Methodology for research on psychology of the Arts: A systematic review, critique, and argument for mixed methods

Abstract

We present a systematic review covering the prevalence of research methodology published on psychology of the arts topics in the field's leading journal, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (N = 612) over the lifespan on the journal (2006–2024) to exemplify the fields methodological orientation and point to the dearth of mixed methods studies. We suggest the field of psychology of the arts would benefit from expanding its methodological focus and argue for mixed methods as an advantageous approach. We base this argument on the inherent qualitative and quantitative qualities of art itself and the qualitative and quantitative nature of how humans experience art. Insight into how mixed methods may help the field of psychology of the arts overcome current issues is also offered. This includes a) contributing to a fuller understanding of art forms themselves and the psychological processes associated with the arts, b) remedying existing measurement issues, c) addressing common problems faced with longitudinal study in the field, d) addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion related issues in the field, and e) advancing the fields contributions to inference, insight, methodological transparency and reflexivity, dissemination, the potential for generalizability or transferability of findings, and practical utility of the research. Lastly, we discuss ongoing issues and considerations for employment of mixed methods especially for psychology of the arts topics. This is the first review to call attention to the field's methodological stance and to situate the unique merit of mixed methods for empirical study of the arts.