華人開放性與畫作偏好之關係：以認知閉合需求為中介

The Relationship between Chinese Openness and Painting Preference: Need for Cognitive Closure as a Mediator

10.6254/IPRCS.201912_(52).0004

葉力綺(Li-Chi Yeh)；許功餘(Kung-Yu Hsu)

抽象畫 ； 具象畫 ； 開放性 ； 認知閉合需求 ； 藝術偏好 ； abstract painting ； art preference ； need for cognitive closure ； openness ； representative painting

本土心理學研究

52期（2019 / 12 / 01）

173 - 225

繁體中文

過去研究已指出個體的性格與其對各類藝術之偏好間有密切關係，其中，開放性是個主要性格因素。張妙清（2002）發展了華人開放性的構念內涵與測量工具，但是此向度與藝術偏好之關聯並不清楚。因此，本文將就張妙清所提出的華人開放性及西方開放性來探討兩者與具象畫及抽象畫偏好之關聯，並進一步探討個體的開放性是否透過認知閉合需求來影響到其畫作偏好。本文以254位台灣地區大學生為對象，所有研究參與者均需填寫跨文化（華人）性格測量表第二版（測量華人開放性）、國際性格題庫（測量西方五項性格向度），以及認知閉合需求量表，並對6幅具象畫與6幅抽象畫（12幅畫作中包括了5幅不同時期的華人畫家的水墨畫作）進行喜歡程度的評定。綜合相關分析、迴歸分析及中介效果分析的結果，研究發現僅有華人開放性對抽象畫偏好有顯著的解釋效果，西方開放性對抽象畫偏好則沒有顯著解釋效果；對具象畫偏好，僅有情緒穩定性有顯著的解釋效果。研究結果進一步發現，華人開放性對抽象畫偏好的解釋效果部分透過認知閉合需求而來。本文針對研究結果特別就抽象畫針對華人開放性可能展現的象徵意義來解釋，並就中國水墨畫的構圖與鑑賞時可能心理歷程做進一步討論。

Past studies have shown a clear relationship between personality traits and art preference. Openness to Experience is an especially significant predictor for different kinds of art preference. This relationship has rarely been examined in a Chinese context, and no study has examined Chinese Openness in relation to painting preference. We examined the relationship between Chinese Openness, Western Openness, and painting preference. Chinese Openness consists of personal and interpersonal aspects. The personal aspects of Chinese Openness are similar to those of Western Openness, which reflects openness and imagination in personal intellectual and value domains. However, interpersonal aspects of Chinese Openness reflect social and interpersonal sensitivity and tolerance, which seldom appear in Western Openness. Thus, we investigated the relationship between Chinese and Western Openness and the preference for representative and abstract paintings. We expected that both Chinese and Western Openness would be significantly related to painting preference, especially to abstract paintings. We also investigated the mediating effect of Need for Cognitive Closure (NCC) on the relationship between Openness and painting preference. NCC reflects predictability, preference for order and structure, decisiveness, closed-mindedness, and discomfort with ambiguity. Past studies have revealed that in terms of art preference, people with high NCC like realism (e.g., mannerism) and dislike nonrealism (e.g., surrealism). NCC is a dispositional dimension that is similar to Openness in some ways, but it is more easily influenced by situational characteristics like time limits. Therefore, we expected NCC would be positively related to representative painting preference, but negatively related to abstract painting preference. Furthermore, we expected that NCC would mediate the association between Openness and type of painting preference. We recruited 254 participants (121 women, Mage= 21.6) to complete the measures for Chinese Openness (adapted from the Cross-Cultural Personality Assessment Inventory), Five International Personality Traits, and Need for Cognitive Closure. They also rated their preference for 6 representative paintings and 6 abstract paintings that included Chinese ink paintings and Western oil paintings. The results of the correlational and regression analyses indicated that both Chinese Openness and Intellect/Imagination had a significant positive relationship with a preference for abstract paintings, but NCC had significant negative relationship with this preference. However, Chinese Openness, Intellect/Imagination, and NCC did not have any significant relationship with a preference for representative paintings. Moreover, after controlling the effects of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect/Imagination, NCC still had a significant mediation effect on the relationships between Chinese Openness and preference for abstract paintings in the mediation analysis, but the same mediation effect was not found in the relationships between Intellect/Imagination and abstract painting preference. Chinese Openness had a significant positive relationship with the preference for abstract painting and this effect was mediated by NCC, but the same effect was not obtained for Western Openness (Intellect/Imagination). It is possible that Chinese Openness, especially the interpersonal aspect, relates to seeking symbolic meaning in paintings and to understanding and tolerating painters' distinctive and individualized ways of seeing the world in paintings. Abstract paintings provide these kinds of opportunities, especially Chinese landscape paintings that combine multiple perspectives to create a conflicting but harmonious aesthetic experience for viewers. People with high Chinese Openness prefer this kind of painting. Another interesting but unexpected finding was that there was no effect of NCC on the preference for representative paintings. It is possible that although NCC is a dispositional dimension, it can also be a state dimension under some conditions, such as when there is no time limit. That is, people may be low in NCC when there is no time limit on rating one's preference for the paintings, so there is no effect evident between NCC and preference for representative paintings. The cultural implications of the relation of Chinese Openness to abstract painting preference and the psychological mechanism underlying appreciation of Chinese landscape paintings are issues to be explored in future research.

1. 李仁豪,陳怡君(2016)。IPIP 五大人格量表簡版的發展及其跨年齡層的測量不變性檢定。教育研究與發展期刊，12，87-120。
   連結：
2. (2009).Handbook of individual differences in social behavior.New York:Guilford Press.
3. Bell, C. (1914). Art. New York: Frederick A. Stokes.
4. Biederman, I.(1987).Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94,115-147.
5. Bond, M. H.(Ed.)(1996).The handbook of Chinese psychology.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
6. Borgatta, E. F.(1964).The structure of personality characteristics.Behavioral Science,9,8-17.
7. Calogero, R. M.,Bardi, A.,Sutton, R. M.(2009).A need basis for values: Associations between the need for cognitive closure and value priorities.Personality and Individual Differences,46,154-159.
8. Chamorro‐Premuzic, T.,Burke, C.,Hsu, A.,Swami, V.(2010).Personality predictors of artistic preferences as a function of the emotional valence and perceived complexity of paintings.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,4,196-204.
9. Chamorro-Premuzic, T.,Fagan, P.,Furnham, A.(2010).Personality and the uses of music as predictors of preferences for music consensually classified as happy, sad, complex and social.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Art,4,205-213.
10. Chamorro-Premuzic, T.,Furnham, A.,Reimers, S.(2007).The artistic personality.Psychologist,20,84-87.
11. Chamorro-Premuzic, T.,Reimers, S.,Hsu, A.,Ahmetoglu, G.(2009).Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness.British Journal of Psychology,100,501-516.
12. Chen, M. C.,Piedmont, R. L.(1999).Development and validation of the NEO PI-R for a Taiwanese sample.Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. II),Seoul, Korea:
13. Cheung, F. M.(2004).Use of western and indigenously developed personality test in Asia.Applied Psychology: An International Review,53,173-191.
14. Cheung, F. M.,Cheung, S. F.,Zhang, J.,Leung, K.,Leong, F.,Yeh, K.-H.(2008).Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture aspects of its cultural relevance.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,39,81-108.
15. Cheung, F. M.,Fan, W. Q.,Cheung, S. F.(2013).From Chinese to cross-cultural personality assessment: A combined emic-etic approach to study personality in culture.Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 3),New York:
16. Cheung, F. M.,Leung, K.,Zhang, J.-X.,Sun, H.-F.,Gan, Y.-Q.,Song, W.-Z.,Xie, D.(2001).Indigenous Chinese personality constructs is the Five-Factor Model complete?.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,32,407-433.
17. Church, A. T.,Katigbak, M. S.(2005).Personality structure across cultures: Indigenous and cross-cultural perspectives.Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 2),New York:
18. Cook, R.,Furnham, A.(2012).Aesthetic preferences for archetectual style vary as a function of personality.Imagination, Cognition, and Personality,32,103-114.
19. Cooper, M. L.(Ed.),Larsen, R. J.(Ed.)(2014).APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences.Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
20. Costa, P. T.,McCrae, R. R.(1992).Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO-Five Factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual.Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resource.
21. Csikszentmihalyi, M.,Robinson, R. E.(1990).The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter.Malibu, CA:The J. Paul Getty Trust.
22. De Dreu, C. K. W.,Nijstad, B. A.,van Knippenberg, D.(2008).Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making.Personality and Social Psychology Review,12,22-49.
23. De Raad, B.(1994).An expedition in search of the fifth universal factor: Key issues in the lexical approach.European Journal of Personality,8,229-250.
24. Furnham, A.,Avison, M.(1997).Personality and preference for surreal paintings.Personality and Individual Differences,23,923-935.
25. Furnham, A.,Bunyan, M.(1988).Personality and art preferences.European Journal of Personality,2,67-74.
26. Furnham, A.,Chamorro-Premuzic, T.(2004).Personality, intelligence, art.Personality and Individual Differences,36,705-715.
27. Furnham, A.,Walker, J.(2001).The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference.Personality and Individual Differences,31,997-1017.
28. Furnham, A.,Walker, J.(2001).Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings.European Journal of Personality,15,57-72.
29. Garcia, L. F.,Aluja, A.,Garcia, O.,Cuevas, L.(2005).Is openness to experience an independent personality dimension?.Journal of Individual Differences,26,132-138.
30. Goldberg, L. R.(1999).A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models.Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7),Tilburg, The Netherlands:
31. Goldberg, L. R.,Johnson, J. A.,Eber, H. W.,Hogan, R.,Ashton, M. C.,Cloninger, C. R.,Gough, H. C.(2006).The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.Journal of Research in Personality,40,84-96.
32. Gridley, M. C.(2013).Preference for abstract art accoirding to thinking style and personality.North American Journal of Psychology,15,463-481.
33. Hayes, A. F.,Rockwood, N. J.(2017).Regression-based statistical mediation ad moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation.Behaviour Research and Therapy,98,39-57.
34. Heinrichs, R. W.,Cupchik, G. C.(1985).Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art.Journal of Personality,53,502-513.
35. Hogan, R.(1983).A socioanalytic theory of personality.Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1982-current theory and research,Lincoln, NE:
36. Hogan, R.(Ed.),Johnson, J.(Ed.),Briggs, S.(Ed.)(1997).Handbook of personality psychology.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
37. Hogan, R.(Ed.),Jones, W. H.(Ed.)(1985).Perspectives in personality: Theory, measurement, and interpersonal dynamics.Greenwich, CT:JA1 Press.
38. Ingram, P. B.,Boan-Lenzo, C.,Vuyk, M. A.(2013).Openness/Intellect in a 50-item IPIP instrument.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,31,600-605.
39. Johnson, J. A.(1994).Clarification of factor five with the help of the AB5C model.European Journal of Personality,8,311-334.
40. Jost, J. T.,Glaser, J.,Kruglanski, A. W.,Sulloway, F. J.(2003).Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.Psychological Bulletin,129,339-375.
41. Kaufman, S. B.,DeYoung, C. G.,Gray, J. R.,Jimenez, L.,Brown, J.,Mackintosh, N. J.(2010).Implicit learning as an ability.Cognition,116,321-340.
42. Kaufman, S. B.,Quilty, L. C.,Grazioplene, R. G.,Hirsh, J. B.,Gray, J. R.,Peterson, J. B.,DeYoung, C. G.(2016).Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences.Journal of Personality,84,248-258.
43. Kraaykamp, G.,von Eijck, K.(2005).Personality, media preferences, and cultural participation.Personality and Individual Differences,38,1675-1688.
44. Leung, K.,Cheung, F. M.,Zhang, J.,Song, W.,Xie, D.(1997).The five-factor model of personality in China.Progress in Asian social psychology,New York:
45. Lin, W.-L.,Hsu, K.-Y.,Chen, H.-C.,Chang, W.-Y.(2013).Different attentional traits, different creativities.Thinking Skills and Creativity,9,96-106.
46. McCrae, R. R.,Zonderman, A. B.,Costa, P. T., Jr.,Bond, M. H.,Paunonen, S. V.(1996).Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70,552-566.
47. Newall, M.(2011).What is the picture?.New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
48. Norman, W. T.(1963).Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,66,574-583.
49. Nusbaum, E. C.,Silvia, P. J.(2011).Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of openness to experience? A test of the I/O model.Personality and Individual Differences,51,571-574.
50. Ostrofsky, J.,Shobe, E.(2015).The relationship between need for cognitive closure and the appreciation, understanding, and viewing times of realistic and nonrealistic figurative paintings.Empirical Studies of the Arts,33,106-113.
51. Palmer, S. E.,Schloss, K. B.,Sammartino, J.(2013).Visual aesthetics and huamn preference.Annual Review of Psychology,64,77-107.
52. Peabody, D.,Goldberg, L. R.(1989).Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57,52-56.
53. Preacher, K. J.,Hayes, A. F.(2004).SPSS and SAS procedure for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,36,717-731.
54. Rawlings, D.(2003).Personality correlates of liking for ‘unpleasant’ paintings and photographs.Personality and Individual Differences,34,395-410.
55. Rawlings, D.,Barrantes i Vidal, N.,Furnham, A.(2000).Personality and aesthetic preference in Spain and England: Two studies relating sensation seeking and openness to experience to liking for paintings and music.European Journal of Personality,14,553-576.
56. Rietzschel, E. F.,De Dreu, C. K. W.,Nijstad, B. A.(2007).Need for structure and creative performance: The moderating role of fear of invalidity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33,855-866.
57. Roets, A.,Van Hiel, A.(2011).Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale.Personality and Individual Differences,50,90-94.
58. Saucier, G.(1994).Trapnell versus the lexical factor: More ado about nothing?.European Journal of Personality,8,291-298.
59. Sobel, M. E.(1982).Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.Sociological Methodology,13,290-312.
60. Swami, V.,Furnham, A.(2012).The effects of symmetry and personality on aesthetic preferences.Imagination, Cognition, and Personality,32,41-57.
61. Swami, V.,Stieger, S.,Pietschnig, J.,Voracek, M.(2010).The disinterested play of thought: Individual differences and preference for surrealist motion pictures.Personality and Individual Differences,48,855-859.
62. Tinio, P. P. L.(Ed.),Smith, J. K.(Ed.)(2014).The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetic and the arts.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
63. Trapnell, P. D.(1994).Openness versus intellect: A lexical left turn.European Journal of Personality,8,273-290.
64. Wang, D.,Cui, H.,Zhou, F.(2005).Measuring the personality of Chinese: QZPS versus NEO PI-R.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,8,97-122.
65. Webster, D. M.,Kruglanski, A. W.(1994).Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67,1049-1062.
66. Wiersema, D. V.,Van Der Schalk, J.,Van Kleef, G. A.(2012).Who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue? Need for cognitive closure predicts aesthetic preferences.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,6,168-174.
67. Yang, K. S.(2006).Indigenous personality research: The Chinese case.Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context,New York:
68. 尹彤雲（譯）,高木森(2012).東西藝術比較.台北:東大圖書公司.
69. 王欣(2015).如畫觀法.上海:同濟大學出版社.
70. 朱光潛,劉廣（選編）,王瀟琳（選編）(2008).溫和的修養.上海:東方出版中心.
71. 吳嘉玲(2000).文化與藝術──中國的美術（404）.台北:圖文出版公司.
72. 吳繼濤(2004).台灣現代美術大系：文人寫意水墨.台北:行政院文化建設委員會.
73. 李霖燦(2008).中國美術史稿.台北:雄獅美術.
74. 范為橋,張妙清,張建新,張樹輝(2011)。兼顧文化共通性與特殊性的人格研究：CPAI 及其跨文化應用。心理學報，43，1418-1429。
75. 徐書城(1993).繪畫美學.台北:五南圖書公司.
76. 高木森(2004).中國繪畫思想史.台北:三民書局.
77. 張妙清(2002)。本土化的華人開放性量表在「中國人個性測量表」中的發展。第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會暨第六屆華人心理與行為科際學術研討會，台北:
78. 陳國傑,李芷葳,蕭文杰(2010)。論中國寫意繪畫與西方表現主義繪畫之異同。美學與視覺藝術學報，2，86-93。
79. 彭明輝(2014).崇高之美：彭明輝談國畫的情感與思想.台北:聯經出版公司.
80. 曾文星（編）(1996).華人的心理與治療.台北:桂冠圖書公司.
81. 黃瓊億(2010)。臺灣大學商學研究所。
82. 楊國樞(1999)。國家科學委員會特約研究計畫成果報告國家科學委員會特約研究計畫成果報告,台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
83. 楊國樞(2001)。本土心理學追求卓越計畫研究成果報告本土心理學追求卓越計畫研究成果報告,台北:教育部。
84. 蕭瓊瑞(2004).台灣現代美術大系：抽象抒情水墨.台北:行政院文化建設委員會.
85. 羅青(1991).水墨之美.台北:幼獅文化公司.
86. 羅淑敏(2009).對焦中國畫：國畫的六種閱讀方法.香港:三聯書店.