When Rule Breaking in Art Falls Flat: Cultural Tightness Deflates Deviant Artists’ Impact

Abstract

Previous research in western countries shows that artists whose work deviates from their own previous style (intrapersonal deviance) and other artists’ styles (interpersonal deviance) gain greater impact than nondeviant artists (Stamkou et al., 2018). However, aesthetic norms are embedded in cultural contexts that shape the meaning of artist deviance. Deviance is compatible with the ideal of innovation endorsed by loose cultures, yet incongruent with the ideal of conformity prominent in tight cultures. Here we examine how cultural tightness–looseness influences the effect of interpersonal (Studies 1–2) and intrapersonal deviance (Studies 3–4) on various indices of impact, including perceived artist influence, artwork valuation, purchase intention, and recommendation of the artist’s work to a museum. Study 1 shows that Italian participants (looser culture) perceived artists who deviated from the motif used by their contemporary artists as more impactful than Chinese participants (tighter culture). Study 2 shows that the looser U.S. communities’ response to COVID-19 rules, the more impactful they considered deviant artists. Study 3 shows that U.S. participants low in tightness mindset were more likely to recommend artists who deviated from their previous style to a company than artists who consistently followed a single style. Accordingly, Study 4 shows that U.S. participants high in tightness mindset were more likely to recommend nondeviant over deviant artworks to a museum. Cultural tightness attenuates the effect of deviance on impact by reducing the experience of profound aesthetic emotions (e.g., awe, beauty, interest) in response to deviant artworks (Studies 2–4).

Full text

When Rule Breaking in Art Falls Flat:
Cultural Tightness Deflates Deviant Artists’Impact
Eftychia Stamkou
1
, Rohan Dunham
1
, Matthew Pelowski
2, 3
, Ying Lin
4
, and Michele J. Gelfand
4
1
Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam
2
Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna
3
Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna
4
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
Previous research in western countries shows that artists whose work deviates from their own previous style
(intrapersonal deviance) and other artists’styles (interpersonal deviance) gain greater impact than nondevi-
ant artists (Stamkou et al., 2018). However, aesthetic norms are embedded in cultural contexts that shape the
meaning of artist deviance. Deviance is compatible with the ideal of innovation endorsed by loose cultures,
yet incongruent with the ideal of conformity prominent in tight cultures.Here we examine how cultural tight-
ness–looseness influences the effect of interpersonal (Studies 1–2) and intrapersonal deviance (Studies 3–4)
on various indices of impact, including perceived artist influence, artwork valuation, purchase intention, and
recommendation of the artist’s work to a museum. Study 1 shows that Italian participants (looser culture)
perceived artists who deviated from the motif used by their contemporary artists as more impactful than
Chinese participants (tighter culture). Study 2 shows that the looser U.S. communities’response to
COVID-19 rules, the more impactful they considered deviant artists. Study 3 shows that U.S. participants
low in tightness mindset were more likely to recommend artists who deviated from their previous style to
a company than artists who consistently followed a single style. Accordingly, Study 4 shows that U.S. par-
ticipants high in tightness mindset were more likely to recommend nondeviant over deviant artworks to a
museum. Cultural tightness attenuates the effect of deviance on impact by reducing the experience of pro-
found aesthetic emotions (e.g., awe, beauty, interest) in response to deviant artworks (Studies 2–4).
Keywords: cultural tightness, deviance, atypicality, visual art, artist impact
Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000650.supp
I have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to
my own taste. (Marcel Duchamp, French artist)
Without rules, nothing can be done. (Mencius, Chinese philosopher)
The creation and experience of art have been central to human cul-
ture across time and place. For some, art serves as an homage to the
past and a means of upholding tradition. For others, it serves as a
means of renouncing the customary and challenging the status quo.
Is the new, the unconventional, the deviant that stands out at the cra-
dle of true art? Or does this very appraisal render art unsuccessful or
even threatening? History suggests that the broader context in which
artists create their work weighs heavily on their potential to make an
impact (Bullot & Reber, 2013). Groundbreaking painter Kazimir
Malevich was banned from making art when Stalin’s government
turned against abstract art but enjoyed great success in a postwar
Europe that welcomed changing trends. Marcel Duchamp’s contro-
versial Readymades gained him international acclaim in the western
world, but Ai WeiWei’s Readymades created a century later were
associated with his confinement and exile by the Chinese authorities.
Although historical examples abound, there is a dearth of empirical
research on how the cultural context influences deviant artists’per-
ceived impact.
Here we seek to understand how the cultural context—practices,
norms, and mindsets upheld by individuals—influences their reac-
tions to artists who deviate from prevailing aesthetic norms.
Previous research conducted in Western cultural contexts has dem-
onstrated that deviant artists can gain impact (e.g., Stamkou et al.,
2018), but it remains an open question whether deviant artists
would be appreciated in contexts with strong social norms that sanc-
tion rule-breaking behavior, as captured by the cultural dimension of
tightness–looseness (Gelfand et al., 2011). Across four experiments
we examine whether differences in cultural tightness measured
between countries, communities, and individuals, moderate the
effect of artist deviance on artist impact.
How Deviance in Art Begets Impact
Several strands of theorizing and research suggest that people
appreciate and reward deviance across art genres. A series of lab
Eftychia Stamkou https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-3639
This research was supported by funding from the Netherlands Organisation
for Scientific Research(VI.Veni.201G.013)awarded to Eftychia Stamkou and
a grant by the European Commission (Horizon 2020-ID 870827) awarded to
Eftychia Stamkou and Matthew Pelowski.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eftychia
Stamkou, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam,
Nieuwe Achtergracht 129 B, 1001 NL Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: e.stamkou@uva.nl
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
© 2024 American Psychological Association 2024, Vol. 18, No. 1, 14–30
ISSN: 1931-3896 https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000650
14
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

experiments in the Netherlands and the Unites States demonstrated
that painters who deviated from the kind of art they were making
in the past by adopting a new style or motif in their work were cred-
ited more for their work than painters who kept reproducing what
they were making before. In addition, painters who deviated from
their contemporaries’style became more influential, their work
was valued more, and viewers were more willing to purchase prod-
ucts depicting their work (Stamkou et al., 2018). These effects were
replicated in a museum experiment in Austria in which Monet’s
impressionist artwork of waterlilies was placed within either a tem-
porary exhibition meant to highlight his revolutionary anticipation of
abstraction or a permanent exhibition of other Impressionist pieces
that obscured Monet’s revolutionary style (Specker et al., 2022).
Furthermore, French participants attributed higher aesthetic and
market value to a collection of Picasso’s paintings that mixed distinct
styles than a collection that featured a single style (Sgourev &
Althuizen, 2014). Similar trends are found in the music scene. A rel-
evant study employed textual analysis of thousands of songs and cat-
egorized lyrics according to themes commonly featured in each
genre (e.g., “fiery love”in rock, “street cred”in R&B). Songs
whose lyrics were more differentiated from their genres were more
popular, suggesting that songs whose content deviated from the
norm were more likely to go viral (Berger & Packard, 2018).
Likewise, a case study with rap music suggested that rap artists
gain more status by first showing a repetition of practices that are
understood as legitimate by their audience and then introducing
novel artistic content that increases their popularity (Lena &
Pachucki, 2013). Deviant form and content in art render an artwork
more appealing and the artist more successful.
1
Why does deviance boost an artist’s impact? A possible answer is
that works that belie a predicted pattern may lead to greater aesthetic
pleasure and emotional reactions, as the wavering state of prediction
error amplifies the subsequent positive affect of prediction confirma-
tion by means of a contrast effect (Van de Cruys & Wagemans, 2011).
Evidence supporting this account comes from research on emotional
reactions elicited by deviant music and visual art. For instance,
Sloboda (1991) found that marked violations of expectations in
music correlate with the feeling of “chills”or “shivers down the
spine,”which are associated with increases in blood flow in reward-
and euphoria-related regions of the brain (e.g., ventral striatum and
orbitofrontal cortex; Blood & Zatorre, 2001). Chills or goose
bumps are a common physiological markerof awe, the profound emo-
tion we experience in response to novel, vast, or mysterious stimuli
and remarkable works of art (Keltner & Haidt, 2003;Stamkou,
Brummelman, et al., 2023;Zickfeld et al., 2020). Theories of visual
perception, too, suggest that incongruent and unfamiliar stimuli can
cause interest (Berlyne, 1970). Indeed, empirical studies show that
unfamiliarity, novelty, and unexpectedness, which lie at the core of
deviant art, promote interest, the emotion related to attention, explora-
tion, and learning (Graf & Landwehr, 2015;Silvia, 2008). Similarly,
Muth et al. (2015) showed that people prefer more ambiguous and
novel artworks, because viewers gain greater insights from the elabo-
rationof these artworks as compared to those that are easier to process,
thereby increasing liking and curiosity. In all, deviant art may increase
an artist’s impact by eliciting profound aesthetic emotions, such as
awe, wonder, interest, and insight.
Although current findings converge to suggest that artists who employ
deviant forms of expression are more likely to gain impact, all of these studies
were conducted in Western contexts, and no research has examined how the
cultural context shapes the perception of deviant art. Art appreciation, how-
ever, is profoundly shaped by the context in which it is considered, which
includes features of the culture and characteristics of the viewer (Becker,
1982;Bullot & Reber, 2013;Pelowski et al., 2017). Here we focus on tight-
ness–looseness, a cultural dimension that describes the strength of social
norms and the degree of sanctioning to rule-breaking behavior, as a factor
that alters people’s reactions to deviant art. Next, we define tightness–loose-
ness and examine how variance in this cultural dimension modulates reac-
tions to deviant art.
Tightness–Looseness: Differences Across Levels of
Analysis
Tightness–looseness is part of a complex, multilevel system that
comprises distal ecological threats (e.g., resource scarcity, environ-
mental disasters, pathogen prevalence) and proximal psychological
affordances that allow individuals to adapt to their environments
(e.g., self-monitoring, impulse control, need for structure). Tighter
cultures, which tend to have evolved in contexts of high threat, have
adapted to value order and predictability, which leads to a reliance
on well-learned scripts and patterns to guide behavior that can help
coordinate social action to deal with such ecological pressures.
Social norms in tight cultures are thus clearly defined, leaving lit-
tle room for individual improvisation and interpretation. Because
upholding social order is important in tight cultures, an “intuitive
prosecutor”mindset is more cognitively accessible. Accordingly,
individuals in tighter cultures have developed a negative error ori-
entation, which manifests itself as a resistance to change or inno-
vation and readiness to punish norm violators (Mu et al., 2015).
On the contrary, loose cultures have weaker norms, afford a
wider range of permissible behavior across everyday situations,
and create room for improvisation and change. Examples of coun-
tries with tight cultures include China and Japan, and loose cul-
tures include the United States and Italy (Gelfand, 2021;
Gelfand et al., 2011).
Although cross-national differences in tightness–looseness are
well-documented, there is large cultural variation within nations as
people’s immediate communities, such as their state, province, or
city, differ in the degree to which they are exposed to ecological
threats (Chua et al., 2019;Harrington & Gelfand, 2014). This
makes it possible for loose countries like the Unites States to have
pockets of tight communities (e.g., rural areas are relatively tighter
than urban areas). Finally, variation in tightness–looseness is
observed at the individual level, too, as people differ in the extent
to which they endorse or renounce the cultural tendencies prominent
in their culture. Individual mindsets toward rules also vary as a func-
tion of socialization and child-rearing practices (Harrington &
Gelfand, 2014). Higher levels of situational constraint are signifi-
cantly related to greater prevention self-guides, such as higher duti-
fulness, greater self-regulation strength, higher impulse control,
higher needs for structure, and higher self-monitoring (Gelfand et
al., 2011). This suggests that societal members’psychological char-
acteristics are attuned to and supportive of the degree of constraint
versus latitude in the larger cultural context, but there can also be
cases of cultural mismatches.
1
For an overview of research on the aesthetic appeal of deviant, atypical
products besides artworks ( see Palmer et al., 2013).
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 15
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

How Cultural Tightness Deflates Deviant Artists’Impact
We theorize that cultural differences in tightness–looseness may
have implications for how individuals perceive, experience, and
react to deviant art. Tightness is associated with greater behavioral
constraint and narrower behavioral options across contexts, and
should accordingly curtail the degree to which innovative and cre-
ative activities, ideas, and commodities are produced, promoted,
and valued. In the field of art, breaking the rules, exploring unex-
pected routes, and taking risks are integral aspects of the innovation
process. Deviation from the norms and creativity are intimately
connected (Morris & Leung, 2010). A series of experiments
showed that participants who were primed with cues representing
the concept of deviancy showed greater creative engagement than
participants who were primed with conformity cues (Förster et
al., 2005).
Indeed, a growing body of research shows that tightness at the
country and state levels correlates negatively with creativity and
innovation. Using data from a global creative crowdsourcing plat-
form operating in more than 160 countries, Chua et al. (2019)
found that individuals from tight cultures are less receptive to foreign
creative ideas and less likely to engage in and succeed at foreign cre-
ative tasks than individuals from loose cultures. Another study
shows that tight U.S. states have a lower number of fine artists
(e.g., painters, illustrators, writers) per capita compared with loose
states (Harrington & Gelfand, 2014). Likewise, the loosening of
American culture over the last 200 years was marked by a creativity-
order tradeoff: The less tight U.S. culture would become, the more
creative output it produced, as registered in utility patents, trade-
marks, feature films, and unique baby names, and the less order-
enhancing practices it followed (e.g., higher debt, lower school
attendance, higher adolescent pregnancy; Jackson et al., 2019).
Furthermore, the neural substrates of creativity seem to differ
between tight and loose cultures. In a study employing electroen-
cephalography, when detecting norm violations, Chinese partici-
pants showed an N400 response over the frontal brain region,
which also mediated cultural differences in creativity in a follow-up
task (Mu et al., 2015).
Tightness is also negatively related to personality traits that pre-
dict creativity, such as high openness to experience, promotion-
focused self-regulation, and low cognitive rigidity and need for
structure (Gelfand et al., 2011). Whereas people low in openness
to experience are more conventional, people high in openness to
experience are more creative and more prone to experience profound
aesthetic emotions like awe, wonder, the chills, and feeling moved in
response to music and visual art (Conner & Silvia, 2015;Nusbaum
& Silvia, 2011). Similarly, prevention-focused individuals, who
approach tasks with caution, follow instructions, and try to avoid
making mistakes, are less creative than promotion-focused individ-
uals, because creativity requires pushing boundaries, taking risks,
and breaking rules, behaviors that prevention-focused individuals
tend to avoid (Friedman & Förster, 2001). Furthermore, cognitively
rigid individuals who show strong resistance to changing their
behavior and attitudes are slower to adopt new product innovations
than cognitively flexible individuals (Carbon & Schoormans, 2012).
Finally, individuals high in need for structure who are predisposed to
unambiguous knowledge dislike abstract art more than individuals
low in need for structure because the ambiguous and novel patterns
of abstract art disrupt meaning extraction (Landau et al., 2006).
Because individuals in tight cultures have been conditioned to
react negatively toward actions that depart from an established
course or accepted standard, deviation in art may be perceived as a
threat, which would diminish the experience of positive aesthetic
emotions. Indeed, aesthetic appreciation of objects and events
decreases in situations where safety is at stake (see Menninghaus
et al., 2019). As we have shown, deviant art may be less common
in tight cultures, making it less familiar and understandable.
Appraisals of reduced comprehensibility in turn predict lower inter-
est in visual art (Silvia, 2008). Thus, viewers in tight cultures may
not understand why the artist made the decision to deviate from a
given pattern, which may diminish cognitive engagement with the
artwork. In short, the lack of positive and profound emotional reac-
tions may mediate the reduced appreciation of deviant art in tight
cultures.
In light of these theoretical and empirical accounts, we propose
that individuals in loose cultures may have a greater appetite for
artistic products that propose radical change and challenge current
norms. By contrast, individuals in tight cultures may be less posi-
tively inclined toward deviant art and may value instead art that
respects established norms, practices, and traditions.
Overview of Hypotheses and Studies
Based on the theorizing above, we hypothesized that the effect of
artist deviance on artist impact will be moderated by cultural tight-
ness, such that artists who deviate from the norms they established
during their career (intrapersonal deviance) or the norms that their
contemporaries have established (interpersonal deviance) will be
perceived as relatively more impactful than artists who follow the
various types of norms in cultural contexts that are low rather than
high on tightness. Furthermore, we hypothesize that individuals in
tight cultures will consider deviant artists relatively less impactful
because they will find their artworks less evocative of aesthetic emo-
tions. Our theoretical model is visualized in Figure 1.
We conducted four studies to test our theoretical model. We oper-
ationalized artist deviance by presenting participants with a focal art-
work that followed or deviated from the norm established by its
surrounding artworks. Studies 1 and 2 focused on interpersonal
deviance (i.e., deviance from the predominant style of one’s contem-
poraries), while Studies 3 and 4 focused on intrapersonal deviance
(i.e., deviance from one’s own previous style). In Studies 1 and 2,
we used the motif of the artwork to manipulate deviance (triangle
vs. rectangular), while keeping the style of artworks constant across
conditions (i.e., nonrealistic). In Studies 3 and 4, we used the dis-
cernible differences between realistic and nonrealistic art to manip-
ulate deviance, given evidence that people consider nonrealistic art
more unconventional than realistic art (see Pilot Study 3 in the online
supplemental materials and Stamkou et al., 2018). The combination
of deviance operationalizations in terms of motif and style allowed
us to establish that the effects of artist deviance on impact are not
bound to a single aspect of the artwork.
Across studies, we used different ecologically valid operationali-
zations of artist impact that were informed by prominent definitions
in the field of art. Impactful artists are considered influential and tal-
ented, produce artworks that are highly valued, receive positive pub-
lic reviews, and their work features in important cultural institutions
(see Schönfeld & Reinstaller, 2007;Stamkou et al., 2018). We
assessed the various aspects of impact across studies. Finally, we
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND16
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

operationalized cultural tightness at different levels of analysis, such
as differences between countries (Study 1), within-country differ-
ences in perceived tightness (Study 2), and between-individual dif-
ferences in tightness mindset (Studies 3 and 4). To our knowledge,
this is one of the first tests of how culture influences reactions to
deviance in art.
All data, code, and study materials are accessible on the Open
Science Framework: https://osf.io/mgqdh/ (Stamkou, Lin, et al.,
2023).
Study 1
Method
Participants
A power analysis demonstrated that 787 participants were needed to
detect a small effect size ( f=.10) in a two-tailed two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with α=.05 and powerof .80. A total of 842 par-
ticipants (n=374 Italian and n=468 Chinese) took part in the study
(M
age
=27.43, SD
age
=10.19; 467 female, 350 male, and eight non-
binary) via social media advertisements.
Procedure and Materials
For Study 1, we adapted an existing experimental paradigm that has
previously been used to manipulate interpersonal artist deviance
(Stamkou et al., 2018). We added country-level cultural tightness as
a moderator thereby creating a 2 (no deviance vs. deviance) ×2 (cul-
turally loose vs. culturally tight) between-subjects quasi-experimental
design. Cultural tightness was manipulated by recruiting participants
from a culturally looser country (Italy) and a culturally tighter country
(China; Gelfand et al., 2011). Participants from both countries were
randomly assigned to one of two artist deviance conditions and were
instructed to read a short story about a fictitious country on another
planet called “Aratartland”whose inhabitants had been making paint-
ings using triangles for 300 years. Participants were then shown three
paintings (composed of colorful triangles) purportedly by three differ-
ent painters whose work reflected this style.
They were then informed about Keo, an artist and inhabitant of
Aratartland. Participants in the “no deviance”condition were told
that, like his contemporaries, Keo created art using triangles and
they were shown one of his paintings that was similar to the works
they had previously seen. In contrast, participants in the “deviance”
condition were informed that, unlike his contemporaries, Keo cre-
ated art using squares and were instead shown a painting the motifs
of which deviated from works that had been previously shown to
them (see Figure 2). Participants then filled in items assessing
their perceptions of Keo’s artistic influence, their valuation of his art-
work, and their purchase intentions. Lastly, they responded to
manipulation check items for perceived artistic deviance and cultural
tightness, finishing with items assessing demographics.
Measures
A full list of the scales used across all four studies can be found in
Table S4 in the online supplemental materials. Unless stated other-
wise, all measures in Study 1 were rated on a 7-point Likert scale rang-
ing from 1 =not at all to 7 =very much. The manipulation check of
perceived artist deviance was measured using three items (α=.85).
An example item was “I think that Keo’s artwork has a different artis-
tic form compared to the rest of the artworks,”with higher scores
reflecting greater perceived deviance. To ensure that the Italian and
Chinese samples differed as expected in terms of cultural tightness,
we measured country-level tightness using a seven-item scale
(α=.80) based on a measure by Gelfand et al. (2011). Because the
study was carried out during the Covid-19 outbreak, we adapted the
cultural tightness scale to fit the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Participants responded to these items using a 6-point bipolar scale
with loose and tight answer options at opposite ends (e.g., “To what
extent is your country punishing people who deviate from the rules
that have been put in place in response to the coronavirus?”with
1=not at all punishing people who violate the rules and 6 =very
much punishing people who violate the rules). For this scale, higher
scores represented greater cultural tightness.
For the dependent variables, we assessed perceived influence using the
six-item (α=.83) scale previously developed by Stamkou et al. (2018),
with an example item being “Keo will influence the future generation of
Figure 1
Theoretical Model
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 17
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

painters.”Art valuation was measured using three items (α=.72) with
response options in participants’local currency adjusted for the exchange
rate and local purchasing power (e.g., “How much would you be willing
to spend on buying a large poster of this artist, depicting this painting?”
from 1 =€5to 7 =€35,in€5 increments in Italy, and from 1 =¥25 to
7=¥175, in ¥25 increments in China). Purchase intention was measured
with two items, r(787) =.60, p,.001 (e.g., “Would you buy products
depicting one of Keo’s artworks?”). Intercorrelations between the three
dependent variables were positive, suggesting they all tapped into a com-
mon construct, artist impact (see TableS1intheonlinesupplemental
materials for intercorrelations).
We finally measured the extent to which the style of the artworks was
familiar within participants’respective cultures with the item “What do
you generally think of painters’style in Aratartland?”(1 =unfamiliar,
7=familiar). We also measured art interest with three items derived
from a validated scale (Specker et al., 2020). A sample item is “Iam
interested in art”(1 =notatall,7=very much;α=.89). In this and
follow-up studies, we used art familiarity and art interest as control var-
iables to check the robustness of the focal effects.
Results
Descriptive statistics of the manipulation check and main depen-
dent variables are presented per condition in Table 1.
Manipulation Checks
We conducted separate two-way ANOVAs to examine the effects
of artist deviance and country on perceived artist deviance and
perceived cultural tightness to establish whether the manipulations
were effective and orthogonal. With regard to perceived artist devi-
ance, there was a main effect of artist deviance indicating that partic-
ipants in the deviance condition perceived greater deviance than those
in the no deviance condition, F(1, 838) =190.17, p,.001, η
p
2
=.19.
There was no main effect of cultural tightness, F(1, 838) =0.66,
p=.416, η
p
2
=.001, but there was an interaction, F(1, 838) =
59.29, p,.001, η
p
2
=.07. Simple main effects analysis indicates
that both Italian and Chinese participants perceived deviant artworks
to be more deviant than nondeviant artworks, but this effect was stron-
ger in Italy than in China. Given the magnitude of the main effect of
artist deviance in comparison to the interaction effect, we concluded
that the manipulation of artist deviance was successful.
With regard to cultural tightness, we found a main effect of coun-
try, F(1, 838) =108.01, p,.001, η
p
2
=.114, no main effect of artist
deviance, F(1, 838) =0.70, p=.402, η
p
2
=.001, and no interaction,
F(1, 838) =0.07, p=.793, η
p
2
=.00. Chinese participants reported
greater cultural tightness in their fellow citizens’response to the
COVID-19 pandemic compared to Italian participants. We, there-
fore, concluded that our choice of countries to reflect cultural varia-
tion in tightness–looseness was reasonable.
Hypothesis Testing
We conducted a series of two-way ANOVAs to test the effects of
artist deviance and cultural tightness on perceived influence, valua-
tion, and purchase intention. These analyses were followed by sim-
ple effects analyses to inspect interaction effects. The results of these
analyses are illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 2
Artworks Used in the No Deviance (Top Row) and Deviance (Bottom Row) Conditions in Studies 1 and 2
Contemporaries’ paintingsa,b,c Keo’s painting
(focal non-deviant)d
Contemporaries’ paintingsa,b,c Keo’s painting
(focal deviant)e
Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
a
pinterest.com, by unknown (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/573012752566597253/). In the public domain.
b
pinterest.com, by unknown
(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/657384876877363488/). In the public domain.
c
pinterest.com, by unknown (https://www.pinterest.com/
pin/914862418103935/). In the public domain.
d
pinterest.com, by unknown (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/23855073001344100/). In
the public domain.
e
pinterest.com, by unknown (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/abstract-painting-original-painting-geometric-shapes-
etsy–1900024835524877/). In the public domain.
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND
18
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Results regarding perceived influence showed a main effect of artist
deviance, F(1, 838) =63.15, p,.001, η
p
2
=.070, no main effect of
cultural tightness, F(1, 838) =0.55, p=.458, η
p
2
=.00, and the
expected interaction effect, F(1, 838) =24.52, p,.001, η
p
2
=.03.
Probing these effects showed that participants in the deviance condi-
tion perceived Keo as being more influential than participants in the
nondeviance condition, but this difference was more pronounced for
Italian, B=−0.53, SE =.06, t(838) =−8.65, p,.001, than
Chinese participants, B=−0.12, SE =.05, t(838) =−2.25, p=.025.
Results regarding valuation showed a main effect of artist devi-
ance, F(1, 838) =8.02, p=.005, η
p
2
=.01), a main effect of cultural
tightness, F(1, 838) =90.39, p,.001, η
p
2
=.10, and the predicted
interaction effect, F(1, 838) =5.95, p=.015, η
p
2
=.01. Probing
the interaction showed that, whereas Italian participants in the devi-
ance condition valued Keo’s work higher than those in the nonde-
viance condition, B=−0.22, SE =.06, t(838) =−3.54, p,.001,
there was no difference between the valuation of deviant and nonde-
viant art among Chinese participants, B=−0.02, SE =.05,
t(838) =−0.29, p=.769.
Results regarding purchase intention alsoshowed a main effect of art-
ist deviance, F(1, 838) =23.15, p,.001, η
p
2
=.03, a main effect of
cultural tightness, F(1, 838) =0.78, p=.377, η
p
2
=.00, and the pre-
dicted interaction effect, F(1, 838) =6.25, p=.013, η
p
2
=.01.
Breaking down the interaction shows that Italian participants in the devi-
ance condition exhibited greater purchasing intent than those in the no
deviance condition, B=−0.39, SE =.08, t(838) =−4.90, p,.001,
but Chinese participants’purchase intentions did not differ as a function
of artist deviance, B=−0.12, SE =.07, t(838) =−1.74, p=.083.
As a robustness check, we repeated our main analyses while stat-
istically controlling for style familiarity and art interest to rule them
out as possible confounds. Doing so did not change the size or direc-
tion of the effects of artist deviance and country on any of the
Table 1
Descriptives of Manipulation Check and Dependent Variables Across Conditions of Artist Deviance and Countries in Study 1
Country
Artist deviance: no Artist deviance: yes Total
a
M(SD) 95% CI M(SD) 95% CI M(SD) 95% CI
Perceived artist deviance
(manipulation check)
Italy (culturally loose) 3.15 (1.57) [2.94, 3.39] 5.40 (1.38) [5.19, 5.58] 4.30 (1.85) [4.10, 4.48]
China (culturally tight) 3.88 (1.50) [3.68, 4.08] 4.51 (1.56) [4.31, 4.70] 4.20 (1.56) [4.06, 4.34]
Total
b
3.56 (1.57) [3.41, 3.72] 4.91 (1.54) [4.76, 5.04] 4.24 (1.70) [4.12, 4.36]
Cultural tightness
(manipulation check)
Italy (culturally loose) 4.18 (0.74) [4.08, 4.30] 4.74 (0.86) [4.62, 4.85] 4.15 (0.76) [4.08, 4.23]
China (culturally tight) 4.77 (0.91) [4.65, 4.89] 4.74 (0.86) [4.62, 4.85] 4.75 (0.89) [4.67, 4.83]
Total
b
4.51 (0.88) [4.43, 4.60] 4.46 (0.88) [4.38, 4.55] 4.48 (0.88) [4.43, 4.54]
Perceived influence
Italy (culturally loose) 4.03 (1.27) [3.84, 4.22] 5.08 (1.14) [4.92, 5.24] 4.57 (1.32) [4.42, 4.71]
China (culturally tight) 4.37 (1.19) [4.22, 4.53] 4.62 (1.12) [4.48, 4.77] 4.50 (1.16) [4.39, 4.60]
Total
b
4.22 (1.23) [4.09, 4.35] 4.83 (1.16) [4.72, 4.94] 4.53 (1.23) [4.44, 4.61]
Art valuation
Italy (culturally loose) 2.74 (1.12) [2.58, 2.89] 3.17 (1.04) [3.03, 3.32] 2.96 (1.10) [2.84, 3.06]
China (culturally tight) 3.72 (1.32) [3.55, 3.90] 3.75 (1.20) [3.59, 3.91] 3.73 (1.26) [3.62, 3.85]
Total
b
3.28 (1.33) [3.16, 3.41] 3.49 (1.16) [3.38, 3.60] 3.39 (1.25) [3.30, 3.47]
Purchase intention
Italy (culturally loose) 2.84 (1.33) [2.66, 3.04] 3.62 (1.48) [3.42, 3.82] 3.24 (1.46) [3.10, 3.39]
China (culturally tight) 3.01 (1.73) [2.80, 3.23] 3.26 (1.58) [3.06, 3.47] 3.14 (1.66) [2.99, 3.29]
Total
b
2.93 (1.56) [2.80, 3.08] 3.42 (1.55) [3.28, 3.57] 3.18 (1.57) [3.08, 3.28]
Note. N =842. Bootstraps are based on 1,000 samples. CI =confidence interval.
a
Average descriptives of artist deviance conditions.
b
Average descriptives of tightness/looseness conditions.
Figure 3
Artist Impact as a Function of Artist Deviance and Country in Study 1
Note. N =842. Error bars denote SEs. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 19
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

dependent variables. The results of this analysis are reported in the
online supplemental materials (see Tables S4 and S5 for all studies).
Discussion
Study 1 provided initial support for our theoretical model by show-
ing that individuals’tendency to see deviant artists as impactful differed
in countries that varied on cultural tightness/looseness. Specifically,
culturally loose Italian participants perceived impact in deviant (than
nondeviant) artists—a pattern that was less pronounced or completely
absent among culturally tight Chinese participants. Having demon-
strated the influence of cross-country variability on perceptions of artis-
tic impact, in Study 2, we sought to build on these findings by
investigating the extent to which individuals’perception of deviant art-
ists would vary based on within country variation in tightness/loose-
ness. In addition, we set out to develop a better understanding of the
psychological processes that underlie this effect by measuring partici-
pants’emotional responses to deviant artworks.
Study 2
Method
Participants
The expected effect size of Study 2 was based on the average
interaction effect size observed in Study 1 acrossthe three dependent
variables. A power analysis suggested that to detect an effect size of
f
2
=.016 in a multiple regression analysis with α=.05 and power of
.80, we would need 606 participants. Six hundred and one partici-
pants based in the United States (M
age
=34.63, SD
age
=13.07;
310 female, 277 male, and 14 nonbinary) were recruited via
Prolific to take part in the study.
Procedure and Materials
Study 2 used the same artworks and similar procedure as Study 1,
with participants being randomly assigned to either a “no deviance”
or “deviance”condition. However, there were two notable differences
made to the design. Instead of selecting participants from countries that
differed in cultural tightness, we measured within-country variance in
endorsement of cultural tightness values in participants’immediate
community. In addition, we assessed participants aesthetic emotions
in response to Keo’s artwork. Thus, Study 2 employed a between-
subjects experimental design with individual-level cultural tightness
as a continuous moderator and aesthetic emotions as mediators.
Measures
We used the same measures for artist deviance (manipulation
check), perceived influence, art valuation, and purchase intention
as in Study 1. Intercorrelations between the three dependent vari-
ables are presented in Table S1 in the online supplemental materials.
These again show that variables were highly correlated, providing
evidence they are alternative operationalizations of artist impact.
To assess within-culture variability we used the seven-item scale
on compliance with covid-19 restrictions that we originally used as a
tightness/looseness manipulation check in Study 1 to function as a
measure of within-country differences in cultural tightness/loose-
ness (α=.70). A sample item is “To what extent is your community
developing strict rules in response to the coronavirus?”We assessed
aesthetic emotions using seven items drawn from a scale by
Schindler et al. (2017). Participants were asked the question “How
does Keo’s artwork make you feel?”followed by seven emotion
items (feeling moved, awe, beauty, fascination, interest, intellectual
challenge, and meaning; α=.93), to which they could respond on a
7-point Likert scale (1 =not at all, 7=very much).
Results
Descriptive statistics of the manipulation check and main depen-
dent variables are presented per condition in Table 2.
Manipulation Check
An independent t-test showed that participants in the artist deviance
condition perceived Keo’s artwork to be more deviant than those in the
Table 2
Descriptives of Manipulation Check, Moderator, Mediator, and Dependent Variables Across Conditions of Artist Deviance in Studies 2 and 3
Outcome variable
Artist deviance: no Artist deviance: yes Total
a
M(SD) 95% CI M(SD) 95% CI M(SD) 95% CI
Study 2
Perceived artist deviance (manipulation check) 3.31 (1.72) [3.11, 3.51] 5.51 (1.30) [5.37, 5.66] 4.40 (1.88) [4.25, 4.54]
Cultural tightness (moderator) 3.20 (0.79) [3.11, 3.29] 3.23 (0.76) [3.14, 3.32] 3.22 (0.78) [3.15, 3.28]
Aesthetic emotions (mediator) 2.95 (1.35) [2.81, 3.09] 3.09 (1.45) [2.93, 3.26] 3.02 (1.40) [2.90, 3.13]
Perceived influence 3.88 (1.35) [3.72, 4.04] 5.14 (1.24) [4.99, 5.28] 4.50 (1.44) [4.37, 4.62]
Art valuation 3.12 (1.20) [2.98, 3.27] 3.33 (1.23) [3.19, 3.48] 3.23 (1.22) [3.13, 3.33]
Purchase intention 2.79 (1.57) [2.61, 2.98] 3.25 (1.68) [3.07, 3.46] 3.02 (1.64) [2.89, 3.16]
Study 3
Perceived artist deviance (manipulation check) 2.81 (1.45) [2.60, 3.00] 6.51 (0.76) [6.40, 6.61] 4.68 (2.18) [4.45, 4.89]
Tightness/looseness mindset (moderator) 3.92 (0.44) [3.85, 3.98] 3.89 (0.46) [3.82, 3.95] 3.90 (0.45) [3.86, 3.95]
Aesthetic emotions (mediator) 3.72 (1.51) [3.51, 3.95] 3.70 (1.64) [3.48, 3.93] 3.71 (1.57) [3.56, 3.87]
Perceived influence 3.93 (1.37) [3.75, 4.12] 4.03 (1.37) [3.84, 4.21] 3.98 (1.37) [3.85, 4.10]
Artist talent 5.12 (1.44) [4.91, 5.33] 5.31 (1.34) [5.12, 5.51] 5.22 (1.39) [5.09, 5.36]
Star rating 3.27 (1.07) [3.12, 3.43] 3.38 (1.05) [3.24, 3.53] 3.32 (1.06) [3.22, 3.43]
Note. N =601 in Study 2 and N=400 in Study 3. Bootstraps are based on 1,000 samples. CI =confidence interval.
a
Average descriptives of artist deviance conditions.
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND
20
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

nondeviance condition, t(562.79) =−17.71, p,.001, d=−1.44,
thereby suggesting that the manipulation of artist deviance was successful.
Hypothesis Testing
Moderation. Foreach of the three dependent variables, we con-
ducted moderation analyses with cultural tightness centered on its
mean and artist deviance dummy coded (PROCESS, Model 1;
Hayes, 2017). Inferential statistics for the results of the moderation
analyses appear in Table 3. Across the three dependent variables,
there were significant main effects of artist deviance and cultural
tightness, which were qualified by an interaction effect.
We probed the interactions by conducting simple slopes analyses
at +1SD from the mean of cultural tightness (Figure 4). As can be
seen in the top row of Figure 4, participants who were low on per-
ceived tightness considered the deviant artist to be more influential,
B=1.65, SE =.15, t(597) =11.16, p,.001, 95% confidence
interval (CI) [1.36, 1.94], more valuable, B=0.53, SE =.14,
t(597) =3.78, p,.001, 95% CI [0.25, 0.80], and were more willing
to purchase products featuring the artist’s work, B=0.90, SE =.19,
t(597) =4.82, p,.001, 95% CI [0.53, 1.26]. However, high cul-
tural tightness participants’tendency to view the deviant artist as
more influential was less pronounced, B=0.85, SE =.15,
t(597) =5.76, p,.001, 95% CI [0.56, 1.14], and they showed no
difference between deviance conditions in terms of valuation,
B=−0.11, SE =.14, t(597) =−0.82, p=.415, 95% CI [−0.39,
0.16], and purchase intention, B=0.03, SE =.19, t(597) =0.16,
p=.870, 95% CI [−0.33, 0.40].
Moderated Mediation. We then set out to determine the extent
to which our previously identified interaction effects could be
explained by differences in experiences of aesthetic emotions. We
conducted a series of moderated mediation analyses using
PROCESS Model 8. We assessed the indirect effects at low and
high levels of perceived cultural tightness (+1SD) by computing
95% bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap
samples for each of the three dependent variables.
As seen in Table 4, the analyses on all three outcome variables pro-
vided evidence for moderated mediation through aesthetic emotions.
Specifically, the indirect effects through aesthetic emotions were pos-
itive and significant at low levels of perceived tightness (respective
confidence intervals did not contain zero), while they were not signifi-
cant at high levels of perceived tightness (confidence intervals
contained zero). These findings suggest that participants who scored
relatively low on perceived cultural tightness would view deviant art-
ists as more impactful because they would experience more profound
aesthetic emotions in response to deviant artworks.
Discussion
Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1 by show-
ing that within-country differences in tightness mitigate the effect
of artist deviance on impact and uncovering the underlying mech-
anism of this effect. Individuals who lived in loose communities
experienced stronger aesthetic emotions in response to deviant
art, which in turn made the artist appear more impactful.
In both Studies 1 and 2, we examined interpersonal deviance,
whereby the focal artist’s work differed stylistically from that of his
contemporaries. However, in the following studies, we applied an
alternative conceptualization of deviance to further attest to the robust-
ness of our theory. Specifically, we examined intrapersonal deviance,
whereby the focal artist’s work deviated from their own (earlier) work,
as research shows that artists who deviate from their earlier style are
often viewed as being more impactful than those who choose to follow
a single style throughout their career (Stamkou et al., 2018).
In addition, while tightness/looseness can vary as a state in
response to a plethora of exogenous factors, so too can it manifest
itself as a trait, with individual differences in tightness/looseness
resembling more stable personality differences between individuals
(Gelfand et al., 2011). We therefore shift our focus in Studies 3 and 4
from the country and community levels to the individual level by
assessing individuals’tightness/looseness mindset as a moderator
of their responses to deviant works of art. Lastly, one could also
argue that a limitation of our previous studies was the use of highly
stylized paintings, which allowed maximizing experimental control
over the manipulation of artistic deviance. In the following studies,
we remedied this by utilizing real artworks, thereby enhancing the
external validity of our findings.
Study 3
Method
Participants
TheexpectedeffectsizeofStudy3wasbasedonStudy2’s
observed interaction effect size for perceived influence, which we
Table 3
Inferential Statistics for the Effects of Artist Deviance and Tightness on Artist Impact in Studies 2 and 3
Artist impact
Artistic deviance Tightness
a
Artistic Deviance ×Tightness
a
b(SE) 95% CI tpb(SE) 95% CI tp b(SE) 95% CI tp
Study 2
Perceived influence 1.25 (.10) [1.05, 1.46] 11.97 ,.001 0.32 (.09) [0.14, 0.50] 3.46 ,.001 −0.52 (.13) [−0.78, −0.25] −3.82 ,.001
Art valuation 0.21 (.10) [0.01, 0.40] 2.10 .036 0.27 (.09) [0.09, 0.44] 3.03 .003 −0.41 (.13) [−0.67, −0.16] −3.25 .001
Purchase intention 0.46 (.13) [0.21, 0.72] 3.53 ,.001 0.43 (.12) [0.20, 0.66] 3.71 ,.001 −0.56 (.17) [−0.89, −0.23] −3.29 .001
Study 3
Perceived influence 0.10 (.14) [−0.17, 0.36] 0.71 .477 0.65 (.22) [0.22, 1.09] 2.97 .003 −0.79 (.30) [−1.39, −0.20] −2.62 .009
Artist talent 0.20 (.14) [−0.08, 0.46] 1.40 .161 0.66 (.22) [0.22, 1.10] 2.94 .004 −0.81 (.31) [−1.41, −0.21] −2.64 .009
Star rating 0.10 (.11) [−0.11, 0.30] 0.91 .362 0.11 (.17) [−0.02, 0.65] 1.84 .067 −0.46 (.23) [−0.02, −0.00] −1.98 .049
Note.N=601 in Study 2 and N=400 in Study 3. Artist deviance was dummy-coded (0 =no deviance,1=deviance), and tightness was centered at its mean.
Significant interaction effects were probed at +1SD from the mean of tightness. CI =confidence interval.
a
Tightness stands for cultural tightness in Study 2 and tightness–looseness mindset in Study 3.
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 21
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

also measured in Study 3. A power analysis showed that to detect an
effect size of f
2
=.025 in a multiple regression analysis with α=.05
and power of .80, we would need 389 participants. Four hundred par-
ticipants based in the United States (M
age
=43.37, SD
age
=14.47;
200 female, 199 male, and one nonbinary) were recruited via Prolific.
Procedure and Materials
Since we planned to use new experimental stimuli in Study 3, we
first conducted a pilot study to validate the artworks, the results of
which are reported in the online supplemental materials (see Study
3 Pilot).
In the main study, participants read a scenario about a fictitious
organization, Quality Consultants, which was seeking to commission
a painter to create an artwork for their entrance hall. They learned that
some artists had sent in their portfolio and that they would be asked to
provide their opinion on the work of one of the candidates named J.B
(in reality, all artworks were made by Gustav Klimt). Participants were
informed that J.B.’s portfolio consisted of four paintings, the first three
of which were made in an earlier stage of his career, with the fourth
piece being his latest work. As shown in Figure 5, participants ran-
domly assigned to the nondeviance condition were shown a fourth
painting that did not deviate stylistically from its predecessors. In con-
trast, those in the deviance condition were shown a painting that did.
Participants were asked to evaluate J.B. as an artist.
Next, participants filled in items assessing aesthetic emotions, per-
ceived influence, and artist talent, and they were asked to give the art-
work a rating out of five stars. They moved on to a manipulation check
of perceived deviance and the measures of tightness/looseness mind-
set, art interest, art familiarity, and demographics.
Measures
We used the same measures of perceived deviance (manipulation
check; α=.97), aesthetic emotions (α= .95), and perceived influence
(α=.93) as in the previous studies. We assessed perceptions of artist
talent using the item “I think that J.B. has talent”(1 =not at all,7=
very much) and measured participants’rating of his work by asking
“How many stars would you give J.B. as an artist?”on a 1-to-5-star
scale. Intercorrelations between the three dependent variables are pre-
sented in Table S1 in the online supplemental materials and again
show that they were positively correlated, indicating their semantic
similarity.
Tightness/looseness mindset was measured through personality
traits that describe the propensity to conform: dutifulness, self-
monitoring, self-control, and need for structure. We used 14
items from Gelfand et al. (2011;α=.77) that were rated along
5-point Likert scales (1 =very inaccurate,5=very accurate),
with higher scores reflecting greater tightness. Sample items are
“I am very careful to avoid making mistakes,”“I follow direc-
tions,”“I stick to the rules,”and “I hate to change my plans at
the last minute.”
Art interest was measured with the same items as in previous stud-
ies (α=.94). Art familiarity was measured with the item “Have you
seen any of J.B.’s artworks before?”which was answered with a
“yes”or “no.”
Results
Descriptive statistics of the manipulation check and main depen-
dent variables are presented per condition in Table 2.
Figure 4
Artist Impact as a Function of Artist Deviance and Cultural Tightness in Study 2 (Top Row) and Tightness Mindset in Study 3 (Bottom Row)
Note. N =601 in Study 2 and N=400 in Study 3. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND
22
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Manipulation Check
An independent t-test showed that participants in the deviance
condition perceived J.B.’s artwork to be more deviant than those
in the nondeviance condition, t(305.44) =−31.46, p,.001,
d=−3.15, thereby indicating that our manipulation was
successful.
Hypotheses Testing
Moderation. For each of the three dependent variables, we
again conducted moderation analyses with tightness/looseness
mindset being mean-centered and artist deviance dummy coded
(PROCESS, Model 1). Inferential statistics for the results of the
moderation analyses appear in Table 3. Across the three dependent
variables, there was no main effect of artist deviance, but there
was a significant main effect of tightness mindset, which was qual-
ified by an interaction with artist deviance.
We probed the interactions by conducting simple slopes analy-
ses at +1SD from the mean of cultural tightness mindsets
(Figure 4). As can be seen in the bottom row of Figure 4, partici-
pants who were low on tightness mindset considered the deviant
artist to be more influential, B=0.45, SE =.19, t(396) =2.36,
p=.019, 95% CI [0.08, 0.83], more talented, B=0.56,
SE =.20, t(396) =2.86, p=.005, 95% CI [0.17, 0.94], and gave
a higher star rating, B=0.30, SE =.15, t(396) =2.04, p=.042,
95% CI [0.01, 0.60]. However, participants high on tightness
mindset showed no difference between deviance conditions in
terms of perceived influence, B=−0.26, SE =.19, t(396) =
−1.36, p=.176, 95% CI [−0.64, 0.12], perceived talent,
B=−0.17, SE =.20, t(396) =−0.88, p=.380, 95% CI [−0.55,
0.21], and star rating, B=−0.11, SE =.15, t(396) =−0.76,
p=.450, 95% CI [−0.41, 0.18].
Moderated Mediation. We once again set out to determine the
extent to which the previously identified moderation pattern could be
explained by differences in participants’experienced aesthetic emo-
tions. We conducted a series of moderated mediation analyses using
PROCESS Model 8. We assessed the indirect effects at low and high
levels of tightness/looseness mindset (+1SD) by computing 95%
bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap sam-
ples for each of our three dependent variables, the results of which
are presented in Table 4.
For all three dependent variables, there was evidence for moderated
mediation through aesthetic emotions. The indirect effects through aes-
thetic emotions were in the predicted direction for all three dependent
variables (positive for low levels of tightness and negative for high lev-
els of tightness), but they did not reach significance. Although not con-
clusive, these findings suggest that the tendency to view deviant artists
as impactful in tight rather than loose cultures can be explained by indi-
viduals’experience of more profound aesthetic emotions.
Discussion
Study 3 findings echoed those of our previous studies by showing
that the tendency to perceive deviant (as opposed to nondeviant) art-
ists as having more impact is one that only occurs among individuals
Table 4
Indirect Effects of Artist Deviance on Artist Impact Variables Through Aesthetic Emotions at
Low and High Levels of Tightness in Studies 2 and 3
Artist impact Indirect effect (SE) 95% CI
a
Study 2
Perceived influence
Low cultural tightness
b
0.21 (.07) [0.06, 0.34]
High cultural tightness
b
−0.10 (.07) [−0.24, 0.04]
Index of moderated mediation −0.19 (.07) [−0.33, −0.06]
Art valuation
Low cultural tightness
b
0.22 (.07) [0.07, 0.36]
High cultural tightness
b
−0.10 (.08) [−0.25, 0.05]
Index of moderated mediation −0.21 (.08) [−0.34, 0.07]
Purchase intention
Low cultural tightness
b
0.39 (.13) [0.12, 0.64]
High cultural tightness
b
−0.18 (.14) [−0.43, 0.09]
Index of moderated mediation −0.36 (.12) [−0.60, −0.11]
Study 3
Perceived influence
Low tightness/looseness mindset
b
0.20 (.13) [−0.05, 0.45]
High tightness/looseness mindset
b
−0.22 (.14) [−0.49, 0.06]
Index of moderated mediation −0.47 (.21) [−0.89, −0.05]
Artist talent
Low tightness/looseness mindset
b
0.20 (.13) [−0.04, 0.45]
High tightness/looseness mindset
b
−0.22 (.14) [−0.49, 0.06]
Index of moderated mediation −0.46 (.21) [−0.87, −0.06]
Star rating
Low tightness/looseness mindset
b
0.16 (.10) [−0.03, 0.37]
High tightness/looseness mindset
b
−0.18 (.11) [−0.40, 0.05]
Index of moderated mediation −0.37 (.17) [−0.71, −0.05]
Note. N =601 in Study 2 and N=400 in Study 3. CI =confidence interval.
a
Ninety-five percent bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 10,000bootstrap samples.
b
Tightness/
looseness was mean-centered, with higher and lower levels computed at +1SD from the mean.
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 23
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

with culturally loose mindsets (as opposed to tight mindsets).
However, Study 3 provided additional insights by demonstrating
that the effect extends beyond interpersonal deviance to intraper-
sonal deviance, as well as from country- to individual-level differ-
ences in tightness/looseness, as captured by individuals’mindset.
In Study 4, we extend our findings by using a more ecologically
valid measure of artist impact, which assesses whether participants
would consider deviant artworks worthy of being exhibited in a
museum. In addition, we set out to replicate the underlying process
driving this effect by measuring experienced aesthetic emotions in
response to deviant art.
Study 4
Method
Participants
The required sample size of Study 4 was based on the observed
effect size of the interaction effect on perceived influence in Study
3. A power analysis showed that to detect an effect size of f
2
=.023
with α=.05 and power of .80, we would need 422 participants. We
recruited 400 U.S.-based participants (M
age
=40.82, SD
age
=14.49;
200 female, 200 male) via Prolific based on available resources.
Procedure and Materials
Participants were presented with a scenario about Springfield Art
Museum and learned that it was planning an upcoming exhibition
which would showcase the work of nine visual artists who had
each submitted two artworks (18 in total) to be considered for the
exhibition. The museum was said to be interested in gathering opin-
ions on the artworks to help them determine which piece by each art-
ist should be selected to be on display.
Participants were presented with nine pairs of artworks, each made by
the same artist. We selected pairs of artworks that depicted the same
theme and were made by the same artist, yet they differed stylistically,
in that one of the two deviated from the depiction of reality (i.e., abstract
style) and the other was a veridical representation of reality (i.e., realistic
style; see Table 5). We asked participants to indicate per pair which
piece they would recommend being on display.
After selecting their preferred artworks, participants moved on to
items assessing their tightness/looseness mindset. Lastly, they were
presented with each artwork again, in random order, and they were
asked to report on the aesthetic emotions they experienced in
response to the piece as well as their perceptions of artistic deviance,
which we used as a manipulation check. Finally, they responded to
items measuring art interest, art familiarity, and demographics.
Figure 5
Artworks Used in the No Deviance (Top Row) and Deviance (Bottom Row) Conditions in Study 3
Birch Forest I, 2008aBirch Forest II, 2008bBirch Forest III, 2008cTrees, 2022a
(focal non-deviant)
Birch Forest I, 2008aBirch Forest II, 2008bBirch Forest III, 2008cTree, 2022d
(focal deviant)
Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
a
Wikiart.org, by Gustav Klimt, 1901 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-klimt/fir-forest-i). In the public domain.
b
Wikiart.org, by Gustav Klimt, 1901
(https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-klimt/pine-forest-ii). In the public domain.
c
Wikiart.org, by Gustav Klimt, 1902 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-
klimt/beech-grove-i). In the public domain.
d
Wikiart.org, by Gustav Klimt, 1909 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-klimt/the-tree-of-life-stoclet-frieze
(detail)). In the public domain.
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND
24
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Table 5
Perceived Deviance of Artworks in the No Deviance and Deviance Conditions in Study 4
Pair Artist
No deviance condition Deviance condition
Artwork Title
Perceived
deviance
M(SD) Deviant Title
Perceived
deviance
M(SD)
1 Salvador Dalí Figure at a Window
a
1.78 (0.97) Woman With a Head of Roses
b
5.74 (1.17)
2 Willem De Kooning Still Life
c
2.04 (0.98) Still Life With Eggs and Potatoes
d
4.61 (1.28)
3 Willem De Kooning Portrait of Elaine
e
2.27 (1.01) Charcoal Drawing
f
6.01 (1.11)
4 Friedensreich Hundertwasser Portrait of My Mother
g
2.17 (1.06) Mourning Schiele
h
5.71 (1.11)
5 Henri Matisse Woman Reading
i
2.01 (1.00) Still Life With Gourds
j
5.33 (1.17)
6 Henri Matisse Still Life With Black Knife
k
2.03 (0.97) Still Life After de Heem’s‘La Desserte’
l
2.45 (0.75)
(table continues)
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 25
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Table 5 (continued)
Pair Artist
No deviance condition Deviance condition
Artwork Title
Perceived
deviance
M(SD) Deviant Title
Perceived
deviance
M(SD)
7 Piet Mondriaan Self-Portrait
m
2.46 (1.04) Self-Portrait
n
5.09 (1.26)
8 Pablo Picasso Jacqueline Rocque
o
2.50 (1.09) Jacqueline With Crossed Hands
p
5.35 (1.17)
9 Pablo Picasso Bull (Plate III)
q
2.99 (1.21) Bull (Plate VII)
r
5.11 (1.24)
Note. All means of perceived deviance between the deviance and no deviance conditions differ from each other. See the online article for the color version of this table.
a
Figure at a Window, 1925, © Salvador Dalí, Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/salvador-dali/figure-at-a-window). Reprinted with permission.
b
Woman With a Head of Roses, 1935, © Salvador Dalí, Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/salvador-dali/woman-with-a-head-of-roses). Reprinted
with permission.
c
© Willem De Kooning, Still Life, 1916, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.dekooning.org/the-artist/artworks/paintings/no-title-still-life-c-1916_1916#1). Reprinted with
permission.
d
© Willem De Kooning, Still Life With Eggs and Potatoes, 1928, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.pinterest.es/pin/421016265140748640/). Reprinted with permission.
e
© Willem De Kooning, Portrait of Elaine, 1940–1941, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://origin.dekooning.org/the-artist/artworks/drawings/portraitof-elaine-1940-41_1940#19). Reprinted with
permission.
f
© Willem De Kooning, Charcoal Drawing, 1970–1980, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.gazette-drouot.com/en/lots/21091667-willem-dekooning-charcoal-drawing).
Reprinted with permission.
g
© Friedensreich Hundertwasser, Portrait of My Mother, 1948, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://hundertwasser.com/en/early-works/29_jw136_portrait_meiner_
mutter_952). Reprinted with permission.
h
© Friedensreich Hundertwasser, Mourning Schiele, 1965, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/friedensreich-hundertwasser/622-
mourning-schiele-1965). Reprinted with permission.
i
Henri Matisse, Woman Reading, 1894 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/henri-matisse/woman-reading-1894). In the public domain.
j
Henri Matisse,
Still Life With Gourds, 1916 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/henri-matisse/still-life-with-gourds-1916). In the public domain.
k
Henri Matisse, Still Life With Black Knife, 1896 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/
henri-matisse/still-lifewith-black-knives-1896). In the public domain.
l
Henri Matisse, Still Life After de Heem’s‘La Desserte’, 1915 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/henri-matisse/still-life-after-jan-
davidsz-de-heem-s-la-desserte-1915). In the public domain.
m
Piet Mondriaan, Self-Portrait, 1918 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/piet-mondrian/self-portrait-1918). In the public domain.
n
Piet
Mondriaan, Self-Portrait, 1942 (https://www.pubhist.com/w28410). In the public domain.
o
© Pablo Picasso, Jacqueline Rocque, 1954, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/
pablo-picasso/untitled-1954). Reprinted with permission.
p
© Pablo Picasso, Jacqueline With Crossed Hands, 1954, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/portrait-
of-jacqueline-roque-with-her-hands-crossed-1954). Reprinted with permission.
q
© Pablo Picasso, Bull (Plate III), 1945, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/bull-
plate-iii-1945). Reprinted with permission.
r
© Pablo Picasso, Bull (Plate VII), 1945, c/o Pictoright Amsterdam 2023 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/bullplate-vii-1945). Reprinted with
permission.
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND26
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Measures
Participants’tightness/looseness mindset (α=.79) was measured
using the same scale as in Study 3. Given that participants had to
rate each of the 18 artworks on both the manipulation check and aes-
thetic emotion items, we decided to reduce the number of itemsto min-
imize fatigue. The manipulation check for artistic deviance included
two items, which were combined into one scale. An example item is
“To what extent does this artwork deviate from representing real-world
objects and people?”We measured self-reported aesthetic emotions
with the items “How awe-inspiring do you find this artwork?”and
“How interesting do you find this artwork?”whichwerecombined
into one scale (r=.76, p,.001). Responses to all items were recorded
ona7-pointLikertscale(1=not at all,7=very much). We measured
art interest with the same scale as in previous studies (α=.93) and art
familiarity by presenting participants with all 18 artworks and asking
them to select the ones they had seen before participating in our study.
Results
Manipulation Check
Nine independent t-tests comparing each pair of artworks showed
that participants consistently rated the abstract artwork as more deviant
than the representative one (all ps,.001). We therefore concluded that
our manipulation of artistic deviance was successful (see Table 5).
Hypothesis Testing
We tested our main hypothesis by regressing deviant art preference
on tightness/looseness mindset. A multilevel binomial regression with
painting preferences nested within participants showed that culturally
tight participants were less likely to recommend the deviant paintings,
OR =.59 (95% CI [0.44, 0.79]), SE =.09, Z=−3.51, p,.001 (see
Figure 6).
Next, we aimed to establish whether the effect of tightness/loose-
ness mindset on preference for deviant artworks was mediated by
participants’self-reported aesthetic emotions. We conducted a mul-
tilevel mediation analysis to test the mediating role of aesthetic emo-
tions in the relationship between tight mindsets and preference for
deviant art. Results show that the mediation was significant, b=
−0.05, 95% CI [−0.08, −0.03], p,.001. This suggests that the
effect of participants’tightness/looseness mindset on their prefer-
ences for deviant (as opposed to nondeviant) art could be explained
by their aesthetic emotional responses to the deviant artworks.
Discussion
Like all previous studies, Study 4 revealed cultural variation in
individuals’tendency to perceive deviant artists as more impactful.
When viewing a pair of artworks by the same artist, individuals with
a tighter mindset were more likely to spontaneously recommend
pieces that did not deviate from the representation of reality, whereas
individuals with a looser mindset tended to recommend depictions
that did. In addition, our findings again showed that these differences
were driven by the aesthetic emotions that people felt, with culturally
loose individuals experiencing greater awe and interest when
exposed to deviant artworks, which in turn increased their preference
for these artworks.
General Discussion
The cultural context in which an artwork is embedded constitutes
an integral aspect of the artwork. Becker (1982), for example, argued
that art is a collective action, whereby an interconnected network of
social actors (suppliers, dealers, critics, and consumers) and their
cultural belief systems “produce”a work of art together with the art-
ist. Our research examined how cultural tightness—a key aspect of
culture that binds these actors together within a system—influenced
the potential of deviant artists to gain impact across four studies.
Results consistently show that artists whose work deviates from
their own previous style (intrapersonal deviance) and other artists’
styles (interpersonal deviance) gain greater impact than nondeviant
artists, as long as their work is evaluated in loose cultural contexts.
On the contrary, in tighter cultural contexts, which have been omit-
ted in much similar research, deviant artists may not be considered
more impactful than nondeviant artists. What is more, the moderat-
ing effect of cultural tightness was observed when comparing coun-
tries that differed in cultural tightness (China vs. Italy), individuals
who perceived their immediate communities to differ in cultural
tightness, and individuals with different tightness mindsets. These
effects generalized across several aspects of artist impact, from per-
ceiving deviant artists as influential and talented to valuing their
work higher and giving them a more positive public review or advo-
cating for their work to be included in a museum collection.
Interestingly, our studies illustrate that looseness is consistently
associated with preferences for deviant versus nondeviant art.
However, most of our results show no consistent preference for non-
deviant over deviant art under conditions of high tightness. One pos-
sible explanation for the lack of this preference reversal is that our
studies might have been aconservative test because most of our stim-
uli included only visual innovations that were devoid of any cultural
content, such as the geometric shapes and trees we used in Studies 1–
3. Art that challenges prevalent cultural values or the normative sta-
tus quo might have led to stronger reactions in tight cultures and a
clear preference for nondeviant artworks. The results of Study 4 pro-
vide suggestive evidence for this account, as the stimuli of that study
involved direct affronts to human subjects (e.g., abstract portraits)
Figure 6
Choice of Deviant and Nondeviant Artworks as a Function of
Tightness Mindset in Study 4
Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 27
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

and the results showed a clear preference for the nondeviant artworks
among participants high in tightness mindset. More generally, these
findings suggest that what is “deviant”needs to be theorized and
measured in studies of art, music, and other cultural artifacts in
more nuanced ways that capture both the formative and semantic
aspects of deviance.
The current findings have important theoretical implications for the
psychology of art and aesthetics. For many Western theorists, it is devi-
ance or the phenomenon whereby we see something new, question our
conceptions, and transform our worldviews that provide art’s ontolog-
ical definition (Rank, 1989;Trilling, 1973). Berlyne (1974),for
instance, considered novelty, uncertainty, and indefiniteness, or what
he termed “collative properties,”the goals of art interaction. Previous
findings have empirically supported this claim (e.g., Berger &
Packard, 2018;Stamkou et al., 2018). Our research extends these find-
ings by showing that deviance in art enhances an artist’simpact,yetthis
effect is culturally contingent. In tight cultures, predictability and con-
sistency in art may be as important as novelty. Interestingly, our
research shows that the effect of culture is carried by the emotions
we feel in response to the artworks. Individuals in tight cultures are
less likely to experience awe and wonder or interest and cognitive stim-
ulation when they encounter artworks that deviate from prevalent aes-
thetic norms, which renders the interaction with the art less pleasurable
and the artist less impactful. Culture seems to affect our most intuitive
responses to art (Stamkou, 2022).
Our findings are therefore also important for cultural psychology.
Art may be a window into studying how cultural norms and values
become reinforced. Cultural values shape the lens through which
people view the world, thereby influencing fundamental psycholog-
ical processes. People in turn shape culture by creating artifacts, such
as visual art, music, and literature, that reflect and reinforce their cul-
tural values (Shweder, 1991). It would be important to examine how
the influence of culture on perceptions of visual art may restrict or
permit different forms of art production, that may in turn reinforce
prevalent cultural values. Cultural psychology has largely ignored
art’s role in maintaining cultural systems. Future research could
shed further light on how cultural values and cultural products like
artworks make each other up.
It is also interesting to examine processes of change and innovation
in tight cultures. Our findings suggest that change may happen at
slower rates in tight cultures. Indeed, computational models show
that it takes longer for new norms to change in tighter populations,
but once they hit a tipping point, they develop even faster than in looser
populations (De et al., 2017). The explosion of contemporary and
avant-garde art scenes in China, Japan, and other Eastern countries
provides suggestiveevidence for this. Further research on the evolution
of art movements in tight and loose cultures is clearly needed.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study is not without caveats and suggestions for future research.
One of the strengths of the current research was that artworks were
carefully selected to maximize the effect of deviance. This allowed
testing the causal effect of deviance and increased the internal validity
of the findings. However, research studying the impact of deviant art in
real-world settings would increase external validity. Future studies
could examine, for instance, the effect of cultural tightness on deviant
artists’impact using archival censorship data and naturalistic indices of
impact (e.g., film ratings) on the field.
Another limitation of our studies is that operationalizations of cul-
tural tightness rely on preexisting cultural groups or measurements of
cultural orientation, thereby precluding strong causal inferences
about the effects of cultural tightness. However, the inclusion of dif-
ferent operationalizations of tightness, including country of origin,
perception of tight norms, and personality traits, strengthens the like-
lihood that the effects we observed are due to tightness rather than
alternative variables. Future research could explore the causal effects
of cultural tightness on artist perceptions by priming ecological
threat—the distal antecedent of cultural tightness (Stamkou et al.,
2022).
Furthermore, we note that art expertise can significantly influence
the aesthetic evaluation of deviant artists. Our measures of art inter-
est and familiarity, while indicative, may not encapsulate the full
spectrum of expertise that individuals bring into their evaluations.
Similarly, while nationality was taken into account to represent cul-
tural contexts, we acknowledge that ethnicity can offer additional
nuanced insights into individual and collective art perceptions.
Ethnic backgrounds can carry with them unique traditions, histories,
and values that can interplay with individual reactions to deviant art.
Future research would benefit from including a more comprehensive
measure of art expertise and taking into account the rich tapestry of
ethnic backgrounds, even within a given nationality, to offer a more
holistic understanding of the dynamics at play.
Finally, it would be important to study how the ideals of tradition
versus innovation in the arts are institutionalized and transmitted
throughout society. Art schools, funding institutions, and art ven-
ues play an important role in establishing dominant trends in art
production. Future studies could examine, for instance, art school
curricula or evaluation criteria used by funding agencies to under-
stand how the values of tradition and innovation are prioritized,
transmitted, and reproduced across key stakeholders in the cultural
market.
Conclusion
Our findings shed light on the intricate interplay between cultural
tightness–looseness and perceptions of artistic deviance, unveiling
distinctive aesthetic preferences deeply rooted in cultural norms.
The allure of change, represented by artists who diverge from con-
ventional paths, is perceived differently across cultural spectra.
Whereas loose cultures embrace the unpredictability of deviance,
tighter cultures resonate more with consistent artistic narratives.
This underscores the profound influence of cultural values on our
aesthetic emotions and preferences, from the awe inspired by a
groundbreaking masterpiece to the comfort found in familiar artistry.
These findings provide compelling evidence that our perceptions of
art are as much a reflection of cultural values as they are of individual
taste. As we continue to navigate an increasingly interconnected
world, understanding these cultural nuances becomes paramount.
Thus, this research not only contributes to the academic discourse
about cross-cultural aesthetics but also holds broader implications
for global art communities, institutions, and markets.
References
Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. University of California Press.
Berger, J., & Packard, G. (2018). Are atypical things more popular? Psychological
Science,29(7), 1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618759465
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND
28
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception &
Psychophysics,8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps
toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Taylor & Francis.
Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurableresponses to music
correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,98(20), 11818–
11823. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191355898
Bullot, N. J., & Reber, R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a
psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences,36(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S01405
25X12000489
Carbon, C.-C., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2012). Scientific meetings. Swiss
Journal of Psychology,71(1), Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-
0185/a000070
Chua, R. Y. J., Huang, K. G., & Jin, M. (2019). Mapping cultural tightness
and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces
in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,116(14),
6720–6725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815723116
Conner, T. S., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Creative days: A daily diary study of emo-
tion, personality, and everyday creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts,9(4), 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000022
De, S., Nau, D. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2017). Understanding norm change: An
evolutionary game-theoretic approach. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/
arXiv.1704.04720
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., Butterbach, E. B., & Sassenberg, K. (2005).
Automatic effects of deviancy cues on creative cognition. European Journal
of Social Psychology,35(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.253
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and preven-
tion cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81(6), 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001
Gelfand, M. J. (2021). Cultural evolutionary mismatches in response to col-
lective threat. Current Directions in Psychological Science,30(5), 401–
409. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211025032
Gelfand,M.J.,Raver,J.L.,Nishii,L.,Leslie,L.M.,Lun,J.,Lim,B.C.,Duan,
L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P.,
Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D’Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr,
I. C., …Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures:
A 33-nation study. Science,332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1197754
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,19(4), 395–410. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the 50
United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
111(22), 7990–7995. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317937111
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Jackson, J. C., Gelfand, M., De, S., & Fox, A. (2019). The loosening of
American culture over 200 years is associated with a creativity-order trade-
off. Nature Human Behaviour,3(3), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-018-0516-z
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aes-
thetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion,17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10
.1080/02699930302297
Landau, M. J., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Martens, A.
(2006). Windows into nothingness: Terror management, meaninglessness,
and negative reactions to modern art. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,90(6), 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.879
Lena, J., & Pachucki, M. (2013). The sincerest form of flattery: Innovation.
Repetition, and Status in an Art Movement. Poetics,41(3), 236–264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2013.02.002
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Schindler, I., Hanich, J.,
Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?
Psychological Review,126(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000135
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. (2010). Creativity east and west: Perspectives
and parallels. Management and Organization Review,6(3), 313–327.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00193.x
Mu, Y., Kitayama, S., Han, S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2015). How culture gets
embrained: Cultural differences in event-related potentials of social
norm violations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
112(50), 15348–15353. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509839112
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), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038814
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Shivers and timbres: Personality and
the experience of chills from music. Social Psychological and Personality
Science,2(2), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610386810
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and
human preference. Annual Review of Psychology,64(1), Article 1. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
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,21,80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.plrev.2017.02.003
Rank, O. (1989). Art and artist: Creative urge and personality development
(C. F. Atkinson, Trans.). W. W. Norton.
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), Article
e0178899. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178899
Schönfeld, S., & Reinstaller, A. (2007). The effects of gallery and artist rep-
utation on prices in the primary market for art: A note. Journal of Cultural
Economics,31(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-007-9031-1
Sgourev, S., & Althuizen, N. (2014). “Notable”or “not able”: When are acts
of inconsistency rewarded? American Sociological Review,79(2), 282–
302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414524575
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural
psychology. Harvard University Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in
Psychological Science,17(1), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721
.2008.00548.x
Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Music structure and emotional response: Some empirical
findings. Psychology of Music,19(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0305735691192002
Specker, E., Forster, M., Brinkmann, H., Boddy, J., Pelowski, M.,
Rosenberg, R., & Leder, H. (2020). The Vienna Art Interest and Art
Knowledge Questionnaire (VAIAK): A unified and validated measure of
art interest and art knowledge. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts,14(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000205
Specker, E., Stamkou, E., Pelowski, M., & Leder, H. (2022). Radically revolu-
tionary or pretty flowers? The impact of curatorial narrative of artistic devi-
ance on perceived artist influence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts,16(2), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000320
Stamkou, E. (2022). On the social functions of emotions in visual art.
Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture,6(1), 57–60. https://doi.org/
10.26613/esic.6.1.272
Stamkou, E., Brummelman, E., Dunham, R., Nikolic, M., & Keltner, D.
(2023). Awe sparks prosociality in children. Psychological Science,
34(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221150616
Stamkou, E., Homan, A. C., van Kleef, G. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2022). The
spatial representation of leadership depends on ecological threat: A
WHEN RULE BREAKING IN ART FALLS FLAT 29
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

replication and extension of Menon et al. (2010). Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,123(3), e1–e22. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspa0000304
Stamkou, E., Lin, Y., Dunham, R., Gelfand, M., & Pelowski, M. (2023,
October 10). When rule breaking in art falls flat: Cultural tightness
deflates deviant artists’impact.https://osf.io/mgqdh
Stamkou, E., van Kleef, G. A., & Homan, A. C. (2018). The art of influence:
When and why deviant artists gain impact. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,115(2), 276–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000131
Trilling, L. (1973). Sincerity and authenticity (1st ed.). Harvard University Press.
Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative
prediction error account of visual art. I-Perception,2(9), 1035–1062.
https://doi.org/10.1068/i0466aap
Zickfeld, J. H., Arriaga, P., Santos, S. V., Schubert, T. W., & Seibt, B. (2020).
Tears of joy, aesthetic chills and heartwarming feelings: Physiological cor-
relates of Kama Muta. Psychophysiology,57(12), Article e13662. https://
doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13662
Received June 29, 2022
Revision received August 22, 2023
Accepted August 23, 2023 ▪
Members of Underrepresented Groups:
Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital
to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing.
The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups
to participate more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:
•To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough,
objective review.
•To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.
•To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
“social psychology”is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition”or “attitude
change”as well.
•Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1–4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.
APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn
more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/
review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx.
STAMKOU, DUNHAM, PELOWSKI, LIN, AND GELFAND30
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.