Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T10:45:57.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History and essence in human cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Susan A. Gelman ,
Meredith A. Meyer  and
Nicholaus S. Noles
Susan A. Gelman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. gelman@umich.edu mermeyer@umich.edu nsnoles@umich.edu http://sitemaker.umich.edu/gelman.lab/home
Meredith A. Meyer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. gelman@umich.edu mermeyer@umich.edu nsnoles@umich.edu http://sitemaker.umich.edu/gelman.lab/home
Nicholaus S. Noles
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. gelman@umich.edu mermeyer@umich.edu nsnoles@umich.edu http://sitemaker.umich.edu/gelman.lab/home
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 142 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bloom, P. (2010) How pleasure works: The new science of why we like what we like. Norton.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. & Markson, L. (1998) Intention and analogy in children's naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science 9:200–204.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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 9:1–14.Google Scholar
Friedman, O. & Neary, K. R. (2008) Determining who owns what: Do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition 107:829–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. (2003) The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Bloom, P. (2000) Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition 76:91–103. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00071-8.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. & Markman, E. M. (1986) Categories and induction in young children. Cognition 23:183–209.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L. & Koenig, M. A. (2006) Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development 77:505–24.Google Scholar
Hood, B. (2009) SuperSense: Why we believe in the unbelievable. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Leyton, M. (1992) Symmetry, causality, mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G. & Bloom, P. (2011) Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research 38:215–28.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1989) Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In: Similarity and analogical reasoning, ed. Vosniadu, S. & Ortony, A., pp. 21–59. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, K. S., Johnson, C. & Harris, P. (2000) Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar