.00051
Xenakis, I., Arnellos, A., & Darzentas, J. (2012). The functional role of emotions in aesthetic
judgment. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 212226.
Yanal, R. J. (1996). The paradox of suspense. British Journal of Aesthetics, 36(2), 146158.
Yeh, Y.-c., Hsu, W.-C., & Li, P.-H. (2018). The modulation of personal traits in neural responses
during the aesthetic experience of mundane art. Trends in Neuroscience and Education,
10, 818. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2017.12.002
Yeh, Y.-c., Lin, C.-W., Hsu, W.-C., Kuo, W.-J., & Chan, Y.-C. (2015). Associated and
dissociated neural substrates of aesthetic judgment and aesthetic emotion during the
appreciation of everyday designed products. Neuropsychologia, 73, 151160.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 127. doi:10.1037/h0025848
Zentner, M., & Eerola, T. (2010). Rhythmic engagement with music in infancy. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(13), 5768–5773.
Zentner, M., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Emotions evoked by the sound of music:
Characterization, classification, and measurement. Emotion, 8(4), 494521.
Zhou, X., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Chen, X., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2012).
Heartwarming memories: Nostalgia maintains physiological comfort. Emotion, 12(4),
678684. doi:10.1037/a0027236
Zhou, X., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Shi, K., & Feng, C. (2012). Nostalgia: The gift that keeps
on giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 3950. doi:10.1086/662199
Zickfeld, J. H., Schubert, T. W., Seibt, B., & Fiske, A. P. (2017). Empathic concern is part of a
more general communal emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(723).
Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In L. Donohew,
H. E. Sypher, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect (pp.
147171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zillmann, D., & Vorderer, P. (2000). Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zuckerman, M. (1996). Sensation seeking and the taste for vicarious horror. In J. B. Weaver &
R. Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and
reactions (pp. 147160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
... However, there is no consensus on whether emotions associated with art and aesthetic experiences are governed by the same systems supporting emotions during survival-salient episodes (Putkinen et al., 2021) and whether aesthetic experience is qualitiatively similar to other everyday experiences (Marković, 2012). Consequently, the origins of art-evoked emotions are under intensive debate (Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008;Leder et al., 2004;Menninghaus et al., 2019;Skov & Nadal, 2020). ...
... This brevity of self-reported feelings go significantly beyond simple liking and arousal (Leder et al., 2012) as well as the putative "basic" emotions (Cordaro et al., 2018;Ekman, 1992;Panksepp, 1982). It rather accords with the view that mixed positive and negative emotions are a common feature of the aesthetic emotional experiences during art encounters (Menninghaus et al., 2019) and that in the aesthetic experience sadness may be often linked with enjoyment. Multiple explanations have been put forward the human attraction to art that induces negative emotions, ranging from cultural to autobiographical and arousal-based factors, yet the actual biological basis of this phenomenon is not currently fully understood (Eerola et al., 2018). ...
... Instead, the body mapping technique provides a net index of the current, consciously accessible states of various physiological systems in the body, thus constituting an important part of the emotional experience . Consequently, our data cannot reveal whether the reported aesthetic experiences are distinct from physiological or neural emotional states during other type of sensory perception (Menninghaus et al., 2019;Skov & Nadal, 2020). Because matching visual properties of the stimuli for the sake of experimental control would significantly alter the aesthetic qualities of the artworks, the pupillometric effects might be confounded by low-level visual statistics of the images. ...
Full-text available
Humans all around the world are drawn to creating and consuming art due to its capability to evoke emotions, but the mechanisms underlying art-evoked feelings remain poorly characterised. Here we show how embodiement contributes to emotions evoked by a large database of visual art pieces (n = 336). In four experiments, we mapped the subjective feeling space of art-evoked emotions (n = 244), quantified "bodily fingerprints" of these emotions (n = 615), and recorded the subjects' interest annotations (n = 306) and eye movements (n = 21) while viewing the art. We show that art evokes a wide spectrum of feelings, and that the bodily fingerprints triggered by art are central to these feelings, especially in artworks where human figures are salient. Altogether these results support the model that bodily sensations are central to the aesthetic experience.
... This is reflected in articles, aiming to encircle what an aesthetic emotion is. For example, Menninghaus states that aesthetic emotions "always include an aesthetic evaluation/appreciation of the objects or events under consideration" (Menninghaus et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
This article is an answer to a report called “What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being?” The authors conclude that the arts have an impact on mental and physical health. Yet, the question of the role of the arts remains unanswered. What is and what is not an art effect? Recently, embodied theory has inspired articles on the perception of art. These articles have not yet received attention in the field of Arts and Health. Scholars in psychosomatic medicine have argued for an approach based on recent work in enactive embodied theory to investigate the connection between the body and the mind. The present article examines how key concepts in this theory relate to art. This leads to a discussion of art in terms of empathy—the relation between the internal state of the artist and the internal state of the beholder. I exemplify with a conceptual framework of musical empathy. Implications for health are addressed.
... Haiku appreciation with the joystick revealed a gradual increase in arousal during the appreciation process (Fig. 2B), which may be an important factor to consider when assessing emotions during haiku appreciation. In fact, Menninghaus et al. (2019) argue that aesthetic emotions cannot be de ned in terms of high or low arousal. Rather, art that successfully combines high and low arousal emotions, not just one or the other, is more common. ...
Full-text available
Haiku poetry, a short poem with a clear form, has the potential to elucidate many unknown aspects of linguistic art. Previous studies on haiku appreciation have shown that negative emotion and cognitive ambiguity reduce aesthetic evaluation. Considering the importance of negative emotions and ambiguity in art, it is beneficial to clarify the process of emotional and cognitive changes during aesthetic evaluation. This study examined the temporal effects of emotional and cognitive changes on aesthetic evaluation from multiple perspectives by measuring the ratings of each section of haiku, continuous emotional reports, and physiological changes in pupil diameter. The 112 students first rated the haiku at three time points on items such as beauty, valence, and ambiguity. Next, they rated the same haiku continuously for 20 seconds using a joystick for valence and arousal during which the pupil diameter was measured. The results showed that a decrease in negative emotions and ambiguity explained the beauty of the haiku. In the continuous emotion reports, positive emotions gradually increased for positive haiku and negative emotions gradually increased for negative haiku, while arousal decreased once and then gradually increased for both forms of haiku. Additionally, an increase in pupil diameter also explained the beauty. The roles of negative emotions and ambiguity were revealed by focusing on both subjective and physiological indicators of emotional and cognitive changes during haiku appreciation. This study has contributed to the advancement of our understanding of linguistic art forms by empirically exploring conscious and unconscious emotional and cognitive responses to haiku.
... The relationship between Unusual-Ordinary and Interesting-Boring scales deserves a closer examination (Figure 9). Despite the assertation of unusualness leading to desirability in the literature, there seems to be no clear consensus, as novelty and familiarity may not be contradictory in the context of aesthetics, and conditions such as high familiarity, high novelty or a balanced combination, all may lead to positive aesthetic appreciation (Hekkert, Snelders & Van Wieringen 2003;Menninghaus et al. 2019). The samples used in this study exhibited a strong positive correlation between Unusual and Interesting (⍴ ¼ 0.799, α < 0.01). ...
Full-text available
Biobased composites, which are considered a sustainable alternative to plastics, are yet to create a significant influence on product design and manufacturing. A key reason for this is perceptual handicaps associated with biobased composites and this study was aimed at understanding the mechanisms behind biocomposite perception, in the context of digital visuals. This study of digital biocomposite visuals demonstrated that material perception is influenced by the visual characteristics of the material. Data analysis of the perceptual attributes of the materials pointed towards clear ‘clustering’ of the materials against these attributes. Analysis shows that visual features like fibres and surface appearance may impact aesthetic and functional evaluation and there is no effect on age, gender or polymer type. We also propose a reference framework to categorise biobased composites based on visual order.
... The source of aesthetic emotion has been the subject of numerous works that try to link this emotion with its biological bases and education (Mastandrea et al. 2019). A comprehensive theory of aesthetic emotion has been published by Menninghaus et al. (2019). For details of the neurobiological bases of aesthetic perception obtained by neuroimaging methods, see Cela-Conde et al. (2004) and Chatterjee & Vartanian (2016). ...
Full-text available
In this essay we propose, based on the ideas of L. Rapkine and J. Monod on the physical reasons for aesthetic appreciation, that the interest of creative scientists in Jorge Luis Borges' works is produced by an apparently contradictory effect: on the one hand, the serenity that these texts induce in the mind of an innovative person and, on the other, the modification of the cognitive balance that causes the complexity of these texts and that operates as a creative force. We illustrate this idea with the specific case of the story "Blue Tigers". We show that this text by Borges, in a reader who is sensitive to it, injects information that puts the mind in a state far from the level of cognitive equilibrium. When it comes to solving a scientific problem, the search for new ways to solve the problem is enhanced by this condition in which the cognitive balance is cancelled. That is the condition in which the creation of new ideas seems possible.
... There is considerable overlap between moral, basic, and aesthetic emotions, the last of these being subjective feelings elicited during an aesthetic encounter, such as being moved when listening to classical music (Menninghaus et al., 2019). In addition to positive appraisals (e.g., awe and surprise) of aesthetic objects or experiences, there can also be negative appraisals and associated emotions, like anger and confusion (Schindler et al., 2017;Silvia, 2009). ...
Full-text available
Dark creativity comprises novel actions that lead to deliberate or unintentional harm. Although recent research has begun examining the construct more widely, there exist several gaps in scholarship. One such area is the influence, association, and role of affective factors in determining whether and to what extent an entity engages in dark creativity. After introducing concepts like negative and malevolent creativity, this chapter reviews the existing literature on the link between affective factors and creativity. Thereafter, the features of dark personality traits, like psychopathy, are examined with reference to affective considerations such as low empathy in producing original harm. Owing to the relationship between dark creativity and moral concerns, we also examine how moral emotions like guilt and shame (or lack thereof) may contribute to an understanding of such creativity. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research and avenues for interdisciplinary studies.
... Finally, as observed earlier (Section 3.4), psychologists have recently paid attention to the role of being moved, in addition to sadness, in our appreciation of sad music [145], and of negative art more generally [200,201]. Philosophers need to explore this new solution to the paradox of sad music in more detail (see [202]). ...
Full-text available
Music has strong emotional powers. How are we to understand affective responses to music? What does music teach us about emotions? Why are musical emotions important? Despite the rich literature in philosophy and the empirical sciences, particularly psychology and neuroscience, little attention has been paid to integrating these approaches. This extensive review aims to redress this imbalance and establish a mutual dialogue between philosophy and the empirical sciences by presenting the main philosophical puzzles from an affective science perspective. The chief problem is contagion. Sometimes, listeners perceive music as expressing some emotion and this elicits the same emotion in them. Contagion is perplexing because it collides with the leading theory of emotions as experiences of values. This article mostly revolves around the critical presentation of the philosophical solutions to this problem in light of recent developments in emotion theory and affective science. It also highlights practical issues, particularly the role of musical emotions in well-being and health, by tackling the paradox of sad music, i.e., the question of why people enjoy sad music. It thus bridges an important gap between theoretical and real-life issues as well as between philosophical and empirical investigations on affective responses to music.
The emotions that can be considered members of the set of Aesthetic Emotions (AEs) is controversial. The present study investigated the terms used by researchers in peer reviewed studies to exemplify AEs. 100 publications from 2000–2019 exemplifying AE terms were located to produced 111 AEs which were proposed as the basis of an AE lexicon. Awe, (being) moved and wonder were reliable members and without contradiction. One fifth were negatively valenced (e.g., anger, disgust), suggesting that the presence of negative AEs is generally accepted but not reliably. One quarter of the entries were also non-AEs and an additional 20 were exclusively so, producing a total of 131 terms. The lexicon is a concrete, dynamic set of examples against which to investigate extant definitions of AEs and to further develop theory. The robust presence of three terms suggests that calls to abandon the concept of AE may be premature.
Games have been shown to be an effective method for various purposes, from pure entertainment to fostering learning outcomes through serious and game-based learning approaches. However, the design of games is not an easy feat, regardless of whether they are focused on emotional outcomes or learning. There are many components that must be considered during game design, such as pedagogical theories, game elements, player experience, as well as cognitive-affective and sociocultural foundations. The balance of such components is one of the greatest challenges designers, researchers and educators must face in the next few years, especially considering that some of these components and their interactions have been neglected in research until recently, such as the importance of emotions in learning and their temporal influence in moderating player experiences. In the context of serious games, where learning and/or non-entertainment goals are as important as the entertainment itself, addressing this challenge is even more difficult. This work outlines and discusses the complexities of this balancing challenge, suggesting research opportunities related to new design tools and methods that consider all aspects enumerated above.
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Emotions provides a state-of-the-art review of research on the role of emotions in creativity. This volume presents the insights and perspectives of sixty creativity scholars from thirteen countries who span multiple disciplines, including developmental, social, and personality psychology; industrial and organizational psychology; neuroscience; education; art therapy, and sociology. It discusses affective processes – emotion states, traits, and emotion abilities – in relation to the creative process, person, and product, as well as two major contexts for expression of creativity: school, and work. It is a go-to source for scholars who need to enhance their understanding of a specific topic relating to creativity and emotion, and it provides students and researchers with a comprehensive introduction to creativity and emotion broadly.
Full-text available
There has been much work on what people appreciate in art, but comparatively little on what feelings of appreciation consist in. What do people feel when they encounter artworks that they value? We propose that the value of art is registered by the emotion of wonder. Departing from some standard approaches in empirical aesthetics, we focus on the appreciation of art as art rather than mere aesthetic preference. Aesthetic preferences can have many different correlates outside the domain of art (as when we select graphically appealing consumer items or judge the attractiveness of people), and preference judgments with respect to art can reflect nonaesthetic considerations and tell us rather little about art appreciation. We argue that when it comes to the appreciation of art as such, wonder plays a special role. We introduce wonder and compare it to other candidates that are discussed in the recent empirical literature, such as beauty, interest, and being moved. We analyze wonder and emphasize three subemotional components: cognitive perplexity, perceptual engagement, and a sense of reverence.
The affect system, in its position to monitor organismic-environmental transactions, may be sensitive to the internal dynamics of information processing. Hence, the authors predicted that facilitation of stimulus processing should elicit a brief, mild, positive affective response. In 2 studies, participants watched a series of neutral pictures while the processing ease was unobtrusively manipulated. Affective reactions were assessed with facial electromyography (EMG). In both studies, easy-to-process pictures elicited higher activity over the region of zygomaticus major, indicating positive affect. The EMG data were paralleled by self-reports of positive responses to the facilitated stimuli. The findings suggest a close link between processing dynamics and affect and may help understand several preference phenomena, including the mere-exposure effect. The findings also highlight a potential source of affective biases in social judgments.
How can we develop the sensitivity necessary for playing music or making crafts? How can teachers make their lessons interesting? In what ways can consumers avoid undue influence? How do we acquire refined tastes, or come to believe what we want to believe? Addressing these issues and providing an account for tackling personal and societal problems, Rolf Reber combines insights from psychology, philosophy, and education to introduce the concept of 'critical feeling'. While many people are familiar with the concept of critical thinking, critical feeling denotes the strategic use of feelings in order to optimize an outcome. Reber discusses the theoretical and empirical foundations of critical feeling and provides an overview of applications, including well-being, skill learning, personal relationships, business, politics, school, art, morality, and religion. This original and thought-provoking study will interest a broad range of researchers, students, and practitioners.
Empirical aesthetics in general, and neuroaesthetics in particular, have been very much influenced by Berlyne's psychobiological program. For him, aesthetic appreciation involved the brain's reward and aversion systems. From this point of view, art constitutes a set of potentially rewarding stimuli. Research has certainly made great advances in understanding how the process of artistic valuation takes places, and which brain circuits are involved in generating the pleasure we obtain from artistic practices, performances, and works. But it also suggests that pleasure is not the only effect of the arts. The evidence rather suggests that the arts have other cognitive and emotional effects which are closely related to human psychobiological health and well-being. These are: (1) attentional focus and flow, (2) affective experience, (3) emotion through imagery, (4) interpersonal communication, (5) self-intimation, and (6) social bonding. These effects are beneficial and contribute to the individual's biopsychological health and well-being. The fact that artistic practice has these effects helps explain why the arts are so important to human life, and why they developed in the first place, i.e., as ways to foster these effects. Therefore, a biopsychological science of the arts is emerging, according to which the arts can be conceptualized as an important system of external self-regulation, as a set of activities that contribute to our homeostasis and well-being.
Previous research has shown that rhyme and meter—although enhancing prosodic processing ease and memorability—also tend to make semantic processing more demanding. Using a set of rhymed and metered proverbs, as well as nonrhymed and nonmetered versions of these proverbs, the present study reveals this hitherto unspecified difficulty of comprehension to be specifically driven by perceived ambiguity. Roman Jakobson was the 1st to propose this hypothesis, in 1960. He suggested that “ambiguity is an intrinsic, inalienable feature” of “parallelistic” diction of which the combination of rhyme and meter is a pronounced example. Our results show that ambiguity indeed explains a substantial portion of the rhyme- and meter-driven difficulty of comprehension. Longer word-reading times differentially reflected ratings for ambiguity and comprehension difficulty. However, the ambiguity effect is not “inalienable.” Rather, many rhymed and metered sentences turned out to be low in ambiguity.