Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

History and essence in human cognition

  • Susan A. Gelman (a1), Meredith A. Meyer (a1) and Nicholaus S. Noles (a1)
Abstract

Bullot & Reber (B&R) provide compelling evidence that sensitivity to context, history, and design stance are crucial to theories of art appreciation. We ask how these ideas relate to broader aspects of human cognition. Further open questions concern how psychological essentialism contributes to art appreciation and how essentialism regarding created artifacts (such as art) differs from essentialism in other domains.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Bloom, P. (2010) How pleasure works: The new science of why we like what we like. Norton.
Bloom, P. & Markson, L. (1998) Intention and analogy in children's naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science 9:200204.
Diesendruck, G., Markson, L. & Bloom, P. (2003) Children's reliance on the creator's intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science 14:164–68.
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., Wilson, A. & Hood, B. (2009) Picasso paintings, moon rocks, and hand-written Beatles lyrics: Adults' evaluations of authentic objects. Journal of Cognition and Culture 9:114.
Friedman, O. & Neary, K. R. (2008) Determining who owns what: Do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition 107:829–49.
Gelman, S. A. (2003) The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.
Gelman, S. A. & Bloom, P. (2000) Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition 76:91103. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00071-8.
Gelman, S. A., Manczak, E. M. & Noles, N. S. (2012) The nonobvious basis of ownership: Preschool children trace the history and value of owned objects. Child Development 83(5):1732–47.
Gelman, S. A. & Markman, E. M. (1986) Categories and induction in young children. Cognition 23:183209.
Gelman, S. A. & Wellman, H. M. (1991) Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition 38(3):213–44. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-q.
Harris, P. L. & Koenig, M. A. (2006) Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development 77:505–24.
Hood, B. (2009) SuperSense: Why we believe in the unbelievable. Harper Collins.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. The Journal of Political Economy 98:1325–48.
Kelemen, D. & Carey, S. (2007) The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. In: Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation, ed. Margolis, E. & Laurence, S., pp. 212–30. Oxford University Press.
Koenig, M. A. (2010) Selective trust in testimony: Children's evaluation of the message, the speaker, and the speech act. In: Oxford studies in epistemology, vol. 3, ed. Szabó Gendler, T. & Hawthorne, J., pp. 253–73. Oxford University Press.
Leyton, M. (1992) Symmetry, causality, mind. MIT Press.
Nemeroff, C. J. & Rozin, P. (1994) The contagion concept in adult thinking in the United States: Transmission of germs and of interpersonal influence. Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 22:158–86.
Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G. & Bloom, P. (2011) Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research 38:215–28.
Rips, L. J. (1989) Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In: Similarity and analogical reasoning, ed. Vosniadu, S. & Ortony, A., pp. 2159. Cambridge University Press.
Rosengren, K. S., Johnson, C. & Harris, P. (2000) Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children. Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed