There is no doubt that people find flowers beautiful. Surprisingly, we know very little about the actual properties which make flowers so appealing to humans. Although the evolutionary aesthetics provides some theories concerning generally preferred flower traits, empirical evidence is largely missing. In this study, we used an online survey in which residents of the Czech Republic (n = 2006) rated the perceived beauty of 52 flower stimuli of diverse shapes and colors. Colored flowers were preferred over their uncolored versions. When controlling for flower shape, we found an unequal preference for different flower colors, blue being the most and yellow the least preferred. In the overall assessment of beauty, shape was more important than color. Prototypical flowers, i.e., radially symmetrical flowers with low complexity, were rated as the most beautiful. We also found a positive effect of sharp flower contours and blue color on the overall rating of flower beauty. The results may serve as a basis for further studies in some areas of the people-plant interaction research.

Department of Philosophy and History of Science Faculty of Science Charles University Prague Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Akalin A, Yildirim K, Wilson C, Kilicoglu O. Architecture and engineering students' evaluations of house façades: preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2009;29(1):124–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.005. DOI

Appleton J. The experience of landscape. Wiley; New York: 1996.

Bar M, Neta M. Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science. 2006;17(8):645–648. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.639. PubMed DOI

Bar M, Neta M. Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(10):2191–2200. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.008. PubMed DOI PMC

Behe B, Nelson R, Barton S, Hall C, Safley CD, Turner S. Consumer preferences for geranium flower color, leaf variegation, and price. HortScience. 1999;34(4):740–742.

Bramão I, Reis A, Petersson KM, Faísca L. The role of color information on object recognition: a review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica. 2011;138(1):244–253. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.010. PubMed DOI

Cackowski JM, Nasar JL. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation: implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and Behavior. 2003;35(6):736–751. doi: 10.1177/0013916503256267. DOI

Camgöz N, Yener C, Güvenç D. Effects of hue, saturation, and brightness on preference. Color Research and Application. 2002;27(3):199–207. doi: 10.1002/col.10051. DOI

Carbon C-C. The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica. 2010;134(2):233–244. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004. PubMed DOI

Coss RG. The role of evolved perceptual biases in art and design. In: Voland E, Grammer K, editors. Evolutionary Aestheticsry. Berlin Heidelberg; Springer: 2003. p. 69-130.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. Human ethology. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1989. 848 pp.

Ellis L, Ficek C. Color preferences according to gender and sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001;31(8):1375–1379. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00231-2. DOI

Enquist M, Arak A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature. 1994;372(6502):169–172. doi: 10.1038/372169a0. PubMed DOI

Enquist M, Johnstone RA. Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 1997;264(1386):1345–1348. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0186. DOI

Evans CS, Wenderoth P, Cheng K. Detection of bilateral symmetry in complex biological images. Perception. 2000;29(1):31–42. doi: 10.1068/p2905. PubMed DOI

Flegr J, Hodný Z. Cat scratches, not bites, are associated with unipolar depression-cross-sectional study. Parasites and vectors. 2016;9(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1291-6. PubMed DOI PMC

Frynta D, Lišková S, Bültmann S, Burda H. Being attractive brings advantages: the case of parrot species in captivity. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(9):e2106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012568. PubMed DOI PMC

Grahn P, Stigsdotter UK. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2010;94(3--4):264–275. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012. DOI

Haviland-Jones J, Rosario HH, Wilson P, Mcguire TR. An environmental approach to positive emotion: flowers. Evolutionary Psychology. 2005;3:104–132. doi: 10.1177/147470490500300109. DOI

Heerwagen JH, Orians GH. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In: Kellert SR, editor. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press / Shearwater Books; 1993. pp. 138–172.

Hekkert P, Snelders D, Wieringen PC. Most advanced, yet acceptable: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology. 2003;94(1):111–124. doi: 10.1348/000712603762842147. PubMed DOI

Hekkert P, Wieringen PCW. Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology. 1990;81(4):483–495. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02374.x. DOI

Herzog TR, Black AM, Fountaine KA, Knotts DJ. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1997;17(2):165–170. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1997.0051. DOI

Humphrey NK. Colour for Architecture. Studio Vista; London: 1976.

Humphrey NK. Natural aesthetics. In: Mikellides B, editor. Architecture for people: explorations in a new humane environment. Studio Vista; London: 1980. pp. 59–73.

Hurlbert AC, Ling Y. Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology. 2007;17(16):R623–R625. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022. PubMed DOI

Jacobsen T, Höfel LEA. Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2002;95(3):755–766. doi: 10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755. PubMed DOI

Jacobsen T, Schubotz RI, Höfel L, Cramon DYV. Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. Neuroimage. 2006;29(1):276–285. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010. PubMed DOI

Johnstone RA. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature. 1994;372(6502):172–175. doi: 10.1038/372172a0. PubMed DOI

Judd WS, Campbell CS, Kellogg EA, Stevens PF, Donoghue MJ. Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach. 2nd edition Sinauer Associates; Sunderland: 2002.

Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Ann Arbor: Ulrich's Books; 1995. p. 340 pp.

Kaplan S. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior. 1987;19(1):3–32. doi: 10.1177/0013916587191001. DOI

Kaplan S. Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. In: Nasar JL, editor. Environmental aesthetics: theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. pp. 45–55.

Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1995;15(3):169–182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2. DOI

Kaufman AJ, Lohr VI. Does plant color affect emotional and physiological responses to landscapes? Acta Horticulturae. 2004;639:229–233. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.639.29. DOI

Kubát K, Hrouda L, Chrtek J. jun, Kaplan Z, Kirschner J, Štěpánek J, editors. Klíč ke květeně České republiky. Academia; Praha: 2002. p. 927.

Larsen L, Adams J, Deal B, Kweon BS, Tyler E. Plants in the workplace: the effects of plant density on productivity, attitudes, and perceptions. Environment and Behavior. 1998;30(3):261–281. doi: 10.1177/001391659803000301. DOI

Leder H, Belke B, Oeberst A, Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology. 2004;95(4):489–508. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369811. PubMed DOI

Leder H, Tinio PPL, Bar M. Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception. 2011;40(6):649–655. doi: 10.1068/p6845. PubMed DOI

Lišková S, Frynta D. What determines bird beauty in human eyes? Anthrozoös. 2013;26(1):27–41. doi: 10.2752/175303713X13534238631399. DOI

Lišková S, Landová E, Frynta D. Human preferences for colorful birds: vivid colors or pattern? Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior. 2014;13(2):339–359. PubMed

Little AC, Jones BC. Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2003;270(1526):1759–1763. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2445. PubMed DOI PMC

Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Goodwin GK. Interior plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 1996;14:97–100.

Mithen S. Handaxes: the first aesthetic artefacts. In: Voland E, Grammer K, editors. Evolutionary Aesthetics. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2003. pp. 261–275.

Morlino G, Gianelli C, Borghi AM, Nolfi S. Learning to manipulate and categorize in human and artificial agents. Cognitive Science. 2015;39(1):39–64. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12130. PubMed DOI

Müderrisoğlu H, Aydin S, Yerli O, Kutay E. Effects of colours and forms of trees on visual perceptions. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2009;41(6):2697–2710.

Newsam S. Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Multimedia Data Mining: Mining Integrated Media and Complex Data. 2005. Seeing and reading red: hue and color-word correlation in images and attendant text on the WWW; pp. ACM, 101–106.

Orians GH, Heerwagen JH. Evolved responses to landscape. In: Barkow JH, Cosmides L, Tooby J, editors. The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995. pp. 555–580.

Palmer SE, Schloss KB. An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;107(19):8877–8882. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906172107. PubMed DOI PMC

Pinker S. How the mind works. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1999;882(1 GREAT ISSUES):119–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08538.x. PubMed DOI

Raanaas RK, Evensen KH, Rich D, Sjøstrøm G, Patil G. Benefits of indoor plants on attention capacity in an office setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2011;31(1):99–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.005. DOI

Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2004;8:364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. PubMed DOI

Saito M. Comparative studies on color preference in Japan and other Asian regions, with special emphasis on the preference for white. Color Research & Application. 1996;21(1):35–49. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6378(199602)21:1<35::AID-COL4>3.0.CO;2-6. DOI

Schloss KB, Strauss ED, Palmer SE. Object color preferences. Color Research & Application. 2013;38(6):393–411. doi: 10.1002/col.21756. DOI

Scorolli C, Borghi AM. Square bananas, blue horses: the relative weight of shape and color in concept recognition and representation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:1542. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01542. PubMed DOI PMC

Shibata S, Suzuki N. Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and mood. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2002;22(3):265–272. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2002.0232. DOI

Silvia PJ, Barona CM. Do people prefer curved objects? angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts. 2009;27(1):25–42. doi: 10.2190/EM.27.1.b. DOI

Smith LB. Action alters shape categories. Cognitive Science. 2005a;29(4):665–679. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_13. PubMed DOI

Smith LB. Cognition as a dynamic system: principles from embodiment. Developmental Review. 2005b;25(3):278–298. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.001. DOI

Taylor C, Clifford A, Franklin A. Color preferences are not universal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013;142(4):1015–1027. doi: 10.1037/a0030273. PubMed DOI

Tennessen CM, Cimprich B. Views to nature: effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1995;15(1):77–85. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0. DOI

Therriault DJ, Yaxley RH, Zwaan RA. The role of color diagnosticity in object recognition and representation. Cognitive Processing. 2009;10(4):335–342. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0260-4. PubMed DOI

Tinio PP, Leder H. Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica. 2009;130(3):241–250. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001. PubMed DOI

Todorova A, Asakawa S, Aikoh T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004;69(4):403–416. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.11.001. DOI

Ulrich R. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 1984;224(4647):420–421. doi: 10.1126/science.6143402. PubMed DOI

Van der Helm PA, Leeuwenberg EL. Goodness of visual regularities: a nontransformational approach. Psychological Review. 1996;103(3):429–456. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.429. PubMed DOI

Westerman SJ, Gardner PH, Sutherland EJ, White T, Jordan K, Watts D, Wells S. Product design: preference for rounded versus angular design elements. Psychology and Marketing. 2012;29(8):595–605. doi: 10.1002/mar.20546. DOI

Winkielman P, Halberstadt J, Fazendeiro T, Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science. 2006;17(9):799–806. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x. PubMed DOI

Yue C, Behe BK. Consumer color preferences for single-stem cut flowers on calendar holidays and noncalendar occasions. HortScience. 2010;45(1):78–82.

Zemach I, Chang S, Teller DY. Infant color vision: prediction of infants' spontaneous color preferences. Vision Research. 2007;47(10):1368–1381. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.09.024. PubMed DOI

Habitat selection and human aesthetic responses to flowers