DOCSLIB.ORG

Self-Regulatory Mechanisms in the Evaluation of Arts: the Influence of Regulatory Focus and Psychological Distance on Attitudes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Self-Regulatory Mechanisms in the Evaluation of Arts: the Influence of Regulatory Focus and Psychological Distance on Attitudes Self-Regulatory Mechanisms in the Evaluation of Arts: The Influence of Regulatory Focus and Psychological Distance on Attitudes by Katrin Schimmel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Approved, Thesis Committee Prof. Dr. Jens Förster, Chair Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kühnen Prof. Dr. Lioba Werth Date of Defense: May 12, 2006 School of Humanities and Social Sciences Thank you! I am deeply thankful to many people who made this endeavor possible. First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor Jens Förster. He introduced me to a new way of looking at things by teaching me how subtle cues can influence thinking and behavior. This was not only an invaluable contribution for my doctoral thesis but also for my way of looking at things in everyday life. Moreover, I would like to thank him for his unlimited theoretical and practical support and for opening so many opportunities to me. I would like to thank Uli Kühnen and Lioba Werth for their valuable advice, critical comments and uncomplicated support. A very special “thank you” goes to my dear colleagues Markus Denzler, Stefanie Kuschel and Amina Özelsel for their prompt, friendly and effective everyday support. Markus, thanks for having been my tutor at IUB and for unforgettable laughs at 2:30 pm. Steffi, thanks for straightening my thoughts and supporting me not only during our conference stays. Mina, thanks for great professional and personal experiences and for the Italian lunches. I would like to thank IUB for its support and providing magnificent research opportunities to me. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to Max Kaase who does not only care about IUB in general in a great manner, but does not lose track of the needs of every single person. Research would not be possible without the work of many “leprechauns”. A huge thank you goes to our gorgeous lab-team for helping me preparing, conducting and analyzing my studies and for much more than that: Florian Albert, Anna Berencsy, Regina Bode, Aga Bojarska, Maren Breuer, Nina Burger, Laura Dannenberg, Maria Earle, Karla Fettich, Marcela Fialova, Hana Fleissigova, Rebecca Hitchcock, Kirils Jegorovs, Dora Jelen, Silke Kleinschmidt, Julia Klotz, Andreas Kolling, Maria Kordonowska, Kaska Kubacka, Janina Marguc, Mayuri Nigam, Basia Pietrawska, Malgosia Skorek, Thomas Stemmler, Aska Styczynska, Karol Tyszka, Rytis Vitkauskas, Alexandra Vulpe, Julian Wucherpfennig, and Nika Yugay. I would like to thank Regina, Basia and Andries for valuable discussions and comments on the manuscript. Sarah Horn and Ashleigh Ferris are thanked for editing my thesis. Thanks to my friends and family, in particular to Julia, Simone, Anne G., Anne R., Laetitia, Myriam, Christiane, Frank, Ferdinand, Deborah, Ale, Silvia, Helga, Wulf, Olaf, Waltraud, Knut, Gisela, Regina and mamma Sara. Jessica, thank you so very much for your emotional support and the marvelous coffee. Klaus and Antonio, thank you for functioning as my “role models” for people differing in regulatory foci. Antonio, mille grazie! “The way to a woman’s heart is through her stomach”. Thank you so very much for making my life more delicious and colorful in times of a lot of work. I am deeply thankful to my Dad who introduced me to art in my childhood and made this all possible by simply having been and being there. Tilman and Anna, thank you for being the best siblings one could imagine! I would like to dedicate this work to my beloved parents. They supported me with great interest, tenderness and generosity through all stages in my life. My Mom and my Dad taught me how to focus on the global picture without losing sense for the particular details and refinements of life. Thank you so very much. Table of Contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 5 Regulatory Focus as a Distinctive Characteristic of Human Beings......................................... 5 Conventionality as a Distinctive Characteristic of Artworks .................................................... 7 Empirical Aesthetics.................................................................................................................. 9 The Role of Strategic Inclinations in Aesthetic Judgment................................................. 9 The Role of Processing Modes in Aesthetic Judgment.................................................... 11 Meaning Extraction ..................................................................................................... 13 Categorical Processing ................................................................................................ 16 Conclusions Empirical Aesthetics ................................................................................... 20 Regulatory Focus Theory ........................................................................................................ 21 Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations.................................................................. 22 Regulatory Focus and Processing Modes ....................................................................... 22 Regulatory Focus and Meaning Extraction ................................................................. 26 Regulatory Focus and Categorical Processing ............................................................ 27 Conclusions Regulatory Focus Theory ........................................................................... 28 Construal Level Theory........................................................................................................... 30 Main Hypotheses and Outlook on the Experiments................................................................ 31 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 35 Pretest...................................................................................................................................... 35 Method............................................................................................................................. 35 Results.............................................................................................................................. 36 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 37 Study 1..................................................................................................................................... 39 Method............................................................................................................................. 39 Results.............................................................................................................................. 42 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 44 Study 2..................................................................................................................................... 46 Method............................................................................................................................. 46 Results.............................................................................................................................. 48 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 50 Study 3..................................................................................................................................... 52 Method............................................................................................................................. 53 Results.............................................................................................................................. 56 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 67 Study 4..................................................................................................................................... 68 Method............................................................................................................................. 68 Results.............................................................................................................................. 70 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 74 Study 5..................................................................................................................................... 75 Method............................................................................................................................. 76 Results.............................................................................................................................. 78 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 80 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leonardo Da Vinci and the Persistence of Myth Emily Hanson
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) 1-1-2012 Inventing the Sculptor: Leonardo da Vinci and the Persistence of Myth Emily Hanson Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd Recommended Citation Hanson, Emily, "Inventing the Sculptor: Leonardo da Vinci and the Persistence of Myth" (2012). All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). 765. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/765 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Department of Art History & Archaeology INVENTING THE SCULPTOR LEONARDO DA VINCI AND THE PERSISTENCE OF MYTH by Emily Jean Hanson A thesis presented to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts May 2012 Saint Louis, Missouri ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wouldn’t be here without the help and encouragement of all the following people. Many thanks to all my friends: art historians, artists, and otherwise, near and far, who have sustained me over countless meals, phone calls, and cappuccini. My sincere gratitude extends to Dr. Wallace for his wise words of guidance, careful attention to my work, and impressive example. I would like to thank Campobello for being a wonderful mentor and friend, and for letting me persuade her to drive the nearly ten hours to Syracuse for my first conference, which convinced me that this is the best job in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Francesco Caglioti and Andrea De Marchi)
    INDEX 1) Press release 2) Fact Sheet 3) Photo Sheet 4) Introduction to the exhibition sections from the catalogue entries (Francesco Caglioti and Andrea De Marchi) 5) Introduction to the exhibition by Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi Director General, Arturo Galansino and Director of the Musei del Bargello, Paola D’Agostino 6) Introduction to the catalogue by exhibition curators Francesco Caglioti and Andrea De Marchi A CLOSER LOOK a) A new Leonardo: Virgin with the Laughing Child b) Important works of art restored expressly for the exhibition c) Fuorimostra for Verrocchio, Master of Leonardo (with maps) d) Andrea del Verrocchio timeline e) Andrea del Verrocchio’s artistic genealogy 7) Activities in the exhibition and beyond 8) List of the works PRESS RELEASE Verrocchio, Master of Leonardo A major exhibition celebrating Andrea del Verrocchio and his most famous pupil, Leonardo da Vinci, curated by Francesco Caglioti and Andrea De Marchi Palazzo Strozzi, 9 March – 14 July 2019 Promoted and organised by the Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi and Musei del Bargello in collaboration with the National Gallery of Art, Washington DC www.palazostrozzi.org #Verrocchio @palazzostrozzi The first comprehensive retrospective devoted to Andrea del Verrocchio (1435‐1488) will open in Florence this Spring at the Palazzo Strozzi, with an accompanying presentation at the Museo Nazionale del Bargello. Verrocchio, Master of Leonardo will bring together masterpieces by Verrocchio from collections around the world, contextualised by works from his forefathers and peers, as well as by the pupils he worked intensively with, including Leonardo da Vinci, Pietro Perugino, Domenico Ghirlandaio and Sandro Botticelli. The exhibition will demonstrate Verrocchio's remarkable creativity as a solo artist, illustrating his workshop as a crucial place of collaboration, exchange and co-working, where the language and the style of Renaissance art in Florence was forged.
    [Show full text]
  • Verrocchio: Sculptor and Painter of Renaissance Florence Sep 15, 2019–Jan 12, 2020
    UPDATED: 10/4/2019 9:34:10 AM Exhibition Checklist: Verrocchio: Sculptor and Painter of Renaissance Florence Sep 15, 2019–Jan 12, 2020 The exhibition is curated by Andrew Butterfield, an internationally recognized historian whose monograph The Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio (Yale University Press 1997) won the prestigious Mitchell prize. Collaborators include Gretchen A. Hirschauer, associate curator of Italian and Spanish painting, and Alison Luchs, curator of early European sculpture-both from the National Gallery of Art, Washington; and Lorenza Melli, curator of the Corpus of Italian Drawings 1300–1500/Rome-Munich-Florence, based at the Kunsthistorisches Institut/Max-Planck Institut, Florence. The exhibition was conceived by the late Eleonora Luciano (1963–2017), associate curator of sculpture and decorative arts, National Gallery of Art, and is dedicated to her memory. Technical research for the exhibition was realized by Gallery conservators Dylan Smith, Robert H. Smith Research Conservator in the department of object conservation, and Elizabeth Walmsley, senior painting conservator, and Gallery scientist John K. Delaney, senior imaging scientist in the scientific research department. Organized by the National Gallery of Art in collaboration with the Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, and the Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. Bank of America is a proud sponsor of the exhibition. Generous support has been kindly provided by the Buffy and William Cafritz Family Fund. Press Release: https://www.nga.gov/press/exh/4712.html Order Press Images: https://www.nga.gov/press/exh/4712/images.html Press Contact: Laurie Tylec, 202-842-6355 or [email protected] Object ID: 4712-108 Sandro Botticelli Madonna and Child, c.
    [Show full text]
  • Leonardo Da Vinci and the Virgin of the Rocks
    Leonardo da Vinci and The Virgin of the Rocks Leonardo da Vinci and The Virgin of the Rocks: One Painter, Two Virgins, Twenty-Five Years By Katy Blatt Leonardo da Vinci and The Virgin of the Rocks: One Painter, Two Virgins, Twenty-Five Years By Katy Blatt This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Katy Blatt All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0286-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0286-4 For Granny, who held my hand in front of The Virgin of the Rocks at the National Gallery when I was five. CONTENTS List of Illustrations ..................................................................................... ix Foreword and Acknowledgments ............................................................. xiii Note to Teachers and Students ................................................................ xvii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Part 1: The First Virgin of the Rocks c.1483-4 (Louvre, Paris) Chapter One ................................................................................................. 5 Exploding
    [Show full text]
  • Leonardo Da Vinci
    LEONARDO DA VINCI WALTER ISAACSON MAIN CHARACTERS Cesare Borgia (c. 1475–1507). Italian warrior, illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI, subject of Machiavelli’s The Prince, Leonardo employer. Donato Bramante (1444–1514). Architect, friend of Leonardo in Milan, worked on Milan Cathedral, Pavia Cathedral, and St. Peter’s in the Vatican. Caterina Lippi (c. 1436–1493). Orphaned peasant girl from near Vinci, mother of Leonardo; later married Antonio di Piero del Vac- cha, known as Accattabriga. Charles d’Amboise (1473–1511). French governor of Milan from 1503 to 1511, Leonardo patron. Beatrice d’Este (1475–1497). From Italy’s most venerable family, married Ludovico Sforza. Isabella d’Este (1474–1539). Beatrice’s sister, the Marchesa of Man- tua, tried to get Leonardo to paint her portrait. Francesco di Giorgio (1439–1501). Artist-engineer-architect who worked with Leonardo on Milan’s cathedral tower, traveled with him to Pavia, translated Vitruvius, and drew a version of Vitruvian man. Francis I (1494–1547). King of France from 1515, last patron of Leonardo. Pope Leo X, Giovanni de’ Medici (1475–1521). Son of Lorenzo de’ Medici, elected pope in 1513. 2 Louis XII (1462–1515). King of France from 1498, conquered Milan in 1499. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527). Florentine diplomat and writer, became envoy to Cesare Borgia and friend of Leonardo in 1502. Giuliano de’ Medici (1479–1516). Son of Lorenzo, brother of Pope Leo X, Leonardo’s patron in Rome. Lorenzo “the Magnificent” de’ Medici (1449–1492). Banker, art patron, and de facto ruler of Florence from 1469 until his death. Francesco Melzi (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Michelangelo's 'David'" Human Studies 10, No
    ©COPYRIGHT by Joshua Kamins 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo. –T.S. Eliot. 2 AMONG THE PROPHETS: MICHELANGELO’S DAVID. BY Joshua Kamins ABSTRACT This thesis argues that Michelangelo employed the grammar of the Cathedral and Prophet program in the making of his David with particular reference to Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise, Donatello’s Jeremiah, Nanni di Banco’s Isaiah, and Assumption of the Virgin above the Porta della Mandorla. Emphasizing Christological prophecy as the lynchpin of the overall sculptural program, it likewise applies humanist and Christian exegesis in order to reposition the David into its intended religious context. Raised on top of the Duomo, the David would have embodied the ancestral bloodline—emanating from the Tree of Jesse, carried through the womb of the Virgin Mary, and culminating in the incarnation of Christ. The incarnation—prophesied by Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the Minor Prophets—fulfills the thematic program—both in form and in hermeneutics—of the sculptural ensemble gracing the cathedral and baptistery architectural complex. The tree-stump is considered crucial to the istoria of Michelangelo’s David, akin to the importance of Goliath’s head in previous depictions of David; here it symbolizes the genealogy of Christ as derivative of the Davidic bloodline. Moreover, the employment of masculinity studies and the philosophies of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari lends new insight into the interconnectedness between the David, the viewer, and site. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been possible without the advice of Dr. Kim Butler and Joanne Allen.
    [Show full text]
  • SUB LEGE to SUB GRATIA: an Iconographic Study of Van Eyck's
    Student Publications Student Scholarship Fall 2018 SUB LEGE TO SUB GRATIA: An Iconographic Study of Van Eyck’s Annunciation Christopher J. Condon Gettysburg College Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/student_scholarship Part of the Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque Art and Architecture Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Painting Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Condon, Christopher J., "SUB LEGE TO SUB GRATIA: An Iconographic Study of Van Eyck’s Annunciation" (2018). Student Publications. 646. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/student_scholarship/646 This open access student research paper is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUB LEGE TO SUB GRATIA: An Iconographic Study of Van Eyck’s Annunciation Abstract When the Archangel Gabriel descended from heaven to inform the Virgin Mary of her status as God’s chosen vehicle for the birth of Jesus Christ, she was immediately filled with a sense of apprehension. Gabriel’s words, “...invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum [you have found favor with God],” reassured the Virgin that she would face no harm, and the scene of the Annunciation (what this moment has come to be called) has forever been immortalized in Christian belief as a watershed moment in the New Testament. While many Byzantine icons of the Medieval period sought to depict this snapshot in time and commemorate its importance, the most notable artistic examples of The Annunciation began to appear in the 15th century as the stylistic and symbolic traditions of the Renaissance began to take shape.
    [Show full text]
  • 1) Fortezza Da Basso a Masterpiece of the Military Renaissance
    Dropp off – Pick up point : Binario 16 Piazzale Montelungo, near Central rail Station SMN Emergency number: +39 339 6281382 1) Fortezza da basso A masterpiece of the military Renaissance architecture, the Fortezza da Basso was planned by Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane and commissioned by Duke Alessandro de’ Medici, and it was built between 1534 and 1537. It has been the most important venue of the Florence Exhibition Center since 1967. Chiesa di Santa Maria Novella 2) This was Florence's first major cathedrals; it is located opposite the railway station of the same name and is the principle Dominican church in the city. The church was completed in 1357 after 78 years in the making; it was built by Dominican friars.The Gothic church has a magnificent façade, the lower half is Romanesque and was created by Fra Jacopo Taleni and the upper part was completed 100 years later by Leon Battista Alberti. The façade is unique in being the oldest Florence church façade and the only church with its original façade.Brunelleschi is credited with the creation of the church layout and the church holds great works of art like Masaccio's Trinity (1424- 25), Ghirlandaio and Giotto's Crucifix to name but a few. Duccio di Buoninsegna's Enthroned Madonna and Child once adorned this church but today you can see it in the Uffizi. To the side of the main altar is the Strozzi Chapel which is painted with frescoes by Filippino Lippi. The Tornabouni Chapel is where you can see floor to ceiling frescoes by Domenico Ghirlandaio.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrea Del Verrocchio
    Andrea del Verrocchio Andrea di Michele di Cione , detto il Verrocchio ( Firenze tra il 1434 ed il 1437 circa - Venezia 1488 ) fu uno scultore, orafo e pittore italiano che lavorò alla corte di Lorenzo de' Medici . Nacque a Firenze tra 1434 ed il 1437 nella parrocchia di Sant'Ambrogio (la sua casa natale si trova oggi tra via dell'Agnolo e via de' Macci). Il primo documento che lo cita risale al 1452 ed è relativo ad una rissa dove un giovane perse la vita a causa di una sassata di Andrea. Suo fratello Simone fu un monaco di Vallombrosa e divenne abate di San Salvi . Un fratello fu operaio tessile e una sorella sposò un barbiere. Iniziò a lavorare come orafo, nella bottega di Giuliano Verrocchi , dal quale sembra che Andrea abbia in seguito preso il cognome. I suoi primi approcci alla pittura risalirebbero alla metà degli anni 1460 quando lavorò a Prato con Fra Filippo Lippi nel coro del Duomo . Resta famosa una denucia anonima di sodomia che coinvolse gli allievi della sua bottega, fra gli altri anche il giovane Leonardo da Vinci . Le prime opere autonome Nel 1465 circa scolpì il lavabo della Sagrestia Vecchia di San Lorenzo , mentre tra il 1465 e il 1467 eseguì il monumento funebre di Cosimo de' Medici nella cripta sotto l'altare della stessa chiesa e nel 1472 terminò il monumento funebre per Piero e Giovanni de' Medici , ancora nella Sagrestia Vecchia. Il Battesimo di Cristo Lo stile del Verrocchio in pittura è affine a quello del Pollaiolo e del Botticelli , intensamente realistico, con modi ripresi dalla pittura fiamminga, costruito da una linea espressiva e ricca di pathos.
    [Show full text]