The relationships among a set of five aesthetic judgment variables, and between those variables and dogmatism, were examined through the responses to eight paintings of a sample of 504 tertiary students. The judgment variables—evaluation and boldness—were calibrated from an Art Judgment Inventory, and dogmatism was measured by a shortened form of Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. The judgment variables correlate as would be expected with each other, and dogmatism shows a consistent negative relationship with the judgment variables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KellyG. A., The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York, 1955.
2.
BannisterD. and MairJ. M. M., The Evaluation of Personal Constructs, Academic Press, London, 1968.
3.
KantI., Kritik der Urteilskraft, [Critique of the Capacity for Judgment], F. T. Lagarde, Berlin, Edition used: Immanuel Kant's Werke (Band V, pp. 179–433), Herausgegeben von Ernst Cassirer, Bruno Cassirer, Berlin, 1922.
4.
ReidL. A., Assessment and Aesthetic Education, in The Aesthetic Imperative, Relevance and Responsibility in Arts Education, RossM. (ed.), Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 8–24, 1981.
5.
MitiasM. H., Locus of Aesthetic Quality, in Aesthetic Quality and Aesthetic Experience, MitiasM. H. (ed.), Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1988.
6.
KuhlmanE., Dogmatism and Deference: The Relationship between Bureaucratic Orientation and Personality Type, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 22:2, pp. 179–186, 1976.
7.
RokeachM., The Open and Closed Mind, Basic Books, New York, 1960.
8.
WardG. R.CunninghamC. L., and SummerlinM. L., Personality Profiles and Dogmatism in Undergraduate Teacher Education Students, Psychology in the Schools, 15:1, pp. 33–36, 1978.
9.
RittelmeyerC., Dogmatismus, Intoleranz und die Beurteilung moderner Kunstwerke. [Dogmatism, Intolerance and the Judging of Modern Art Works], Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 21, pp. 93–105, 1969.
10.
LandfieldA. W., Meaningfulness of Self, Ideal and Other as Related to Own vs Therapist's Personal Construct Dimensions, Psychological Reports, 16, pp. 605–608, 1965.
11.
LandfieldA. W., The Extremity Rating Revisited within the Context of Personal Construct Theory, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, pp. 135–139, 1968.
12.
WarrP. B. and CoffmanT. L., Personality, Involvement and Extremity of Judgment, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, pp. 108–121, 1970.
13.
FairhallJ. H., Art Students Judgment of Art Works and its Relation to Creativity, unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, University of Western Australia, 1980.
14.
BiggsJ. B. and DasJ. P., Extreme Response Set, Internality-Externality and Performance, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, pp. 199–210, 1973.
15.
BrimR., The Effect of Personality Variables, Dogmatism and Repression-Sensitization upon Response to Music, Journal of Music Therapy, 15:2, pp. 74–87, 1978.
16.
PeabodyD., Attitude Content and Agreement Set in Scales of Authoritarianism, Dogmatism, Anti-Semitism, and Economic Conservatism, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63:1, pp. 1–11, 1961.
17.
PeabodyD., Authoritarian Scales and Response Bias, Psychological Bulletin, 65:1, pp. 11–23, 1966.
18.
StewartR. G., Some Effects of Reversing Certain Items in the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, pp. 327–336, 1970.
19.
RayJ. J., Balanced Dogmatism Scales, Australian Journal of Psychology, 26:1, pp. 9–14, 1974.
20.
AndrichD., An Extension of the Rasch Model for Ratings Providing for Both Location and Dispersion Parameters, Psychometrika, 47:1, pp. 105–113, 1982.
21.
AndrichD., A Latent Trait Model for Items with Response Dependencies: Implications for Test Construction and Analysis, in Test Design: Contributions from Psychology, Education and Psychometrics, EmbretsonS. (ed.), Academic Press, Orlando, 1985.
22.
FairhallJ. H., Dogmatism and Aesthetic Judgment: A Study of Response to Paintings, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Australia, 1989.
