Many studies over a period of more than a century have investigated the influence of the golden ratio on perceived geometric beauty. Surprisingly, very few of these studies used triangular shapes. In Experiment 1, we presented right triangles that differed in regard to their elongation determined by increasing the length of one side relative to another. Attractiveness ratings did not peak at the golden ratio, but there was a very strong influence of axis ratio overall. Participant ratings were a negative decreasing function of ratio. Triangles that pointed upward were judged as significantly more attractive than those that pointed down. We interpret these results according to a compactness hypothesis: triangles that are more compact are less likely to move or break and are thus considered more pleasing. Orientation also affects aesthetics. Upward-pointing triangles with a base parallel to the ground, regardless of their compactness, are also considered more perceptually stable and attractive. These findings were replicated across stimulus type in a second experiment with isosceles triangles and across testing procedure in a third experiment using a paired comparison technique.
AustinT RSleightR B, 1951“Aesthetic preference for isosceles triangles”Journal of Applied Psychology35430–430
2.
BenjafieldJMcFarlaneK, 1997“Preference for proportions as a function of context”Empirical Studies of the Arts15143–143
3.
BenjafieldJ, 1976“The golden rectangle–some new data”The American Journal of Psychology89737–737 doi:10.2307/1421471
4.
BerlyneD E, 1970“The golden section and hedonic judgments of rectangles: a cross-cultural study”Sciences de l'Art–Scientific AestheticsVII1–6
5.
BoselieF, 1984“Complex and simple proportions and the aesthetic attractivity of visual patterns”Perception1391–91 doi:10.1068/p130091
6.
BoselieF, 1992“The golden section has no special aesthetic attractivity”Empirical Studies of the Arts101–1 doi:10.2190/QB14-NK7B-ARYT-W5QT
7.
BoselieF, 1997“The golden section and the shape of objects”Empirical Studies of the Arts15131–131 doi:10.2190/42P6-W58D-E9VG-1N0V
8.
CuttingJ E, 2003“Gustav Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and mere exposure”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review10319–343
9.
DavisS TJahnkeJ C, 1991“Unity and the golden section: rules for aesthetic choice?”The American Journal of Psychology104257–257 doi:10.2307/1423158
10.
FeaseyL L, 1921“Some experiments on aesthetics”British Journal of Psychology12253–253
11.
FechnerG T, 1876Vorschule der Aesthetic (Berlin: Breitkopf & Härtel)
12.
FlemingRSinghM, 2010“Three dimensional shape and the perception of physical stability”Journal of Vision947–47 doi:10.1167/9.8.47
13.
GodkewitschM, 1974“The ‘golden section’: an artifact of stimulus range and measure of preference”The American Journal of Psychology87269–269 doi:10.2307/1422021
14.
GordonK, 1929“A criticism of two of Kant's criteria of the aesthetic”, in Essays in Honor of John Dewey (New York: Holt)
15.
GrahamD JFriedenbergJ DRockmoreD NFieldD J, 2010“Mapping the similarity space of paintings: image statistics and visual perception”Visual Cognition18559–559 doi:10.1080/135062809-02934454
16.
HofelLJacobsenT, 2007“Electrophysiological indices of processing aesthetics: spontaneous or intentional processes?”International Journal of Psychophysiology6520–20 doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.02.007
17.
HogeH, 1995“Fechner's experimental aesthetics and the golden section hypothesis today”Empirical Studies of the Arts13131–131
LefebvreV, 1992“A rational equation for attractive proportions”Journal of Mathematical Psychology36100–100 doi:10.1016/0022-2496(92)90054-B
20.
LivioM, 2003The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number (New York: Broadway Publishing)
21.
McManusI C, 1980“The aesthetics of simple figures”British Journal of Psychology71505–505 doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb01763.x
22.
McManusI CWeatherbyP, 1997“The golden section and the aesthetics of form and composition: a cognitive model”Empirical Studies of the Arts15209–209
23.
McManusI CCookR, 2010“Beyond the golden section and normative aesthetics: why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preference for rectangles?”Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts4113–113 doi:10.1037/a0017316
24.
NavonD, 2011“The sisters of the golden section”Perception40705–705 doi:10.1068/p6842
25.
PalmerS EGardnerJ SWickensT T, 2008“Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: effects of position and direction on framing single objects”Spatial Vision21421–421 doi:10.1163/15685680878453-2662
26.
PiehlJ, 1976“The golden section: an artifact of stimulus range and demand characteristics”Perceptual and Motor Skills4347–47 doi:10.2466/pms.1976.43.1.47
27.
PiehlJ, 1978“The golden section: the true ratio?”Perceptual and Motor Skills46831–831 doi:10.2466/pms.1978.46.3.831
28.
PierceE, 1984“Aesthetics of simple forms”Psychological Review1483–483
29.
PlugC, 1980“The golden section hypothesis”The American Journal of Psychology93467–467 doi:10.2307/1422725
30.
PodgornyPShepardR N, 1983“Distribution of visual attention over space”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance9380–380 doi:10.1037/0096-1523.9.3.380
31.
RussellP A, 2000“Testing the aesthetic significance of the golden-section rectangle”Perception291413–1413 doi:10.1068/p3037
32.
ShortessG KClarkeJ CShannonI, 1997“The shape of things: but not the golden section”Empirical Studies of the Arts15165–165
33.
StewartI, 1996“Tales of a neglected number”Scientific American274102–102
34.
StewardI, 2007Why Beauty is Truth: The History of Symmetry (New York: Basic Books)
35.
YagiYIkomaSKikuchiT, 2009“Attentional modulation of the mere exposure effect”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition351403–1403 doi:10.1037/a0017396