Testing the facsimile accommodation hypothesis

Abstract

Research has failed to find evidence for a genuineness effect: the idea that aesthetic experiences are better when looking at real artworks versus reproductions of those artworks. One common explanation for this lack of an effect is the facsimile accommodation hypothesis. This hypothesis states that people can “look past” the limitations of a reproduction, which obscures the effect. However, this hypothesis itself has never been tested. In the current paper, we therefore test the facsimile accommodation hypothesis. In Study 1 (N = 120) we found no evidence for the facsimile accommodation hypothesis: there was no difference between the non-accommodation (instructed to evaluate the artwork as it is presented on the screen), the accommodation condition (instructed to evaluate the artwork as they imagine it would look in real life), and the control condition (no instructions). Though the control and accommodation condition did not differ which would be in line with the facsimile accommodation hypothesis, neither differed from the non-accommodation condition which they should have if the facsimile accommodation hypothesis was correct. We substantiate these findings by a pre-registered replication study (Study 2, N = 205), using Bayes Factors as well as equivalence testing to provide evidence for a null-effect, again finding no evidence for the facsimile accommodation hypothesis and even finding substantial evidence in favor of the null-hypothesis. In sum, we conclude that there is no evidence for the facsimile accommodation hypothesis and that we need to consider alternative explanations in order to understand the lack of empirical evidence for the genuineness effect.