The ancestral angle on aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. [Review of the book Evolutionary and neurocognitive approaches to aesthetics, creativity, and the arts.]

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Paul Silvia, Professor (Creator)
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site:

Abstract: Anyone who works in a big department—or who enjoys stereotyping—can discern the stereotypical personalities associated with psychology’s subfields. Which member of the department owns a leather briefcase and a pen that requires refills? In a departmental colloquium, who is likely to ask the speaker “Have you thought about using signal detection theory for this?” Which faculty member eats lunch at the dismal vegan restaurant next to campus? (If you guessed I-O, Cognitive, and Social, you’re quick to judge by appearances.) Research in the psychology of science shows real differences between scholars in psychology’s domains. Researchers in the tough-minded sides of psychology resemble researchers in engineering and the life-sciences; researchers in the tender-minded sides of psychology resemble scholars in the arts and humanities (Feist, 2006; Simonton, 2005).

Additional Information

Language: English
Date: 2007
psychology, stereotypes, academic faculty, psychology research, creativity, aesthetics, book reviews

Email this document to