Aesthetic Motivation Impacts Judgments of Others' Prosociality and Mental Life.

Q1 Social Sciences Open Mind Pub Date : 2023-12-08 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00113
Tanushree Agrawal, Adena Schachner
{"title":"Aesthetic Motivation Impacts Judgments of Others' Prosociality and Mental Life.","authors":"Tanushree Agrawal, Adena Schachner","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ability to infer others' prosocial vs. antisocial behavioral tendencies from minimal information is core to social reasoning. Aesthetic motivation (the value or appreciation of aesthetic beauty) is linked with prosocial tendencies, raising the question of whether this factor is used in interpersonal reasoning and in the attribution of mental capacities. We propose and test a model of this reasoning, predicting that evidence of others' aesthetic motivations should impact judgments of others' prosocial (and antisocial) tendencies by signaling a heightened capacity for emotional experience. In a series of four pre-registered experiments (total <i>N</i> = 1440), participants saw pairs of characters (as photos/vignettes), and judged which in each pair showed more of a mental capacity of interest. Distractor items prevented participants from guessing the hypothesis. For one critical pair of characters, both characters performed the same activity (music listening, painting, cooking, exercising, being in nature, doing math), but one was motivated by the activities' aesthetic value, and the other by its functional value. Across all activities, participants robustly chose aesthetically-motivated characters as more likely to behave compassionately (Exp. 1; 3), less likely to behave selfishly/manipulatively (Exp. 1; 3), and as more emotionally sensitive, but not more intelligent (Exp. 2; 3; 4). Emotional sensitivity best predicted compassionate behavior judgements (Exp. 3). Aesthetically-motivated characters were not reliably chosen as more helpful; intelligence best predicted helpfulness judgements (Exp. 4). Evidence of aesthetic motivation conveys important social information about others, impacting fundamental interpersonal judgments about others' mental life and social behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"7 ","pages":"947-980"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10727777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ability to infer others' prosocial vs. antisocial behavioral tendencies from minimal information is core to social reasoning. Aesthetic motivation (the value or appreciation of aesthetic beauty) is linked with prosocial tendencies, raising the question of whether this factor is used in interpersonal reasoning and in the attribution of mental capacities. We propose and test a model of this reasoning, predicting that evidence of others' aesthetic motivations should impact judgments of others' prosocial (and antisocial) tendencies by signaling a heightened capacity for emotional experience. In a series of four pre-registered experiments (total N = 1440), participants saw pairs of characters (as photos/vignettes), and judged which in each pair showed more of a mental capacity of interest. Distractor items prevented participants from guessing the hypothesis. For one critical pair of characters, both characters performed the same activity (music listening, painting, cooking, exercising, being in nature, doing math), but one was motivated by the activities' aesthetic value, and the other by its functional value. Across all activities, participants robustly chose aesthetically-motivated characters as more likely to behave compassionately (Exp. 1; 3), less likely to behave selfishly/manipulatively (Exp. 1; 3), and as more emotionally sensitive, but not more intelligent (Exp. 2; 3; 4). Emotional sensitivity best predicted compassionate behavior judgements (Exp. 3). Aesthetically-motivated characters were not reliably chosen as more helpful; intelligence best predicted helpfulness judgements (Exp. 4). Evidence of aesthetic motivation conveys important social information about others, impacting fundamental interpersonal judgments about others' mental life and social behavior.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审美动机影响对他人亲社会性和精神生活的判断
从最少的信息中推断他人的亲社会与反社会行为倾向的能力是社会推理的核心。审美动机(对审美的价值或欣赏)与亲社会倾向相关,这就提出了一个问题,即在人际推理和心理能力归因中是否会用到这一因素。我们提出并测试了这一推理模型,预测他人审美动机的证据应该会影响对他人亲社会(和反社会)倾向的判断,因为这意味着情感体验能力的提高。在四个预先登记的实验中(总人数 = 1440),参与者看到了一对人物(照片/小插图),并判断每对人物中哪一个表现出了更多感兴趣的心理能力。干扰项会阻止参与者猜测假设。在一对关键的人物中,两个人物都进行了相同的活动(听音乐、绘画、烹饪、锻炼、亲近大自然、做数学题),但其中一个人物的动机是活动的审美价值,而另一个人物的动机是活动的功能价值。在所有活动中,受试者都坚定地选择美学动机驱动的角色更有可能表现出同情心(实验一;实验三),更不可能表现出自私/操纵行为(实验一;实验三),情感更敏感,但不更聪明(实验二;实验三;实验四)。情感敏感性最能预测同情行为的判断(实验 3)。受审美动机驱使的角色并没有被可靠地选择为更乐于助人;智力最能预测乐于助人的判断(实验 4)。审美动机的证据传递了关于他人的重要社会信息,影响了对他人精神生活和社会行为的基本人际判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Approximating Human-Level 3D Visual Inferences With Deep Neural Networks. Prosodic Cues Support Inferences About the Question's Pedagogical Intent. The Double Standard of Ownership. Combination and Differentiation Theories of Categorization: A Comparison Using Participants' Categorization Descriptions. Investigating Sensitivity to Shared Information and Personal Experience in Children's Use of Majority Information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1