Influence Perceptions of Visual Artists when Violating One’s Own Norm
N. A. Reinders
Bachelor project Social Psychology
Universiteit van Amsterdam
10341897
Eftychia Stamkou
Word count: 3663
2 Abstract
This research investigated whether violating one’s own norm plays a role in how influential a person is perceived. A change in painting style is seen as a norm-violation for an artist. In accordance with Hollander’s idiosyncrasy theory (1958), I hypothesized that (1) when an artist masters more than one style he is perceived as more influential, (2) the more different styles one artist masters, the more influential he will be considered. And, (3) that perceived versatility, competence and transgression are mediators of this effect. Participants conducted an online survey in which they saw one to four different painting styles of
Mondriaan. The participants answered questions regarding the paintings and the artist. Results confirmed my first and third hypothesis. The results are in line with the idiosyncrasy theory and indicate that this theory is applicable for the field of visual arts.
3 Influence Perceptions of Visual Artists when Violating One’s Own Norm
It is said that art is the one thing that differentiates the human race from other animals. There have been found rock carvings from around 36.000 years ago, and art has developed over and over again since then. Art style changes over generations as well as it can change for a single artist throughout his or hers artistic career. Why are artists always trying to explore new fields and possibilities to express themselves and shock their audience? In this paper I will research whether a contrast to one’s own norm plays a role on the influence inferences other people make. Specifically, in the field of the visual arts.
When researching the inferences people make as a result of art it is important to understand the differences in artworks themselves and the differences in how people perceive art. Research on the psychology of aesthetics shows that a big number of factors influence the way we evaluate (visual) arts (Lindell & Mueller, 2011). Ranging from specific elements of the artwork, like symmetry or complexity, to attributes of the viewer.
An example of such an element is the contrast between abstract work and figurative work. Artworks are perceived as more conventional when what is depicted is easily
recognizable and are perceived as more unconventional when they are more abstract and therefore it is less obvious what the artist is trying to depict (Lindell & Mueller, 2011). For these two main categories in the visual arts different factors are of importance for aesthetic appreciation. Hekkert and Wieringen (1990) found that the aesthetic preference for an abstract painting is mainly determined by its complexity, whereas for a figurative painting the
aesthetic preference is mainly determined by its prototypicality.
An example of an attribute of the viewer in the evaluation of art is a person’s thinking style (Schimmel & Förster, 2008). When someone is pursuing a more abstract thinking style he or she shows a better liking for abstract artworks than when this person is pursuing a concrete thinking style. This might be the result of broader perceptions and mental categories that are being used to fit in new information when using an abstract thinking style (Förster, Marguc & Gillebaard, 2010).
A factor in aesthetic experience that combines these two examples is a person’s perceptual effort. Tyler (1999) found that one needs to put in more perceptual effort with more abstract art. This perceptual effort has in turn a positive effect on the aesthetic
4
necessary with unconventional art pieces is that the depicted in this artworks is harder to fit in one’s existing mental categories (Lindell & Mueller, 2011). When something does fit in a person’s existing mental categories this increases the mental fluency, a process that refers to the ease with which information is being progressed. Therefore, when the mental fluency is increased one needs to put in less effort. People prefer to use as little effort as possible, so the increased mental fluency increases the aesthetic appreciation (Belke, Leder, Strobach & Carbon, 2010). Lengger, Fischmeister, Leder and Bauer (2007) found neurological evidence for the stated differences in the perception of conventional versus unconventional artworks. Their work shows that there is a significantly higher activation in the left frontal lobe and bilaterally in the temporal lobes when one is looking at unconventional artworks.
All these differences in art perception also have their consequences for how the artists themselves are perceived. Depending on one’s contributions to the field of art there can be differences in how influential the artist becomes in this field. The power to influence other artists and the field of art itself often results in a high status within this field. Power is defined as “an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments” (Keltner, Gruenfield & Anderson, 2003). In everyday’s social life power is an important factor because it greatly influences how people behave towards one another. The approach-inhibition theory (Keltner et al., 2003) states that a person with more power has more social freedom and usually has more approach tendencies in his or her behavior. These two factors can increase a person’s non-conforming, norm-violating behavior which can lead to risky behavior (Anderson and Galinsky, 2006). So one could say that power corrupts.
Recent research by Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gundemir and Stamkou (2011) shows that the reverse phenomenon is also true. Their work concludes that when someone violates the norms and constrains of the situation, people tend to perceive this person as more powerful as he or she presumably can act according to one’s own volition. Therefore norm-violation leads to elevated power. In line with these results Belezza, Gino and Keinan (2014) found that nonconforming behavior leads to positive inferences about status and competence and this effect is mediated by the perceived autonomy.
This effect of norm-violation on perceived power can be explained with Hollander’s idiosyncrasy theory (1958). This theory states that people gain credits in a group as long as they comply to the norms of named group. Credits are symbolic for the amount of power, status and respect the group gives a person. When someone has obtained high power levels
5
through these credits, this person can use the credits by behaving against the group norms. Hollander also found that at a certain point violating the norms of the group is no longer a possibility for a person with power but a necessity to maintain this power. So, an important implication of the idiosyncrasy theory is that a person gains more power when he shows that he can both behave conforming the and nonconforming to the norms.
Even though there has been a considerable amount of research conducted regarding both visual art perception and power- and influence perception, there is little research regarding these two concepts combined. The current research will try to do just that by applying the concept of idiosyncrasy credits to the field of art. Following the idea of idiosyncrasy credits, artists would be seen as more influential not when their work is not conforming to the current artistic norms, but when they have shown to be capable of making artworks that both conform to and deviate from the artistic norms. Inglis (1996) already showed this for musical artists The Beatles. This band first obtained idiosyncrasy credits by behaving and making music that conformed to the norms of their time, and later when they had gained status and fame they used their credits by going against the norm by making unique, innovative music. Another example within the music scene is found in rap music. Lena and Pachucki (2013) found that rap artists gain status by first showing a repetition of practices that are understood as legitimate in the field, and then introducing novel artistic content that later is repeated by peers. However, both of these studies are not experimental and both of them are researching musical arts. Current research will have an experimental design and will be using visual artworks.
As said before, the idiosyncrasy theory predicts that artists who can both comply and violate norms would be seen as more influential. Therefore, my first hypothesis states that when an artist masters more than one style he is perceived as more influential. Second, the more different styles one artist masters, and therefore violates the norms set by the himself more often, the more influential he will be considered. See Figure 1 for an overview of the theoretical scheme. Furthermore, I predict that perceived versatility, perceived competence and perceived transgression are mediators of this effect. To test which paintings of four styles were perceived to belong to the same style or to different styles a pilot study was conducted. The results of this pilot determined which paintings were most typical for a certain style, the selected paintings were used in the current research. As art expertise modulates the cognitive and emotional processes that underlie aesthetic experience (Leder, Belke, Oeberst &
6
Augustin, 2004), and therefore liking of art, art familiarity is measured in order to control for it.
Method Sample
Due to time constrains I had to stop the data collection before I reached the twenty participants per condition I initially wanted. Therefore, I used the data of 50 students (41 female, mean age = 20.51, SD = 4.41) for our analyses. These participants conducted an online survey. The participants obtained study points by doing so. Participants were randomly divided over the four conditions.
Study Materials
All the paintings in all conditions are pieces of Piet Mondriaan, a Duch artist who is famous for his own unique style known as Neoplasticism. Interestingly, Mondriaan also contributed with work in other styles. In total we used four paintings in Neoplastic style and one painting in Realistic, Impressionistic, and Cubic styles. See Appendix A for an overview of the used paintings per condition.
Procedure
In a between-subjects design, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in which they answered questions about four pictures of paintings in the same style, two different styles, three different styles or four different styles. The fourth painting is the same for al four conditions, this is the focal painting. The participants see the four
paintings simultaneously, along with a timeline of the artist’s life. The timeline indicated the period in the artists life in which he presumably painted every painting. As a cover story, all participants have read that this study is being conducted as a mean for a museum that is interested in purchasing one or more paintings of this artist from different periods of his life. See Figure 2 for a visual representation of the four conditions. First, participants answered questions regarding transgression and attraction for each of the four paintings separately. Next, the timeline with all four paintings reappears with some questions regarding the perceived influence, competence and versatility of the artist. Next, some question regarding valuation are asked. Last, as a manipulation check, for each of the first three paintings is asked how much the participant thinks it resembles the fourth (focal) painting. At the end of the survey participants are first asked whether they recognized the artist, then to fill in some demographics and finally four questions regarding art familiarity.
7
The perceived transgression of the four individual paintings was measured using four items on 7-point bipolar scales. An example item for transgression perception is traditional – progressive. Attraction to each of the paintings was also measured using four items on 7-point bipolar scales an example is uninteresting – interesting.
Thereafter, the participants perception of the artist’s influence, competence and
versatility were measured using 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). First, the perceived influence of the artist was measured using seven items, for example: “I think this artist has greatly influenced other artists”. Second, the competence inferences were measured using five items. An example is “this artist is talented”. Third, the perceived versatility of the artist was measured using 4 items, for example: “I think that this artist had a multifaceted personality”.
Next, participants completed four questions regarding valuation, for example: “If there was a large exhibition fully dedicated to this artist, how much would you like to pay for a ticket? ( €4, €6, €8, €10, €12, €14, €16)”. Last the participants conducted a 4 item
measurement of art familiarity, for example: “Do you have any art-related education? (1 = not at all to 7 = very much)”. See table 1 for the Chronsbach’s alpha of the questions for each variable.
To measure the perceived influence of the artist I used two dependent variables. First, the questions regarding the perceived influence of the artist as a more direct measure. Second, the questions regarding the valuation of the artist and his work as a more indirect measure.
Results Manipulation Check
To check whether the paintings in the four conditions were perceived as different, the adjectives regarding the comparison of the first three paintings in a condition to the focal painting were grouped together in a new dimension. An One-way ANOVA with condition as dependent variable and the comparison scale as independent variable showed that the
paintings in de four conditions were perceived as different, see the first row of table 2 for the results.
Adjectives
All adjectives were grouped into 7 dimensions, including the ‘manipulation check’ dimension. The other dimensions were ‘influence perception’, ‘valuation’, ‘versatility perception’, ‘competence perception’, ‘transgression focal painting’, ‘attractiveness focal
8
painting’. Factor analyses showed that all of these scales, except the manipulation check, consisted of only one component. See table 1 for the reliabilities of each scale per condition. For all of the scales one-way ANOVA’s were conducted. See Table 2 for the effects of the conditions on all of the scales.
The results in the second and third row of table 2 show that the perceived influence and the valuation is significantly lower in the first condition compared to all other conditions. This means that when an artist only masters one style, others perceive him as less influential and value him less then when he masters more than one style. There however is no difference for both perceived influence and valuation between the second, third and fourth condition. This means that the higher influence perception and valuation obtained through the first change of style, does not become even higher when the artist decides to change his style more often.
The artist was perceived as significantly less versatile in the first condition than in condition two, three or four. Condition two and four marginally different from each other. See table 2, row 4. These results show that when an artist only practices one painting style he is seen as less versatile then when he practices more styles. But it matters less whether the artist practices two, three or four different styles.
The perceived competence of the artist was significantly lower in the first condition compared to the fourth condition, and marginally lower in the second condition compared to the fourth. See table 2, row 5. This means that when an artist masters one or two styles he is seen as less competent then when he masters four different styles.
The focal painting was perceived as less transgressive in the first condition compared to the third and fourth condition. See table 2, row 6. This results show that the same painting is perceived as more transgressive when the participants believed this was the third or fourth painting style that the artist mastered.
The attraction to the focal painting was not significantly different across the four conditions. See table 2, row 7. This means that the number of observed painting styles does not influence someone’s liking for individual paintings.
Twelve of the fifty participants correctly named Mondriaan as the painter. When I reran the analyses without the data from these twelve participants the main findings only slightly changed. The effect of condition on influence perception became a trend rather than a
9
marginal significance, F (3, 35) = 1.91, p = .146. As did the effect of condition on valuation, F (3, 35) = 2.09, p = .119. Interestingly, the effect of condition on competence perception changed from a marginal to a full significant effect, F (3, 35) = 3.28, p = .032.
Moderations
I wanted to see whether art familiarity is a moderator in the effect of number of styles on influence perception and valuation. First, The last row of table 2 shows that there was no difference in art familiarity across the conditions. To check for moderation, I conducted two bootstrap moderation analyses (Hayes, 2014). Art familiarity was not a moderator in both effects.
Mediations
To test whether perceived competence, perceived versatility and perceived
transgression of the focal painting are mediating the effect of condition on the two dependent variables, six bootstrap mediation analyses were conducted (Hayes, 2014). The results of these analyses are depicted in figure 3 to 8.
The results show that for all of the analyses the direct effect of number of styles on influence perception or valuation disappeared when the M variable was taken into account. This means that the found effects are completely indirect. The more painting styles were shown, the higher participants perceived the competence and versatility of the artist and the transgression of the focal painting, which in turn causes the participants to perceive the artist as more influential and give him a higher valuation.
Discussion
In this paper we tried to investigate whether a contrast to one’s own norm plays a role on the influence inferences other people make. I hypothesized that artists who master more than one style are perceived as more influential. Second, I predicted that the more different styles one artist masters, the more influential he will be considered. Furthermore, I predicted that perceived versatility, perceived competence and perceived transgression would be mediators of these effects.
People who observed only one painting style from the artist thought that this artist was less influential than when they saw more styles. Likewise, people valuated the artist and his work higher when they thought that he mastered more than one style. This means people
10
would be willing to spend more money on seeing work of this artist than if they thought that he only mastered one painting style. These findings confirm my first hypothesis. However, no significant differences were found between people who saw two, three or four styles of the same artist. This means that my second hypothesis is not confirmed. It seems that artists who abandon their previous style for a new one, and therefore violate the norm set by themselves, are seen as more influential regardless of how many times they do this. That some of the results were only marginal significant might be due to the fact that I had to do my analyses with a smaller sample due to time constraints.
My last hypothesis was also confirmed: perceived versatility, perceived competence and perceived transgression all fully mediated the effect of both number of styles on influence perception and the effect of number of styles on valuation. This means that the number of styles the artist is perceived to master increases the perceived versatility and competence of the artist and the perceived transgression of the fourth painting, which in turn all increase the perceived competence of the artist and the valuation of the artist and his work.
Art Familiarity was not a moderator in the effect of the number of styles on influence perception or valuation. This indicates that found effects are not only functional for people who are highly educated and/or interested in art, but that these findings can be generalized to people both high and low in their interest and education in art. Moreover, knowing the artist’s name did only slightly change the strength of observed effects, but not the direction. These analyses were conducted with the data of only 38 participants, it is therefore not surprising that the results became a little less significant. The findings would have probably reached the conventional significance level with a larger sample, which makes that the found effects stay legitimate.
The confirmation of the first hypothesis of this paper is in accordance with the research of Van Kleef et al. (2011), which showed that norm-violating behavior leads to higher power interferences. My findings extend these previous findings to the field of visual arts. Also, my research shows that people perceive another person as more influential not only when he violates a norm set by the group or the situation, but also if the violated norm was set by this person himself. Last, my research extents the previous findings of Van Kleef et al. (2011) by pointing out that violating a norm only once is enough to reach to effect of higher influence inferences by others. Violating the norm more often does not add to this effect.
11
Hollander’s idiosyncrasy theory (1958) states that a person first has to comply to the norms before he can violate them. Current research does not only confirm this theory, it also shows that the theory is applicable for the field of visual arts. An artist starts off with a certain painting style, this painting styles becomes his norm. He earns idiosyncrasy credits as long as he keeps painting in this style, obtaining status and fame in his field. On a certain point his status had increased enough for him to use his credits by violating his own norm, by changing to a new and unique painting style.
This research showed that Hollander’s theory can be used for the visual arts. Inglis (1996) and Lena and Pachucki (2013) already provided some evidence for a similar effect in music. Their research however was not experimental. Future research could investigate whether the observed effects are similar for other artists, styles or completely other arts.
Current research concludes that violating one’s own norm increases how influential other people perceive you to be. It showed that if an artist wants to be influential in his field it is best to first fully master an existing style before creating one’s own unique style. This insight can be useful for artist who want to become more famous. Furthermore, the findings that norm violating artists are perceived as more influential and receive a higher valuation could be interesting for museums and art buyers. Museums want to attract visitors, which means that they will be interested in works of influential artists. Art buyers need to know what makes an artwork more or less valuable, and a change in style can mean a higher price.
Whether you are active in the field of art or not, it is important to keep in mind the found effects of norm violating. What is the norm? Who set it? Should I violate it? Are all questions to keep in mind when you want to increase your influence or status in all situations.
12 References
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk‐taking. European journal of social psychology, 36(4), 511-536.
Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T., & Carbon, C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 214.
Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The Red Sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35-54.
Förster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty categorization theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 736-755.
Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British journal of psychology,81(4), 483-495.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological review, 65(2), 117.
Inglis, I. (1996). Ideology, Trajectory & Stardom: Elvis Presley & The Beatles. International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, 53-78.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology, 95(4), 489-508.
Lena, J. C., & Pachucki, M. C. (2013). The sincerest form of flattery: Innovation, repetition, and status in an art movement. Poetics, 41(3), 236-264.
Lengger, P. G., Fischmeister, F. P. S., Leder, H., & Bauer, H. (2007). Functional
neuroanatomy of the perception of modern art: A DC–EEG study on the influence of stylistic information on aesthetic experience. Brain research,1158, 93-102.
Lindell, A. K., & Mueller, J. (2011). Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,23(4), 453-475.
Schimmel, K., & Förster, J. (2008). How temporal distance changes novices' attitudes towards unconventional arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(1), 53.
13 Tyler, C. W. (1999). Is art lawful?. Science, 285(5428), 673-674.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power how Norm Violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500-507.
14
Table 1.
Scale Reliabilities.
Variable Over all α Condition 1 α Condition 2 α Condition 3 α Condition 4 α
Manipulation Check .54 .84 -.12 .25 .50 Influence Perception .94 .89 .95 .94 .94 Valuation .73 .61 .76 .57 .82 Versatility Perception .93 .87 .90 .85 .86 Competence Perception .93 .91 .96 .94 .51 Transgression Painting 1 .88 .80 .75 .88 -.06 Painting 2 .78 .91 .53 .78 .80 Painting 3 .79 .89 .60 .80 .60 Painting 4 .79 .97 .35 .84 .55 Attraction Painting 1 .90 .90 .92 .89 .94 Painting 2 .94 .88 .94 .96 .91 Painting 3 .90 .93 .91 .81 .85 Painting 4 .92 ` .95 .96 .76 .94 Art Familiarity .79 .88 .84 .82 .30
15
Table 2.
Scale Differences for each Condition
Variable Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 F ratio η2
Manipulation Check 2.74 (1.39)bcd 3.36 (0.73)acd 4.90 (0.46)abd 5.81 (0.73)abd 30.01*** .66
Influence Perception 4.31 (0.93)cd 4.92 (1.38) 5.24 (1.03)a 5.39 (0.98)a 2.47* .14 Valuation 2.63 (0.90)bcd 3.56 (1.28)a 3.65 (1.04)a 3.54 (0.99)a 2.63* .15 Versatility Perception 3.50 (1.06)bcd 5.19 (1.41)ad 5.48 (0.95)a 5.96 (0.85)ab 12.39*** .45 Competence Perception 4.80 (0.89)d 5.13 (1.44)d 5.40 (1.14) 5.93 (0.43)ab 2.61* .15 Transgression Focal 4.27 (1.38)cd 4.71 (0.94) 5.23 (1.41)a 5.50 (0.89)a 2.67* .15 Attractiveness Focal 3.27 (1.34)c 3.81 (1.79) 4.52 (1.25)a 3.64 (1.79) 1.47 .09 Art Familiarity 3.97 (1.47) 4.83 (1.40) 4.59 (1.44) 4.89 (0.97) 1.19 .07
Note. Differences between conditions are denoted by the superscripts a, b, c, d. Superscripts in italics denote marginally significant differences.
†
17 Apendix A
