EXAMPLE 2
The following proposal does everything it is supposed to. It proposes a
straightforward and viable experimental study that uses a previous study as a main
point of departure. The proposed study is not simply an alteration of some minor
methodological choices from that study but addresses a different but related
theoretical question. It uses independently sourced material (especially, the main
study and for the main task manipulation –Stroop task).

The theories are described in a competent manner, provided overview of some
empirical evidence to back them up. However, there were some instance of lack of
clarity or completeness in description (e.g. processing fluency, predication error).
Overall the organization is good, as the explanations is each section flow toward the
main aim of the study, though it could have has one summary sentence and perhaps
a summary of the hypothesis and variables in a couple sentences before the
methods.

Methods are good and appropriate level of detail, though could have been a bit
clearer in parts. However, this is balanced by the deep engagement that is shown in
sourcing the method for the Stroop task. The discussion is fine and there is one
particularly interesting point that is raised

Overall a first-class proposal that followed all the requirements, shows originality and
engagement with the subject so would have been a clear 18/19 if not for the
instances of lack of clarity and occasional lack of detail which brings it to a 17/18
NOTE: Evaluation Sheet at the end of the essay


Beauty is in the Cognitive Abilities of the Beholder: Ambiguous Processing
Fluency and the Appreciation of Art
Introduction
In the current literature addressing the aesthetic appreciation of visual art there
exist theories which appear coherent when considered individually, however when
considered in light of an additional theory generate conflict. Two such theories are
Reber et al.’s (2004) Processing Fluency Theory of Aesthetic Pleasure and Muth Carbon's
(2016) Semantic Instability in Art Theory.
Processing Fluency Theory of Aesthetic Pleasure
The Processing Fluency theory aims to explain our aesthetic appreciation of
visual art as a direct result of the ease with which information can be processed by the
cognitive system, or fluency; with visual stimuli processed more fluently being
preferred (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). The theory presents two forms of
fluency, perceptual and conceptual. Perceptual fluency denotes the ease of processing
the physical identity of the content of visual art, which can be enhanced by increasing
variables such as figure ground contrasts, symmetry, repetition of presentation, and
priming (Belke, Leder, Strobach, & Carbon, 2010), whereas conceptual fluency refers to
the ease with which the meaning of the visual depiction and its connection to previously
obtained semantic knowledge (Reber et al., 2004). Evidence for this theory stems from
phenomena such as the prototypicality preference and “fear of unknown” effect, both of
which address our tendency to prefer familiar stimuli representative of an average, as
evolutionarily this indicates progress in terms of recognition and interpretation of the
environment, as well as mitigates the risk of encountering danger (Winkielman et al.,
2003). Furthermore, manipulating perceptual and conceptual processing fluency has
been demonstrated to increase positive evaluations of visual stimuli and artworks. For
example, Bar & Biederman (1998) observed that when an image was primed with a
similar contour it was processed more fluently, as determined by faster identification of
the image, as well as liked more than pictures which were preceded by mismatched
contour primes; indicating that increased perceptual processing fluency correlates to
greater liking of visual stimuli. It was also observed that manipulating conceptual
fluency by priming painting-stimuli with titular information, denoting the meaning of
the painting, resulted in increased appreciation and liking of paintings only when the
primed information “matched” the composition (Belke et al., 2010). This observation
demonstrates that matching titles facilitate or inhibit the subsequent determinations of
meaning of the painting, and by facilitating this level of conceptual cognitive processing
increase conceptual fluency, which in turn increases judgements of liking. Intriguingly,
these findings implicate that individuals would have the highest preference for
prototypical and easily processed pieces of visual art, with key fluency-related stylistic
features such as clear figure-ground contrasts and symmetry. However, many artworks
and art movements, such as impressionism and surrealism, violate features that
promote processing fluency, and yet the artworks of these movements are still
considered fine art and highly appreciated and valued universally. Therefore, an
alternative theory of art appreciation is necessary to understand the psychology behind
why even ambiguous compositions are acknowledge and appreciated as art.
Semantic Instability in Art
Commented [DV1]: Good explanation of evolutionary
rationale for fluency theory
Commented [DV2]: Good overview of relevant empirical
studies
Commented [DV3]: Very good overview of the fluency
account with appropriate empirical examples. The only
thing you missed is explain in a sentence or two the
atrbution affect—that is that fluency causes a positive affect
that is then attributed to the art work.
One theory that illuminates why even visual art that is not fluently processed is
still appreciated is Muth and Carbon’s (2016) Semantic Instability in Art. They identify
that many pieces of art, especially modern art, are ambiguous in their content and defy
determinacy of meaning, thereby inhibiting fluency. However, a positive affect can still
be gained by viewing non-fluently processed images, through actively engaging in the
rewarding processes of prediction error reduction and working to “solve” the meaning
of the artwork. It has been demonstrated that finding solutions to neutral two-tone
images is related to increased amygdala activation, an area associated with positive
affect as a result of reward processing (Cruys & Wagemans, 2011). Furthermore,
Jakesch & Leder (2009) observed that titular information that conveyed a degree of
ambiguity resulted in increased ratings of liking and interest for paintings, versus non-
ambiguous titular information, demonstrating that ambiguity can increase artistic
appreciation especially when interest is considered as an additional variable for
evaluating our appreciation of art. These findings, however, are in direct conflict with
the Processing Fluency Theory, as increased ambiguity implies decreased fluency. Albeit,
art appreciation is not a passive process and therefore does not only depend on the
physical composition, but also relies on the cognitive processing of the viewer. When
considering art appreciation from the viewer’s stance versus the artworks’, a resolution
between seemingly conflicting theories is illuminated, in which it the ability of the
viewer to process ambiguity is the key feature of importance, as increased ambiguous
processing would result in higher fluency, and appreciation of seemingly non-fluently
processed art.
Ambiguity Tolerance and Appreciation of Ambiguous Art
Muth, Hesslinger, and Carbon (2015) addressed the dynamic interaction
between observer and artwork in terms of ambiguity and processing fluency through a
correlational study of ambiguity tolerance and multidimensional aesthetic appreciation.
They believed that the positive affect from viewing art was dependent on the
challenging nature of the artwork, which allowed for prediction error reduction, as well
as one’s ability to cope with the presented challenge, which denoted their fluency. They
tested this interaction by implementing the Inventar zur Messung der
Ambiguitätstoleranz (IMA) questionnaire which classifies ambiguity tolerance, or the
tendency to perceive ambiguity and evaluate it positively. And they measured
Commented [DV4]: define
Commented [DV5]: you could have unpacked e in a
couple more sentences to explain this
Commented [DV6]: good use of independent source
Commented [DV7]: a bit unclear
Commented [DV8]: I think you mean “succesful
processing of ambiguous information”
Commented [DV9]: Overall a very nice contrasting of two
seemingly irreconcilable theories. Could have finished with a
clear summary sentence along the lines of : “thus individual
differences in the fluency of processing ambiguous
information may play a role in the relative appreciation of
ambiguous content in art”

Overall a very good intro, but a couple instance of lack of
clarity due to word usage or insufficient explanation
Commented [DV10]: Still haven’t defined
multidimensional aesthetic appreciation through recording ratings of liking, interest,
powerfulness of affect, perceptual affect, and cognitive affect based on a 7-point Likert
scale, in response to 17 photographs of ambiguous art. Interestingly, increased
ambiguity tolerance was positively correlated to liking and cognitive affect, whereas
decreased ambiguity tolerance resulted in reduced liking. Additionally, verbal data
indicating the strength of insights for the tested ambiguous pieces of art was a
significant predictor of aesthetic appreciation, further indicating that one’s ability to
work towards understanding ambiguous art increases appreciation of it. However, this
study did not explicitly test one’s ability to process ambiguous stimuli and the resultant
appreciation of art, but rather the personality construct of ambiguity tolerance.
Therefore, the current study aims to address whether increased processing ability of
ambiguous stimuli, an indication of higher fluency, is positively correlated to increased
appreciation of art.
The Present Study
To assess processing ability of ambiguous stimuli the Stroop test will be utilised.
Although this test is classically used to measure the ability of an individual to inhibit
cognitive interference of incongruous attributes of the same stimulus, it has also been
demonstrated to be highly correlated with additional psychological measures such as
attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, creativity, and working memory (Edl,
Benedek, Papousek, Weiss, & Fink, 2014; Scarpina & Tagini, 2017). These measures
present the Stroop test as a viable predictor of processing ability of ambiguous stimuli,
or ambiguity-fluency, as thinking creatively and flexibly, as well as being able to switch
effectively and efficiently between incongruous attributes would allow one to
comprehend stimuli that defy determinacy of meaning in a fluent manner. Furthermore,
a multidimensional assessment of art appreciation adapted from Muth, Hesslinger, and
Carbon (2015) will be employed, as art is not only defined by its beauty but also by how
interesting or compelling it is, as well as its perceptual and cognitive affect. We predict
that increased performance on the Stroop test will be positively correlated with the four
attributes of art appreciation (liking, interest, cognitive affect, and perceptual affect)
under consideration, therefore providing evidence for an interaction between the
Processing Fluency and Semantic Instability theory in understanding the psychology of
visual art appreciation.
Commented [DV11]: responses
Commented [DV12]: good, would have been good to
mention the notion of momentary Aha, as moments of
fluency intersperses with periods of ambiguity
Commented [DV13]: good observation and good linkage
now to your study aims
Commented [DV14]: excellent justification of the
construct as a viable measure
Commented [DV15]: overlong sentence, break into two.
But otherwise good
Methods
Subjects:
A minimum of 30-participants identified as art non-specialists with English as their
first language will be recruited. A within-subjects experimental design will be utilised to
assess ambiguity-fluency, as determined by Stroop test performance, and its correlation
to the four art appreciation attributes of interest.
Stimuli:
Fifteen high-resolution images of paintings (5 impressionist, 5 surrealists, and 5 cubist)
considered to be of ambiguous nature or with common features which inhibit
processing fluency, such as low figure-ground contrast, will be used as ambiguous visual
art stimuli. Additionally, 15 paintings (from the Realism movement) classified as being
non ambiguous and with attributes of high processing fluency will also be shown as
negative controls. A 7-point Likert scale, similar to the one presented by Muth,
Hesslinger, and Carbon (2015) will be used to measure the multidimensional attributes
of art appreciation. The Stroop test consisting of 50 words (red, green, blue, orange, and
purple, each appearing 10 times, in a random order) printed in an incongruent ink
colour to the meaning of the world (WC) will be used. Additionally, the same set of 50
words will be printed in black ink (W) in a new random order, and X coded (e.g. red =
XXX) printed in each of the respective colours (C) in an additional random order.
Therefore, participant differences in simply naming words and colours can be
subtracted, and a true interference or fluency score can be obtained.
Procedure:
Half of the participants will randomly be selected to complete the Appreciation of
Ambiguity in Art assessment first, while the other half will be requested to complete the
Assessment of Fluency part of the experiment first, therefore balancing the order of
presentation, and correct for potential cofounding variables arising from completing
one task before the other.
Appreciation for Ambiguity in Art
Commented [DV16]: word
Commented [DV17]: a bit hard t follow though I get your
point
Commented [DV18]: good presentation of test stimuli
Commented [DV19]: should have first said that you are
using these instruments and also indicate references as part
of a separate material or psychological measures sub
section.
Commented [DV20]: Good that you are thinking of
potential confounds of order effects etc.
Participants will be asked to rate the 30 paintings, presented in a random order, using a
7-point Likert scale addressing the four attributes of art appreciation of interest: liking,
cognitive affect, perceptual affect, and interest (Muth et al., 2015).
Assessment of Fluency
Participants will first be asked to take the W and C Stroop test (with half completing the
W test before the C). Following completion of the W and C Stroop test, participants will
be asked to take the WC Stroop test. Participants will be given 45 seconds to complete
each of the Stroop tests, and requested to complete as much of the test as possible in the
allotted time. The number of correct answers in each trial will be recorded and
substituted into the following equation, adapted from Scarpina & Tagini (2017), in
order to calculate a measure of fluency:
1
(
( +)
2 − )
=

Discussion
If the hypothesis under investigation is supported, we would expect to see a statistically
significant positive correlation between fluency score and appreciation of art in each of
the four attributes assessed in this study. These findings would substantiate an
interaction between the two seemingly conflicting theories of art appreciation,
Processing Fluency and Semantic Instability, by demonstrating it is the increased ability
and mental flexibility which aid individuals to process even ambiguous art fluently that
results in their appreciation of it. Additionally, it would also be interesting to see if
individuals with decreased fluency scores preferred the non-ambiguous art in terms of
liking, however found the ambiguous art more interesting. This would lend further
support to both of the individual theories under investigation, as paintings processed
more fluently would result in increased liking, however paintings processed less
fluently would result in an increased desire to reduce the prediction error, which could
Commented [DV21]: the detail is appreciated ! and use
of independently sourced
Commented [DV22]: specifically the ambiguous art or
both?
Commented [DV23]: Still haven’t defined
be inferred from their interest rating. However, it is important to note, although the
Stroop test has been demonstrated to be correlated with attributes of fluency such as
cognitive flexibility and the ability to inhibit incongruent information, it does not
explicitly test individual differences in perceptual and conceptual fluency, but rather
just fluency in the face of incongruency, presenting a limitation of this study. None the
less, acceptance of the presented hypothesis would provide support for the growing
body of evidence suggesting that to understand the psychology of art appreciation one
needs to consider both the content of the piece as well as the personality and cognitive
processing ability of the viewer, and develop a theory that draws on the interactions of
these two critical components of art appreciation.

Bibliograpy
Commented [DV24]: interesting
Commented [DV25]: excellent and important point

3rd 2.II 2.I 1st
Experiment
Proposal and
motivation
Experimental idea is not
coherent or would likely
not lead to a scientifically
clear or useful outcome
Appropriate
experimental idea but
mostly a replication
and/or trivial alteration
from a previous study,
or one that is poorly
motivated
A viable idea that shows
effort in linking issues in
art and psychology and is
suggestive of potential
scientific importance.
An idea that concretely links
issues in art and psychology
in a way that highlights
potential of scientific
importance and is well-
motivated. Demonstrates
some original thinking
Introduction
Very patchy and limited
coverage of the topic. Use
of a narrow range of
sources. Total reliance on
secondary or out-of-date
material. Lots of irrelevant
and tangential material
concepts, issues and
findings presented in
outline, little depth and
over-reliance on a
narrow range of primary
sources. Many sources
appear to be secondary.
Some irrelevant and
tangential material
Covers the relevant
concepts, issues and
findings with use of
appropriate primary
sources, mostly presented
at the appropriate level of
detail but with some
lapses. A few instances of
tangential material
Thorough description of
relevant concepts, findings,
etc. at the appropriate level
of detail. Evidence of clear
grasp of core issues; use of
appropriate primary
sources – including some
independent use of sources.
Methods
section
Basic methods only
patchily described with
substantial omissions,
illogical rationale, or lot of
irrelevant details
Aspects of methods
described but often in
sketch form, not
justified, and inadequate
linking to the
experimental
motivation, lack of
clarity, and/or
irrelevant details
Appropriate aspects of
methods described and
justified, mostly at a
sufficient level of detail
and with appropriate links
to experimental
motivation. A few
irrelevant facts
Well thought out and
detailed presentation of
methodology and
justification, showing
engagement with study and
evidence of original
thinking.
Discussion Trivial or underspecified
discussion points (e.g.
‘need more research’) and
widespread illogical
reasoning

Raises some discussion
points though often in
outline form and
displays some illogical
reasoning or triviality
Identifies and discusses
some relevant discussion
issues relating to
topic/potential
outcome/methodology
with few instances of
illogicality of triviality
Generally sound and
thoughtful evaluation of
important relevant
discussion issues relating to
topic/potential
outcome/Methodology
Some evidence of original
thought.
Organisation
and coherence
within sections
Little sign of an overall
basis for structuring the
material, mostly a list of
relevant items in each
section with little or no
development of ideas
A discernible
structuring within each
section but often
disjointed and poor
connectivity and
continuity
For the most part,
adequate structuring of
the material, but lapses in
connectivity and
continuity
Each section is well
structured and well
developed, with a clear
sense of connectivity
Grade…… 8-10 11-13 14-16 17-20
Precision of
Expression
A few instances of
scientific precision but
predominant sloppiness
and redundancy
Signs of the ability to
use precise scientific
language, but many
instances of sloppiness,
conversational form
and/or redundancy
Mostly precise use of
major terms and concepts
but with occasional
sloppiness and/or
redundancy
Generally clear analytic use
of language, with precise
use of concepts and
negligible redundancy of
expression.
Factual
accuracy
Widespread substantive
errors
Some substantive errors Few substantive errors No substantive errors, few
minor errors.
Referencing Poorly referenced.
Widespread errors both in
the content and style of
references.
References missing in
places or does not use
appropriate style in
citing references
Referencing generally
accurate but some stylistic
errors in the reference list
or one or two missing
references
Thorough and proper
referencing throughout.

This sheet is for guidance for markers to enhance consistency in evaluations. It is not intended to indicate an overall grade by
application of weighted averages – sections will be weighted differently in the final determination of the overall grade, and
furthermore this weighting might vary according to the nature of the specific project.
Overall
Comments

An excellent proposal that aims to concretely link two disparate theories in art
appreciation. The use of the Stroop task in an interesting and original one in
light of the semantic instability issue. Introduction provided a clear
background of the relevant theories though there were some instance of lack
of clarity and need for more explanation (e.g. attribution, prediction error,
etc.) . Its great that you logically backed up the use of the Stroop task.
Methods were clear with appropriate detail, though maybe a bit more
explanation would not have hurt. Discussion was fine but could have clarified
on potential outcomes vis a vis the two classes of paintings and correlation
with Stroop score as seems there is some interesting material there. But
overall your study raises a very interesting and important issue. Very well
done overall