This study investigated the need for uniqueness, visual aesthetic sensitivity, and their correlation. To investigate these variables, we asked 71 participants to complete the German adaptation of the Need for Uniqueness scale (NfU-G) and the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST)—including the VAST-Revised (VAST-R). The NfU-G measures the need to set oneself apart from others, whereas the VAST(-R) tests the ability to identify the objective aesthetic goodness of a figural composition. The findings of this study are significantly compliant with theoretical considerations: the higher a participant scores on the NfU-G scale, the lower the percentage of correctly identified drawings on the VAST(-R), with the VAST being a stronger predictor than the VAST-R. Thus, the results suggest that participants who strive for individuality exhibit lower visual aesthetic sensitivity since they tend to violate norms in order to assert their uniqueness. Limitations regarding this outcome are discussed.

Natural occurrences and the choice of specific materials have a major impact on the experience of the physical environment. The results of a recent study using a free listing task involving only adjectives suggested that the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials is structured by sensorial, neutrally valenced, descriptive terms, while showing no primacy of beauty. The present article examined the conceptual structure underlying the aesthetic experience of various materials using a different methodological approach. Applying a technique based upon semantic differentials, individuals in the present study (n = 272) were asked to judge the applicability of the most frequently listed terms in the previous study to the aesthetics of different materials. Overall, the results of multiple analyses yielded a converging picture for the two studies. Additionally, as materials constitute the basis of complete entities, the role of products in the conceptual representation of the aesthetics of materials was investigated with an exploratory approach. No support was found for the hypothesis that products play such a role. Finally, limitations regarding the outcome of the present study are discussed. All things considered, the results of this study highlight the uniqueness of the aesthetics of materials and its distinctness from the conceptual representations underlying most other aesthetic domains.

The present study’s aim was to examine whether interindividual differences in levels of expertise influence the aesthetic processing of materials. In particular, we elucidated experts’ conceptual structure of the aesthetics of different materials using a free list task and compared it to recent non-expert data. To this end, we asked 401 architects, designers, and interior designers to list adjectives that could be used to describe the aesthetics of materials. The experts listed a large number of sensorial as well as aesthetically evaluative terms. As measured in a supplementary study, a slight majority of the listed terms had a neutral valence, followed by a large proportion of positive terms. The term beautiful, frequently the preeminent term in aesthetics, was by no means one of the most relevant terms in both studies. The results suggest that the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials is multifaceted and expressive, and, to some extent, influenced by expertise. Furthermore, the findings indicate that concepts underlying materials aesthetics differ from other domains.