A fleeting glimpse of an imposing edifice may elicit a transient perception of beauty in many observers. However, aesthetic judgments formed after prolonged contemplation of its architectural style, cultural significance, and personal relevance are not always congruent with the initial glance-based aesthetic impressions. The precise impact of elaborative cognitive processing on aesthetic judgments across and within observers remains to be fully elucidated. Within the framework of the Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking (PIA model), the present study delves into the potential influence of automatic (rapid, mainly stimulus-driven) and controlled (elaborate, mainly perceiver-driven) processing on both aesthetic reliability and aesthetic agreement (shared aesthetic taste), examining whether these two aesthetic measures exhibit coupled or independent effects. Additionally, we investigate whether the impact of cognitive processing on aesthetic agreement and aesthetic reliability varies depending on the stimulus domain, contrasting natural stimuli (e.g., faces) with human-made stimuli (e.g., artistic paintings). Our findings demonstrate that controlled processing based on elaboration reduces aesthetic agreement compared to automatic processing. This decline in between-subject aesthetic agreement is independent of within-subject aesthetic reliability, which can be reduced by extending the test-retest interval or employing more liberal lexical associations. Furthermore, natural stimuli elicit higher aesthetic agreement than human-made stimuli under automatic processing, but not under controlled processing. Notably, agreements of aesthetic judgment demonstrated consistent correlations across different stimulus categories. The implications of our findings are discussed in light of a hierarchical structure encompassing two aesthetic valuation systems.
Hu et al. (Fri,) studied this question.