People were more willing to censor or economically devalue an artist’s work when they were accused of sexual assault than when they were accused of some other crimes, even if they didn’t like the work that much. This research Psychology of aesthetics, creativity and art.
Artists have a history of being associated with immoral and criminal behavior, but contemporary audiences have been able to collectively respond through boycotts, public criticism, denial of financial support, and pressure to exclude artists from cultural spaces. These reactions are important because ordinary consumers, beyond critics and institutions, influence what art is viewed, streamed, exhibited, purchased, or publicly supported.
Rebecka K. Hahnel-Peeters (@RandomMutations) and colleagues explored this issue by asking how Americans reevaluate a work of art after learning that the artist has been accused of a crime. Biographical information about artists can shape people’s aesthetic judgments. For example, a positive narrative about an artist may increase evaluations, whereas negative moral information about the artist may reduce favorability or alter perceptions of the work.
This study extends previous research by focusing specifically on sexual assault, which has been at the center of recent cultural debates, and asking whether the type of accusation matters.
“We were interested in this topic because it lies at the intersection of moral decision-making and cultural consumption,” explains Rebecca Harnell Peters, assistant professor of psychology at Indiana State University.
“The past decade has seen several movements draw attention to sexual violence (e.g. #MeToo in 2017). These movements often rekindle the question, ‘Should we enjoy this cultural product? Can we separate the art from the artist?'” Despite how common these discussions are, there is surprisingly little empirical research examining how people react when they learn new negative information about artists. ”
Across a pilot study and three experiments, the authors used an iterative evaluation and reappraisal structure to test how people react to works of art after learning that the artist has been accused of a crime. In the pilot, 270 U.S. adults viewed the same abstract artwork by a fictional male artist, read a short biography of the artist, and rated the work. They were then asked to imagine that the artist had been accused of one of seven crimes: sexual assault, murder, physical assault, sexual harassment, vandalism, manslaughter, and self-harm (included to distinguish between general harm and harm to others).
Participants then rated their work again. The main outcome was condemnation, captured through a seven-point agreement on whether works of art should be prevented from being displayed in public, or whether people should be prevented from supporting or paying to see them. The study also includes items about whether others should be allowed to enjoy the work, whether participants share the work, whether they like the work, political orientation, and basic demographics.
In Study 1, we asked 217 U.S. adults to name their favorite male artist and describe the artist’s beloved work. After providing an initial assessment, participants were asked to imagine that the artist had been accused of one crime, such as sexual assault, murder, vandalism, or physical assault. They then re-evaluated the same artwork using similar disapproval, enjoyment, sharing, and item preferences.
In Study 2, we returned to fictional abstract artwork but used within-person designs. In this study, 159 U.S. online participants rated the same study after reading several different hypothetical accusations. This allowed researchers to see whether the same participants responded differently depending on the type of accusation. The study also asked participants to rate how morally wrong and harmful various crimes were, and also included measures of political orientation and art knowledge.
Study 3 included 845 U.S. adults who, after viewing and evaluating novel abstract artwork by a hypothetical male artist, were randomly assigned to imagine one of four accusations: sexual assault, murder, physical assault on a woman, or sexual harassment. They reevaluated the work for items of condemnation, preferences, whether the work moved them, and whether it should be destroyed.
この研究では、金銭的な判断も追加されました。 After participants were informed that most of the artist’s works sold for $40,000, they estimated the value of the work on a slider from $0 to $80,000. Similar to previous studies, participants also answered demographic questions, political orientation items, and a measure of arts knowledge.
性的暴行の告発により、人々は他の多くの告発よりも作品に対する強い非難を支持するようになりました。 In a pilot study, participants were more willing to condemn the work after accusations of sexual assault than after other accusations, and this pattern held true when compared individually with murder, vandalism, manslaughter, and physical assault of men.
Study 1 showed a similar pattern when people were thinking about their favorite artists and their favorite works. Accusations of sexual assault generated more condemnation than murder, vandalism, and physical assault against men, although to a lesser extent than physical assault against women. Study 2 found that sexual assault led to stronger stigma than self-harm or physical assault, but was not significantly different from homicide in within-person comparisons.
研究 3 では、より大規模なサンプルにおける全体的な結論が強化されました。性的暴行の告発は、殺人、女性への身体的暴行、セクハラよりも重い非難を引き起こした。 Importantly, this doesn’t just mean people don’t like the artwork as much anymore. Although sexual assault led to stronger support for limiting public and financial support for artworks, it did not cause as much of a decline in favorability as other accusations.
経済対策でも同じパターンが見られた。 After sexual assault accusations, the average value of participants’ works fell from about $19,928 to about $9,680, but the drop was greater than after murder, physical assault of a woman, or sexual harassment. The authors also reported that this pattern could not be explained by political orientation, knowledge of the arts, or participants’ judgments about how morally wrong or harmful the crime was.
“People do not react uniformly to all types of criminal charges,” Harnel-Peters told Cypost.
“When participants learned that an artist had been accused of sexual assault, they were more likely to support censorship of the artist’s work (e.g., preventing the work from being exhibited or funding it) compared to other crimes. This comparison also held true for crimes rated as more harmful to the victim, such as murder.”
“Reports from participants” preference However, the content of the artwork did not change consistently. People may still enjoy art privately, but may feel uncomfortable supporting it publicly.参加者は単純な「好きか嫌いか」ではなく、より微妙な判断を下していました。 They consider social signaling, support, and social influence. ”
Asked if there were any caveats to the study, Harnel-Peters said: “Yes, it’s like any other scientific study.”
“Our study relied on people’s self-reported judgments in hypothetical scenarios, which do not necessarily fully correspond to real-world behavior. What people say and what they actually do can be different,” she continued.
“We also focused on the U.S. sample. Cultural norms regarding morality, punishment, and art consumption can vary widely, so patterns found in the U.S. may not generalize globally.
“We also used relatively simplified explanations of the accusations. Actual cases are often more complex, including ambiguities, media framing, skewed social support, and legal consequences that influence people’s reactions.”
Professor Harnel-Peters said: “While our findings are robust across multiple studies, they should be interpreted as a first step rather than a complete picture.”
As for future directions, “there are still some questions that need answers,” the researchers told PsyPost.
“Here are a few that we found particularly interesting: Why sexual assault? Participants rated murder as more morally wrong, but sexual assault evoked greater support for censorship. Our research shows that why With this pattern behind us, that’s going to be the next big step. ”
“Cross-cultural differences: Do these patterns hold true in other countries with different moral norms and media environments?”
“Would we see the same reaction to artifacts from different fields: science, medicine, technology? These products have more functional value than works of art, and censorship of things like vaccines and scientific discoveries based on the judgment of their creators can have serious repercussions.”
“People aren’t just ‘cancelling’ art across the board,” the researchers explained. “They seem to be making domain-specific and morally nuanced decisions. Our findings suggest that people may distinguish between:” I’m enjoying it private matters support why Controversy surrounding artists persists, with people often confronting the work rather than rejecting it outright. ”
The study, “Cancelling Creativity? Exploring Artist Disparagement as a Function of Crime Type,” was authored by Rebecka K. Hahnel-Peeters, Jamie Arona Krems, Keelah EG Williams, and Eric J. Pedersen.
