Social reputation influences on liking and willingness-to-pay for artworks: A multimethod design investigating choice behavior along with physiological measures and motivational factors — TEI-tagged view

Blanca T. M. SpeepersName, Matthew PelowskipersName, Jozsef AratopersName, Jan MikunipersName, Ulrich S. TranpersName, Christoph EiseneggerpersName, Helmut LederpersName (2022date). “Social reputation influences on liking and willingness-to-pay for artworks: A multimethod design investigating choice behavior along with physiological measures and motivational factors.” PLOS ONEtitle·j.

Object of study — individuals' likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices for artworks, and how the two choice typesterm·var shift under manipulated social-reputation contexts

Research question — how likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices - and especially their combination - interact with social reputationterm and the private versus social selfterm when people choose art

Contribution — the first empirical study to interlink both likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices with a manipulated social-reputation context, using a novel forced-choice multimethod paradigm

Full text — tagged

The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.

Social reputationterm influences on likingterm and willingness-to-payterm for artworks: A multimethod design investigating choice behaviorterm along with physiological measures and motivational factors Abstract Artterm, as a prestigious cultural commodityterm, concerns aesthetic and monetary valuesterm, personal tastesterm, and social reputationterm in various social contextsterm—all of which are reflected in choices concerning our likingterm, or in other contexts, our actual willingness-to-payterm for artworks. But, how do these different aspects interact in regard to the concept of social reputationterm and our private versus social selves, which appear to be essentially intervening, and potentially conflicting, factors driving choice? In our study, we investigated likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices using—in art research—a novel, forced-choice paradigm. Participants (N = 123) made choices from artwork-triplets presented with opposing artistic quality and monetary value-labeling, thereby creating ambiguous choice situations. Choices were made in either private or in social/public contexts, in which participants were made to believe that either art-pricing or art-making expertsterm were watching their selections. A multi-method design with eye-trackingterm, neuroendocrinology (testosteroneterm, cortisolterm), and motivational factors complemented the behavioral choice analysis. Results showed that artworks, of which participants were told were of high artistic valueterm were more often liked and those of high monetary-value received more willingness-to-payterm choices. However, while willingness-to-payterm was significantly affected by the presumed observation of art-pricing expertsterm, likingterm selections did not differ between private/public contexts. Likingterm choices, compared to willingness-to-payterm, were also better predicted by eye movement patterns. Whereas, hormone levels had a stronger relation with monetary aspects (willingness-to-payterm/ art-pricing expertterm). This was further confirmed by motivational factors representative for reputation seeking behaviorterm. Our study points to an unexplored terrain highlighting the linkage of social reputationterm mechanisms and its impact on choice behaviorterm with a ubiquitous commodityterm, art.

Introduction If contemporary art were a dialogue, it would be one about values; values that were, values that exist now, and values that—depending on context, personality, and social situation—might dynamically change [ 1 ]. Especially with the advent of the scholarly discussions on judgment and tasteterm in the 18 th century [ 2 ], and increasingly so in the 20 th and 21 st centuries [ 3 ], art has had an interesting place of distinction and social relevance [ 4 ]. Today, art has become, more and more, a ubiquitous commodityterm [ 5 , 6 ] related to a number of values [ 7 ], notable among which are art’s artistic/aesthetic and economic merits.

These two factors—essentially involving our decisions regarding whether one finds an artwork aesthetically pleasing or preferred and regarding whether one would actually be willing to pay to own a work—are argued to be at the root of many of our responses and uses of art [ 8 – 10 ]. They inform whether we would visit art in a museum, display it on our walls, communicate with our friends about it and how we might cognitively and affectively respond within a given art engagement. At the same time, these factors also raise a number of questions, especially regarding the realization that they do not occur in a vacuum, but rather emerge within a complex context involving backgrounds, motives [ 11 – 13 ], sociocultural habits [ 14 , 15 ], and—in tandem with anecdotal evidence—that they may not always coincide, but may decouple or even contradict [ 16 , 17 ]. Think of the contemporary masterpieces showcased in living rooms of Architectural Digest or the label of wealthy donors affixed in museums, or the works exchanged in the contemporary art auction circuit, signaling one’s social and economic prowess. However, to follow a common cynical refrain, one might raise questions of whether their owners actually enjoy them or think of them as good artworks.

Personal preference or likingterm, is often associated more with formal appearance or the skill of an artist [ 8 , 10 , 18 – 22 ]. Setting aside most individuals’ lack of purchasing resources to buy a top-line artwork, we may enjoy art while walking through a museum but do not want to own it [ 23 , 24 ]. Alternatively, we may love pieces purchased at a flea market or poster copies of famous artworks, to simply have and see them, daily, in our own spaces. We may of course also both like and be willing to buy the same art. This suggests a complex interplay of value factors and their effect on the choices types—how do we make these choices; how do they interact?—which however is still rather undefined in empirical and theoretical research [ 9 ].

One explanation for our likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices—and especially their combination—is the differential relation to social reputationterm [ 25 , 26 ], which may directly intervene at the intersection of artistic and monetary valuesterm and personal choice. Social reputationterm can be defined, in general, as the respect, esteem, or prestigeterm that a person (or object) has in the eyes of others (i.e., expression of social statusterm, [ 27 , 28 ]). As social beings, it is commonly acknowledged that humans routinely act with social reputationterm in mind as a key factor in driving their behaviors [ 3 , 12 , 20 , 26 ]. We want to have esteem among others, be seen as fitting in, or separate us from certain peer groups [ 29 ]. A major way of doing this is to broadcast who we socially are, or wish to be, via our actions and choices—a manifestation of our identities often attributed to a ‘social-self’—and which may or may not overlap with our more personal choices and values, if made in private.

In the domain of art, social reputationterm has mainly been discussed in the fields of contemporary art education, social economics [ 30 , 31 ], as well as in sociological and social psychological research (e.g., [ 32 – 35 ]), where it is commonly acknowledged that art as object or activity (viewing, owning, and also making art) does routinely carry high social reputationterm or act as vehicle for communicating certain aspects [ 16 , 36 ]. Art purchasing, as in the above examples, considering art as investment and ownership, has a long history of broadcasting reputational potential through socioeconomic status, [ 16 , 37 , see also 30 , 31 , 34 ]. A purchase is, in most cases, a public act, as is communication to others about what something costs.

Likingterm art, although often perceived as more personal or idiosyncratic, is also associated with social reputationterm [ 9 , 20 , 21 ]. In sociological surveys, spending time viewing art or choosing to visit a museum is often argued to be driven by desires to join or distinguish oneself from certain social groups (e.g., [ 9 , 15 ]). Affiliation with the arts has been connected to higher education, status, and personal wealth [ 9 , 30 , 31 ]. Personal choices displaying ‘good’ art may also act as a means of broadcasting abilities. Discussions of aesthetic sensitivityterm or tasteterm [ 9 , 38 – 40 ]—not to mention more contemporary acts such as giving ‘likes’ to images or posting attractive selfies on social media [ 41 , 42 ]—have long held an unavoidable overlap with more general discussions of skill, merit, and socioeconomic status [ 43 , 44 ].

In turn, art appraisals have been shown to be changeable by manipulating social contextterm. Informing individuals that paintings are from a prestigious museum (compared to computer-generated images) increased relative likingterm ratings [ 45 ]. Similar impacts, on likingterm and valuationterm, has been found by informing individuals that art is by a prestigious artist versus one of their students, is an original versus a copy [ 46 ], is eventually a fake [ 47 ], or even that a prestigious company sponsored the study [ 48 ]. Telling individuals that artworks were liked by one’s peers or by art experts, or disliked by socially undesirable others, also modulate likingterm versus ratings made without social contextterm [ 9 ] (see [ 49 ] for similar study with popular music; see also for further reading [ 50 – 52 ]).

These arguments, on the surface, would seem to be rather intuitive—our selections and purchases are also modulated by our social environment. However, an interesting implication emerging from these studies is that such social impacts may be rather ‘domain specific’—relating especially to what sort of social contextterm and communication one thinks is relevant—which present a compelling suggestion for studying the interaction of these choices.

In a recent paper relating appraisal changes to in- and out-groups’ rating information [ 9 ], for example, it was found that using a monetary prime (i.e., telling individuals that an artwork was particularly cheap or expensive) had much smaller, and nearly negligible, impacts on likingterm. Similarly, Newman, Diesendruck and Bloom [ 46 ] found that, when asking participants to evaluate the market price of a painting, ratings could be changed by introducing aspects used in such valuationsterm—provenance, scarcity, resources, or effort.

However, value was not impacted by raising more personal preference or esteem information when owners had themselves elevated or downgraded an item from ‘art’ to ‘not-art’ status. Detotto and colleagues [ 37 ] asked visitors in an art exhibition about their interest in paying to preserve and publicly display art (in this case via the municipality’s taxes) and found that willingness-to-payterm could be modulated by raising a related factor: whether art reflected the cultural heritage/identity of the location or art made in another country by the same artist.

In one of the only studies to actually combine both aesthetic/artistic and monetary valuesterm, Kruger and colleagues [ 17 ] found that when participants were informed about a factor that could potentially touch both—the amount of time required to make a piece and “all else being equal,” (p. 92)—could modulate both likingterm and price valuationsterm. These modulations occurred presumably due to the factor’s potential as a proxy for quality for both values.

The above relationships have also been shown to be modulated by individual differences regarding motivations or relative importance (to their social or personal self) of making one or the other choice. For example, Kirk and colleagues [ 48 ] showed that while studying sponsorship from companies, likingterm ratings were less modulated in art experts, for whom artistic aspects were probably of higher importance and who did not default to provided value proxies. On the contrary, individuals, who are art laymen and along other personality traits [ 32 , 33 ], have shown to be more vulnerable to reputation influences, and align with believed experts’ opinions, value systems, and preferences (see [ 9 , 46 – 48 ]).

These findings, especially when considering the interaction of likingterm and willingness-to-payterm assessments might then suggest that it is the specific combination of social contextterm—whether choices of one or the other are made in public or private—and also the relative importance of the social selfterm in these domains, that may drive one or both determinations. On the one hand, an individual believes they are operating in a social domain (either intuitively or due to a study design) that puts a premium on price, then they give this aspect preference in their decisions. This may occur in tandem with more awareness of and susceptibility to the latent related social information, and perhaps with their choices coming at the expense of likingterm or aesthetic factors. On the other hand, if an individual believes they are operating in a domain putting a premium on tasteterm or artistic appearance, they may focus on and be impacted by these aesthetic features and especially related social information. This could explain purchasing art that one does not like, likingterm art regardless of the cost, or the impact on choices along the relative importance in certain social domains. Depending on the person or domain, the relative impact of the social contextterm can lead to large differences in the extent to which certain decisions are relevant or default to the information provided. It may well be that likingterm ratings are for many, more stable and less susceptible to social setting, whereas price valuationsterm are more at risk. Beckert and Rössel [ 16 ], looking at economic aspects of the contemporary art market make this claim, that even most individuals who do desire to buy art face a problem of fundamental uncertainty, because of the difficulty in determining value; this leads them often to default to experts in the art field [ 44 ]. Similarly, sociological studies of art interest also suggest broad combinations of relative interest in art’s economic and/or aesthetic importance, with interactions and tastesterm largely driven by one or both factors [ 25 ].

In sum, this perspective of social reputationterm suggests that researchers might consider the combination of these factors, assessing both likingterm and willingness-to-payterm, as well as the specific social contextterm, to better tease out their relationships. However, to date, this has not been done. Although again theoretical and empirical investigations have linked art values to socio-cultural training [ 25 , 30 , 31 , 34 ], habits [ 15 ], and corresponding choice behaviorterm and appreciation [ 21 ], and have discussed them as indicative for social reputationterm effects [e.g., 16 , 36 ], there is no empirical research yet directly investigating the relationship between these factors. There are also very few studies actually empirically exploring willingness-to-payterm or relationships with pricing information (see for further reading [ 9 ] and for non/art domains, e.g., [ 53 – 55 ]), and no study has interlinked, empirically, both likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices with the manipulation of a social reputationterm context itself.

The present study In this paper, we studied individuals’ selections of artworks, regarding artistic (associated with likingterm) and monetary (associated with willingness-to-payterm) values, and how the two choice typesterm·var (likingterm, willingness-to-payterm) differed due to manipulation of social reputationterm. We tested our main hypothesis, that social reputationterm influences art evaluation in terms of choice behaviorterm, by employing a novel forced choice design. We operationalized our within- and between-subject variables along the different aspects of social reputationterm discussed above.

We used images of real artworks of human artists, which was also communicated to the participants. We labeled the artworks along artistic and monetary valuesterm. We operationalized this by presenting in each trial triplets of three similar artworks (see Fig 1 for stimulus example and study design). These were presented together with labels explained as indicating ascending order of levels of artistry (i.e., artworks rated as artistically superior by art experts) with likewise descending (opposing) levels of monetary valueterm (according to auction house experts). Through these opposing value labels, we tested whether choice behaviorterm represents the associations discussed above: that is, art of high artistic valueterm is more often chosen to be liked, and participants are more often willing to pay for art of high monetary valueterm (see Stage I-II in Fig 2 ). In addition, we provided a middle (neutral) position as a choice option in our study design (see Methods for study design). This served to give participants the opportunity to also choose a fallback option in which monetary and artistic valueterm are equal according to the experts.

Example of a stimulus-set including labelling and study design. Top: From left to right, the artwork’s artistic valueterm rose, and from right to left, the monetary valueterm increased (e.g., in the between-group art-making expertsterm, the left artwork is considered a pro-artistic choice). Pictograms represented artistic and the monetary valuesterm (by the size of the brush/coin) and were counterbalanced. In addition, the pictograms under each image were also counterbalanced left/right between participants. The artist of the middle and right artworks is by El Lazar Markovich Lissitzky (known as El Lissitzky) and the left one by László Moholy-Nagy. Copyright information: Shown artworks are in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years. Bottom: Modelled study design, see Methods for full description.

Visualization of the hypotheses and assumptions for behavioral and implicit measures. Development of choice behaviorterm described along five evaluation processing stages. Stages I-II: Learned socio-cultural choice behaviorterm and associations; private context choice behaviorterm in stage II (hypotheses 2.c-2-d). Stages III-IV include social contextterm and influence on choice typesterm·var (hypotheses 1.a-1.c; 2.a-2.d); stage V feed back into the evaluation process and updates personal experience, socio-cultural values, individual experience, and preferences updating stage I. Stages include stimuli-sets, physiological measures (in dark blue), influence of socio-cultural learned behavior (in dark gray), choice typesterm·var (in yellow), and social contextterm is presented in stage III (light blue).

These actions were also conducted in differing social reputationterm contexts (see Stage III-V in Fig 2 ). To investigate this influence, we compared between-group two condition in which we asked participants to choose (forced choice) one artwork they liked most and one they were most willing to pay for in an unobserved block (private) as well as in a public block. In latter, participants were made to believe to be observed by either art-pricing or art-making expertsterm (see Methods for full description).

Our sub-hypotheses regarding behavioral choice behaviorterm were: 1 . a If the audience in the public setting are art-making expertsterm , we would expect that participants will like high artistic valueterm artworks more often compared to the private setting . Likewise, we expected 1 . b if the audience in the public setting are art-pricing expertsterm , then participants will be willing to pay more often for artworks assigned to be high in monetary valueterm compared to their choices in the private context . We further hypothesized, 1 . c , that choices remain unaffected if the audience was not relevant to the respective value type . Specifically, this means, that if the art-pricing expertsterm are watching, likingterm choices will not change from private to public; and, willingness-to-payterm choices will remain the same when art-making expertsterm are observing. A visual summary of all hypotheses and measurements is given in Fig 2 .

Physiological and other measurements In addition, and as we are studying social influences within a contextual framing situation, this situation itself could influence choices and behavioral measurement and may not reveal potential hidden processes (e.g., choosing a different artwork due to social influence but not because the person likes it). Hence, behavioral choices alone may not suffice to investigate this topic. Additional implicit physiological and scales of motivational factors used in studies investigation hormonal analysis [ 56 – 61 ] could provide crucial information regarding this complex factor interlinkage and choice behaviorterm. We therefore further employed two physiological measures: first, eye-trackingterm to analyze eye-movement patterns with regression modelling along choice behaviorterm, a method which has been widely used in art research investigating personal appreciation and likingterm [ 62 – 67 ]. Second, exploratorily, neuroendocrinological hormonal measures, which we report and discuss along descriptive statistics, and which have been discussed within social economic studies along with social reputationterm effects [ 68 – 78 ]. Additionally, to support our hormonal analysis, we also added scales measuring motivational factors associated with hormonal associated reputation seeking behaviorterm (see for latest applied study, [ 60 , 61 , 79 ]) using regressions analysis to predict choices.

Eye-trackingterm The assessment of fixations and eye-movement patterns represents an established research method in art studies. Theoretical models and empirical studies in visual art (e.g., [ 62 – 65 ], see for review [ 10 ]) indicate that perceptual processing begins from the first moment of visual input and is constantly updated through active eye-movements and fixations on areas of the artwork viewed. Studies have resoundingly shown that individuals spend more time looking at artworks which they find aesthetically appealing and which they liked most (in terms of total fixation, see, e.g., [ 62 , 64 – 67 ]; or along longer fixation, see [ 63 , 80 ]). Moreover, participants appear to fixate the preferred image when reaching the decision-moment [ 66 – 67 ].

We tested whether participants also fixated the artwork image they choose as liked or that they are willing to pay for. One general assumption was that participants would look around less in a private context, whereas in a public context social influence would distract participants. The first two eye-trackingterm hypotheses are therefore 2 . a a higher total number of fixationsterm in the public condition (more comprehensive exploration of all artworks and value cues) and 2 . b . a change in eye-movement patterns between the private versus public condition (however, we keep the directionality, how often, and at which image they fixate open).

In accordance with previous findings [ 60 , 66 – 67 , 80 ], we expected, 2 . c that both , the total number of fixationsterm (artworks where participants look the most) and the last fixationterm predict choice behaviorterm overall conditions . Moreover, relating to the personal connotation of likingterm discussed in the Introduction, we further hypothesized 2 . d that the number of fixations would predict likingterm choices (a more personal value and decision) stronger than willingness-to-payterm choices (monetary valuesterm are stronger influenced by other culture and economy matters, potentially irritating eye-movements—e.g., more looking around).

Neuroendocrinology At a neuroendocrinological level, hormones (e.g., testosteroneterm or cortisolterm) and neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine), are necessary to translate external contextual and internal bodily information into brain activation patterns [ 68 ]. Regarding social reputationterm and social statusterm aspects, EiseneggerpersName and colleagues [ 58 , 59 , 69 ] accentuated the role of the steroid hormone testosteroneterm as an important contributor in achieving and maintaining social statusterm and reputation. Testosteroneterm seems to be a rudimentary influencing component behind the motives of status gathering and keeping, leading to cooperative, fair, or reputation-seeking behavior [ 58 , 59 , 70 – 72 ]. However, this output of testosteroneterm functioning is deeply connected to cortisolterm (stress) levels, a steroid hormone of the glucocorticoid family [ 73 – 76 ]. Testosteroneterm is only strongly associated with status seeking when cortisolterm levels are low. However, testosteroneterm in interaction with high cortisolterm levels has been shown to block status-seeking behavior. This interconnection of both hormones is summarized in the dual-hormone hypothesisterm (see for further reading [ 73 , 76 ]).

Although art research has undergone several epistemological advances in the last years considering aspects of neuroscience [ 81 ], the study of neuromodulations is very sparse [ 82 ]. To date, there are only very few neuroendocrinological studies in the art field, mainly focusing on stress reduction through art measured along with cortisolterm levels [ 77 , 78 ]. Our study is probably the first to look at this specific kind of hormonal interaction (testosteroneterm, cortisolterm). We measured testosteroneterm and cortisolterm levels (especially cortisol changeterm·var, pre-/post levels, i.e., hormonal change after psychological stress, see [ 68 , 75 ]) and analyzed it in respect to choice behaviorterm. Based on prior studies in social economics and neuroendocrinology [ 58 , 69 – 76 ], we expected that participants high in testosteroneterm and low in cortisolterm would try to keep their general (socio-culturally acquired) reputation, and show high likingterm for high artistry and are more often willing to pay for high monetary valuable art (along socio-cultural trained habits, see Stage I-II in Fig 2 ). In the public condition, however, we anticipated two potential strategies that might be revealed by this line of evidence: in case participants agree with the audience value system, we would expect a strengthened effect of the private behavior, meaning following socio-cultural learned behavior (see Fig 2 ). Alternatively, if participant disagree with the audience, they might be inclined to go against the believed value systems of the audience and show different choices between private and public in controversial ways. As this is the first study combining these measures and design, we discuss our explorative results in the Discussion.

Scales of motivational factors Last, we also included measures focusing on motivational factors: the behavioral activationterm (BAS) and inhibition (BIS) questionnaire suggested to measure motivational systems or traits [ 60 , 61 , 79 , hereafter BIS/BAS scale] and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS-Anxiety Scale, [ 83 ]). We included both measures because both represent motivational factors which have been associated with hormonal measures in different fields of research before [ 6 – 61 , 84 , 85 ]. The BIS/BAS scale has been significantly correlated with high testosteroneterm levels and status-seeking behavior respecting stress situations and is commonly used in neuropsychopharmacological experiments using testosteroneterm application and used as control measure [ 60 , 61 , 79 ]. We further included the BIS/BAS scale because it is in accordance with the dual-hormone hypothesisterm discussed above (see [ 73 , 74 , 76 ]). To find potential effects of personality and experience of being more prone to get irritated by the public condition, we also included the LSAS-Anxiety Scale [ 83 ]. The LSAS-scale has been applied in conjunction mainly with cortisolterm measures as well as representing social anxiety and social approach avoidance [ 84 , 85 ]. To date, there is no study in art research that has applied the BIS/BAS scale or any anxiety scale within such kind of paradigm. Thus, based on other studies in social economy [e.g., 58 – 61 ], we assume, that there may be a positive association with behavioral activationterm scale, reputation seeking behaviorterm (more prone socio-cultural learned behavior and agree with audience’s value system stronger in the public condition, see Stage III-IV in Fig 2 ), and choice behaviorterm. Generally, employing personality measures might provide additional measures that support the explorative neuroendocrinological data and for future research.

Materials and method Participants The study involved a final sample of 123 participants (M age = 21.7, SD = 2.9, age-range = 18 to 30; 52.85% female; between-group n = 61 art-making expertsterm and n = 62 art pricing expertsterm). All were students at the University of Vienna. The final sample was derived from an initial collection of 149 participants with 26 participants excluded due to issues with the eye-trackingterm application. Note that this sample was largely a convenience sample that represented the maximum number of participants that could be assessed within our given budget. Due to the novelty of the design and the exploratory nature of the study, no a priori power analysis was conducted [ 86 ]. However, we did conduct a sensitivity power analyses on main results (see Results below).

Further, for the analysis of the saliva samples, only male participants were tested and analyzed ( n = 58). Seven male participants from the final total sample had to be excluded from the saliva analysis because the amount of saliva given was insufficient. One person was excluded because of excessively high testosteroneterm levels (~10 times higher than average, despite double analysis of the saliva sample; the cause could not be determined), leaving a final sample of n = 50 for the hormone analysis. The decision to include only male participants for the saliva analysis was due to our desire to omit conflating issues regarding potential variations of hormone levels due to the use of different contraceptives and monthly cycles of female participants. This decision to split the sample further admittedly led to a rather underpowered (in post-hoc sensitivity power analyses) result (i.e., where 50+ participants per between group and in total over 100 participants would be ideal [ 69 ]). Nevertheless, due to the time and costs involved for conducting the study, it was not feasible to test even more participants at that time, which could also not be covered by the budget.

All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision (below 1.2 diopters). All participants were art-novices (mainly psychology students) and had no education in fine arts, art history, or other related disciplines dealing with art. Participants were informed about the basic procedure and provided informed consent. Course credits were given after finishing the experiment. The study was conducted in accordance with the standards of ethical principles regarding human experimentation and was approved by the ethical commission of the University of Vienna (reference number ethics committee 00256).

Stimuli The study used 48 images of abstract paintings made from about 1960 onward (see Fig 1 for an example; S1 Table in Supplementary Information includes a full list of all artworks). Abstract artterm was selected to minimize potential confounding issues (e.g., personal memories, associations) from mimetic content and, due to the general, well-documented lack of familiarity, interest, and even appreciation for abstract artterm from our participant base [ 19 , 40 , 73 – 75 ], we expected that participants would find it plausible that abstract contemporary art might well vary in both artistic and monetary axes. Whereas representational paintings might be expected to have a higher, positive correlation between price and artistic quality, or, as historical objects, might not be expected to have especially low prices. We grouped the artworks into triplets. Artworks within a set were chosen to be highly similar in style, color, composition, and often painted by the same artists ( Fig 1 , see full list of artworts and triplets in S1 Table in Supplementary Information). This matching was important to reduce potential low-level visual feature influence on judgement behavior (like complexity, color usage, etc., [ 87 , 88 ]). We further randomized the location of the artworks within one set (i.e., appearing on the left, right, or in the middle position) between-participants. Furthermore, all artworks had the same height (500 px), but different width so as not to distort the picture content. The regions of interest for the eye-trackingterm analysis were controlled for each triplet individually to cover the entire area to the outer edge of each of the three artworks. We used pictograms representing artistic and the monetary valuesterm (by the size of the brush/coin), which was also explained in the test trials before the experiment started. The pictograms were counterbalanced between-participants resulting that the artistic/monetary high levels exchanged sides and artworks. Also, each pictogram set underneath each image was counterbalanced left/right.

Procedure Participants were first welcomed to the lab and asked to sign the informed consent. We then determined the dominant eye by asking participants to focus on an object while alternately covering the other eye. Afterwards, the movement of the dominant eye was calibrated with EyeLink 1000 (SR Research Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada). Calibration was repeated for each of the two blocks. Male participants were then asked to wait 20 minutes before taking the first saliva samples. Female participants started directly with the experiment. All further instructions were given on the computer screen. Participants read a cover story in which the composition of the triple sets was explained as follows. They were told that these triplets were composed in cooperation with art-making expertsterm (Vienna Academy of Art), art-pricing expertsterm (from a fictious ‘Auction house Wittelsburg’), and the research team at the University of Vienna to study the difference of art-values (artistic/monetary). The art-making expertsterm highly valued one of the artworks in the set for its superior formal or artistic and aesthetic quality (hereafter artistic valueterm). However, this artwork was also less expensive based on a recent purchase price estimated by the art-pricing expertsterm. Another artwork, the opposite artwork in the set, had recently sold at the auction for a high monetary amount, but, at the same time, was argued by art-making expertsterm to be artistically not valuable. The middle paintings in each set had a moderate and similar value in artistic and monetary valueterm and quality (see Supplementary Information S1 File German version and S2 File English version of full cover story).

Part of the cover story was also devoted to explaining the private versus public paradigm. The participants had to perform the procedure two times: once in a private setting and once in a public setting. In the latter block a recording was taken for the respective expert group. Here, the participants were divided into two groups (between-group variable): one group was observed in the public condition by art-making expertsterm, the other by art-pricing expertsterm. To create this public session, the experimenter, without otherwise talking to the participant, installed and switched on (i.e., with visible red light) a camera behind the participants. The order of the sessions was counterbalanced between participants. In case the public condition was the first, the camera was de-installed for the private session. Camera installation/de-installation took about 1 minute, and we confirmed via eye contact, that participants were aware of the public and private conditions.

Before beginning the main procedure, participants also completed three practice trials with paintings from the 48-item set (trial stimuli were excluded from analysis and not used in the experimental trials), to ensure that participants were fully comfortable with the procedure. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross in the middle of the screen (to ensure proper eye-trackingterm recordings). When fixation succeeded the cross was replaced by one of the three-artwork sets, with accompanying artistic/monetary valueterm information. Participants had a free-viewing time for 20 seconds. Afterwards they had to make two choices. They had to choose one artwork out the triple-set they liked most and one for which they were willing to pay (hereafter ‘wtp’) (in case personal monetary wealth would not be an issue) via a keypress. The order of the two choices was randomized per trial. No time limit was set for making the choices.

Upon answering both questions, the procedure was repeated for a total of thirteen trials. The thirteen trials were again repeated in both within-subject blocks (private and public), where participants could choose the same or a different artwork within each of the thirteen triplets. Despite the background story and camera setup, no actual recording was taken. Participants were informed after the experiment that the recording as well as the name of the auction house were made-up.

Physiological measures: Eye-trackingterm The eye-trackingterm data was recorded with EyeLink 1000 desktop mounted eye tracker (SR Research Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), sampling at 1000 Hz. EyeLink 1000 provides two pupil tracking algorithms: centroid and ellipse fitting. The centroid mode was used, tracking the center of the threshold pupil using a center of mass algorithm. We calibrated the apparatus via 9-point calibration procedure with the dominant eye. A chin and forehead rest stabilized participants’ head positions and minimized movements during the eye-movement recording. All participants sat at a desk in the, dimly lit, laboratory (background luminance about 500 lux), 60 cm away from the monitor, and viewed the artwork sets on an LCD monitor Samsung SyncMaster 2443BW, with a resolution of 2,400; 1,920; 1,200 pixels and a screen refresh rate of 60 Hz. The experiment was controlled by Experiment Builder Software Version 1.10.1630 (SR Research Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) on a Windows PC. Before the start of each trial, participants were required to look at a fixation cross presented in the middle of the screen to trigger the trial start. If fixation failed within 10 seconds, a 9-point re-calibration and validation was performed.

Physiological measures: Neuroendocrinology Saliva samples were taken from the male participants after a waiting period of 20 minutes and before the experiment started. The second samples were taken 20 minutes after the experiment. During the waiting phases (for pre- and post-sample), participants were instructed to avoid any arousing activity—neither physically nor mentally—but to sit still. Use of electronic devices were forbidden during waiting phases, but participants could read some unexciting newspapers. In total, four saliva samples were taken: two pre-samples and two post experiment for analysis of testosteroneterm and cortisolterm.

Demographics and scales of motivational factors About one week before conducting the actual study, participants completed an online survey answering: (a) behavioral inhibition system/behavioral activationterm system (BIS/BAS) questionnaires [ 79 ], (b) a social anxiety scale (LSAS; [ 83 ]), (c) general questions about art expertise [ 89 ], and (d) standard demographic data was queried, such as gender, age, etcetera. The participants had to provide a self-chosen code (random code with 4 letter and 2 digits), to link the data of the survey to the data gathered during the experimental sessions. The codes were only known by one of the experimenters.

Results Measures and statistical analysis Regarding the analysis of art preference choicesterm·var, we focused on two main aspects. First, we examined which painting participants chose in the different conditions. As the value-order was randomized between-groups, we set fixed values for the different values of choices for all participants: 1 = high artistic valueterm, 2 = neutral, and 3 = high monetary valueterm. Despite the discrete (1-2-3) choice options, once averaged across trials, the responses were normally distributed. This was confirmed by a Shapiro-Wilk test, which found no deviation from normality (likingterm: W = .985, p = .197, wtp: W = .991, p = .591).

Second, we assessed the change in choices between the within-group condition private versus public. We therefore subtracted the value in the private condition from the public condition. If participants did not change their opinion, the value would be zero (see Fig 4 as an example). If one participant chose, in the public condition, a high artistic valueterm artwork (value = 1) and, in the private condition, a high monetary valueterm artwork (value = 3), then the change value would be -2. Consequently, a negative value indicated that the participant chose higher artistic valueterm artworks in the public condition. However, if the participant chose a high monetary valueterm artwork in the public condition (value = 3), and high artistic in private (value = 1), a positive value—plus 2—resulted. In such a case, the interpretation of the value is that participants chose higher monetary valueterm artworks in the public condition. In summary, if the value deviated from zero, there was a change in choice behaviorterm: a negative value means more artistic art, and a positive value means more monetary valuable art, was chosen in the public compared to the private condition. Again, the responses were averaged across trials and the variable was interval scaled. Besides 95% confidence intervals (CI), we additionally report statistical effect sizes for t tests with Cohen’s d [ 90 ], for ANOVAs with eta squared ( η 2 ); for multiple regressions analyses r 2 .

We performed sensitivity power analysis for our main comparisons with α = .05 and 80% power in G*Power [ 91 ]. For the paired t -test comparing likingterm and wtp choices and fixations of all participants, we found a critical minimum Cohen’s d of 0.22 ( N = 123). For the paired comparison of public vs private condition, the minimum value was d = .361 for art-pricing expertsterm ( n = 62) and d = .365 for art-making expertsterm ( n = 61). The mixed within-between ANOVA revealed a critical effect size of η 2 = .061 for the within group factor and η 2 = .054 for the between group factor (using the empirical correlation of r ≈ .75 between the repeated measurements in public vs. private). Finally, for the within-between interaction a critical value of η 2 = .008 was found. The Cohen’s f values returned by G*Power were transformed to eta-squared according to η 2 = f^2 / (1 + f^2) ([ 76 ], see also the note on ideal sample size for the hormonal analyses above).

Furthermore, for the hormonal analysis participants were clustered in specific hormone-level constellation clusters. The rationale for adding the hormonal measures not as continuous variable but for clustering is based, on the one hand, on the extensive theory of dual-hormone analysis [ 74 – 76 ], which states that testosteroneterm is mediated by cortisolterm along specific patterns. If the patterns of hormone level constellations can be confirmed by the theory and the present data, clustering is performed using GaussianMixture function of the scikit-learn library [ 92 ]. On the other hand, the theory [ 74 – 76 ] predicts that an interaction between testosteroneterm and cortisolterm influences behavior. Our behavioral results are also based on an interaction, leading to analyzing the interaction of two interactions for which our sample size is too small (since already a threefold interaction can require four times as much data as a twofold interaction; see for further reading, [ 93 ]).

Behavioral results—Artwork choices in likingterm and willingness-to-payterm The descriptive analysis of likingterm and willingness to payterm (wtp) choices for both the between-group factor audience typeterm·var (art-making vs. art-pricing expertsterm) and the within-group factor (private vs. public) is shown in Table 1 . Per group and round, the average value was determined from 13 choices (13 stimulus sets). Even though many of the values appear to tend towards the middle, artistically valuable artworks received more likingterm choices, which is visible in that both means were below the value 2 (see Table 1 , Fig 3 ).

Descriptive results of likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp) choices between-group conditions. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (see S2 Fig in Supplementary Information for separation in all condition).

Descriptive analysis likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp) choices for all conditions.

To exclude a potential effect of position and also to study if participants actually chose mostly the middle position, we also calculated the average choice percentage for the three locations (see S1A Fig in Supplementary Information) and the average choice percentage for the three stimulus types (see S1B Fig in Supplementary Information). Both analyses revealed that participants choose all three positions/stimulus types nearly similarly (around 33.3%) on average with a slight avoidance of the middle/neutral position.

To test hypotheses 1.a and 1.b, we analyzed if there was a general effect of audience typeterm·var, we applied a two-way mixed ANOVA, with audience typeterm·var as a between-group factor, choice typeterm·var (likingterm, wtp) as a within-group factor, and the actual image choice (i.e., which artwork of the three in the set the participant picked) as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed no main effect between the two audience groups ( F (1, 121) = .044, p = .838, η 2 = 0.00) and no interaction ( F (1, 121) = 0.021, p = .774, η 2 = 0.00). There was, however, a main effect in image choice between likingterm and wtp ( F (1, 121) = 13.442, p < .001, η 2 = 0.10), in that participants in both audience groups liked the high artistic valueterm artworks more, and were more wtp for high monetary paintings.

Testing hypothesis 1.c, our second analysis concerned the change in choice behaviorterm between public and private (see Fig 4 ). A t test revealed no significant change in public vs. private in likingterm in neither audience group (art-pricing expertsterm: t (61) = -0.81, p = 0.422, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.02], d = 0.04; art-making expertsterm: t (60) = -1.21, p = 0.230, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.01], d = 0.155). There was a significant change towards high monetary valueterm from private to public in wtp choices and with audience typeterm·var art-pricing expertsterm ( t (61) = 2.23, p = 0.029, 95% CI [0.01, 0.11], d = 0.28). However, we found no significant change from private to public in wtp, when art-making expertsterm were watching ( t (61) = -0.89, p = 0.378, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.03], d = 0.113).

Change in choice behaviorterm from between the two audience conditions and for each choice typeterm·var likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp). The y-axis describes the direction of value from high artistic to high monetary valueterm. Values at the zero line mean no change in decision behavior; negative values mean participants chose higher artistically valuable artworks in the public condition; positive values mean participants choose more high monetary valuable artworks in the public condition. Error-bars represent standard error of the mean.

Further, a paired t test revealed a main effect between likingterm and wtp choices with the audience art-pricing expertsterm ( t (61) = -2.49, p = .015, 95% CI [-0.14, -0.01], d = 0.408) showing that participants were more wtp for high monetary valueterm artworks and middle to high artistic valueterm artworks were more often chosen to be liked (see Fig 4 ). On the other hand, as expected (hypotheses 1.c), a paired t test revealed no significant change in choice behaviorterm for this group between likingterm vs. wtp for art ( t (60) = 0.00, p = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.05], d = 0.00), suggesting that participants might be more stable in choice behaviorterm between public and private settings when art-making expertsterm are observing.

For an additional analysis, we combined both conditions and defined the between-group factor audience typeterm·var and within-group factor public versus private as independent variables. The choice typesterm·var were then used as dependent variables in two separate analyses. The two-way mixed ANOVA showed that likingterm choices remained stable with no significant effect of any condition (see S2 Table in Supplementary Information). Wtp showed an interaction F (1, 121) = 4.95, p = .028, η 2 = .039 ( S3 Table in Supplementary Information), suggesting that being observed by art-making versus art-pricing expertsterm had opposing effects on payment choices. (See also Supplementary Information S3 , S4A , and S4B Figs for additional plots showing between subject variability overall separated between art-making and art-pricing groups and for individual variability between the two choice typesterm·var [for further reading, 94 , 95 ].

Eye-trackingterm results—Total number of fixationsterm and last fixationsterm as choice predictors We analyzed two eye-movement measures for our hypothesis 2.a- 2.b: total number of fixationsterm and last fixationsterm. To test our hypotheses 2.c-2.d, we combined the eye-trackingterm results with the behavioral choice data.

Descriptive statistics, that are all means and standard deviations of total number of fixationterm and last fixationterm over all 13 trials between the condition, are reported in S4 Table in the Supplementary Information. The results for the total number of fixationsterm showed that most participants looked mainly to the center of the screen and, thus, to the neutral position. Based on M s and SD s, the results do not give any indication of differences between the conditions for both the between-group as well as the within-group factors. We therefore could not accept our hypothesis 2.a.

Also, when analyzing change in gaze behavior (hypothesis 2.b) between the within-group conditions (public minus private), we found no significant effect in the total number of fixationsterm (see Table 2 ). However, the analysis of the last fixationterm over the 13 trials indicated an interesting effect in the art-making expertsterm’ group. Participants looked more often at high artistic valueterm artworks at the end of the trial (last fixationsterm; Table 2 and Fig 5 ; for changes in gaze behavior for total number of fixationsterm and last fixationterm in all conditions see S5 Fig in Supplementary Information) in the public condition. The difference to the private condition was marginally significant ( t (60) = 1.98, p = .05, 95% [-0.01, 1.15], d = 0.254).

Change in gaze behavior of the last fixationterm between the two audience conditions calculated as public minus private.

Change of fixations between public and private condition.

We tested hypotheses 2.c-2.d, by employing a linear regression to test if the most fixated-on image, and separately the last fixated image, could predict choices on a trial-by-trial basis (separately for likingterm and wtp). After fitting these four regressions models for each participant, we tested whether the distribution of fitted beta parameters was different from zero, indicating a significant relationship between eye-movements and choices. As can be seen in Table 3 , all linear regression parameters were significant, supporting our hypothesis 2.c, with a stronger effect in the total number of fixationsterm compared to last fixationterm.

Simple linear regression model for predicting likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp) choices.

Interestingly, the last fixationterm showed no difference between the two choice typesterm·var ( t (122) = 0.31, p = 0.761, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.04], d = 0.015). However, for the total number of fixationsterm, there was a difference between likingterm and wtp ( t (122) = -2.89, p = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.08, -0.02], d = 0.178), meaning that gaze behavior (number of fixations) predicted likingterm choices significantly better than wtp choices, supporting our hypothesis 2.d, that participants look most at what they like (being a more personal value decision); whereas they may choose a different artwork considering wtp choices.

Moreover, we analyzed the individually fitted beta values from the regression analysis above with a mixed ANOVA to see if there was an effect of audience typeterm·var (art-making vs. art-pricing) on the relationship between the fixation preferences and choices. Again, the total number of fixationsterm predicted likingterm choices much better than wtp; there was no effect of audience typeterm·var, nor an interaction. ( Table 4 ; reported means and standard deviations see S5 Table in Supplementary Information).

Mixed ANOVA using total amount of fixation (image participants mostly looked at) showing differences between audience typeterm·var and choice typeterm·var.

Neuroendocrinological results—Testosteroneterm and cortisolterm levels driving choice behaviorterm In an explorative analysis, we analyzed if individual differed in their choice behaviorterm when being observed by experts along hormonal differences indicating social reputational drives and stress. This was measured through levels of testosteroneterm and cortisolterm. We used the average testosteroneterm from the pre- and post-measurement as the levels did not change significantly and merging both values yielded a less noisy measure for the real baseline testosteroneterm of each person. For cortisolterm we used the change in cortisolterm level (i.e., cortisolterm post experiment measurement minus cortisolterm sample taken before the experiment). Both represent our neuroendocrinological factors.

A first analysis focused on the relationship between testosteroneterm and cortisol changeterm·var. A Pearson correlation ( r = -0.46, p = < .001; Spearman correlation r = -0.4, p = < .001) showed that higher testosteroneterm was negatively correlated with cortisol changeterm·var, meaning higher testosteroneterm predicted larger cortisolterm decrease. This supports the dual-hormone hypothesisterm (e.g., [ 75 – 77 ]). It also warrants that we proceeded with our analysis.

Based on the dual hormone hypothesisterm [ 75 – 77 ], we expected that participants with relatively high testosteroneterm, but decreased cortisolterm levels behave differently. To this end, we used the mean testosteroneterm levels and the change (usually decrease, see above) in cortisolterm levels, to cluster participants into two groups. Clustering was performed with a Gaussian mixture model (2 components, 10 initializations, full covariance), using the GaussianMixture function of the scikit-learn library [ 78 ]. This clustering resulted in two groups with distinct hormonal profiles ( Fig 6 ): Cluster 1 ( n = 30) had a mean testosteroneterm levels of 78.91 +/- 21.69 pg/ml and a cortisol changeterm·var of -0.36 +/- 0.64 nmol/l . Quite different, Cluster 2 ( n = 20) had a mean testosteroneterm level of 140.01 +/- 46.59 pg/ml and a cortisol changeterm·var of -3.53 +/- 2.55 nmol/l . Descriptive results are reported in Table 5 and presented in Fig 6 .

Clustering of groups respecting both association of testosteroneterm and cortisolterm interrelations.

Descriptive analysis means and standard deviations of likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp) choices for all conditions for both hormone clusters.

Next, this grouping was used to visualize the differences in choice making strategies for the within subject condition ( Fig 7A ). According to the descriptive statistics, Cluster 1 participants choose mostly high artistic valueterm artworks for both choice typesterm·var. Direction of value choice remained similar in the public condition. Choices made by participants belonging to Cluster 2 (participants with high testosteroneterm/high cortisolterm decrease levels) averaged their choices mostly around the middle artwork in the private condition. However, in the public condition, the two choice typesterm·var diverged with remaining likingterm choices for artworks higher of artistic valueterm between private and public; though participants were more wtp for high monetary artworks in the public condition compared to the private setting.

Descriptive statistics of choice behaviorterm along with both Clusters. (A) Choices between the within-subject condition private vs. public. (B) Within and between-group choice behaviorterm; for visibility, Cluster 2 is shifted slightly to the right along the x-axis for each condition.

Fig 7B presents the combination of both, the within- and the between-subject conditions. The results show that Cluster 1, while being watched by art-pricing expertsterm, had similar likingterm choices compared to the private condition. In addition, wtp choices changed from high artistic to high monetary valueterm artworks, while being watched by the art-pricing audience. Interestingly, Cluster 1 showed also stable likingterm choices also in the art-making expertterm condition. However, these participants were more wtp for high artistic valueterm artworks, while being watched by the art-making expertsterm, where in the private condition the choices were averaged in the middle.

Cluster 2 showed a potential influence of socio-cultural trained behavior (as discussed in the Introduction; see also Fig 2 ), especially in the art pricing expert group by choosing in the private condition along the following pattern: likingterm more high artistic valueterm artworks and wtp for high monetary artworks. This result was more pronounced in the public condition, where both choice typesterm·var diverged even stronger. Latter would suggest the first strategy we discussed in the Introduction. However, within the art-making audience group all choices were biased towards high monetary valueterm artworks, potentially following the second strategy and not complying with the audience believed value system. Since this division was based on a small sample size ( n = 50) considering neuroendocrinological measures, we do not compare the groups with inferential statistics, but only provide the descriptive statistics in Table 5 .

Results of motivational factors—Behavioral activationterm and anxiety scale as choice predictors In the subsequent analysis, we used the BIS Scale as well as the summed score of the BAS Drive and BAS Reward Response subscales. Latter BAS subscale has been reported as measure of trait dominance [ 79 ] and is in accordance with previous studies suggesting an association with testosteroneterm effects under stress influence [ 60 , 61 ] and respecting the dual-hormone-hypothesis [ 73 , 74 ]. Furthermore, the LSAS anxiety scale [ 83 – 85 ] was exploratively included. We conducted the following three analyses and included for all three analyses BIS, BAS (Drive + Fun), LSAS-anxiety, and between-group condition as predictors: (1) a linear regression analysis to predict the difference between likingterm and wtp choices. There was a significant effect for the BAS (Drive+Fun) Scaleterm·var ( B = 0.07, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.02,0.12], r2 = 0.08, t = 2.78, p <0.01) (for full results see S6 Table ). (2) a linear regression analysis to study the change in likingterm choices between public versus private decisions. None of the predictors were significant (see Table 6 ). (3) a linear regression analysis to study the change in wtp choices between public vs. private decisions (see Table 6 ). Again, the BAS (Drive+Fun) Scaleterm·var ( B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01,0.11], r2 = 0.10, t = 2.19, p <0.03) could predict wtp choices and there was also a significant relation with the between-group factor as reported before.

Linear regression model for predicting likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp) choices.

Discussion By implementing a novel paradigm, we studied how likingterm and willingness-to-payterm (wtp) choices differed when made within differing social contextsterm involving a private and a public setting—the latter suggesting to participants that they were being observed by one of two distinct art reputation audience groups (art-making or art-pricing expertsterm).

Behavioral results As expected, overall, participants liked high-artistic value artworks more and were more often wtp for high monetary artworks. The results are in accordance with our denotation made in the Introduction (see also Fig 2 Stage I-II), that such art choices are guided by socio-cultural learned associations (see [ 8 , 12 – 16 , 30 ], see also [ 96 ]). Interestingly, likingterm choices were less influenced than wtp choices in all conditions (within-group factor private vs. public; between-group art-making/art-pricing audience) leading to the result (hypothesis 1.a) that there was no detectible change in choice behaviorterm when the art-making expertsterm were watching. Hence, likingterm appears to be a more stable—and most likely due to its personal connotation—individual-centered parameter of choice preferences, supporting many studies made in art research [ 7 , 8 , see for review 10, see also 29 , 43 – 48 ]. The influence of art-pricing expertsterm and monetary issues, however, triggered participants to choose more often art high in monetary valueterm in the public context (hypothesis 1.b), following our suggestion that monetary aspects may have a more direct connection to social reputationterm factors. We would also note that participants followed the direction of our suggested socio-culturally learned behavior ([ 11 – 22 , 37 ], learned associations with values and audience representatives) and that our study population (artistical laymen) were prone to the opinions or believed value-system of the experts, as past studies reported [ 9 , 16 , 25 , 30 , 46 – 48 ]. This is also visible in the slight aversion to the neutral position ( S1A and S1B Fig in Supplementary Information). This, however, should be further investigated and leads to one interesting implication, also regarding the social reputationterm framework, to test this study also with art experts compared to laymen.

Hypothesis 1.c. was also supported, showing that choices remained unchanged if the audience did not match the choice variable (or believed value system). This means if the audience were art-pricing expertsterm likingterm did not change from private to public, and the wtp remained stable regardless of the existence of art-making expertsterm. We therefore accept our main hypotheses that social reputationterm had an influence on both choice typesterm·var according to associated audience and values, where the values had a stronger influence than the audience. However, also here we found in choice behaviorterm considering monetary aspects changes due to audience influence.

Eye-trackingterm results To summarize our general, choice-independent eye-movement analyses: we did not find increased fixations in the public condition compared to private, thus hypothesis 2.a was not confirmed. Regarding change in fixations between the public versus private conditions, we only found a marginally significant effect with last-fixations focusing on more artistic valueterm artworks within the art-making audience group. Even though it was only a marginally significant effect, it is interesting for future studies that artistic observers motivate people to especially look in the end to high artistic valueterm art, considering a potential impact of context influences to initiate further in-depth evaluation of the artwork [e.g., 13 – 17 , 37 ].

One key potential issue here is that participants appeared to mainly look at the center. This was presumably due to our study design, where first the fixation cross was presented in the center and then the middle image was seen at the same position after the fixation cross (landing position, see for further reading [ 80 , 97 – 100 ]). Likewise, the images of the artworks were oriented horizontally, to the extent that many fixations were probably performed over the center to one side or the other. However, since our study was particularly focused on fixation behavior in terms of quantity of fixations in general, and especially in terms of predicting choice behaviorterm, the effect of position in terms of eye movements was not too relevant to the results. The effect of position with respect to the made choices is therefore unlikely because both paintings were randomly positioned between participants and the participants selected the artworks in a relatively evenly distributed manner (equal probability with respect to position, see S1A and S1B Fig in Supplementary Information).

In a next step, we focused our analysis on how fixations relate to artwork choices (see [ 62 – 67 ]). Furthermore, the temporal specification was interesting, because, besides the total number of fixationsterm as a predictor for choice behaviorterm, we expected fixations to shift towards especially the most liked artworks at the end of the presentation period [ 66 – 67 , see also 80 ]. Our results showed that the total number of fixationsterm per trial predicted choice behaviorterm (hypothesis 2.c). That is, the artwork that they looked at most often was chosen in the end. This result was highly significant and delivers a bases for future research to use this implicit measure as indicator for choice-behavior. We also found that the last fixationterm predicted choice behaviorterm. However, this result was not as pronounced as the total number of fixationsterm.

Regarding differences in likingterm and wtp choices and fixations (hypothesis 2.d), we tested the assumption that personal likingterm would be more strongly associated with gaze behavior than wtp choices. We did find this general pattern: eye movement fixations had a significantly stronger relationship with likingterm compared to wtp choices, especially in the public-condition. Interestingly, the effect seemed to be stronger when one assumed to be observed by art-pricing expertsterm; however, the difference between the two audience was not significant. This result is of particular interest for future studies investigating eye-movements for the two choice typesterm·var separately (which we could not dissociate in our study as choices were taken consecutively, see limitations below).

Neuroendocrinological results The explorative results for the hormonal analysis revealed the following overall results: participants from Cluster 1 (average testosteroneterm/cortisol changeterm·var) showed in general converging choice behaviorterm, except when art-pricing expertsterm were observing in the public condition. Cluster 2 (participants with high testosteroneterm/high cortisolterm decrease levels), on the contrary, appeared to follow socio-cultural learned behavior ([ 8 , 10 – 17 , 22 – 24 ], see also Fig 2 ), especially when art pricing expertsterm were assumed to be watching, with diverging results of the two choice typesterm·var, which was strengthened in the public condition (see also for public choice behaviorterm, [ 30 , 52 , 58 , 59 ]). In the art-making audience group, however, choice behaviorterm appeared to converge in general, with an overall tendency to choose more high monetary valueterm artworks.

Overall, we could observe that neuroendocrinological data was more associated with monetary issues respecting both monetary valueterm and art pricing expertsterm. This raises some interesting implications, namely that testosteroneterm/cortisolterm—as shown in previous studies addressing economic issues (e.g., [ 58 – 60 , 70 , 71 ])—are susceptible to ownership and the monetary reputational potential of art. Choices of likingterm or personal appreciation, however, might be related to possibly other hormonal or neurotransmitter functioning, where further research is necessary to investigate this aspect (see for discussion [ 82 ]).

Motivational factors results We included the scales measuring motivational factors as proxy measures for the neuroendocrinological measures, as the above did not include the female participants resulting in a rather small sample. Especially relevant were the BAS-scales [ 60 , 61 , 79 ] results, which showed significant results in differences in likingterm and wtp choices (see also [ 65 , 78 , 83 ]), and thus seems promising for future research. Interestingly, likingterm choices could not be predicted by this scale, which hints again to the idea that personal likingterm appears to be differently influenced than monetary issues—or wtp—depending on the given context [ 8 – 10 , 18 – 26 , 30 , 31 , 46 – 48 ]. Hence, we found a positive association with the BAS scale, which could explain 10% variance of the wtp choices. This aligns with former research showing that monetary valuesterm are strongly triggered by reputational status-seeking behavior [ 58 – 61 , 70 , 71 ]. We further did not find any differences between the private versus public condition, suggesting that high reputation seeking participants might show similar personality-trait influence in both conditions.

Last, we did not find any association with both the behavioral inhibition scale [ 79 ] and the LSAS [ 83 ]. We can only assume that anxiety or inhibition behavior might lead to a translated form of flight or fight behavior, where choice behaviorterm becomes rather irrational or that in some cases participants confirmed, in some cases they took an opposing position, explaining the found non-association. However, interpretation remains difficult. Further in-depth research, also in combination with stress-levels, would be needed. Latter would also go in line with former research associating the LSAS with cortisolterm response during social avoidance behavior [ 84 , 85 ].

Limitations, emphasis, and final conclusion Unquestionably, new study designs come also with caveats and often new questions for future research. One major limitation of the study-design, for the behavioral results, was that the two dependent variables—likingterm and wtp—were asked consecutively, potentially causing some interdependencies. For a follow-up replication study, the choices could be asked separately, maybe even at two different time points. This issue may explain the small effect size of the main effect between the two choice typesterm·var, likingterm and wtp. As we asked the two choice typesterm·var consecutively after the viewing session (and the eye-trackingterm recording) we were also not able to analyze the eye-trackingterm patterns separately for the two choice typesterm·var. Again, separating the trials could systematically disentangle eye-movements between the two choice typesterm·var, which should be adapted in future, but also in replication studies. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that all subjects accepted the definition of artistic quality that was specified in the instructions (see description S1 File for German and S2 File for English in the Supplementary Information). In contrast to monetary valuesterm, the definition of artistic valueterm has always held a certain individual freedom in regard to meaning [ 38 – 40 , 94 , 101 ]. Nevertheless, we tried to reduce potential confounding as much as possible through the descriptions, and participants did not express any confusion about the meaning of artistic valueterm in this study context.

Considering stimuli level, despite the careful selection of stimulus triplets, we cannot exclude that low-level visual features in the artworks may have partially influenced choice behaviorterm. However, based on the study by Massaro and colleagues [ 87 , see also 88 ], this study also discussed the stronger top-down influence of social-cultural learning on decision-making and gaze behavior compared to bottom-up driven low-level feature influence. Nonetheless, further studies dissociating the aspects between weight on rather bottom-up objective features and top-down social-cultural influences would be an exciting direction of study [see also 88 , 102 – 110 ].

The time intervals of the neuroendocrinological measures between pre- and post-measurements were sometimes relatively long (depending on how much time participants took to make their choices). Thus, the stress levels of some of the participants could have decreased already due to natural hormone-level regulation [ 58 , 73 ]. Future studies might focus especially on the temporal issues involved. This also leads to some further implications for our study design: although nearly all participants stated after the study during the clarification that they were believing the cover story and life camera, still, our design could benefit from a more stressful public context (e.g., real in-person presence of the observers).

However, as our results showed very promising implications using neuroendocrinological measures for art research, we suggest dedicating own studies to this intriguing measure also in the field of art research with a larger number of subjects and sampling. For example, as we could find that social reputationterm influenced choice behaviorterm, future intervention studies with testosteroneterm administration—triggering heightened reputation-seeking behavior—could investigate more precisely whether choice behaviorterm changes only along monetary issues or with wtp choices; but likingterm, as factor of personal appreciation, might be less influenced by the social contextterm and relations. However, this leaves an open question to what neuroendocrinological measure could potentially be the driving factor for likingterm and artistic preferences (e.g., a promising candidate could be dopamine; see for discussion [ 81 , 82 ]).

Furthermore, for art and aesthetic research as well as social psychological studies, using prestigious objects as stimuli, investigations should focus more on social mechanisms and how they lead to behavioral change. Hence, we would like to emphasize that interactions between the private self and self-image, and within a particular social contextterm (social selfterm), are influenced by social reputationterm, beyond other social factors, and in consequence can modify choices, judgments, and ratings for all kinds of precious cultural goods (see [ 2 – 5 , 10 , 34 ]); precious cultural goods that are valued most likely due to human’s intrinsic sense of aesthetic sensitivityterm [ 38 – 40 ]. In this sense addressing artworks with values coordinating our choices within private and public contexts might intuitively appear not surprising, though has never been studied empirically before considering the entangled values surrounding aesthetic commodities. Herein, artworks appear to have an interesting position due to their cultural heritage as purchasable goods but also as ‘only hangings’ in museums; much different then aesthetic designs products like for example stylish cars [ 88 ]. Hence, with artworks, choices such as likingterm and willingness-to-payterm as wish for ownership conceal other complex patterns of interrelationships between values, social reputational frame, and the two choice typesterm·var, which, as Berridge and colleagues [ 23 , 24 ] noted, require much further investigation. Our study presents one of the first empirical steps for such investigations and hereby also merging social economic and art research aspects.

That said, via a newly developed paradigm in art research, our study demonstrated the advantages of implicit measurements and multi-method procedures in art research considering aspects of social influence. The combination of the measurements reveals a deeper understanding and a more precise interpretation of cognitive and affective processes, which are often not visible in studies measuring valuationsterm only. Furthermore, we were able to gain insights into art evaluation processes suggesting that interactions with art objects are a reciprocal dynamical process, where choices represent a complex interplay between the specific environment, its socio-cultural value systems, and the self-selecting person.

Supporting information A. Descriptive analysis of position and value position. The dashed horizontal lines show chance (1/3≈33.3%) choice. Error-bars represent 2 standard errors of the mean. A. Effect shows the average choice percentage for the three locations (x-axis) separated by choice typeterm·var (see legend). B. Descriptive analysis of position and value position. The dashed horizontal lines show chance (1/3≈33.3%) choice. Error-bars represent 2 standard errors of the mean. B Effect shows the average choice percentage for the three stimulus types (x-axis) separated by choice typeterm·var (see legend).

(TIF) Click here for additional data file.

(TIF) Click here for additional data file.

Each dot represents the average preference for stimulus type (y-axis) for a participant for likingterm and willingness-to-payterm choices (x-axis).

(TIF) Click here for additional data file.

A. Between subject variability reported for both choice typesterm·var. Gray lines connect dots within participants. The dashed line shows the—on average—neutral choice. A. Art-making group. B. Between subject variability reported for both choice typesterm·var. Gray lines connect dots within participants. The dashed line shows the—on average—neutral choice. B. Art-pricing group.

(TIF) Click here for additional data file.

Left: Total number of fixationsterm and last fixationsterm in the different conditions. Right: Change in gaze behavior between the two audience conditions calculated as public minus private. Upper figures show results for total number of fixationsterm. Figures below for last fixationsterm.

(TIF) Click here for additional data file.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

Independent variable between-participant factor audience typeterm·var and within-participant factor public vs. private. Dependent variable choice typeterm·var likingterm.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

Independent variable between-participant factor audience typeterm·var and within-participant factor public vs. private. Dependent variable choice typeterm·var willingness-to-payterm.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

Included predictors were BIS, BAS (Drive + Fun), LSAS-anxiety, and between-participant condition.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.

(PDF) Click here for additional data file.