IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v14y2019i6p658-670_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bullshit makes the art grow profounder

Author

Listed:
  • Turpin, Martin Harry
  • Walker, Alexander C.
  • Kara-Yakoubian, Mane
  • Gabert, Nina N.
  • Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
  • Stolz, Jennifer A.

Abstract

Across four studies participants (N = 818) rated the profoundness of abstract art images accompanied with varying categories of titles, including: pseudo-profound bullshit titles (e.g., The Deaf Echo), mundane titles (e.g., Canvas 8), and no titles. Randomly generated pseudo-profound bullshit titles increased the perceived profoundness of computer-generated abstract art, compared to when no titles were present (Study 1). Mundane titles did not enhance the perception of profoundness, indicating that pseudo-profound bullshit titles specifically (as opposed to titles in general) enhance the perceived profoundness of abstract art (Study 2). Furthermore, these effects generalize to artist-created abstract art (Study 3). Finally, we report a large correlation between profoundness ratings for pseudo-profound bullshit and “International Art English” statements (Study 4), a mode and style of communication commonly employed by artists to discuss their work. This correlation suggests that these two independently developed communicative modes share underlying cognitive mechanisms in their interpretations. We discuss the potential for these results to be integrated into a larger, new theoretical framework of bullshit as a low-cost strategy for gaining advantages in prestige awarding domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Turpin, Martin Harry & Walker, Alexander C. & Kara-Yakoubian, Mane & Gabert, Nina N. & Fugelsang, Jonathan A. & Stolz, Jennifer A., 2019. "Bullshit makes the art grow profounder," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 658-670, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:658-670_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500005386/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:658-670_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.