There are practically no studies devoted to aesthetic experience in the Russian psychological literature; this may be due to the lack of techniques by which aesthetic judgments, emotions, and meanings — the key components of aesthetic experience — can be measured. The purpose of the study is to approbate the Aesthetic Emotions Scale (AESTHEMOS) on a Russian-speaking sample. The approbation of the AESTHEMOS was carried out in accordance with modern psychometric standards. The methods of parallel and exploratory factor analysis, as well as structural equation modeling, were used to assess structural validity; correlation analysis was used to assess convergent and divergent validity; and the Ferguson coefficient in the Hankins modification was used to assess discriminativity. A sample consists of 473 people (Мage = 23.4; SD = 4.9; Me = 22), of whom 327 are women and 146 are men, 40% of whom have been pursuing an undergraduate degree and 60% have already obtained at least one at the time of approbation. The sample was gathered from May to June 2023, near the various Moscow cultural centers. In the study, the following psychodiagnostics tools were used: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF), Engagement With Beauty Scale (EBS 2.0), Emotional Creativity Inventory (ECI), Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), and Aesthetic Judgments Scale. The results showed that the AESTHEMOS has good psychometric properties: all the scales have a normal distribution and high consistency of points within the scales (Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.70). The AESTHEMOS has a high level of discrimination. ΔG = 0.99. The Russian-language version of the AESTHEMOS has constructive validity: the results showed that the AESTHEMOS has a seven-factor structure formed by 21 facets and good psychometric properties, which correspond to the original version (N = 243, χ2/df = 1.90, CFI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.061). The results of the correlation analysis allowed us to conclude that the AESTHEMOS has convergent and divergent validity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shestova et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: