1. Introduction
To take care of their needs, humans have always tried to change their surroundings or build new things using the materials and tools they have had at their disposal. To this end, the ideas and the forms of these man-made devices have not only been governed by the forces in their environment but also by their personalities as one of the determiners of their minds’ functions. Personality shows why individuals are the way they are, how and why they are different from each other, and how they experience different behaviors regarding various biological processes of the brain (DeYoung & Gray, 2009). Nostro et al. (2017) claimed no notable relationship between personality traits and grey matter volume in the general population. On the other hand, when the population is split by gender, significant correlations are found in males but not in females. For example, positive correlations are reported between extraversion and grey matter volume of the bilateral precuneus and parieto-occipital sulcus, bilateral thalamus, and left mid-bilateral fusiform gyrus extending into the cerebellum and right cerebellum.
Therefore, personality and its related theories should not only be limited to a particular domain of information processing but must also be considered in affection, cognition, and behavior. Moreover, how these various areas interact and influence one’s mind’s functions must also be considered (Gray, 2004; Gray et al., 2002). Consequently, it can be stated that humans manifest their minds’ function in their surroundings as objects. In addition, the forming of their surroundings or selection of patterns and preferences are influenced by what is in their minds. The function of people’s minds determines how they feel about their environment (affection), how they have got to know it and assess it (cognition), what kind of relationship they have established with it (relationship), and how they react to it or interact with it (behavior). In architecture, each individual, with different personality traits, could have a different attitude on how to uses materials, such as wood, in building or selecting a place as residence. These diversities exist because the type of affection (fear, excitement, and dependence on wood and its components such as the color and the texture), cognition (possible functions and usages for the wood), and relationship that a person has established with this material (subjective or non-subjective entity) are different from person to person. 
As a result, it could be assumed that these differences have affected the way an individual uses and utilizes these materials and creates products and spaces with specific attributes (for example, the creation of an innovative and abstract model from wood or preserving the organic structure and the texture of the wood in the final product). Therefore, it is generally expected that people with different personalities adopt different patterns or make different decisions regarding avoiding or approaching an environment. Clarifying this relationship in the past often took place using either deductive paradigms or deterministic approaches in philosophy, geography, and medicine (Little, 1987). However, in the past few decades, the main issue has been finding a relationship between the predictors, the components of human personality, and the components of the preferred surroundings. For instance, what forms and environmental attributes does a novelty-seeking individual with high affection and low cognition who is non-subjective in his relationship with his environment and has a high level of impulsivity (Cloninger & Svrakic, 2016) prefer or like? It seems that proving this relationship and determining its dimensions is not straightforward (Swami & Furnham, 2014; Lang, 1987; Mikellides, 1980) and faces scientific and methodological complexities.
The most essential issue of the research is predicting the architectural preferences and the related factors based on the personality structures of humanity that can have comprehensive effects on their behavior, mental health, and well-being. Therefore, in the first phase, a review of the methods to achieve a conceptual model in studying the relationship between personality and architectural preferences is considered. This study includes the results of the review of the methods and describes the selected model for research.

2. Materials and Methods
Over 100 papers and several PhD dissertations on the preferences and environmental aesthetics were compiled to carry out this study. An extensive literature search was carried out employing the Google Scholar database. The following key terms associated with aesthetic preferences were searched: “Visual aesthetics,” “personality traits,” “architectural preferences,” “art preferences,” and “aesthetic judgments.” Web of Science was used to check the quality of the published literature. The only journals included in the review process were those published in English. These studies were first categorized into four groups based on their methodological approaches and then assessed briefly concerning their degree of success and generalizability. Finally, due to having lower implementation limitations and a higher theoretical background, the group containing the psychological responses was structurally analyzed from the methodological and practical aspects to develop a conceptual model for future research.

3. An Overview of the Research Methodologies on the Relationship Between the Personality and the Environmental Aesthetics
In an overall approach proportionate to the responses received in facing the environmental stimuli from the participants in the reviewed research, all of the studies could be categorized and even predicted in four groups of physiological, neurobiological, practical, and psychological responses.

Physiological research
Part of the research on the relationship between personality and environmental preferences leads to receiving physiological responses and or activities when facing stimuli and various situations. Therefore, a series of experiments have been conducted in which the researcher controls the conditions, and an individual is exposed to environmental stimuli (light, noise, photo, etc.). Then, the person’s level of arousal to each stimulus is measured based on the physiological changes that the body undergoes. Utilizing different methods in personality psychology in a comprehensive domain study, the biological basis of personality has been studied, and the results have been categorized based on genetic, psychophysical, biochemical, neuropsychological, and neurobiological aspects (Strelau, 2006; Zuckerman, 2005). Psychophysiological studies are part of the research to identify the causal relationship between personality traits and the body’s physiological parameters. Blood pressure, pulse, heart rate, cardiovascular activity, eye-blink activity, electromyography, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, electrodermal activity or galvanic skin response, and eye-tracking are just a few of these physiological parameters. Up to a certain limit, measurements of these parameters are influenced by the individual personality characteristics of each person. This factor leads to different unconscious physiological responses displayed by different individuals when exposed to the same environmental stimuli. For instance, in the psychophysiology of extraversion (De Pascalis, 2004), the studies show that where electrodermal activity is used as an indicator for orienting reflex, the orienting reaction expressed in the amplitude of electrodermal activity is lower for the extraverted individuals. Moreover, along with the habituation of an individual to novel stimuli, this parameter is lowered. This decline in the parameters takes place for the extroverted individuals faster than the introverted ones (Stelmack & Geen, 1992; Eysenck, 1990; Stelmack, 1990, 1981; O’Gorman, 1977).
Even though physiological research is mainly designed to answer questions in the field of psychology, it could be used in research that focuses on the aesthetic experiences of art and architecture (Krupinski & Locher, 1988; Locher & Nodine, 1987; Berlyne et al., 1963). Overall, this group of research suffers from numerous executory limitations. For instance, medical illnesses, environmental situations, and psychological and physical conditions of the participants during the administration of these tests affect the results. Moreover, simple variables and stimuli are required to carry out the tests.

Neurobiological research
Another group of the analyzed research, called neuroaesthetics, deals with the neurobiological mechanisms of the participants when facing environmental stimuli and aesthetic experiences. Neuroscientific investigations have approached this area using imaging and neurophysiological techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance (fMRI), magnetoencephalography, electroencephalography, and positron emission tomography (Cinzia & Vittorio, 2009). In this newly established field, observing the brain and neurobiological functions in aesthetic experiences has revealed numerous interesting findings (e.g. Coburn et al., 2017; Vartanian et al., 2015; Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014; Vartanian et al., 2013; Cinzia & Vittorio, 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2006). These findings also led to a better understanding of how aesthetic perception is done and which areas of the brain are involved in processing different aspects of visual experiences. A meta-analysis study done by Skov (2009) suggests that diffuse regions of the brain, such as the posterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and occipital lobes, are involved when it comes to analyzing a picture or painting (Vartanian & Skov, 2014; Kirk et al., 2009). Another meta-analysis commissioned by Boccia et al. (2016) reveals that 27 brain regions are linked to aesthetic perception. In this study, it is also recommended that different visual stimulants can stimulate distinct brain areas. For instance, the fusiform area is mostly activated when eyes focus on a portrait picture, whereas the parahippocampal gyrus is mostly responsible for the visual processing of natural landscapes. Vartanian et al. (2015) studied the effect of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on aesthetic judgment and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. In this study, fMRI was used to look for the nerve-related mechanisms in the brain. This research shows that “the rooms with higher ceilings are perceived as more beautiful, and the activated structures involved in visuospatial exploration and attention are located in the dorsal stream.” In addition, it was found that “open rooms are perceived as more beautiful and activated structures that underlie perceived visual motion. Furthermore, the enclosed rooms were found to elicit exit decisions more likely and activated the anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC) — the region within the cingulate gyrus with direct projections from the amygdala.” Another related study, which investigated the impact of contour in architecture, reports that the participants are more likely to judge spaces as beautiful if they are curvilinear rather than rectilinear. Neuroanatomically, when contemplating beauty, curvilinear contour activates the anterior cingulate cortex, a region strongly responsive to the reward properties and emotional salience of objects, exclusively” (Vartanian et al., 2013).
Due to the complexity of the subject and the dynamic influences of the personality on various parts of the brain, no outstanding research has been carried out to understand the relationship between the personality and the preferred environment. However, the research in this field could clarify some related facts. Overall, before starting a study in neuroaesthetics and using the customary test, the researcher should establish strong theories by utilizing the required psychological tests. These theories related to personality and environmental preferences do not benefit from a clear-cut form.

Practical research
In the third category of research studies, the practical or action research, the participants are asked to take part in a practical test. This test could be designing a house, deciding the arrangement of the furniture, coloring an object, or any other activity proportionate to the subject of the research (Matthews et al., 2010; Rosenbloom, 2006; Osborn, 1988; Duffy et al., 1986). Ultimately, some results could be obtained by assessing each person’s actions in relation to his/her personality traits. For example, to examine the relationship between color preferences and sensation seeking, some students were asked to color the human figure’s clothing using paints (Rosenbloom, 2006). The results suggest that sensation seekers prefer to make more complex images and choose red (as a hot and arousing color). In another study, Matthews et al. (2010) reported the relationships between the Myers-Briggs type indicator and three-dimensional form in design choices (design form decisions, ordering principles, and pattern languages). In this study, 91 interior design students were asked to design a personal home environment. Significant differences were found to have occurred between design choices among all personality types.
Moreover, practical research can be done differently by making a checklist and observing an individual’s living environment, designed and arranged based on his/her interests and attitudes. This is one way to go about predicting the personality (Meagher, 2016; Graham et al., 2011; Gosling et al., 2005; Gosling et al., 2002; McElroy et al., 1983). The selection of an action research approach always faces limitations in the execution and assessment of the relationships. In this research group, the participants must have certain skills to perform the practical activity (i.e. designing a house). The skill requirement criterion automatically prevents many members of society from participating in such studies. In addition, the participants’ worlds of life and professional experiences influence the study, and the action research approach cannot be controlled.

Psychological research
Psychological research is the most common and diverse type used to understand and clarify the relationship between personality and environmental preferences. This research benefits from a long history in environmental, aesthetic studies (Swami & Furnham, 2014). In such research, the environmental stimuli are introduced via various tactics, followed by gathering the participants’ psychological responses and analyzing them. The findings of this group of research studies are not focused (Nadal, 2007); some researchers have obtained significant results (e.g. Jankowski et al., 2018; Swami & Furnham, 2012; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2009; Feist & Brady, 2004; Rawlings, 2003; Furnham & Walker, 2001a, Furnham & Walker 2001b; Furnham & Avison, 1997; Furnham & Bunyan, 1988); whereas some others have not been able to get any significant results (e.g. Pietras & Czernecka, 2018; Palmer & Griscom, 2013; McManus et al., 2010; Griscom & Palmer, 2010; Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Zuckerman et al., 1993). This lack of focus could be seen in visual preferences in most architectural studies (e.g. Cleridou & Furnham, 2014; Dębek & Janda-Dębek, 2012; Cook & Furnham, 2012; Ibrahim et al., 2002; Stamps & Nasar, 1997) as an art with a multisensory nature. Generally, the findings of the studies on the relationship between personality and aesthetic preferences are too scattered and have not been verified, especially in architectural preferences. To be more precise, when the research variables are personality and architecture, the results of the decisions and selections of the individuals become more unpredictable than ever. However, the question arises as to which one of these four research categories, with its executory shortcomings and the existing theories, is more suitable for use in architecture. As a result of having stronger theoretical foundations, more focused research, and ease of execution, psychological research seems more feasible when dealing with architecture, and one could use a fresh perspective to create some structural and technical changes. To this end, the studies with psychological responses are chosen for further analysis.

4. The Systematic Quadruple Model of Aesthetic Responses
Any systematic research designed and carried out in environmental aesthetics should utilize certain variables in a coordinated format to get the responses. These variables manifest themselves in three aspects: Environment and environmental stimuli, the person exposed to them, and the situation. Thus, a quadruple conceptual model is obtained that consists of the following components: The aesthetic variable and the environmental stimulus, the variables or the human characteristics associated with the participants in the study, the contexts and the situations in which the test is administered, and ‘the responses (Figure 1).

Even though this model has been recommended in studying musical preferences (Hargreaves et al., 2012), the research structures and processes point to this model’s generalizability to all four environmental aesthetics studies. This model assumes that the factors associated with all three broad variables interact with the other two variables. Therefore, all of the three variables and their factors interact to give rise to a response. In addition, the systematic quadruple model can be used as a framework for organizing numerous research studies on aesthetic preferences. A prime example is using a similar model by some researchers in organizing studies in neuroaesthetics (Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014) and neuroaesthetics in architecture (Coburn et al., 2017). Respectively, they have reviewed the studies based on a triad model in which the three variables of environmental stimuli, personal characteristics, and situation, and responses are considered in relation to the brain and the nervous system. According to this model, three large-scale systems generate aesthetic experiences: Sensory-motor, knowledge-meaning, and emotion-valuation systems. The sensory-motor scale focuses on the visual and non-visual stimuli or navigation through the built spaces; it also examines how the sensory and motor systems get involved in different brain parts. Personal experiences, education, culture, and the context in which objects are encountered and appraised are considered in the knowledge-meaning scale. The emotion-valuation scale concentrates on the aesthetic responses from the affective and cognitive aspects engaged by the environmental stimuli and the brain mechanisms associated with them (Coburn et al., 2017; Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014; Leder et al., 2004).

5. Quadruple Model and the Structure of the Psychological Research
According to the introduced model in environmental aesthetics, 4 separate stages should be completed to carry out research with psychological responses. This could be done by placing participants in a certain context and situation and exposing them to pre-measured environmental stimuli. The final stage is gathering and analyzing their cognitive, affective, and perceptual responses.

Environmental stimulus
In the first stage, selecting a few aesthetic variables and preparing the photos or other visual stimuli for displaying in the questionnaire is necessary. Thus, in reality, the first stage can be summarized in three steps: Selection of the environmental attributes/aesthetic variables, selection and measurement of environmental stimuli, and the mode of presentation in the questionnaire (Nasar, 2008).

Selection of the environmental attributes/aesthetic variables
The selection of aesthetic variables is based on the theoretical foundation of the research and the research questions and is carried out using various approaches (e.g. Gifford et al., 2000; Nasar, 1994). One examines the formal aesthetic variables. The second approach considers more abstract variables than the formal ones mentioned. In the third approach, the type and the style of the building or an art piece are considered the symbolic aesthetic variables (Table 1).



Selection and measurement of the stimuli for the test
After the aesthetic variable is determined, in the second step, the selection of the stimuli to be used in the test, the rating and coding of the stimuli, and the determination of the sample size are considered. The test stimuli can be selected using the following formats: Graphic representation (Madani Nejad, 2007; Heath et al., 2000; Imamoglu, 2000), oral description, black and white, and color photos (Nasar & Devlin, 2006; Nasar & Kang, 1999; Stamps & Nasar, 1997; Devlin & Nasar, 1989; Shafer & Richards, 1973), video (Zhang et al., 2006; Nasar 1984), virtual reality, or being exposed to the actual context or the real-life situation (Meyers-Levy & Zhu, 2007). The selection of each format benefits from certain strengths and weaknesses in the way they measure, rate, and control the experiment setting, as well as the degree of realism (Nasar, 2008; Taylor et al., 1987). Moreover, the selection creates different capabilities concerning the number of participants. In the rating phase, a few judges use the Likert scale to measure the test stimuli based on the aesthetic variables and the factors related to them. The rating could occur based on various policies concerning the level of the judges’ expertise or whether they are rating stimuli individually or in a panel format. However, a study may not have a rating phase, and the researcher may use software to create a different spectrum of environmental stimuli to eliminate possible errors (Dębek & Janda-Dębek, 2012; Madani Nejad, 2007). Regardless of the researcher’s choice, the second step’s product is a final sample of pre-determined coded environmental stimuli prepared for the questionnaire. All the actions in selecting and measuring the environmental stimuli must be done in a way that leads to the least possible degree of bias. Therefore, the research’s validity and reliability depend significantly on this step’s selection process, choices, and judgments.

The presentation mode in the questionnaire
The last step in the first stage is how the researcher introduces the stimuli in the questionnaire. This decision is always made through interaction among the steps. The subject and the theoretical foundation of the research, the number of participants, the format of the coded stimuli, the received responses, the instrumentation, the context, and the situations are the factors affecting the presentation mode in the questionnaire. Using a software or hardware format for the questionnaire, administration of the test in a controlled environment or an online format, the number of stimuli and the trials that are to be displayed for each participant, the duration of the display, the reaction time, and some other technical details are some of the issues determined in this step.

Study participants
The second stage in the execution of the study depends on the participants in the test and their human characteristics. Various studies have analyzed environmental preferences such as identity, biological and sociocultural factors, environmental familiarity, and expertise (Table 2).



Contexts and situations
In the third stage of the conceptual model, attention is focused on the contexts and situations. Even though in this stage, the results of the responses are anticipated not to have any direct impact, some studies show that these factors can affect the results. In general, four groups of factors associated with this stage are identified in the visual preferences: The location of the test, the time of the test, the type of the assessment (private/public), and the alternate preferences. For instance, while the research is ongoing, dissatisfaction and lack of interest in a specific form and color are created, or a participant is informed that his preferences and assessments are to be judged by a panel (Zhang et al., 2006). Another situation could be that the participants are asked about their color preferences in architecture based on the building’s function and interior/exterior (Dębek & Janda-Dębek, 2012).

The response
The final stage in the conceptual model is the response stage, where different responses are elicited from the participants using various instruments, and the received responses are statistically analyzed. In the response section of the study, an individual can provide the researcher with three types of perceptual, affective, and cognitive responses when exposed to the stimuli. Sensing the stimulus takes place in less than a second (Victor et al., 2001), and the person can respond perceptually to whether the stimulus is light or dark, simple or complex, open or closed. Affective responses point to the inner state of the participant, originate, and depend on how he/she feels toward the environment. The emotional responses are applied in pleasure, excitement, arousal, and calmness (Nasar, 2008). In cognitive responses, environmental stimuli can be assessed from different aspects, such as whether they are stable or unstable, safe or unsafe, modern or traditional. Overall, the type of responses (emotional responses versus aesthetic judgments) largely depends on the theoretical framework of the research, the fundamental theories in psychology, and the affective and cognitive mechanisms of perception and aesthetics. In this regard, different psychological and neuroscientific models of perceptual mechanisms have been introduced in aesthetic judgments and experiences (Bakker et al., 2014a; Skov, 2009; Chatterjee, 2004; Leder et al., 2004; Nasar, 1994; Cloninger, 1994). Understanding these models can significantly impact designing various stages of the research and the received responses more accurately.
After determining the types of the received responses, the instruments are selected. Selection of the instruments takes place in interaction with the type of the received responses and the mode of presentation of the stimuli in the questionnaire (step three of the first stage). Sorting, selecting among the group members, using the Likert scale rating, comparing the choices, opening and closing questionnaires, and combining these are some of the instruments used to elicit preference stimuli. This part of the process, as far as the reaction time is concerned (e.g. McManus et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2006; McWhinnie, 1993), and the forced-choice blocks and the Likert-type items can be modified.
At the end of this section, the responses are gathered as the data and are from the study. In addition, various statistical methods and models are utilized to analyze the data. In most recent studies, correlation and regression analysis are carried out to investigate the relationship between the study variables and the aesthetic responses.
To achieve the study’s goal of determining the relationship between personality and architectural preferences, the methodology of preferences studies of 20 recent research studies on visual art and architecture were reviewed, and the results are tabulated in Table 3.






The framework used in the review process of these research studies was based on the quadruple model’s components and factors. Moreover, the significance of the relationship between the personality and aesthetic variables is displayed in the result column (Table 3).

6. Limitations and Future Directions
The goal of establishing a much better relationship between human beings and architecture, studying architecture while taking individual and personal characteristics of the clients, is of great importance. Therefore, discovering the preferred patterns for each person and considering them by the designers and builders could, ultimately, create conditions that result in the satisfaction of that person. This review study analyzed the methodological structure of the environmental preferences research with a psychological approach. The review showed two reasons why research on the relationship between personality and aesthetics in architecture has not gained clear and significant results. The first group of reasons is fundamental and relates to the nature of the aesthetics and the variables in this study, personality, and architecture. Architecture is defined as a multisensory art that a thorough understanding of becomes possible only by directly experiencing it, and personality is considered a dynamic organization of psychobiological systems (Cloninger & Svrakic, 2016; Allport, 1961). These factors have yielded no results using the traditional methods and quantitative paradigms.
The other set of reasons could lead to positive results by changing and reviewing the theoretical orientation, the structure, and the execution tactics. To this end, the literature was reviewed from a methodological aspect.
By studying the research on visual aesthetics, a systematic quadruple model along with a series of the model’s components and factors were obtained. Dealing with this model and its components in action greatly depends on the subject, aims, and the study’s theoretical framework (Figure 2).

Based on the quadruple model, a projective model or concept map was created to study and analyze the relationship between personality and aesthetic variables in architecture. This map benefits from a core concept (the relationship between personality profile and architectural preferences profile). In the projective model, all of the relationships between the variables are present and placed under the researcher’s control, like a neural network. By utilizing this neural network, assessing and determining the weight of all of the relationships and predicting the architectural preference patterns for each personality becomes possible (Figure 3).

In this case, for sophisticated statistical analysis, extracting the hidden information or obvious patterns and relationships in a large volume of data and their interrelations, there is a need for data mining (Fayyad et al., 1996). Data mining, which takes place using statistical models, mathematical algorithms, and machine learning methods, leads to data analysis and prediction of the results (e.g. prediction of patterns of architectural preferences) (Piatetsky-Shapiro & Parker, 2011). In past studies, simple statistical models were usually used to analyze the data. This approach to data analysis has led to missing the correlation between personality and preferences. For instance, it is possible for only a part of a set of data related to personality profiles to be associated with part of a set of data regarding the architectural preferences profile in a dataset originating from an experiment. A simple statistical analysis method often neglects the intricate and complex relationship between two data sets.
Another part of the changes in the methodology relates to the execution tactics. As previously mentioned, the researcher must understand the study’s theoretical framework concerning the process and the mechanism of perception and aesthetic preferences (Hardiman & Zernich, 1977). For instance, a researcher could adjust the theoretical orientation of his study based on the neuroaesthetics Chatterjee’s model, which believes that “the viewer experiences pleasure without obvious utilitarian consequences of this pleasure” (Chatterjee, 2004). Chatterjee divided visual processing into three dimensions: Early, intermediate, and late visions. In his model, frontoparietal circuits and occipital cortex are primarily responsible for early and intermediate visions (processing features such as color, shape, location, and motion of the objects), while late vision, including visual cognition and visual attention, is significantly derived from the interaction between insula, temporal pole and orbital-frontal regions (Leder & Nadal, 2014; Chatterjee, 2004; Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2016). 
Chatterjee’s model is in contrast with Leder et al. model, who believed that the aesthetic experience takes place when “exposure to art provides the perceiver with a challenging situation to be classified, understand, and cognitively master the artwork successfully” (Leder et al., 2004, 493). Many decision theorists believe that human beings, when deciding on their preferences, often act in less than a second according to their intuition process (Dijksterhuis, 2004; Dijksterhuis et al., 2006; Zajonc, 1980). In other words, the role of logic and the cognitive process is not very dominant. In studying the relationship between personality and architecture, most research has involved the cognitive process in aesthetic preferences by unlimited visual stimuli’s observation and selection time. The lack of time limitation here provides the participants with different experiences and memories, with an opportunity to come up with different assessments of the stimuli. In contrast, the assessed characteristic may not have been part of the intended aesthetic variables (Bakker et al., 2014b). In such a situation, controlling the research and the relationships involved will be affected by the intervening variables that have not been predicted in the research framework. Lack of attention to this issue could be one of the reasons that the studies on the relationship between personality and architecture have not yielded any significant results. Therefore, selection and dealing with the affective and cognitive processes that are involved in aesthetic preferences have a direct impact on the theoretical orientation and the executory tactics and could create changes, such as the selection of the aesthetic variables, the presentation mode of the stimuli, the received responses, the instrumentation, the reaction time, and the methods and models of statistical analysis in the components of the quadruple model.

7. Conclusion
This review offers a suitable methodological approach for studying the relationship between personality and architectural preferences. It could be used to aid researchers in designing a sophisticated study in this domain and enabling them to perform complex analyses. To this end, two general recommendations were made for future studies. First, the use of the quadruple model adopts a systematic approach to the issues and makes it possible to collect all the data impacting the results of a study and to knowledge discovery by the use of machine learning. The second is the selection of a perceptual model in aesthetic preferences that has a direct impact on the quadruple model and the process of execution of the research. To this end, Chatterjee’s model is the best model among others, as the role of cognition in aesthetic preference is notably limited. This model’s visualization process is divided into three dimensions: Early, intermediate, and late visions. According to Chatterjee, early vision seems responsible for understanding morphological features at first glance, while intermediate vision mainly processes spatial status. Memory-related contents are apprehended by late vision. 
Based on these two recommendations, focused and step-by-step research could be designed to solve the problem and identify the preferred patterns in art and architecture. The quadruple model is like a framework in which all variables from various parts (environmental variables, subject variables, contexts and situations, and responses) and the existing relationships between them are presented. In addition, this model offers specific tools for analyzing the data and can adapt to the theoretical foundations (i.e. foundations of visual perception) and being affected by them.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This article is a review study with no human or animal sample.

Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.

Authors' contributions
Study design: Mohsen Dehghani Tafti, Masoud Ahmadzad-Asl, and Gholamhossein Memarian; Writing the original draft: Mohsen Dehghani Tafti, Mehrnaz Fallah Tafti, and Sarvenaz Soltani ; Review and revise: Farhang Mozaffar revised the draft.

Conflict of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.


References
Bakker, I., van der Voordt, T., Vink, P., & de Boon, J. (2014a). Pleasure, arousal, dominance: Mehrabian and russell revisited. Current Psychology, 33, 405-421. [DOI:10.1007/s12144-014-9219-4]
Bakker, I., van der Voordt, T., Vink, P., & de Boon, J. (2014b). The use of questionnaires in colour research in real-life settings: In search of validity and methodologicalpitfalls. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(5), 464-478. [DOI:10.1080/1463922X.2013.815287]
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645–648. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x] [PMID]
Berlyne, D. E., Craw, M. A., Salapatek, P. H., & Lewis, J. L. (1963). Novelty, complexity, incongruity, ixtrinsic motivation, and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(6), 560-567. [DOI:10.1037/h0045767] [PMID]
Boccia, M., Barbetti, S., Piccardi, L., Guariglia, C., Ferlazzo, F., & Giannini, A. M., et al. (2016). Where does brain neural activation in aesthetic responses to visual art occur? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 60, 65–71. [DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.009] [PMID]
Carl, N., Richards, L., & Heath, A. (2019). Preference for realistic art predicts support for Brexit. The British Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 1128–1134. [DOI:10.1111/1468-4446.12489] [PMID]
Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Munar, E., Nadal, M., & Burges, L. (2002). The "style scheme" grounds perception of paintings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(1), 91–100. [DOI:10.2466/pms.2002.95.1.91] [PMID]
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Burke, C., Hsu, A., & Swami, V. (2010). Personality predictors of artistic preferences as a function of the emotional valence and perceived complexity of paintings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 196-204. [DOI:10.1037/a0019211]
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100(Pt 3), 501–516. [DOI:10.1348/000712608X366867] [PMID]
Chatterjee, A. (2004). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 4(2), 56-60. [DOI:10.1037/e514602010-003]
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 172–194. [DOI:10.1111/nyas.13035] [PMID]
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370–375. [DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003] [PMID]
Cinzia, D. D., & Vittorio, G. (2009). Neuroaesthetics: A review. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(6), 682–687. [DOI:10.1016/j.conb.2009.09.001] [PMID]
Cleridou, K., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality correlates of aesthetic preferences for art, architecture, and music. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32(2), 231-255. [DOI:10.2190/EM.32.2.f]
Cloninger C. R. (1994). Temperament and personality. Current opinion in Neurobiology, 4(2), 266–273. [DOI:10.1016/0959-4388(94)90083-3] [PMID]
Cloninger, C. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (2016). Personality disorders. In S. H. Fatemi & P. J. Clayton (Eds.), The medical basis of psychiatry (pp. 537-550). New York: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-59745-252-6_28]
Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Buildings, Beauty, and the brain: A neuroscience of architectural experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1521–1531. [DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_01146] [PMID]
Cook, R., & Furnham, A. (2012). Aesthetic preferences for architectural styles vary as a function of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32(2), 103-114. [DOI:10.2190/IC.32.2.b]
Dębek, M., & Janda-Dębek, B. (2012). Temperament and perceived attractiveness of architectural objects. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology, 10(1), 123-146. [Link]
De Pascalis, V. (2004). On the psychophysiology of extraversion. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.), On the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman (pp. 295-327). New York: Elsevier Science. [DOI:10.1016/B978-008044209-9/50017-8]
Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(4), 333-344. [DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80013-1]
DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 323-346), New York: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511596544.023]
Dijksterhuis A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586–598. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.586] [PMID]
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005–1007. [DOI:10.1126/science.1121629] [PMID]
Duffy, M., Bailey, S., Beck, B., & Barker, D. G. (1986). Preferences in nursing home design a comparison of residents, administrators and designers. Environment and Behavior, 18(2), 246-257. [DOI:10.1177/0013916586182006]
Eysenck H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: The three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 245–261. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00915.x] [PMID]
Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996). From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Magazine, 17(3), 37. [Link]
Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77-89. [DOI:10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK]
Furnham, A., & Avison, M. (1997). Personality and preference for surreal paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6), 923-935. [DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00131-1]
Furnham, A., & Bunyan, M. (1988). Personality and art preferences. European Journal of Personality, 2(1), 67-74. [DOI:10.1002/per.2410020106]
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 705-715. [DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00128-4]
Furnham, A., & Rao, S. (2002). Personality and the aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian and Hirst. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 233-242. [Link]
Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001a). The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 997-1017. [DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00202-6]
Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001b). Personality and judgments of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 57-72. [DOI:10.1002/per.340]
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D. J., & Shaw, T. K. (2000). Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163-187. [DOI:10.1177/00139160021972487]
Gosling, S. D., Craik, K. H., Martin, N. R., & Pryor, M. R. (2005). Material attributes of personal living spaces. Home Cultures, 2(1), 51-87. [DOI:10.2752/174063105778053436]
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379–398. [DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.379] [PMID]
Graham, L. T., Sandy, C. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Manifestations of individual differences in physical and virtual environments. In T. Chamorro‐Premuzic, S. von Stumm & A. Furnham (Eds.), The wiley‐blackwell handbook of individual differencess (pp. 773–800). Hoboken: Wiley. [DOI:10.1002/9781444343120.ch30]
Gray, J. R. (2004). Integration of emotion and cognitive control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 46-48. [DOI:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00272.x]
Gray, J. R., Braver, T. S., & Raichle, M. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(6), 4115–4120. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.062381899] [PMID] 
Griscom, W. S., & Palmer, S. E. (2010). Individual differences in preference for harmony. Journal of Vision, 10(7), 411. [DOI:10.1167/10.7.411]
Hardiman, G. W., & Zernich, T. (1977). Preferences for the visual arts: A review of recent studies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44(2), 455-463. [DOI:10.2466/pms.1977.44.2.455]
Hargreaves, D., Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2012). Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance and perception. Oxford: OUP Oxford. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568086.001.0001]
He, W., Zhang, Y., Zhu, J., Xu, Y., Yu, W., & Chen, W., et al. (2011). Could sex difference in color preference and its personality correlates fit into social theories? Let Chinese university students tell you. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 154-159. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.035]
Heath, T., Smith, S., & Lim, B. (2000). The complexity of tall building façades. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(3), 206-220. [Link]
Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237-248. [DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80138-0]
Hidayetoglu, M. L., Yildirim, K., & Akalin, A. (2012). The effects of color and light on indoor wayfinding and the evaluation of the perceived environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(1), 50-58. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.09.001]
Ibrahim, A. F., Abu-Obeid, N., & Al-Simadi, F. (2002). The effect of personality traits on architectural aesthetics' evaluation: Familiar and non-familiar environments as evaluated by architectural and non-architectural students. Architectural Science Review, 45(3), 197-210. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2002.9697511]
Imamoglu, C. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5-16. [DOI:10.1006/jevp.1999.0155]
Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., & Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29(1), 276–285. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010] [PMID]
Jankowski, T., Francuz, P., Oleś, P., & Chmielnicka-Kuter, E. (2018). The effect of temperament, expertise in art, and formal elements of paintings on their aesthetic appraisal. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 209–223. [DOI:10.1037/aca0000211]
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., & Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69(2), 306–315. [DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004] [PMID]
Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to nonrepresentational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(4), 355-358. [DOI:10.3758/BF03337681]
Lang, J. T. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. Schleswig-Holstein: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. [Link]
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(Pt 4), 489–508. [DOI:10.1348/0007126042369811] [PMID]
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode-Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. [DOI:10.1111/bjop.12084] [PMID]
Little, B. R. (1987). Personality and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 205-244). Hoboken: Wiley. [Link]
Locher, P. J., Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30(4), 449–465. [DOI:10.1068/p3008] [PMID]
Locher, P. J., & Nodine, C. F. (1987). Symmetry catches the eye. In J.K. O’regan & A. Levy-Schoen (Eds.), Eye movements from physiology to cognition (pp. 353-361). Amsterdam: Elsevier. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-70113-8.50051-5]
Madani Nejad, K. (2007). Curvilinearity in architecture: Emotional effect of curvilinear forms in interior design. PhD dissertation. Texas: Texas A&M University. [Link]
Matthews, C., Hill, C., Case, F. D., & Allisma, T. (2010). Personal bias: The influence of personality profile on residential design decisions. Housing and Society, 37(1), 1- 24. [DOI:10.1080/08882746.2010.11430578]
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Ackerman, R. J. (1983). Personality and interior office design: Exploring the accuracy of visitor attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 541-544. [DOI:10.1037//0021-9010.68.3.541]
McManus, I. C., Cook, R., & Hunt, A. (2010). Beyond the golden section and normative aesthetics: Why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preferences for rectangles? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 113-126. [DOI:10.1037/a0017316]
McWhinnie H. J. (1993). Response time and aesthetic preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(1), 336–338. [PMID]
Meagher, B. R. (2016). There’s no place like a neurotic’s home. Journal of Individual Differences, 37(4), 260-267. [DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000213]
Meyers-Levy, J., & Zhu, R. (2007). The influence of ceiling height: The effect of priming on the type of processing that people use. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 174-186. [DOI:10.1086/519146]
Mikellides, B. (1980). Architecture for people: Explorations in a new humane environment. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. [Link]
Miu, A. C., Pitur, S., & Szentágotai-Tătar, A. (2016). Aesthetic emotions across arts: A comparison between painting and music. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1951. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01951] [PMID] 
Nadal, M. R. (2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli [doctoral dissertation]. Palma: Universitat de les Illes Balears. [Link]
Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban street scenes: a cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(1), 79-93. [DOI:10.1177/0022002184015001005]
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377-401. [DOI:10.1177/001391659402600305]
Nasar J. L. (2008). Assessing perceptions of environments for active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4), 357–363. [DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.013] [PMID]
Nasar, J. L., & Devlin, A. S. (2006). Regional variation in preferences for vernacular houses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 41-66. [DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02304.x]
Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1999). House style preference and meanings across taste cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(1), 33-42. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00109-1]
Nasar, J. L., & Stamps, A. E. (2009). Infill McMansions: Style and the psychophysics of size. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 110-123. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.09.003]
Nostro, A. D., Müller, V. I., Reid, A. T., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2017). Correlations between personality and brain structure: A crucial role of gender. Cerebral Cortex, 27(7), 3698–3712. [DOI:10.1093/cercor/bhw191] [PMID]
O'Gorman J. G. (1977). Individual differences in habituation of human physiological responses: A review of theory, method, and findings in the study of personality correlates in non-clinical populations. Biological Psychology, 5(4), 257–318. [DOI:10.1016/0301-0511(77)90017-5] [PMID]
Osborn D. R. (1988). Personality traits expressed: Interior design as behavior-setting plan. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 368–373. [DOI:10.1177/0146167288142014] [PMID]
Palmer, S. E., & Griscom, W. S. (2013). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 453–461. [DOI:10.3758/s13423-012-0355-2] [PMID]
KDnuggets. (2011). Lesson: Data mining, and knowledge discovery: An introduction [Internet]. Retrieved from: [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-28047-4_13]
Pietras, K., & Czernecka, K. (2018). Art training and personality traits as predictors of aesthetic experience of different art styles among Polish students. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 49(4), 466-474. [DOI:10.24425/124344]
Purcell, A. T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people’s houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 199-211. [DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80135-5]
Rawlings, D. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for ‘unpleasant’ paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(3), 395-410. [DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00062-4]
Rawlings, D., Twomey, F., Burns, E., & Morris, S. (1998). Personality, creativity and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism, sensation seeking, schizotypy and openness to experience. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16(2), 153–178. [DOI: 10.2190/8GVJ-ERL3-HYUM-EH88]
Rosenbloom, T. (2006). Color preferences of high and low sensation seekers. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 229-235. [DOI:10.1207/s15326934crj1802_8]
Shafer, E. L., & Richards, T. A. (1973). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Washington: The Forest Service. [Link]
Skov, M. (2009). Neuroaesthetic problems: A framework for neuroaesthetic research. In M. Skov & O. Vartanian (Eds.), Neuroaesthetics (pp. 9-26). Amityville: Baywood Publishing Co. [DOI:10.4324/9781315224091-2]
Smith, L. F., Bousquet, S. G., Chang, G., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Effects of time and information on perception of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(2), 229-242. [DOI:10.2190/DJM0-QBDW-03V7-BLRM]
Stamps, A. E. (1993). Public preferences for residences: Precode, code minimum, and avant-garde architectural styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77(1), 99-103. [DOI:10.2466/pms.1993.77.1.99]
Stamps, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 11-32. [DOI:10.1006/jevp.1996.0036]
Stelmack, R. M. (1981). The psychophysiology of extraversion and neuroticism. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 38-64). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_2]
Stelmack R. M. (1990). Biological bases of extraversion: Psychophysiological evidence. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 293–311. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00917.x] [PMID]
Stelmack, R. M., & Geen, R. G. (1992). The psychophysiology of extraversion. In A. Gale & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 227–254). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Link]
Strelau, J. (2006). Temperament: A psychological perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Link]
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and aesthetic experiences. In P. P. L. Tinio & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 540-561). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139207058.026]
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2012). The effects of symmetry and personality on aesthetic preferences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32(1), 41-57. [DOI:10.2190/IC.32.1.d]
Taylor, J. G., Zube, E. H., & Sell, J. L. (1987). Landscape Assessment and Perception Research Methods. In R. W. Marans, W. Michelson & R. B.Bechtel (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioural research, p. 361- 393, Van Nostrand, New York. [Link]
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., & Modroño, C., et al. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 2), 10446–10453. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1301227110] [PMID] 
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., & Leder, H., et al. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and herceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 10-18. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006]
Vartanian, O., & Skov, M. (2014). Neural correlates of viewing paintings: Evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Brain and Cognition, 87, 52–56. [DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.004] [PMID]
Victor, M., Ropper, A. H., & Adams, R. D. (2001). Adams and victor’s principles of neurology. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Link]
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. [DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151]
Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 794–805. [DOI:10.1177/0146167206286626] [PMID]
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiological methods. In M. Zuckerman (Eds.), Psychobiology of personality (pp. 39-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511813733.003]
Zuckerman, M., Ulrich, R. S., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 563-576. [DOI:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90340-9]