Is Ornamentation a Universal Human Preference? Cross-Cultural and Developmental Evidence From Scotland, Pakistan, and Papua

Generally it is widely agreed upon that the aim of decorating objects is to enhance their visual properties, that is, their attractiveness (e.g., Grosse, 1897). However, humans exhibit an innate sensitivity to perceptual features such as symmetry (Van der Helm, 2015), contrast (Peli, 1990), rhythm (Levitin et al., 2018), and repetition (Grill-Spector et al., 2006)—features commonly found in ornaments. Research suggests that aesthetic preferences may be rooted in the brain’s perceptual systems, which evolved to efficiently process stimuli from the environment (Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999; Zeki, 1999). In this view, ornamentation exploits perceptual mechanisms that themselves have adaptive functions but have been “appropriated” by culture for the purpose of expression.

Dissanayake (2019) suggested that art may be a biological adaptation with different manifestations, and putting ornamentation on objects is a universal artistic behavior found in practically every society. First, it marks ownership, as it allows for a distinction between one’s and else’s objects (Balfour, 1893). Second, it manifests one’s membership to a given group and, more broadly, given culture (Dissanayake, 1995), as ornamentation styles are specific to a given society in a given period of time, and more easily understandable by familiars than strangers (Granito et al., 2022). The ability to create ornaments may also serve to reinforce group cohesion—ritual decorations, tribal tattoos, or ceremonial clothing signal group membership and may reduce internal conflict (Boyd & Richerson, 2005). Ornamentation thus becomes a tool of social synchronization and the building of a “symbolic coalition.”

Third and subsequent to that, decoration allows for an expression of one’s own identity and individuality (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 2017). It also serves as honest signal of commitment, given that ritualized, ceremonial behaviors are usually costly (Irons, 2001). According to costly signaling theory (Irons, 2001; Zahavi, 1975), ornamentation can function as a signal of genetic quality or social status. Just as a peacock displays its tail, humans may display ornaments (jewelry, tattoos, clothing decorations) as signals of resources, creativity, or group affiliation. The high “cost” of ornamentation (time, resources, effort) increases its signaling value. This perspective is consistent with recent empirical attempts to test the “art as an adaptation” hypothesis in small-scale societies. For instance, studies among Papuan woodcarvers suggest that artistic production may be linked to social recognition and potentially to reproductive success, although the evidence remains mixed (Sorokowski et al., 2025).

Finally, ornamented objects enhance the prestige of those who accumulate and display them (Sorokowski et al., 2024), whereas ornamentation itself signals status and wealth (Gänsicke & Markowitz, 2019). For instance, through being decorated, axes used by indigenous Papuans lose their functional character, and become either a token of value, or even an equivalent of money (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 2017).

Importantly, most studies done on ornamentation were conducted on (and most conclusions inferred from) either indigenous societies that have little to no contact with the Western culture (for a review, see Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 2017), or relied on the archaeological findings from times long gone by (e.g., Kuhn & Stiner, 2007). We argue that the matter of ornamentation and its significance is neglected when modern WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic; Henrich et al., 2010) societies are considered. Perhaps it should not be that surprising—a quick look around any major city in the West shows predominantly glass-and-steel, modern buildings of a minimalist design; during the twentieth century modernism in architecture became a Western cultural mainstream (Lau, 2002), with its widely recognized famous spokesmen, Le Corbusier, officially comparing ornamentation to cancer (Le Corbusier, 1987). Similarly, the degree of ornamentation of household equipment and functional items declined, starting as early as in the mid-nineteenth century. The characteristics of China collections—cups, plates, and jugs—in houses of European higher and middle classes shifted from purely decorative to more universal, useful purposes, and along with that fewer ornamentation was implemented; the design became more “serious” (Marchand, 2020). For a striking contrast, think of the French classicistic living room of king Louis XIV, with superfluous and extravagant design, and compare it to the modern austere style of contemporary art and design. Finally, consider the features of contemporary western formal clothes—the attire is plain and toned down in terms of its color or ornamentation; and excessive decoration, which could be considered normative in the previous centuries, may be considered simply as kitsch (Valis, 2003). If a professional meeting in XXI century was attended by an individual with an elaborate coiffure adorned with feathers, flowers and pearls, and florally ornamented cuffs, as was expected in XVIII-century England’s court (Vincent, 2009), he would be considered a jester, not a respectable gentleman. Thus, we conclude that the Western culture no longer appreciates nor cultivates the use of ornamentation the way it used to, or the way it is still culturally approved in more traditional societies.

In short, modern Western culture is a negation of ornamentation. Nonetheless, it is possible that people even in the West still prefer colorful ornamentation, and, if given a chance, would choose a decorated object over a plain one. For instance, most recently in the West there is a rise in body ornamentation practices, such as tattooing (Heywood et al., 2012) or piercing (Laumann & Derick, 2006), which may suggest that there is a cultural turning point in the West, and decorative elements are becoming welcome again. Thus, we ask Q1: Do people from different cultures vary in their preferences for an ornamentation presence?

Subsequently, one could inquire whether attitudes towards and the spread of ornamentation rely solely on culture, or whether humans as a species have a certain “hard-wired” preference for decoration, which is only later shaped and possibly suppressed by cultural norms. If the latter is true, then although we may observe significant differences between cultures in how ornamentation is perceived or used, we would expect these differences to be smaller—or even absent—among individuals who are less deeply embedded in their cultural frameworks, such as young children.

Indeed, previous research shows that children enjoy adorning objects and spontaneously engage in decorative drawing from as early as two years of age (Collado, 1999), a behavior reported across diverse cultural contexts (Anastasi & Foley, 1936). This makes children a particularly informative group for testing whether ornamentation preferences are culturally acquired or biologically predisposed. If a consistent preference for decorated over plain objects is observed in children across multiple, culturally distinct societies, it would provide compelling support for the hypothesis that ornamentation has evolutionary roots in human cognition and aesthetic motivation.

Thus, we suggest that children—more than adults—may prefer ornamented objects, and that examining their choices is key to understanding the foundational, potentially universal aspects of human aesthetic preferences. We ask Q2: Do children have a greater preference than adults for the presence of ornamentation?

Considering the above, one might conclude that aesthetics is indeed rooted in evolutionary adaptations, and even as ‘deep’ as in neurobiology. However, although the arguments for that might seem compelling, we lack hard empirical evidence supporting the biology-based origins of our ornamentation preferences, such as neuroimaging or experiments on perception that verify the evolutionary biology hypotheses. Here, we conducted a study to empirically address these claims. We collected data from three countries that significantly differ in terms of how WEIRD they are, namely from Scotland, Pakistan, and Papua. The first region, Scotland, represents the most WEIRD sample in our study (Henrich et al., 2010), followed by Pakistan, which shares some characteristics with the West but also differs in others, and then Papua (West Papua, a province of Indonesia), which is one of the least influenced by the Western culture regions in the world, with this being particularly true for the subregion our study took place in (Baliem Valley).

Our sample comprises parent–child dyads from three geographical regions that significantly differ culture-wise. We decided for the dyadic approach in data collection in order to avoid hypothetical differences in lifestyle and experiences due to socioeconomical- or social class-related issues. As such, differences between adults and children can be attributed to personal preferences for aesthetics, and not to other sociological reasons. We excluded participants with missing data. In Scotland, we recruited 84 adults (86% female, M_age = 36.1, SD = 6.51) accompanied during the data collection by their 84 children (56% female, M_age = 9.27, SD = 3.86). In Pakistan, we recruited 88 adults (24% female, M_age = 34.3, SD = 9.12) along with their 88 children (28% female, M_age = 9.70, SD = 4.35). Most Scottish and Pakistani participants resided in larger cities (e.g., Glasgow and Edinburgh for Scotland; Karachi and Islamabad for Pakistan). In Papua, we recruited 43 adults (56% female, M_age = 28.5, SD = 4.40) along with their 43 children (53% female, M_age = 6.79, SD = 2.44). They were members of two neighboring tribes, namely Dani and Yali. The former occupy Baliem Valley in the Papuan Central Highgrounds, live predominantly on farming, and have little access to the Western culture, and a moderate access to Asian cultures due to the proximity of Wamena town, where a significant number of Indonesian and Chinese people live (Sorokowski et al., 2023). The Yali people reside east to the Baliem Valley, in Yalimo Highlands, and they farm, hunt and gather for a living. Similar to Dani, they have little to no contact with the Western culture (Sorokowski & Sorokowska, 2012).

The data in Scotland and Pakistan was gathered online by an international research company. In both countries the survey was distributed in English, as it is an official language in the former, and is relatively widespread in the latter (Manan et al., 2016). The data in Papua was gathered personally in the Baliem valley nearby Wamena town and in the Yalimo region through snowball sampling. All the participants (recruited both by the internet research company and individually in Papua) were offered a small remuneration for their engagement.

The participants completed the study individually, with adults and their children providing the responses separately. Only in case their offspring was confused by the study’s questions or unable to complete it by themselves, the adult participants were asked to assist them (e.g., by reading the questions out loud to them, or explaining some words or statements). In each dyad, a parent was always first to complete the survey, as to avoid being influenced by their offspring’s ratings if a child needed their assistance.

The participants were presented with six pairs of images (see Figure 1). Three of these pairs depicted plates, and the other three depicted shirts. In each pair, one of the objects was covered with an ornament (a twig with leaves, a flower, or an abstract drawing), and the other was plain (i.e., did not have any ornaments). The participants first saw the plate pairs, and then the shirt pairs, however the order in which particular pairs of plates and shirts were shown was randomized. For half of the objects, the one covered with an ornament for presented on the right side, and for the other half it was presented on the left side, in order to avoid a side-preference bias (Casasanto & Henetz, 2012). For each pair, the participants were asked to choose which one of the objects (the plain one or the ornamented one) they like better, then coded—“1” indicating preference for the object on the left, “3” indicating preference for the object on the right, and “2” meaning that both objects are liked equally.

The selection of stimuli was based on a combination of intuitive and pragmatic considerations. We aimed to use objects that are both universal in their everyday use (such as plates and T-shirts) and culturally non-specific, which made them suitable for testing in diverse populations. The distinction between ornamented and non-ornamented versions was guided by general aesthetic principles rather than culture-specific traditions. For the graphic stimuli, we deliberately contrasted floral and abstract patterns, as these categories are broadly recognizable across different cultural contexts. This approach allowed us to avoid privileging one cultural aesthetic over another and to focus on the general effects of ornamentation versus non-ornamentation.

We also collected demographic data regarding both participants’ and their children’s sex, age, and place of residence.

All analyses were performed using the jamovi software (version 2.3.12.0).

First, we transformed the ratings of the participants so that “1” always indicated a preference for a plain object, “2” indicating no preference, and “3” indicating a preference for an ornamented object. Then, we summed the scores of each participant, separately for plates and shirts, and then for the two types of objects combined. As a result, we acquired an ornament-preference scale, with higher scores indicating stronger preference for decorations, which comprised two “subscales”—for plates and for shirts, which were highly intercorrelated, r(428) = .543, p < .001. We followed it with a Pearson correlation analysis between t-shirt and plate scores. Second, we run a chi-squared test for differences in sex distribution between the samples, both for a parent’s and a child’s sex. Third, we implemented t-tests to indicate if participant’s sex (both of an adult and of a child) influences their preference declarations for plates, shirts, and both of them collapsed. Fourth, we run Pearson correlation analyses for the participants’ age and their ratings of the objects, and for ornament preference ratings within parent–child dyads. Finally, we implemented a series of ANOVAs with country of origin (Scotland versus Pakistan versus Papua) and age status (adult versus child) as independent variables, and ornament preferences as dependent variables.