English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse
  1. View item / 
  2. Item Summary

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Journal Article

Aesthetic Emotions Are a Key Factor in Aesthetic Evaluation: Reply to Skov and Nadal (2020)

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons130297

Menninghaus,  Winfried
Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons134081

Schindler,  Ines
Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons130456

Wagner,  Valentin
Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Max Planck Society;
Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg;

/persons/resource/persons130458

Wassiliwizky,  Eugen
Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Menninghaus, W., Schindler, I., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Hanich, J., Jacobsen, T., et al. (2020). Aesthetic Emotions Are a Key Factor in Aesthetic Evaluation: Reply to Skov and Nadal (2020). Psychological Review, 127(4), 650-654. doi:10.1037/rev0000213.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0006-9F02-5
Abstract
Our theoretical model (Menninghaus et al., 2019) defines aesthetic emotions by reference to their role in aesthetic evaluation, and specifically as being predictive of aesthetic liking/disliking. Skov and Nadal
(2020) dismiss the construct of “aesthetic emotions” as a “dated supposition” adopted from a “speculative” tradition and assert that there are no such emotions. Accordingly, they question all pieces of empirical evidence we referred to as supporting our model. In our response, we rebut these objections point by point and defend as well as expand the empirical evidence in support of our model.