This article synthesizes and evaluates the current state of research within the overlapping domains of the psychology of art and the psychology of religion. In doing so, it identifies the most promising avenues that psychological scientists might pursue to operationalize, quantify, and analyze the psycho-social-spiritual effects of art. Framed by the broader discourses of theological and philosophical aesthetics, the discussion is organized according to a series of features that are basic to human processing and, thus, likely to be familiar to psychological researchers in numerous sub-disciplines. We consider these components, in turn, noting in particular the key dimensions of each component that are associated with theological, spiritual, and/or religious forms of cognition and the current state of the empirical literature that underwrites these dimensions. We conclude by proposing a program for experimental research focused on spiritual and religious forms of cognition that are prompted by aesthetic experiences of art.
Al-KireM.CallawayK.RowattW. C.SchnitkerS. (2023). Photographic art induces self-transcendent emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (under review).
2.
AndersenP. N.KlausenM. E.SkogliE. W. (2019). Art of learning—An art-based intervention aimed at improving children’s executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01769
3.
AtariM.AfhamiR.Mohammadi-ZarghanS. (2020). Exploring aesthetic fluency: The roles of personality, nature relatedness, and art activities. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000200
4.
BarnaG. (2005). Revolution. Tyndale.
5.
BarrettJ. L. (2011). Cognitive science, religion, and theology. Templeton Foundation Press.
6.
BaumbergerC. (2013). Art and understanding: In defence of aesthetic cognitivism. In GreenleM.HammwohnerR.KöberB.WagnerC.WolffC. (Eds.), Bilder sehen. Perspektiven der Bildwissenshaft (pp. 41–67). Schnell + Steiner.
7.
BegbieJ. (2018). Redeeming transcendence in the arts: Bearing witness to the triune god. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
8.
BeringJ. (2012). The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. W.W. Norton.
9.
BlairR. J. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Conscious and Cognition, 14(4), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004
10.
BloomP. (2004). Descartes’ baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. William Heinemman.
11.
BoyerP. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. Basic Books.
12.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2019). Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups can help us understand prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419830382
13.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T.Van TongerenD. R. (2019). Worldview conflict in daily life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617733517
14.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH.RosenbergR. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS ONE, 9(6), Article e99019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
15.
BrownD.HoppsG. (2018). The extravagance of music. Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
BrugueraT. (2010). Political art transforms the audience into citizens. Texte Zur Kunst, 80, 133–135.
17.
BullotN. J.ReberR. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 123–180. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000489
18.
CallawayK.SchnitkerS.Kawakami-GilbertsonM. (2020). Not all transcendence is created equal: Distinguishing ontological, phenomenological, and subjective beliefs about transcendence. Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1743254
19.
CallawayK.TaylorB. (2019). The aesthetics of atheism: Theology and imagination in contemporary culture. Fortress Press.
20.
ChamberlainR.DrakeJ. E.KozbeltA.HickmanR.SievJ.WagemansJ. (2019). Artists as experts in visual cognition: An update. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000156
21.
ChamberlainR.WagemanJ. (2015). Visual arts training is linked to flexible attention to local and global levels of visual stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 161, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.08.012
22.
ChatterjeeA. (2014). The aesthetic brain: How we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art. Oxford University Press.
23.
ClarkA. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. The MIT Press.
24.
ClarkA. (2010). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.
25.
CohenD. J.BennettS. (1997). Why can’t most people draw what they see?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.609
26.
CritcherC. R.LeeC. J. (2018). Feeling is believing: Inspiration encourages belief in god. Psychological Science, 29(5), 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617743017
27.
CupchikG. C.GebotysR. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretative styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14, 38–50.
28.
CupchikG. C.ShereckL.SpiegelS. (1994). The effects of textual information on artistic communication. Visual Arts Research, 20(1), 62–78.
29.
DavisJ. I.BenforadoA.EsrockE.TurnerA.DaltonR.C.van NoordenL.LemanM. (2012). Four applications of embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 786–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01225.x
30.
DePauloB. M.BellK. L. (1996). Truth and investment: Lies are told to those who care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.703
31.
DoleseM. J.KozbeltA. (2020). Communication and meaning-making are central to understanding aesthetic response in any context. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00473
32.
DyrnessW. A. (2010). Poetic theology: God and the poetics of everyday life. Eerdmans.
33.
EinhäuserW.SpainM.PeronaP. (2008). Objects predict fixations better than early saliency. Journal of Vision, 8(14), 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.14.18
34.
EpleyN.WaytzA.AkalisS.CacioppoJ. T. (2008). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143
35.
ErbasY.SelsL.CeulemansE.KuppensP. (2016). Feeling me, feeling you: The relation between emotion differentiation and empathic accuracy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(3), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616633504
36.
EysenckH. J. (1983). A new measure of “good taste” in visual art. Leonardo, 16(3), 229–231.
37.
FaynK.MacCannC.TiliopoulosN.SilviaP. J. (2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and pleasure. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01877
38.
FaynK.SilviaP. J.ErbasY.TiliopoulosN.KuppensP. (2018). Nuanced aesthetic emotions: Emotion differentiation is related to knowledge of the arts and curiosity. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1322554
39.
FeeM. E. A. (2019). The art of Theaster Gates and a theology of hospitality (Publication No. 1130235299) [Doctoral dissertation]. Fuller Theological Seminary.
40.
FranklinM. B.BecklenR. C.DoyleC. L. (1993). The influence of titles on how paintings are seen. Leonardo, 26, 103–108.
41.
FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.n75
42.
FungA. S. K. (2017). Music enables the holistic development and discovery of self: A phenomenological study of two Christian musicians. Psychology of Music, 45(3), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616665911
43.
GautB. (2003). Art and knowledge. In LevinsonJ. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 436–450). Oxford University Press.
44.
GautB. (2006). Art and cognition. In KieranM. (Ed.), Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art (pp. 115–126). Blackwell.
45.
GergerG.LederH. (2015). Titles change the aesthetic appreciations of paintings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464
46.
GoldieP. (2007). Conceptual art and knowledge. In GoldieP.SchellekensE. (Eds.), Philosophy and conceptual art (pp. 157–170). Oxford University Press.
47.
González-AndrieuC. (2012). Bridge to wonder: Art as a gospel of beauty. Baylor University Press.
48.
GoodwinR. (2022). Seeing is believing: The revelation of god through film. IVP Academic.
49.
GrafL. K. M.LandwehrJ. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
50.
GrahamD. J.FieldD. J. (2007). Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: Spectra, sparseness and nonlinearities. Spatial Vision, 21, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856807782753877
51.
GrahamD. J.FieldD. J. (2008). Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract art, and for art from the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Perception, 37(9), 1341–1352. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5971
52.
GrahamD. J.RediesC. (2010). Statistical regularities in art: Relations with visual coding and perception. Vision Research, 50(16), 1503–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.002
53.
GreeleyA. (2000). The catholic imagination. University of California Press.
54.
GrünerS.SpeckerE.LederH. (2019). Effects of context and genuineness in the experience of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418822896
55.
Hawley-DolanA.WinnerE. (2011). Seeing the mind behind the art: People can distinguish abstract expressionist painting from highly similar paintings by children, chimps, monkey and elephants. Psychological Science, 22, 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400915
56.
HekkertP.Van WieringenP. C. W. (1996). Beauty is in the eye of the expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423013
57.
HoodR. W. (1977). Eliciting mystical states of consciousness with semistructured nature experiences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385746
58.
HoodR. W. (1978). Anticipatory set and setting: Stress incongruities as elicitors of mystical experience in solitary nature situations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386322
59.
JärnefeltE.CanfieldC. F.KelemenD. (2015). The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults. Cognition, 140, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.005
60.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). The Guilford Press.
61.
JohnsonK. A.OkunM. A.CohenA. B.SharpC. A.HookJ. N. (2019). Development and validation of the five-factor LAMBI measure of God representations. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000207
62.
JohnstonR. K. (2014). God’s wider presence: Reconsidering general revelation. Baker Academic.
63.
JohnstonR. K.DetweilerC.CallawayK. (2019). Deep focus: Film and theology in dialogue. Baker Academic.
64.
JuckerJ.-L. (2012). Ambiguous artefacts: Towards a cognitive anthropology of art (Publication No. 189430552) [Doctoral dissertation]. Linacre College University of Oxford.
65.
JuckerJ.-L.BarrettJ. L. (2011). Cognitive constraints on the visual arts: An empirical study of the role of perceived intentions in appreciation judgements. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853711X568716
66.
JuckerJ.-L.BarrettJ. L.WlodarskiR. (2014). “I just don’t get it”: Perceived artists’ intentions affect art evaluations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32(2), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.32.2.c
67.
KahnJ.LloydV. W. (2016). Race and secularism in America. Columbia University Press.
KeltnerD.HaidtJ. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297
70.
KimE.CunninghamJ. L.AribargA. (2022). The moral significance of aesthetics in nature imagery. Psychological Science, 33, 1372–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221083543
71.
KingP. E.RamosJ. S.ClardyC. E. (2013). Searching for the sacred: Religious and spiritual development among adolescents. In PargamentK. I.ExlineJ.JonesJ. (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion and spirituality (pp. 513–528). American Psychological Association.
72.
KingR.TanS. L. (2014). (unCommon sounds: Songs of peace and reconciliation among Muslims and Christians. R. King (Ed.)). Cascade Books.
73.
KirkU.SkovM.HulmeO.ChristensenM. S.ZekiS. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
74.
KouX.KonrathS.GoldsteinT. R. (2020). The relationship among different types of arts engagement, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000269
KunertR.WillemsR. M.HagoortP. (2016). An independent psychometric evaluation of the PROMS measure of music perception skills. PLoS ONE, 11(7), Article e0159103. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159103
77.
LachapelleR.MurrayD.NeimS. (2003). Aesthetic understanding as informed experience: The role of knowledge in our art viewing experiences. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37(3), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527305
78.
LandauM. J.GreenbergJ.SolomonS.PyzsczynskiT.MartensA. (2006). Windows into nothingness: Terror management, meaninglessness, and negative reactions to modern art. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.879
79.
LandauM. J.SullivanD.SolomonS. (2010). On graves and graven images: A terror-management analysis of the psychological functions of art. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 114–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2010.513266
80.
LederH. (2013). Next steps in neuroaesthetics: Which processes and processing stages to study?Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031585
81.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
82.
LederH.CarbonC. C.RipsasA. L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005
83.
LederH.GergerG.BrieberD.SchwarzN. (2014). What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition & Emotion, 28(6), 1137–1147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.870132
84.
LederH.NadalM. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode—Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 443–464. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
85.
LocherP.SmithL.SmithJ. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.2190/R1WN-TAF2-376D-EFUH
86.
LøvollH. S.SætherK. W.GravesM. (2020). Feeling at home in the wilderness: Environmental conditions, well-being and aesthetic experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00402
87.
LuhrmannT. M. (2012). When god talks back: Understanding the American evangelical relationship with god. Vintage.
88.
McCauleyR. N. (2011). Why religion is natural and science is not. Oxford University Press.
89.
McPhetresJ. (2019). Oh, the things you don’t know: Awe promotes awareness of knowledge gaps and science interest. Cognition & Emotion, 33(8), 1599–1615. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1585331
90.
MelcherD.BacciF. (2013). Perception of emotion in abstract artworks: A multidisciplinary approach. In FingerS.ZaidelD.BollerF.BogousslavskyJ. (Eds.), The fine arts, neurology, and neuroscience. Progress in Brain Research, 204 (pp. 191–216). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00010-5
91.
MenninghausW. (2019). Aesthetics after Darwin: The multiple origins and functions of arts (BerlinaA., Trans.). Academic Studies Press. (Original work published 2011),
92.
MillisK. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1, 320–329.
MuthC.HesslingerV. M.CarbonC. C. (2015). The appeal of challenge in the perception of art: How ambiguity, and the opportunity for insight affect appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9(3), 206–216.
95.
NaghshinehS.HaflerJ. P.MillerA. R.BlancoM. A.LipsitzS. R.DubroffR. P.KhoshbinS.KatzJ. T. (2008). Formal art observation training improves medical students’ visual diagnostic skills. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), 991–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0667-0
96.
NewellB. R.Le PelleyM. E. (2018). Perceptual but not complex moral judgments can be biased by exploiting the dynamics of eye-gaze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000386
97.
NewmanG. E.BartelsD. M.SmithR. K. (2014). Are artworks more like people than artifacts? Individual concepts and their extensions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12111
98.
NilssonA.ErlandssonA.VästfjällD. (2020). Moral foundations theory and the psychology of charitable giving. European Journal of Personality, 34, 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2256
99.
OatleyK.DjikicM. (2018). The psychology of narrative art. Review of General Psychology, 22(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000113
100.
OrwellG. (2009). All art is propaganda: Critical essays. HMH Books.
101.
OstrofskyJ.KozbeltA.SeidelA. (2012). Perceptual constancies and visual selection as predictors of realistic drawing skill. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 6(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026384
102.
OstrofskyJ.ShobeE. (2015). The relationship between need for cognitive closure and the appreciation, understanding, and viewing times of realistic and nonrealistic figurative paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33(1), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415570016
103.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B.GardnerJ. S. (2012). Hidden knowledge in aesthetic judgments: Preference for color and spatial composition. In ShimamuraA.PalmerS. E. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 189–222). Oxford University Press.
104.
PärnametsP.JohanssonP.HallL.BalkeniusC.SpiveyM. J.RichardsonD. C. (2015). Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 4170–4175. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415250112
105.
PellicoL. H.FriedlaenderL.FennieK. P. (2009). Looking is not seeing: Using art to improve observational skills. Journal of Nursing Education, 48(11), 648–653. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090828-02
106.
PelowskiM. (2015). Tears and transformation: Feeling like crying as an indicator of aesthetic or insightful experience with art. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01006
107.
PelowskiM.ForsterM.TinioP. P. L.SchollM.LederH. (2017). Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with “real” and museum-based art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000141
108.
PelowskiM.MarkeyP. S.LauringJ. O.LederH. (2016). Visualizing the impact of art: An update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160
109.
PittinskyT. L.RosenthalS. A.MontoyaR. M. (2011). Measuring positive attitudes toward outgroups: Development and validation of the Allophilia Scale. In TroppL. R.MallettR. K. (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 41–60). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12319-002.
110.
ProulxT.HeineS. J.VohsK. D. (2010). When is the unfamiliar the uncanny? Meaning affirmation after exposure to absurdist literature, humor and art. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 817–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210369896
RaneyA. A.JanickeS. H.OliverM. B.DaleK. R.JonesR. P.CoxD. (2018). Profiling the audience for self-transcendent media: A national survey. Mass Communication and Society, 21(3), 296–319. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1413195
113.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
114.
RediesC. (2007). A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision, 27, 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856807782753886
115.
RediesC.HänischJ.BlickhanM.DenzlerJ. (2007). Artists portray human faces with the Fourier statistics for representational and abstract art, and for art from Eastern and Western hemispheres. Perception, 37(9), 1341–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548980701574496
116.
RichardsP. S.PaloutzianR. F.SandersP. W. (2021). Mainstreaming the assessment of diverse religiousness and spirituality in sychology. In AiA. L.WinkP.PaloutzianR. F.HarrisK. A. (Eds.), Assessing spirituality in a diverse world (pp. 15–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52140-0_2
117.
RushtonJ. P.ChrisjohnR. D.FekkenG. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2
SaroglouV. (2010). Beyond dogmatism: The need for closure as related to religion. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 5(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670210144130
120.
SaroglouV.Muñoz-GarcíaA. (2008). Individual differences in religion and spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00393.x
121.
SchmemannA. (1997). The historical road of eastern orthodoxy. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
SchnitkerS. A.FelkeT. J.BarrettJ. L.EmmonsR. A. (2014). Longitudinal study of religious and spiritual transformation in adolescents attending Young Life summer camp: Assessing the epistemic, intrapsychic, and moral sociability functions of conversion. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035359
ShariffA. F.WillardA. K.AndersenT.NorenzayanA. (2016). Religious priming: A meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314568811
126.
SilviaP. J. (2005a). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.2190/12AV-AH2P-MCEH-289E
127.
SilviaP. J. (2005b). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9, 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.342
SilviaP. J. (2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetic, Creativity and the Arts, 1(4), 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.247
130.
SilviaP. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014632
131.
SilviaP. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 4(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017081
132.
SilviaP. J. (2012). Human emotions and aesthetic experience: An overview of empirical aesthetics. In ShimamuraA. P.PalmerS. E. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 250–275). Oxford University Press.
133.
SilviaP. J. (2013). Interested experts, confused novices: Art expertise and the knowledge emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.f
134.
SilviaP. J.BrownE. M. (2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.100
135.
SkovM.NadalM. (2020). A farewell to art: Aesthetics as a topic in psychology and neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619897963
136.
SmithL. F.SmithJ. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In LocherP.MartindaleC.DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts (pp. 47–58). Baywood.
137.
SnapperL.OrançC.Hawley-DolanH.NisselJ.WinnerE. (2015). Your kid could not have done that: Even untrained observers can discern intentionality and structure in abstract expressionist art. Cognition, 137, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.009
138.
StarrG. G. (2015). Feeling beauty: The neuroscience of aesthetic experience. The MIT Press.
TatlerB. W.WadeN. J.KaulardK. (2007). Examining art: Dissociating pattern and perceptual influences on oculomotor behaviour. Spatial Vision, 21, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856807782753903
142.
TaylorC. (2007). A secular age. Belknap Press.
143.
TaylorP. M.UchidaY. (2019). Awe or horror: Differentiating two emotional responses to schema incongruence. Cognition and Emotion, 33(8), 1548–1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1578194
144.
TemmeJ. E. (1992). Amount and kind of information in museums: Its effects on visitors satisfaction and appreciation of art. Visual Arts Research, 18(2), 28–36.
145.
TempletonS. J. (1981). The humble approach: Scientists discover God. Templeton Foundation Press.
van der LeeuwG. (1963). Sacred and profane beauty: The holy in art. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
148.
VesselE.StarrG.RubinN. (2012). The brain on art: Intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066
149.
WagnerV.MenninghausW.HanichJ.JacobsenT. (2014). Art schema effects on affective experience: The case of disgusting images. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036126
150.
WinnerE. (2019). How art works: A psychological exploration. Oxford University Press.
151.
WuthnowR. (2003). All in sync: How music and art are revitalizing American religion. University of California Press.
152.
ZickfeldJ.van de VenN.PichO.SchubertT.BerkesselJ.CarrascoJ. J. P.PizarroJ. J.BhushanB.MateoN. J.BarbosaS.SharmanL.KökönyeiG.SchroverE.KardumI.ArutaJ. J. B.LazarevicL. B.EscobarM. J.StadelM.ArriagaP.. . .VingerhoetsA. (2021). Tears trigger the intention to offer social support: A systematic investigation of the interpersonal effects of emotional crying across 41 countries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, Article 104137.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
