Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Nature versus art as elicitors of the sublime: A
virtual reality study
Alice ChiricoID
1
*, Robert R. Clewis
2,3
, David B. Yaden
4,5
, Andrea Gaggioli
1,6
1Department of Psychology, UniversitàCattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Milan, Italy, 2Department of
Philosophy, Gwynedd Mercy University, Gwynedd Valley, PA, United States of America, 3Max Planck
Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 4Department of Psychology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America, 5Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral
Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, 6ATNP-Lab, Istituto
Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy
*alice.chirico@unicatt.it
Abstract
The sublime–the mixed aesthetic experience of uplift and elevation in response to a power-
ful or vast object that otherwise is experienced as menacing–has nurtured philosophical dis-
course for centuries. One of the major philosophical issues concerns whether the sublime is
best thought of as a subjective response or as a stimulus. Recently, psychology has con-
ceived of the sublime as an emotion, often referred to as awe, arising from natural or artistic
stimuli that are great, rare, and/or vast. However, it has not yet been empirically demon-
strated whether two major elicitors of the sublime–nature and art–differ in inducing this
state. In order to experimentally compare nature and art, we exposed 50 participants to sub-
limity-inducing content in two different formats (nature-based and art-based) using 360˚ vid-
eos. We compared Vincent Van Gogh’s The Starry Night with a photorealistic version of the
actual place depicted in the painting, Saint-Re
´my-de-Provence. We measured participants’
emotional responses before and after each exposure, as well as the sense of presence. The
nature-based format induced higher intensity emotional responses than the art-based for-
mat. This study compares different sublime stimuli (nature vs. art) for eliciting the sublime.
Introduction
Imagine first the most awe-inspiring natural scenery that you have ever seen, generally involv-
ing a grand and sweeping panorama. Then, imagine viewing a masterful painting of the same
scene. One can imagine similarities and differences between one’s reactions to these two
scenes. Both the real natural scenery and the painting of it would likely display similar physical
properties, such as apparent vastness, rarity, and novelty. These features are crucial for the
emergence of a particular mental process traditionally called the sublime or (equivalently) sub-
limity [e.g., 1–3] or, in more recent years, awe [4–10]. However, these scenes would differ, too,
because one would know that one elicitor is real and the other is a representation. Does this
distinction between ‘real’ and ‘representation’ matter when it comes to experiencing the
sublime?
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 1 / 10
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Chirico A, Clewis RR, Yaden DB, Gaggioli
A (2021) Nature versus art as elicitors of the
sublime: A virtual reality study. PLoS ONE 16(3):
e0233628. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0233628
Editor: Chee Kong Chui, National University of
Singapore, SINGAPORE
Received: November 7, 2019
Accepted: May 10, 2020
Published: March 22, 2021
Copyright: ©2021 Chirico et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: This study has been partially supported
by Fondazione Cariplo, grant: “Promoting
Education of Scientific and Technological Societal
Issues Through Sublime (PROMETHEUS)” n˚:
2019-3536.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
This question touches on a long-standing debate on the nature of sublime as an object (i.e.,
elicitor) or as a mental process (i.e., a subjective state experienced while reacting to a given elic-
itor) (see [11] for a brief review). While the philosophical debate between characterizing the
sublime as stimuli or mental state is on-going, psychologists have tended to treat the sublime
as a mental state or, more specifically, as an emotion [12–14]. An increasing number of psy-
chologists have started to think of the emotion of awe as the psychological counterpart to the
sublime in philosophical aesthetics [e.g., 5,15,16]. The sublime has been characterized (fol-
lowing Burke) as a state of amazement tinged with fear or at least some negative components
[13]. The elicitors are typically characterized as grand, rare, novel, and vast [13]. On the other
hand, the nature of objects at the basis of the sublime requires further elucidation [12], in
order to define a “limited theory” [16] (p.3) which allows for a more precise operationalization
of the sublime [16,17].
There is a deep-rooted philosophical debate regarding the relative merits of different elici-
tors of the sublime [e.g., 3,18–21]. Several scholars, including Kant and Burke, prioritized
nature over art [e.g., 19,22,23] or at least painting (Burke thought poetry was an effective
stimulus). Burke and Kant provided several guidelines to “design” sublime stimuli. Burke
accepted that sublimity and beauty could be combined in the same object, even if they are dis-
tinct. Burke also listed many properties natural stimuli should possess to elicit the sublime
such as being vast or fearsome (terrifying). Kant [3] built upon and developed this work by
considering two kinds of sublimity. One kind is elicited by natural stimuli perceived to be
much more powerful than us (i.e., the dynamical sublime), which is similar to the Burkean
sublime. Another, more original kind introduced by Kant, is elicited by something that is so
vast that it seems unable to be taken in or grasped by our senses or imagination (i.e., the math-
ematical sublime). Conversely, Hegel [24] and Longinus himself [25] (author of the first extant
treatise on the sublime) considered poetry and rhetorical speech to be the main elicitors of the
sublime.
Contemporary experimental researchers have tended to use representations of the sublime
of natural settings, such as landscapes or storms, to elicit the sublime in the lab [11,13, e.g.].
Only a few researchers have focused on art-based elicitors of the sublime [e.g., 1]. Researchers
have typically relied on pictures or videos to evoke the sublime. So far, no studies have tested
whether differences in subjective experience arise from different types of elicitors.
In this study, we examined differences between a nature-based or an art-based sublime-elic-
iting stimulus by means of Virtual Reality 360˚ videos, which provides a high level of ecological
validity even in a constrained space. In this regard, we have recently demonstrated that partici-
pants exposed to the same naturalistic content displayed through 360˚ videos and in reality,
showed the same emotional profile related to the experience. Chirico and Gaggioli [26] showed
that a 360˚ video of a natural scenario (i.e., Iseo Lake in Italy) was equivalent to the corre-
sponding scenario (of the real Iseo Lake), at least, at the emotional level. This motivated our
comparison between a nature-based sublime and an artistic-based sublime in this study using
360˚ videos.
We took advantage of a unique property of 360˚ videos technology. This technology allows
content to be displayed either in an artistic or in a naturalistic format. In terms of the specific
content, we chose The Starry Night by Van Gogh (1889). We chose this particular image for
two main reasons. First, this painting has been determined to fit the criteria of being sublime
by a number of scholars [e.g., 27,28]. Second, this painting is based on a real scene, the village
of Saint-Re
´my-de-Provence before sunrise, so we could show a nature-based version of the
actual scene depicted in this painting. We compared the effects of a nature-based and an art-
based format in terms of their relative impact on the subjective state of the sublime. Drawing
on philosophical and psychological work on the sublime [2,16,29], we may expect nature-
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 2 / 10
based elicitors to appear more threatening or to hold, at least, a blended or mixed emotional
profile, as suggested mainly by Burke’s account [2]. Although an early study of the link
between sublime and fear in artworks showed that fear predicted a feeling of the sublime [30],
this has since been questioned by Hur and colleagues [16], who conclude that whether fear is a
component of the sublime merits further study. Furthermore, both sublime art and sublime
nature are thought to be perceived as “transcendent” and “perceived or imagined in a new
light, in a rare moment” [31].
Moreover, in line with Keltner and Haidt’s model on awe [5] and recent models on awe [9,
10,32], which differentiate perceptual and conceptual vastness, one might have thought that
the sublime in natural landscape would be perceived as more perceptually vast, while art-based
sublimity would be experienced more as conceptually vast, i.e., cognitively complex. However,
no empirical evidence exists with this regard. Both formats can be expected to trigger a disposi-
tion to share the experience with others [31], thus, no difference between the two formats
should emerge with regard to this aspect. Past theories have tended to describe it as a personal,
even lonesome experience [e.g., 3], but current theories defend the experience’s normative
character and intersubjectivity and emphasize that the sublime may be shared and communi-
cated with others [12]. Finally, following Burke and Kant, beauty is conceived as being concep-
tually distinct from and a counterpart to the sublime.
To conclude, despite this traditional differentiation between natural and artistic elicitors,
the above-mentioned key dimensions should be considered as part of both forms of the sub-
lime. We describe in detail these central dimensions as follows: (i) rarity (see 1, 34); (ii) beauty
perception (as a reverse: see [2]); (iii) self-transcendence [8]; (iv) conceptual complexity [5];
(v) perception of existential danger (Burke) [2]; (vi) perception of vastness [5], which is related
to the psychological counterpart of the sublime, that is, awe; (v) need to share (the experience)
[12]; (vii) existential safety [1,33]. Since these features have been considered as cross-dimen-
sions of different sublime types, we intended to keep the study exploratory regarding these
dimensions of the sublime. Therefore, a definitive null/alternative hypothesis regarding the
intensity of sublime and sub-dimensions of the sublime can be formulated as follows:
H
0
: Art-based and Nature-based formats are equal in terms of the intensity of the sublime and
sublime subdimensions.
H
1
: Art-based and Nature-based formats differ in terms of the intensity of the sublime and
sublime subdimensions.
In this study, we chose a Bayesian approach to test the null hypothesis against the alterna-
tive to obtain a ratio of the probability of the strength of each hypothesis.
The aim of this work is to address if, how, and to what extent an art-based format and a
nature-based format could differ in eliciting the sublime.
Methods
Sample
We involved 50 participants (39 females), mean age = 24.70 (SD = 4.703), from Lombardy, a
region of Italy, who voluntarily took part in the research. The average number of years in edu-
cation was 17.04 (S.D. = 2.23). Participants who (at the time of the experiment) reported ves-
tibular and/or balance disorders were excluded. The experimental protocol was approved by
the Ethical Committee of the UniversitàCattolica del Sacro Cuore prior to data collection.
Each participant provided written informed consent for study participation. The whole proce-
dure was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 3 / 10
Materials and procedure
Participants underwent a within-subject design in which they were randomly assigned to both
of the following conditions in a counterbalanced order:
i. Nature-based condition: participants watched a 360˚ video panorama view of Saint-Rémy-
de-Provence, that is, the subject of The Starry Night expressionist [34] painting by Van
Gogh, created by means of Ricoh Theta S, and using ShotCut video-editing free online tool.
ii. Art-based condition: participants watched a 360˚ video of the painting The Starry Night by
Van Gogh [35].
After providing consent and completing demographic questions, participants were asked to
sit on a chair and to report the extent to which they experienced nine discrete emotions (i.e.,
anger, disgust, fear, pride, amusement, sadness, joy, beauty, sublime) on a 10-point Likert scale
which has been used in previous research on aesthetic emotions in real and virtual spaces [26,
34,36–38] and the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule [39] to control for the pre-experi-
mental affective states. Crucially, items related to beauty and sublime have been added ad hoc
for the purpose of this study. Participants then put on a VR Head Mounted Display (Gear VR)
combined with a smartphone (i.e., Galaxy Note 4). Participants were provided with standard-
ized instructions about how to make the video start (4:26 minutes long) using this virtual real-
ity device (for more details on this procedure, see [38,40]). After the exposure to the nature-
based or art-based video, participants rated again the extent to which they experienced nine
discrete emotions combining both basic and aesthetic emotions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear,
pride, amusement, sadness, joy, beauty, sublimity) [26,34,36–38], positive and negative affect
[39] and the sense of presence (i.e., the feeling of being ‘there’ in the virtual environment [41],
through the ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI) [42]. ITC-SOPI is a 36-item ques-
tionnaire assessing four dimensions of the sense of presence (i.e., sense of physical presence;
engagement; ecological validity, negative effects) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Moreover, participants’ disposition to live positive emotions
(Disposition Positive Emotions Scale)–DPES–[43] and their general aesthetic interest for liter-
ature, art, cinema, design, food and nature (Desire for Aesthetics Scale-DFAS) [44] was
assessed across 36 item on a 6-point Likert scale. A score of 216 indicates a strong interest in
aesthetics, while a score of 144 reflects mild and a score of 108 a neutral aesthetic interest.
Finally, to disambiguate the effect of the two elicitors on the experiential profile of the sublime,
we developed 40 ad hoc sublime items drawing from Burke, Kant, Konečni, and Clewis on the
sublime as well as the Keltner and Haidt model of awe (i.e., in which the sublime was con-
ceived as an “awe-like aesthetic emotion”) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 7 = at all).
Each item tapped into a specific dimension of the sublime presented in the Introduction sec-
tion: (i) rarity [1,33, see]; (ii) beauty perception (as a reverse: see [2]); (iii) self-transcendence
[8]; (iv) conceptual complexity [5]; (v) perception of existential danger (Burke) [2]; (vi) percep-
tion of vastness [5], which is related to the psychological counterpart of the sublime, that is,
awe; (v) need to share (the experience) [12]; (vii) existential safety [1,33].
The questionnaire has not been previously validated, but all information on participants is
reported within this study in the results section as well as in the S1 File.
Results
Data analysis
First we calculated descriptive statistics for each discrete emotion, affect and sense of presence
dimensions in both conditions. Then, since not all of our emotion-related variables were
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 4 / 10
normally distributed and since we aimed to test both differences and similarities among sti-
muli, we opted for a Bayesian approach of analyses across all measures. Bayes factors provide
and rely on the likelihood of both the null and the alternative hypothesis. Thus, our analyses
not only allowed us to test the null hypothesis, but we could also estimate the likelihood of
both null and alternative hypotheses. Specifically, we carried out a repeated measure Bayesian
t-test to compare both conditions (i.e., nature-based and art-based) regarding each emotion
(i.e., anger, disgust, fear, pride, amusement, sadness, joy, beauty, sublimity), general affect
(PANAS) [see Table 1], dimensions of the sense of presence (i.e., sense of physical presence;
engagement; ecological validity, negative effects), and each dimension of the ad hoc sublime
scale. Finally, we conducted an ANCOVA with sublime as a measure as well as the disposition
to experience each positive emotions (DPES sub-dimensions) and the disposition to seek aes-
thetic experiences (DFAS dimensions) as covariates.
Descriptive statistics
Mean and standard deviation for all discrete emotions, affect and sense of presence dimen-
sions were computed (Fig 1) and numerical data are reported in the S1 File.
Bayesian t-test dependent samples analysis on discrete emotions, affect and
sense of presence dimensions
An estimated Bayes factor (null/alternative) suggested that anger, fear, general positive affect,
sense of physical presence, ecological validity, were highly in favor of the alternative hypothesis
according to the direction indicated by the mean values. All other likelihood values did not
indicate a high probability that the two stimuli differed regarding each of the remaning emo-
tional dimensions, Table 1
Table 1. Bayesian t-test dependent samples analyses.
Bayesian paired sample t-test within conditions
Variable BF
10
err Effect supposed for H
1
Anger 2.641 383e -6 Anecdotal
a
Disgust 0.246 2.881e -6 Insignificant�
Fear 433.304 3.711e -9 Decisive
a
Pride 0.226 2.771e -6 Insignificant
Amusement 0.163 2.121e -6 Insignificant
Sadness 0.225 2.765e -6 Insignificant
Joy 0.448 3.093e -6 Insignificant
Beauty 0.194 2.506e -11 Insignificant
Sublime 0.164 2.126e -6 Insignificant
Positive Affect 82.281 4.242e -8 Decisive
Negative Affect 0.158 4.533e -6 Insignificant
Physical presence 1621 2.59e-07 Decisive
Ecological Validity 100.128.094 1.70e-05 Decisive
Engagement 1.499 1.99e-03 Anecdotal
Negative Effect 12.62 3.62e-04 Strong
a
a
Effect terminology from Jeffreys and Jeffreys [45].
�= Authors’ term to indicate a negligible probability of H
1
with respect to H
0
; it does not refer to the significance of differences between means.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628.t001
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 5 / 10
Sublime dimensions
We computed both Bayesian t-test for null hypothesis (BF
01
) and classical paired sample t-test
for each dimension of the sublime scale that we developed ad hoc for this study. Specifically,
first, we compared the art-based format with the nature-based format regarding each of the
sublime dimensions (i.e., rarity; beauty perception; self-transcendence; conceptual complexity;
perception of existential danger; perception of vastness; need to share the experience; existen-
tial safety) following a Bayesian approach of analysis. The dimension that showed evidence for
a difference (in favor of the alternative hypothesis) between the art and nature-based content
was the perception of vastness (BF
01
= 1.033; err. = 2.408e-6) along with the dimension of per-
ception of existential danger (BF
01
= 3.961e -5; S.D. = 4.162e -7). Specifically, nature-based con-
tent elicited a higher sense of vastness (mean = 29.40; S.D. = 7.279) and perception of existential
danger (mean = 22.34; S.D. = 7.69) compared to the art-based one (vastness: mean = 27.18; S.
D. = 8.186) (perception of existential danger: mean = 16.38; S.D. = 5.721). Both vastness and
perception of existential danger showed no evidence for H
0
(i.e., strong evidence for H
1
). Then,
we also conducted paired sample t-test for each sublime dimension, comparing the art-based
format with the nature-based format, Table 2.
Dispositional variables
Finally, we centered all DPES dimensions (Joy, Contentment, Pride, Compassion, Love,
Amusement, Awe) and DFAS and included each as covariate in a within-subject ANOVA with
sublime as a measure and condition as the independent variable. No effect of any covariate
Fig 1. Descriptive statistics for emotions, affect, and sense of presence dimensions. Mean participants’ ratings of each discrete emotion and affect before and
after each experimental condition. Mean participants’ ratings of sense of presence dimensions after each experimental condition. Error bars represent standard
deviations.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628.g001
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 6 / 10
was found. DPES scores in this Italian sample were as follows: Joy (mean = 29.18; S.D. = 5.84);
Contentment (mean = 24.24; S.D. = 4.32); Pride (mean = 26.94; S.D. = 3.74); Compassion
(mean = 28.26; S.D. = 3.78); Love (mean = 27.24; S.D. = 5.42); Amusement (mean = 25.92; S.
D. = 5.24); Awe (mean = 27.22; S.D. = 4.40). DFAS scores ranged from a minimum of 103.00
to a maximum of 15, with a mean score of 127.82 (S.D. = 10.91).
Discussion
Grounded in a centuries-old literature on the sublime and drawing from recent psychological
research on this emotion, this study compared the two longest-lasting sublime-eliciting for-
mats (i.e., nature and art) under controlled conditions using 360˚ immersive videos. The scene
depicted was nearly the same, but conditions differed in terms of whether the scene was photo-
realistic or a painting, that is Saint-Rémy-de-Provence or The Starry Night by Van Gogh. The
subjective experience of the sublime differed in several ways. First, the nature-based format
created more feelings of being present in the simulated scenario compared to the art-based for-
mat. The art-based format was more likely to create negative effects related to 360˚ video (i.e.,
dizziness and disorientation).
Moreover, we found that the stimuli were similar in terms of most emotions elicited, except
for fear, as a discrete emotion, and positive affect, as a general affect dimension. The nature-
based format resulted in significantly higher fear and positive affect compared to the art-based
format. This could be explained in relation to the nature of the Burkean sublime as a mixed
emotional feeling tinged with fear or sense of danger [13,15,29]. Results suggested that this
last element was prevalent in the nature-based format, in line with Burkean theorization of the
sublime [2] and with the empirical findings of Hur and coll [13].
Importantly, the two stimuli, considered as elicitors of the sublime, reported a likelihood in
favor of the alternative hypothesis that was due to chance. They did not differ in terms of their
ability to elicit an experience of the sublime. However, some differences regarding specific
dimensions of the sublime measured by the authors’ ad hoc questionnaire were found. Regard-
ing the single dimensions of the sublime “Perception of existential danger” and “Perception of
vastness” were higher in the nature-based format compared to the art-based. The nature-based
format was perceived as more perceptually vast and as harbinger of possible existential danger.
Conversely, the art-based format elicited a higher sense of being in a “safe” existential
condition.
Table 2. Paired sample t-test and descriptive statistics for sublime dimensions in both conditions.
Descriptive Statistics a and paired sample t-test
Bayesian t-test dependent samples Art-based Nature-based Nature vs. Art
Sublime dimensions BF
01
err Effect supposed for H
0
Mean SD Mean SD t p dCohen
Rarity 6.304 2.048e -6 Strong 25.9 5.5997 25.72 4.8741 .253 .801 0.0358
Beauty Perception 6.479 1.975e -6 Strong 26.18 7.1105 26.22 6.864 -.030 .976 -0.0042
Self-Transcendence 6.121 2.123e -6 Strong 26.32 5.6657 26.68 5.7016 -.355 .724 -0.0502
Conceptual Complexity 1.171 2.61e-6 Anecdotal 19.6 6.1246 21.58 6.6856 -1.932 .059 -0.2732
Perception of Existential Danger 3.961e -5 4.162e -7 No evidence 16.38 5.721 22.34 7.6894 -5.720 .000 -0.809
Perception of Vastness 0.968 2.408e -6 No Evidence 27.18 8.1858 29.4 7.2787 -2.041 .047 -0.2886
Need to Share 1.411 2.794e -6 Anecdotal 26.66 5.0127 28 4.8234 -1.821 .075 -0.2575
Existential Safety 1.140 2.585e -6 Anecdotal 22.18 5.271 20.5 5.8771 1.948 .057 0.2755
Descriptive statistics of sublime dimensions in the two conditions, “Art-based” and “Nature-based” sublime, Bayesian t-test dependent samples analyses for each
sublime dimension and classical paired samples t-test comparisons for each sublime dimension in both conditions. In bold, significant results.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628.t002
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 7 / 10
Moreover, the two formats did not differ in relation to the target measure of the sublime,
neither after including dispositional variables concerning Positive Emotion Dispositions
(DPES single dimensions) nor the Desire for Aesthetics (as measured by DFAS). This result
may suggest the overarching power of the sublime to overcome intra-individual differences
related to stable personal traits. The sublime might be a matter of context and stimulus more
than of predisposition or tendencies, since specific emotion dispositions and personal desire
for aesthetic dimensions did not impact on the sublime experience after nature and art expo-
sure. However, whether personality traits or other stables dispositions, such as cognitive styles,
could impact on people’s ability to experience the sublime needs to be investigated in future
studies.
Despite the limited number of participants and the preliminary nature of the measures and
the approach, this study added to the pre-existing literature into three distinct ways. First, it
addressed a long-lasting philosophical question regarding the nature of sublime elicitors, by
framing it within the paradigm of experimental psychology. Then, it suggested that both for-
mats were able to elicit the sublime at the same intensity, but in different ways. The artistic for-
mat resulted in an increased feeling of existential safety when compared to the naturalistic one.
Conversely, the nature-based format resulted in higher fear but not general overall negative
affect compared to the art-based one, suggesting that this specific negative emotional compo-
nent, fear, plays a key role in the experience of the sublime, but a role whose relation to the
overall positive affect of the sublime experience is not fully understood.
Conclusions
This study showed the potential of immersive media, such as 360˚ videos, to investigate com-
plex research questions and phenomena in a controlled setting. There was no significant differ-
ence with regard to the capacities of art-based and nature-based stimuli to evoke the
experience of the sublime.
Finally, despite our participants had previous knowledge of Starry Night by Van Gogh and
had already seen a landscape similar to that showed in the naturalistic format, they reported
high sublime scores compared to other emotions. A useful future step could be to test whether
previous experiences with, and knowledge of the sublime-eliciting stimuli significantly impacts
participants’ sublime reports and/or on psychophysiological reactions. We expect technologies
to continue to create ever more immersive experiences, providing new opportunities to inves-
tigate the centuries old and still on-going philosophical and psychological discourses on the
sublime.
Supporting information
S1 File.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
Authors wish to thank Camilla Buso for her help in data collection.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Alice Chirico, Robert R. Clewis, Andrea Gaggioli.
Data curation: Alice Chirico.
Formal analysis: Alice Chirico.
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 8 / 10
Methodology: Alice Chirico.
Resources: Alice Chirico.
Supervision: Andrea Gaggioli.
Validation: Alice Chirico, Robert R. Clewis.
Writing – original draft: Alice Chirico.
Writing – review & editing: Alice Chirico, Robert R. Clewis, David B. Yaden.
References
1. Konečni VJ. Aesthetic trinity theory and the sublime. Philosophy Today. 2011; 55(1):64–73.
2. Burke E. A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757). The
Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. 1990;(1):133.
3. Kant I. Kant’s critique of judgement; (rev. Bernard JH, Trans.). New York: Macmillan. (Original work
published 1790); 1914.
4. Shiota M., Keltner D., Mossman A. The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept.
Cogn. Emot. 2007;(21): 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600923668
5. Keltner D, Haidt J. Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion.
2003; 17(2):297–314.
6. Graziosi M, Yaden D. Interpersonal awe: Exploring the social domain of awe elicitors. The Journal of
Positive Psychology. 2019:1–9.
7. Yaden DB, Kaufman SB, Hyde E, Chirico A, Gaggioli A, Zhang JW, et al. The development of the Awe
Experience Scale (AWE-S): A multifactorial measure for a complex emotion. The Journal of Positive
Psychology. 2018:1–15.
8. Yaden DB, Haidt J Jr.H, W. R, Vago DR, Newberg AB. The Varieties of Self-Transcendent Experience.
Review of General Psychology. 2017.
9. Yaden DB, Iwry J, Slack KJ, Eiechstaedt JC, Zhao Y, Vaillant GE, et al. The overview effect: Awe and
self-transcendent experience in space flight. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and
Practice. 2016; 3(1):1.
10. Awe Chirico A. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Cham: Springer International Publishing;
2020: 1–9.
11. Ishizu T, Zeki S. A neurobiological enquiry into the origins of our experience of the sublime and beauti-
ful. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2014;(8):891.
12. Clewis RR. The Sublime Reader 2019.
13. Hur Y-J, Gerger G, Leder H, McManus IC. Facing the sublime: Physiological correlates of the relation-
ship between fear and the sublime. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2018.
14. Bethelmy LC, Corraliza JA. Transcendence and Sublime Experience in Nature: Awe and Inspiring
Energy. Frontiers in psychology. 2019; 10.
15. Gordon AM, Stellar JE, Anderson CL, McNeil GD, Loew D, Keltner D. The dark side of the sublime: Dis-
tinguishing a threat-based variant of awe. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2016.
16. Hur Y-J, McManus I. Representing the sublime in the VIMAP and empirical aesthetics: Reviving
Edmund Burke’s A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful.
Comment on" 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" by Matthew Pelowski et al. Physics of life reviews. 2017;(21):135–7.
17. Pelowski M, Markey PS, Forster M, Gerger G, Leder H. 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.
2017;(21):80–125.
18. Longinus, Matelli E, Reale G. Il sublime: Rusconi; 1988.
19. Kant I. Osservazioni sul sentimento del bello e del sublime. Milano: Rizzoli; 1989.
20. Vandenabeele B. the sublime in Art: Kant, the Mannerist, and the Matterist sublime. The Journal of Aes-
thetic Education. 2015; 49(3):32–49.
21. Vandenabeele B. The sublime in Schopenhauer’s philosophy: Springer; 2015.
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 9 / 10
22. Williams K, Harvey D. Transcendent experience in forest environments. Journal of environmental psy-
chology. 2001; 21(3):249–60.
23. Shapshay S. Contemporary environmental aesthetics and the neglect of the sublime. The British Jour-
nal of Aesthetics. 2013; 53(2):181–98.
24. Hegel GWF. Lectures on aesthetics. Heinrich Gustav Hotho, Berlin. 1835;(1).
25. Gori AF. Trattato del Sublime di Dionysius Longinus: dalla Volpe; 1748.
26. Chirico A, Gaggioli A. When Virtual Feels Real: Comparing Emotional Responses and Presence in Vir-
tual and Natural Environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2019.
27. Kaplama E. The Cosmological Aesthetic Worldview in Van Gogh’s Late Landscape Paintings. Cosmos
and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy. 2016; 12(1):218–37.
28. Soth L. Van Gogh’s agony. The Art Bulletin. 1986; 68(2):301–13.
29. Pelowski M, Hur Y-J, Cotter KN, Ishizu T, Christensen AP, Leder H, et al. Quantifying the if, the when,
and the what of the Sublime: A survey and latent class analysis of incidence, emotions, and distinct vari-
eties of personal sublime experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts. 2019.
30. Eskine KJ, Kacinik NA, Prinz JJ. Stirring images: fear, not happiness or arousal, makes art more sub-
lime. Emotion. 2012; 12(5):1071.
31. Clewis RR. Towards A Theory of The Sublime and Aesthetic Awe. The Sublime Reader Bloomsbury
Academic; 2018. p. 341–406.
32. Chirico A, Yaden DB. Awe: A Self-Transcendent and Sometimes Transformative Emotion. In: H. L, edi-
tor. The Function of Emotions: Springer: Cham; 2018.
33. Konecni VJ. The aesthetic trinity: Awe, being moved, thrills. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts. 2005; 5
(2):27–44.
34. Gordon DA. Experimental psychology and modern painting. The Journal of Aestheticsand Art Criticism.
1951; 9(3):227–43.
35. uyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of
exposure to natural environments. BMC public health. 2010; 10(1):456.
36. Ballew MT, Omoto AM. Absorption: How Nature Experiences Promote Awe and Other Positive Emo-
tions. Ecopsychology. 2018; 10(1):26–35.
37. Chirico A, Glaveanu VP, Riva G, Gaggioli A. Awe Enhances Creative Thinking: An Experimental Study.
Creativity Research Journal. 2018.
38. Chirico A, Cipresso P, Yaden DB, Biassoni F, Riva G, Gaggioli A. Effectiveness of Immersive Videos in
Inducing Awe: An Experimental Study. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7(1):1218.
39. Terraciano A, McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Nega-
tive Affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2003; 19(2):131.
40. Chirico A, Ferrise F, Cordella L, Gaggioli A. Designing Awe in Virtual Reality: An Experimental Study.
Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 8(2351).
41. Riva G, Davide F, IJsselsteijn WA. Being there: Concepts, effects and measurements of user presence
in synthetic environments: Ios Press; 2003.
42. Lessiter J, Freeman J, Keogh E, Davidoff J. A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of
Presence Inventory. Presence. 2001; 10(3):282–97.
43. Shiota MN, Keltner D, John OP. Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five per-
sonality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2006; 1(2):61–71.
44. Lundy DE, Schenkel MB, Akrie TN, Walker AM. How important is beauty to you? The development of
the Desire for Aesthetics Scale. Empirical Studies of the Arts. 2010; 28(1):73–92.
45. Jeffreys H, Jeffreys H. Theory of Probability ( 3rd edn). Clarendon. Oxford; 1961.
PLOS ONE
Nature vs art for the induction of the sublime
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233628 March 22, 2021 10 / 10
Content uploaded by Andrea Gaggioli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrea Gaggioli on Mar 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
