What Art Preferences Suggest About Personality

What does the evidence suggest about abstract and representational preferences?

Research points to a qualified group-level association: people reporting higher openness to experience sometimes rate abstract art more favorably, while openness also relates to broader art interest. The pattern varies with the works shown and the judgment requested. It cannot identify an individual’s personality from a preference for either style. In “LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART,” 134 participants rated attractiveness and artistic value for 48 paintings arranged along abstraction-to-realism and complexity continua. Openness and art experience correlated with higher judgments of abstract and low-complexity works; the authors said findings both supported and contradicted earlier results. “Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness” examined 91,692 people aged 13–90, but its 24 paintings represented cubism, renaissance, impressionism, and Japanese art and formed an overall preference factor. It supports an association between openness and broad art preference, not a clean abstract-versus-representational contrast. Together, the studies make openness a plausible correlate, not a rule about taste. Treat your choice as an observation about what engaged you in that setting. The images, rating scale, and familiarity with art shape what a study can conclude.

Sources: LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART; Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness

What counts as abstract, representational, and a preference?

In these studies, “abstract,” “representational,” and “preference” refer to different parts of a viewing task. Abstractness concerns how far a work moves away from depicting recognizable things; representational art presents subjects viewers can identify. Many works combine recognizable forms with distortion, simplification, or nonliteral color, so these terms are better treated as ends of a range than as sealed boxes. That distinction appears in the design of “Likeable Likeness: Personality, Experience and Preference for Abstract and Low Complexity Art.” Its 134 online participants rated 48 paintings for attractiveness and artistic value. The researchers placed works along two separate continua: abstractedness to realism, and lower to higher compositional complexity. This matters because a painting can be relatively abstract without being visually complex, or recognizable while still having a complex arrangement. If a study groups works into broad styles, it may combine these properties and leave unclear which one relates to a rating. The study authors report that their results both supported and contradicted earlier findings, and recommend continuum measures over style differentiation. “Preference” also needs a precise meaning. It is not a single inner quantity directly visible to researchers. It is an answer to a prompt, recorded on a particular scale. A person might rate how attractive a painting looks, how much they like it, whether they consider it artistically valuable, or how much they want to keep looking at it. Those judgments can overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A high artistic-value rating does not necessarily mean the work is personally liked most; interest can mean attention without approval. The distinction is visible in “The Influence of Art Expertise and Training on Emotion and Preference Ratings for Representational and Abstract Artworks.” In its study of 60 people, including 40 novices and 20 art experts, participants rated 150 abstract works and portraits in a laboratory and museum. The reported measures included aesthetic judgments such as beauty and wanting, alongside emotional evaluations such as valence and arousal. Experts rated aesthetic facets higher than novices, while the groups did not differ on the affective evaluations; brief training had a small effect on preference ratings. Thus even when the images span abstract and recognizable subjects, the task can separate several responses rather than produce one overall verdict called taste. When reading a result, ask two questions first: what range or categories of images did participants see, and what judgment did they record? A liking response cannot silently stand for artistic value, emotional reaction, or a stable personality tendency. Keeping those distinctions visible makes comparisons fairer and limits what any art choice can say about the person who made it.

Sources: LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART; The Influence of the Personality Traits, Previous Experience of Art, and Demographic Variables on Artistic Preference; The Influence of Art Expertise and Training on Emotion and Preference Ratings for Representational and Abstract Artworks

What does openness contribute to the evidence?

Openness to experience is the trait that recurs most clearly in this small group of studies, particularly when the outcome is broad interest in art. Some findings also connect higher openness with stronger ratings of abstract work. But the relationship changes with the paintings and the question asked, so it cannot support a rule that people high in openness prefer abstraction while others prefer recognizable subjects. The studies offer a possible group-level association, not a way to identify a viewer’s personality from a choice.

The 2004 study “Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art” asked 104 college participants to rate 45 works: 15 realistic, 15 ambiguous, and 15 abstract. The abstract reports that participants higher in openness preferred all three sets, with the difference growing as the works became more abstract. This is evidence for a graded association in that sample: openness related to preference even for realistic art, while its relationship was stronger at the abstract end. It is not evidence that only open people liked abstraction. The college sample and selected paintings limit how far the result can be generalized.

“LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART” offers a comparison without dividing every painting into a simple abstract or representational box. In an online survey, 134 participants rated attractiveness and artistic value for 48 paintings arranged along continua from abstracted to realistic and from low to high compositional complexity. The authors report positive correlations between openness and high judgments of abstract, low-complexity works. Participants rated both attractiveness and artistic value, while images also varied in complexity. The authors say the findings supported some previous results and contradicted others, recommending continuum measures of style.

A larger study, “Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness,” included 91,692 participants aged 13 to 90. Participants completed a Big Five inventory and rated 24 paintings associated with cubism, Renaissance, impressionism, and Japanese art. Openness was the strongest and only consistent personality correlate of artistic preferences, including overall preference and gallery visits. Yet the paintings loaded on an overall art-preference factor. The result speaks to broad preference, not a clean contest between abstract and representational art. An aggregate across varied traditions is not an abstraction score.

Taken together, these studies make openness a plausible companion to art engagement, and perhaps to preference for more abstract works in some comparisons. They do not establish a causal path from the trait to taste, nor show that openness means liking novelty in every part of life. One study found a gradient across realistic, ambiguous, and abstract works; another found correlations on a style continuum while separating complexity; the large UK study found its clearest result for an overall preference factor. Those results overlap, but they answer different questions. The sound inference is modest: openness may accompany broader art interest and, under some conditions, stronger responses to abstraction. A person’s preferred painting remains one observation among many, not a personality type or verdict.

Sources: Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art; LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART; Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness

Why do direct comparisons produce mixed results?

The mixed results are easier to understand by comparing what participants saw and how researchers measured their responses. “Abstract versus representational” can mean two named categories, a continuum from recognizable to nonrepresentational, or selected paintings that differ in several ways. A personality association in one setup may not answer the same question as an association in another. In “The Influence of Personality Traits, Previous Experience of Art, and Demographic Variables on Artistic Preference,” 101 participants rated 40 paintings across four categories: representational, abstract, pop art, and Japanese traditional. The study used several rating scales, extending beyond simple liking to judgments such as artistic talent and willingness to pay. Its abstract reports that conservatism, sex, familiarity, and some measures of prior art exposure were among the strongest predictors. The model accounted for 16–32% of preference variance, and several personality links reported in earlier work did not replicate. This complicates a simple openness-to-abstraction rule: what viewers had encountered and were asked to judge mattered in that design. Explained variance does not show how accurately the model could identify an individual. A different design produced a different pattern. “Likeable Likeness: Personality, Experience and Preference for Abstract and Low Complexity Art” asked 134 participants to rate attractiveness and artistic value for 48 paintings. Instead of sorting every image into a single style category, it arranged them along continua from abstracted to realist and from low to high complexity. The abstract reports that openness and art experience were positively associated with high judgments of abstract and low-complexity works, alongside other trait associations. Its authors say the findings supported some earlier results and contradicted others. The continuum design shows why “abstract” alone is too blunt: degree of abstraction and visual complexity were treated as separate features, and outcomes were judgments of attractiveness and value. A third comparison adds nuance rather than settling the disagreement. In “Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art,” 104 college participants rated 15 realistic, 15 ambiguous, and 15 abstract works. Participants higher in openness preferred all three sets, with the difference growing as works became more abstract. That supports an association between openness and art preference that may strengthen with abstraction in this sample. It does not mean that people higher in openness liked only abstract art, or that the pattern would appear with different viewers, works, or questions. Together, these studies suggest variation in measurement rather than a clean contest with one winner. The 2001 study used four styles, multiple judgments, and familiarity and exposure measures; the 2015 study separated abstraction from complexity and asked about attractiveness and artistic value; the 2004 study compared three realism-to-abstraction groups using preference ratings. Their samples also differed in size and composition. The 2004 college sample is narrow, and none of these designs establishes that a trait causes a taste. Openness is a plausible group-level correlate, but direct comparisons do not establish a universal personality signature for either abstract or representational preference. A single choice remains compatible with many explanations, including the image and the viewer’s experience with art.

Sources: The Influence of the Personality Traits, Previous Experience of Art, and Demographic Variables on Artistic Preference; LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART; Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art

What role might art experience and familiarity play?

Prior exposure and familiarity can accompany an art preference, but neither is interchangeable with personality or formal expertise. Familiarity means having encountered a particular work before; exposure can also mean broader contact with a style or art setting; expertise usually involves accumulated knowledge or practice. A viewer may recognize a visual convention without having studied art, while someone with training may know a style without liking every work in it. These distinctions help explain why ratings can differ for reasons that a simple abstract-versus-representational label does not capture. A direct comparison comes from “The Influence of Art Expertise and Training on Emotion and Preference Ratings for Representational and Abstract Artworks.” In that 2015 study, 60 participants, 40 novices and 20 art experts, rated 150 abstract artworks and portraits in a laboratory and a museum. Before the second session, half of the novices received brief instruction about stylistic and art-historical aspects of abstract art and portraiture. Experts gave higher ratings on aesthetic facets such as beauty and wanting, while the training had a small effect on preference ratings compared with the untrained novice group. These are differences in ratings under a particular design; they do not show that expertise causes a general preference for abstraction or that taste reveals a stable trait. The study also separated newly seen works from works participants had already rated. Across the sample, familiar works received higher ratings for beauty and liking than new works. That makes repeated contact a plausible part of preference, but the comparison concerned selected works, two sessions, and a small group. The authors found familiarity effects were not uniform across novice, trained, and expert groups in follow-up comparisons. A higher rating after a second encounter does not establish why it changed. A person might notice more, remember an earlier response, feel more at ease with the visual language, or respond to the setting. The study does not choose among these explanations. Training and familiarity answer different questions. Training changes what information a viewer has been given; familiarity concerns prior encounter with the particular image. Expertise reflects a broader background and was not randomly assigned, so experts may differ from novices in ways beyond knowledge. The modest training effect suggests that a short lesson can coincide with some change in ratings, but it does not show that instruction reliably transforms taste. The results also separate aesthetic judgments from immediate affective ratings: experts’ higher beauty and wanting scores did not come with group differences in valence or arousal. “Preference” is not one undivided response. For self-reflection, exposure is an alternative to check, not a do-it-yourself experiment that identifies a cause. If an abstract work becomes more engaging after you learn its title or see several works in that style, note that the response changed alongside the conditions. Ask whether subject, arrangement, unfamiliarity, or context mattered. Then compare the pattern across works and occasions. A repeated response can describe what currently draws your attention; it still cannot isolate personality from learning, memory, setting, or image features.

Sources: The Influence of the Personality Traits, Previous Experience of Art, and Demographic Variables on Artistic Preference; The Influence of Art Expertise and Training on Emotion and Preference Ratings for Representational and Abstract Artworks

How do image features and rating words change the result?

Abstractness and complexity are separate properties. A painting can depict a recognizable scene with a busy arrangement, or be abstract and simple. “Abstract” may describe how far a work departs from recognizable subjects; “complexity” may refer to measurable image structure or a viewer’s judgment that it feels complicated. They can overlap, but are not interchangeable. Treating them as one thing can confuse preference for one feature with preference for another. “Evaluating Abstract Art: Relation between Term Usage, Subjective Ratings, Image Properties and Personality Traits” examined abstract works, not a contrast between abstract and representational art. In its first experiment, 19 German-speaking participants, mostly medical students without reported art expertise, described 79 paintings shown on a calibrated screen. Researchers compared their words with image properties, including HOG Complexity, a measure based on visual-edge patterns. More complex images tended to be described as unstructured, while lower-complexity images were more often called simple. In a second experiment, 42 German-speaking medical students without reported art expertise rated 150 abstract images. They separately judged whether each seemed structured, complex, pleasant, or interesting, and whether they liked it. Preference ratings were associated with subjective complexity, interest, and pleasantness. Subjective complexity and interest also tracked image properties such as HOG Complexity. The ratings did not simply restate measurements: “complex” was a viewer’s judgment, while HOG Complexity summarized image structure. The personality result was specific to this abstract-image task. Participants with higher neuroticism scores tended to prefer images with higher measured complexity and used or interpreted “complex” differently from participants with lower scores. Since no representational paintings were included, the study cannot show that neuroticism is linked to choosing abstract rather than representational art. Nor does one response reveal a stable trait. “Likeable Likeness: Personality, Experience and Preference for Abstract and Low Complexity Art” used another design. It asked 134 participants to rate 48 paintings varying along abstractedness-realism and complexity continuums, including judgments of attractiveness and artistic value. The study reported positive correlations between art experience and openness and higher judgments for abstract and low-complexity works, while describing support for and contradiction of earlier findings. Its continuum approach keeps abstraction distinct from complexity. Group ratings do not identify an individual’s personality. Rating language should be read literally. “I like it” records preference under a particular viewing condition. “It is interesting” may describe curiosity; “it is structured” describes perceived organization; “it is valuable” asks for an evaluative judgment. A trait association with one response does not automatically answer the others. Compare image features and the question participants answered before drawing conclusions about style preference. The abstract-art experiment had a small, mostly young student sample, used screen images, and examined abstract works only. It reports associations, not a rule for identifying viewers. More varied studies including representational works and separate questions about liking, interest, complexity, and artistic value could sharpen the comparison. Image features and rating words are part of the result, not background details.

Sources: Evaluating Abstract Art: Relation between Term Usage, Subjective Ratings, Image Properties and Personality Traits; LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART

What can group-level findings say about one viewer?

A group correlation describes how two measured patterns vary together in a sample. It does not reveal why one viewer chose a painting, nor what that person will choose next. This matters because the strongest large-sample result concerns broad art preference, while the reader’s question is narrower: whether choosing abstract rather than representational work says something about an individual’s personality. “Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness” studied 91,692 people aged 13 to 90. Participants completed a Big Five inventory and rated 24 paintings associated with cubism, Renaissance, impressionism, and Japanese art. The ratings formed an overall art-preference factor, and openness to experience was its strongest and only consistent personality correlate. That is evidence that openness can accompany greater art interest in this sample and task. It is not a clean test of abstract against representational art: the set crossed several traditions, and the authors describe an overall preference factor. The sample size strengthens the description of that measured association; it cannot make the outcome identical to a question about one person’s style choice. The individual-level distinction appears in “Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images.” In experiments comparing newly assembled abstract images with real-world scenes, observers’ preferences were consistent within each viewer, yet agreement between viewers was lower for abstract images. People could have stable likes of their own without sharing one common ranking of the abstract set. This finding concerns image preference and observer agreement, not personality scores or fine-art categories. It cannot show that personality explains the differences, but it cautions against treating “likes abstract art” as one uniform group signal. These results address different levels. The UK study asks whether trait ratings correspond with art ratings across a very large group. The image study asks how consistently viewers rank particular pictures, within themselves and relative to one another. A population association does not identify the cause of an individual response; consistent personal taste does not identify a trait behind it. Both points can be true: openness may relate to broad art interest in a sample, while particular abstract-image choices remain varied and compatible with many explanations. So a preference is an observation, not a personality verdict. Liking a recognizable scene does not establish low openness; choosing an abstract composition does not establish creativity, nonconformity, or any fixed quality. The same choice could reflect subject, colors, arrangement, familiarity, viewing purpose, or personal association, alongside any broader tendency. These studies do not separate all those possibilities for an individual viewer. If the pattern interests you, make the observation more specific before interpreting it. Notice which works hold your attention across occasions, and whether the subject, visual arrangement, or something else draws you in. Then ask whether a similar tendency appears in other everyday settings. Recurrence may make a broader self-understanding question worth exploring, but it does not turn art taste into a test.

Sources: Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness; Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images

Which alternative explanations should be compared before a trait explanation?

Before explaining an art choice through personality, describe the choice more closely. “I prefer abstract art” can hide different responses: a viewer may like a particular color arrangement, enjoy working out an ambiguous image, value visible brushwork, or recognize a familiar subject in a representational painting. These details identify what a personality explanation must account for. First compare the work itself. Representational art gives viewers recognizable subjects: a face, room, landscape, or event. Content may attract attention before style. Abstract work varies too: paintings differ in color, balance, density, and complexity, so one reaction cannot stand for a preference for “the abstract.” “Likeable Likeness: Personality, Experience and Preference for Abstract and Low Complexity Art” rated 48 paintings along continua from abstraction to realism and from lower to higher complexity. Its results linked openness and art experience to high attractiveness and artistic-value judgments for abstract and low-complexity works. Because style and complexity were separate, ask which feature mattered; abstractness alone is not a personality signal. Then compare what viewers were asked to report. Liking, attractiveness, artistic value, and interest are distinct judgments. Someone might find a painting compelling without wanting it at home, or admire its craft without enjoying the experience. In “Likeable Likeness,” participants rated attractiveness and artistic value. That is not evidence about every form of preference. An association with one rating does not automatically carry over. Ask whether a study concerns pleasure, attention, or evaluation before applying its result. Familiarity and exposure offer another possible influence. In “Art Preferences and Personality,” 101 participants rated 40 works across representational, abstract, pop-art, and Japanese-traditional categories. Familiarity, prior art exposure, sex, and conservatism were among the stronger predictors in its models, while some earlier personality associations did not reappear. This does not show exposure causes preference: art lovers may seek it out, and familiarity may reflect opportunity. A trait-only account leaves these factors out. A familiar style may feel accessible for reasons that do not describe a stable tendency. Finally, consider the viewing task and setting. “The Influence of Expertise in the Appreciation of Art” asked 60 people, including 40 novices and 20 art experts, to rate abstract works and portraits in a laboratory and a museum. Experts rated some aesthetic facets, including beauty and wanting, higher than novices; brief training had a small effect on preference ratings compared with untrained novices. The expertise groups were not randomly formed, so expertise cannot be isolated as a cause. A museum rating need not match a casual choice. Use three questions to check your own response: What first drew attention, such as subject, color, arrangement, or ambiguity? What judgment are you making: enjoyment, interest, or value? Does the response recur across different works and occasions, including familiar ones? Describe the response and its conditions first. Consider a broader tendency only if observations recur, and keep that interpretation provisional.

Sources: The Influence of the Personality Traits, Previous Experience of Art, and Demographic Variables on Artistic Preference; Evaluating Abstract Art: Relation between Term Usage, Subjective Ratings, Image Properties and Personality Traits; The Influence of Art Expertise and Training on Emotion and Preference Ratings for Representational and Abstract Artworks

How can you use an art preference without turning it into a label?

A useful reflection begins with a description, not a trait word. After looking at a work, note what held your attention: a recognizable subject, a color relationship, repeated shapes, arrangement, or uncertainty about what the image shows. Then name your response precisely. “I wanted to look longer” describes interest; “I found it attractive” describes an aesthetic judgment; “I would put it in my room” adds a practical choice. These answers may overlap, but they are not interchangeable evidence of personality. Research measures particular responses to particular works. In “LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART,” 134 participants rated attractiveness and artistic value for 48 paintings arranged along continua from abstraction to realism and from low to high complexity. The study reported associations between openness and high judgments of abstract, low-complexity works, alongside links involving art experience and other traits. Its authors also said findings supported some earlier results and contradicted others. That design informs a question about group-level ratings; it does not supply a rule for interpreting one viewer’s reaction. “Furnham and Walker’s study of personality, art experience and demographic variables” likewise considered familiarity and prior exposure among predictors of preferences across several styles. These findings make it sensible to record conditions around a response, without concluding that familiarity caused it. For a simple reflection, compare works that vary in recognizable subject matter, visual arrangement and familiarity. For each, jot down what first drew your eye, what you liked or disliked, and whether the work felt familiar. If your reaction changes, preserve that difference rather than forcing it into one preference. If it repeats, describe the pattern at the level you observed: perhaps you often attend to clear subjects, or enjoy deciding what an ambiguous image might represent. Those are tentative summaries of your viewing, not established trait measures. Next, check whether the same kind of attention appears beyond art. Do you often prefer clear instructions, or enjoy exploring possible meanings in a conversation, book or unfamiliar place? A resemblance across settings may give you a better question about your habits. It does not prove that one art choice reveals openness, creativity or another stable quality. People may respond differently as the work or occasion changes. This exercise organizes personal observations; it is not a validated assessment or a method tested by the studies above. Keep three notes separate: what you chose, the conditions around that choice, and the explanation you are considering. Revisit the explanation when varied observations support it; revise it when they do not.

Sources: LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART; The Influence of the Personality Traits, Previous Experience of Art, and Demographic Variables on Artistic Preference

What is the most defensible next step?

Treat an art preference as a clue about what engaged you, then see whether the pattern recurs. Research does not show that choosing abstract or representational work identifies a personality type. “LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART” compared ratings across continua from realism to abstraction and low to high complexity. Its authors reported mixed support for earlier findings and recommended measuring style along continua rather than as sealed categories. A UK study found openness associated with preference across paintings from several traditions, but did not test an abstract-versus-representational divide. These results invite a question about engagement, not a verdict. Note what holds your attention: subject, color, arrangement, ambiguity, or familiarity. Compare varied works. Keep observation separate from explanation; ask whether a similar tendency appears elsewhere. If not, let the preference remain specific to art. If it does, keep the connection provisional, since many conditions shape a response. Clearer evidence would require replicated comparisons using varied works, separate measures of abstraction and complexity, distinct questions about liking and value, and records of prior exposure. Until then, explore without turning taste into a label. To consider how this observation fits with other tendencies, explore the Personality Profile Context Profile as a reflection exercise; it does not determine what your art taste means.

Sources: LIKEABLE LIKENESS: PERSONALITY, EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCE FOR ABSTRACT AND LOW COMPLEXITY ART; Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness

Questions readers ask