Experiencing beauty in everyday life

Abstract

Beauty surrounds us in many ways every day. In three experience sampling (ESM) studies we investigated frequency, category of eliciting stimuli (natural vs human-made) and, the potential moderating role of several individual difference measures on such everyday experiences of beauty in an ecologically valid manner. Further, we explored the impact of such experiences on valence & arousal. Study 1 re-analysed data from a previous study, in line with the current aims. In Studies 2 and 3, we asked participants to report daily experiences of beauty using a mixed random and event-contingent sampling schedule. Mobile notifications (random sampling) prompted participants to take a photo and rate the beauty of their surroundings. Further, current valence and arousal were assessed. Notification frequency and total days of participation differed between these two studies. Participants were able to report additional experiences outside of the notification windows (event-contingent sampling). Our results indicate that we frequently encounter beauty in everyday life and that we find it in nature, in particular. Our results further suggest a mood-boosting effect of encounters with beauty. Lastly, our results indicate influences of individual differences however, these were inconclusive and require further attention.

Figure 1

Procedure illustration: each participant started the study with a lab session in which we collected demographic data and individual difference measures. An ESM practice measure ends the lab session. The main ESM part started the next day. Participants received 15 random notifications daily for 7 days, each prompting them to respond to the same questionnaire pertaining to current experiences of beauty. A permanently available link allowed participants to report additional experiences (i.e., event-contingent sampling) outside of the random notification windows. The day after completing the ESM, participants received a notification for a follow-up questionnaire. (Illustrations are from Canva under their free content license).

Figure 2

Beauty ratings in Study 2 (a) and 3 (b) grouped by Category (i.e., human-made vs. natural) and type of the response (i.e., event-contingent vs. random notification). Beauty ratings tended to be higher for natural than for human-made experiences. Event-contingent responses were overall rated higher in both Study 2 and 3. For Study 2 this was the case in either category. Jittered dots represent individual responses; here we can observe that (1) participants rarely used the event-contingent option, and (2) that human-made experiences were more common than natural ones.

Figure 3

Significant two-way interactions found in the “Aesthetics Model” in Study 2. Specifically, category (0 = human-made, 1 = natural) interacts with art knowledge (a) in that ratings tend to be higher in both categories with lower levels of art knowledge. The interaction of category and art interest (b) shows an increase in beauty ratings with higher levels of art interest in the human-made category and a decrease in the natural category. Regression lines and 95% confidence intervals are shown; coloured dots represent individual observed beauty ratings.

Figure 4

Study 2: shows frequency of occurrence of valence (a) or arousal ratings (b) in relation to different beauty ratings. Higher beauty ratings appear to more often go along with higher valence and lower arousal ratings. Overall, valence ratings tend to be medium to high; arousal ratings tend to be rather low or neutral.

Figure 5

Study 3: beauty ratings grouped by whether they were repeated or not. Repeated experiences tended to receive lower beauty ratings than non-repeated ones. Jittered dots represent individual responses.

Figure 6

Study 3: shows frequency of occurrence of valence (a) or arousal ratings (b) in relation to different beauty ratings. Higher beauty ratings appear to more often go along with higher valence and lower arousal ratings. Overall, valence ratings tend to be medium to high; arousal ratings tend to mostly be neutral.

Figure 7

Study 3: significant interactions between beauty and repetition (1 = repeated, 0 = not repeated) of experiences on valence (a) and arousal (b). Valence: more beautiful experiences that were repeated received higher valence ratings than non-repeated experiences; less beautiful experiences received lower valence ratings than non-repeated experiences. Arousal: more beautiful experiences that were repeated received lower arousal ratings (i.e. calmer) than non-repeated experiences.