University of RichmondUR Scholarship Repository

Master's Theses Student Research

10-1977

The effect of explanation on the art preferences ofliberals and conservativesJoseph Fay

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion inMaster's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contactscholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.

Recommended CitationFay, Joseph, "The effect of explanation on the art preferences of liberals and conservatives" (1977). Master's Theses. Paper 407.

THE EFFECT OF EXPLANATION ON THE ART PREFERENCES

OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES

JosP.ph Fay

B.A.

Gettysbur~ College

A Th~sis Submitted ih P~rti~l Fulfillment of the Requirements for· the Degree of

Master· of Arts in the

Department of Psyc~ology or· the

Grl=lduat'e School University of Richmond

Oc·tober, 1977

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND

VIRGINIA

THE EFFECT OF EXPLANATION ON THE ART PREFERENCES

OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES

by

Joseph Fay

Approveds

~~e.~ Committee Ch.qirrn,::i.n-

L/~ L.&Jq,mes Trorn8 ter, Fh. D. Department Chairman

ht?Jfb, Warr~n P. Hopkins, Ph.D.

C I

Abstract

en ... h1mnrPn thtrtPen subj~cts "'-t the Un1vPrs1tv of

R1ch~nn~ ~P,rP, shown twP.ntv-four Rli~P.S of pa1ntin~s frn~

fonr c"l.tPs:rorlPs of .qrts s1111ple renrPsPntqtio"18l, Rimnle

qhstr~ct, cowplP.X rPprPRPntAt1onal, cowplPX Ahstrqct. HAlf

of thP. pq1ntin~R in Anch catP~ory werA a~co~pRniPn by q onA­

pqrq~rRph. explnnqtion. BBsP.n on thAlr scorPs on thP ConsP,r­

VRtism Scqle.(Wilson & PattPrson, 196R), suhj 0 cts VPrP divi~ed

into two ~roupss liberals and conservRtivAs. Usin~ Wilson's

(1973) thPory of consP.rvgtism as the theorPtical basP, it was

hvnothPsiZP~ th0t, for the unexplR1ned pqintln~s, conservPtives

l>J01lln pri::>fAr sl.,,.,ple Rrt while llbPri=ils woul~ profo-r corr-plex

art. It WRS also hypothAsizP~ thqt the explAnRtion woul~

il"'ICT'P"=!SP the consP.rvi:itiYAS 1 a11d di::>C!'P.A.SP thi::> libi::>T'81R 1 li1'LY'l'l'

of corrplo,x pai11tiYJQ'S. An analysis- of varli:n1ce of the fnii"l'.'­

fqctor (2 X 2 X 2 X ?) ~ep~ated measures desi~n showp~

si~11ificqnt intPractions bP.twePn 1) attitudi::> an~ simple vs.

complex art (p ~ .001), 2) attitude and reprP.sent8tionRl vs.

ahstrRct i:irt (p <: .001), and 3) simple vs. complex an0 r0pr~­

sentRtional vs. ~bstrBct Rrt (p ~ .05). A significqnt ~Rin

~ffAct for the VArlqble of exPlRnqtlon was Blso foun0 (p < .05).

Ri::>sults i~~ici:it 0 ~ pqrti8l support for the first hypot~ 0 sis,

qR consorvqtivP.s Rnd libArAls dlfferAn on their pref Pre~ce

for complPX .~rt hut not for simplA art. Results din not

con~irm thP sPcon~ hypothesis. Wilson's pronosq} thqt con­

~Arvqtlsm rAprPRents a rAactlon aa9inst uncArtRinty W9S

d1scussed.

Acknn~lPd~PrnPntR

ThlR T'rnjor,t wn11lr1 h'lVP hP.P.n cnnsir1Pr!'.1hly rrnr,, r'liff!c1llt

hqd lt not hP~n for thP w1111n~ hPlp of n fpw nGn~lp. First,

I wnn11 ll'\<P to thqn'k Dr. Bnrhqrq. S11ol1Py, who ~lw:iys hi::id

tirrri:> for rnP, no rrqttPr how buR.Y R11P. W'3.s. I w:int to thi:p11(

hPr nnt only for hPr hAlD on this thP.sis, but for ev0rvt~lnQ

thn~ shA hqR oonP for mP OVPr thA pnst two yPnrs. HPr

P'1C011rn ~P,mPnt, qoViCP, ano SPYlS~ Of hmnor Wi:>rA q }WPYS WP le Orne

<:>nr1 i:>PnrF>ctnted.

I nlso W'lnt to thqnk Dr. J~~PS Tromqt~r qn~ Dr. Wqrren

Hon~iV'ls, who~e cornl'T'ents al1n 1nsl0'.'ht~ hAlp0 <1 l'T18kP t'1i~ i:i.

Rtronvi:>r stuny. They were always approqchnblP 8nd willin~

to of-f'pr hi? 1 p.

FinRlly, I want to acknowl~n~e Dr. Chqrles Johnson, who

Q'.'Oor'!-nRturPdly ~ave up many hours of his own tlrn° to hi:>lp me

choosP qppronri9te p8intin~R. He also allowed me to borrow

thP sli~Ps, as well RS mRny of his boo~s. for unspecifiP.d

lel1.a:ths of time. I want to especially th1:p1k hirr for shm,:iYICZ:

qn intPrest in this project ann bein~ patient with my totel

iq~orance of art. He helped me to see things fro~ 8n

e~tirPly ni~~Ar~nt perspective.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Crqnter One--Intronuction­

ChAP~~r Two--Met~od· •

ChA oter Three--Rem1l ts •

Chqnt!'"r Four--Discusi:;ion· •

RP, f"P.rP. l1C P. s

Tqblf"s

Fii:rures

Armf'n'11ces •

. . .

1

7

11

15

19

21

23

29

TABLE OF TABLES

T~b1P 1--Meqn PrP.f~rence ScorP.s for Ench. Co~~ition .•..•••..•...• 21

Tqble 2--Sum~ArY TqblP,s An8lys1s of VRr1qnce of t~e Preference ~Atin~s o~ th.e P~intin~s (A= Attitu~e: B = ExplanAtion; C = Si~ple vs. Complex Art: D =Abstract vs. Representational Art) ... 22

TABLE OF FIGURES

Fi~urP 1. PrPference for art types as R function-of Rttitude and amount of explRnntion • • • • • 23

Fia:-ur~ 2. PrP.ference for simple vs. complex pRintin~s as R function of attitua.e ••• . . . .

FierurP. ). Preference for representqtional vs. nbRtrAct paintl~~s as a function of attitude •.•••

Fi~ure 4. Preference for the four tvnes of g,rt 1-1cross both p-roups of subjects • • . • . • • • •

FiP"ure 5~ Preference for simple vs. cu~plex pRintin~s RS· a function of attitude en~ a~ount of

• •

24

25

26

explanRtion· • • • . . • • • • • • • 27

FiP-ure 6: Preference for representRtionRl vs. Rbstract art as a function of attitude and amount of exulanation· •.•••••.•.•• 28

CRAFTER 1

I11t'ronuctinn

In the TJ<'lst SPVF>r~l yeqrs, therP. hqvp hPPYl q 1111,,.,hf::.r of

RtnniP.s whicr hqve qttPrript,::.n to 1dent1f.Y thp RtructurP. of

Rtt1tu~PS RYlCT bPliPfS thqt i~ c~~ractPr1Rtic of the

cn"1R 0 rvqtivo pP.rRnnality (cf. Wilson, 1973). AR 8 result

of thP.sP RtudiPs, Wilson·h~s rieveloped a th"'ory concer~in~

l

the "18tUrP of' consPrvqtisrri, bARPn on tbe pre~isP thqt

co"1s""r"n:itism is A 'hro1=H1 syndrome thqt unrierlies ti.-.e P.11tire

rqnr;;p of' Rnc 181 i:i tt i t1y'i"'s. Wilson chs:iracterizF>r'.! t"""' "in eq_ l"

consorvP.tive qR convPntional, conformin~, antihPno~istic,

author1tqri8"1, punitive, ethnocentric, wilit8ristic, r'lor:r~qtic,

s11pPr-Rt i ti01.rn, gnn ant18c ieYlt 1 f le. A substa"1t 1al mrrb">.r of

Rtnn 1 es have Pccnrrul8tPri. wh 1ch supnort Wi l~rnn' s theor:v. For

P.Xa~PlP., co11s"'rvqtis,,., has been shown to be correlqted with

introve~sion (Wilson & Brazen~Rle, 1973), stimulus Aversion

(Kish, 19?J), a~e (Wilson & Patterson, 1970), hgrs,., pqrental

tr"'atment (Boshier & Izard, 1972), low self-concept (Boshier,

1969), and fear of death (Wilson, 1973), as well as super­

stition, ~ oa:rrH::i.ti S'1'1, authori ti:i.rianism, anr'i et11nocentr1~::m

(Rav, 1 qr3).

Wilson (1973) sees the commo11 basis for the vqrious

co,,.,ro.,..."'Ylts of thP. co"!ser"'mtivP. Attl turi.e syn0ro11'1P. qR 9.

"a"'nP.~RliZi:>~ ~uRceptibility to experiencing t~rPRt or

~11XiP.ty i~ thi:> fRce of' unc~rtqinty (p. 259)." His theory

proposes that certein ~F>netic an~ developmentql ~AGtors

8ttit,ur'1°R SPr\TP ~ npf1:n1siVP fll"lCtion, protectincr thP,

co"l~orvqtivP. fro~ the complexity ~n~ uncP.rtAi'1ty of his

?.

ThP. foqrfulness gnd anxiety with which the con~ 0rvqtive

fqces the ~onern worln appear to mske him a r8ther pAssive

qcti~itios nf lifP in fqvor of the ornerea and pre~ictable.

Th1s tonne"cv to sAek or Bvo1a chAnqe qn~ novelty as a

l)Prsoni;::ilitv cl-iqrq~tPrist1~ hqs hP.011 P.XA'Tli11erl 'Dy V!'.'lrions

exnorime'1terR over thP. veArs (e.~., Fiske.& ~8<l<li, 19~1;

Leu~q, 1GS5). Zucker~An (1971) cons~ructo.n e Se"ls!'.'ltion

SeeviYJO" Scqlo. iYl orr1Ar to moqsnre the P.XtA'1t to whic""' pPople

diffe~on Ol1 tho q~ount of sti~ulatjon that they req11ire~ for

optiT118.l fimctioninq-. Usini:r this scqle, Kish (1973) fon'1n.

Sqrro~ (1052) qnministPrF>r tne BBrron-Welsn Art 6cAle

(BArroY1 & W0 ]sn, 1052) to divi~P ~u~jP,cts o~ tn° ~q~\P or

for tnF> simple-sy~~etricql drAwin~s WAS corrF>lAte~ with

pol it icq 1-F>C OY101l1 ir. C0'Y'lSP1"'"1TA tiSTT'.

trAditionBl PB1nt1n~s. Thus, BBrron's study P"iVP,s us

f'11rtn°r p1ri~P,'11Ce that col1sF>rV8tives dislike corrplPXity.

J

4

C1 pgrl v,

com r] 0 xi t .V.

t"'is nro"l:'llP,,., hv h"lvi'l"\P-" co...,sPrvi=itivP !:Hlo lirPrii1 s11b.)~r-ts rqte

si~rlP qn~ co,,.,plPX peintinvs in ter~s of personal prPference.

"1es1llts innic~ton thqt consPr~rqtives (as TJ1P~suren by the

Conq 0 ~vAtis1J1 ScRlP of Wilson & PqttPrson, 19~R) pr0 fPrre~

si~nlP paintin2s while liherqls preferrea co~p1°x pgintlr~s.

The evinence presenten. here qppi:>qrs to off Pr s11t'port to

Wilqon's hypothesis thA_t conservAtism is b8sed on feeliviP-s

o~ threRt or enxiet.v in the face of unci:>rt8i...,ty (e.~.,

8rn'l-iicruity, coTTJnleiritv, chqno-P, n<"lvi:>lt:v, etc.). But pAst

ext'o~i~ents hRV"' not nirectly wqnipulRte~ thP vqri~~le of

unc 0~taint.v to see whet~er this will chAn~e thP conservgtive's

exDe\i~ent wqs to provine stron~er support for Wilson's

hyroth 0 sis, by extennin~ the study of Wilson et Rl. (1973)

on conqervRtis~ qnn Rrt Preferences, Their stunv left open

T'r<w,~1,,,o- tl-iP R11h,1P~b-; witl-i R briP.f nP.scriptton of' thP.

"TlPqYliYlQ" or P11rnos'° of thp nRiYltinO". Accor~inQ' to Wil~n"! 1 R

thP.orv, it ~·TO'll'~ i:ippP.qr t'1Rt if' corrplPX P'linti""''7"R !'.lr 0

qc~n~na..,ioA bv qn P.Xpl~YlRtion, thPir Rtimulus U"lrnrtai....,tv.

won1'1 hP rPr'!UcP.0. HP.ncA, t"1P col"JsP.rV.<:1 ti irps wo11 lr1 f i:>e 1 lF>ss

thr0qtPY1P~ RY!~ thPrefor'° feP.l mnrP. f'i:ivorRblv towqr~ t~P.

t')q i '1 ti Y1 P" ~ •

5

On thP. othP.r hRYld, if 9n exDl8netion of mPRY11"1~ qccom­

pqY1i0s thP. co~plP.X p~tntin~s, 11bP.rqls rn~y f 0Al l~SR favor­

Phlv i:>ho11t thP. pa1nt1nP-R, LihP.ralism is positlvAly car.related

with SPY'IS~tioYl SPPkiY117, whicl-i CRn bP. d~fiYlArl RS en o~~RYli~~·s

~~RirP to exnlorP aY!rl PctivPlV seP.k out YlOVoltv, chRY}O"P.,

cnm~lP.~ity, vqriety, etc. (Kish, 1~73). Thus, RYl acco~pqnvin~

exrlen,qtion rA~uces t~e '10VP.lty i:ind unc 0 rteiY1tY of a co"plPX

P8int1Y1g, tho~Aby ~i:i~iYl~ it lP.ss attrqctive to thP. li~orRl,

In short, the libP.r8l f'in~s plP.RSUr'° in sP.nkiYlQ" hiR owY!

iY1t 0 rnrPtRtion for a pqintin~. He is attrRctP.~ to th 0 complex

pe 1na:1 YHT bPcgusi:> of its uncertR. inty Rn<l am bi i:ru 1 t:v. When.

thiR co~nlexity is "expl~inerl away" by e "~iven'' interoret8tion,

thA liheral no lon~er has e reRson to be attracted to the

pq i Ylt i rti:i:.

I'l"l surn, t'1e purpose of th is stmly WRS to further explore

thp wav in which conservativAs and libP,rRls ~if~or 1~ their

r 0 action to sti~ulus complexity by exq~inin~ their aesthetic

nrPrerP.nces. In erlrlition, thiR stu~y 1nten~o~ to re~uce the