Appraisal theories make new predictions about emotional responses to art, expand the domain of aesthetic emotions beyond positive emotions such as interest and enjoyment, inform other theories (e.g., prototypicality models), and reinterpret past findings. Berlyne's suspicion of cognitive psychology led to an unproductive perseveration on arousal as the mechanism of 'aesthetic responses.' This article describes how appraisal theories of emotion inform the study of aesthetics. Berlyne's influence on the experimental study of aesthetics has been enormous, largely for the better but also for the worse. That theory explained hedonic qualities of art by referring to arousal-modifying 'collative properties' of art, such as complexity, novelty, uncertainty, and conflict. Historically, the leading tradition has been Daniel Berlyne's psychobiological model, embodied by the 'new experimental aesthetics' movement of the 1970s. The study of emotional responses to art has remained curiously detached from the psychology of emotions. It is shown that a narrative approach to morality fits well with the nativist 'five foundations' view developed in the first part of the chapter, and also helps to explain how the intuitive, evolved foundations of morality are elaborated by cultural activity into the complex, diverse moral functioning that mature human beings display.

In some respects, this is another corrective to what is seen as an overemphasis on deductive and calculative conceptions of value and rationality among both philosophers and psychologists. The importance of narrativity in moral functioning is discussed. Five hypotheses about the origins of moral knowledge and value are considered, and one of them (a form of flexible and generative modularity) is endorsed as being the best candidate. It begins by arguing for a broader conception of morality and suggests that most of the discussion of innateness to date has not been about morality per se it has been about whether the psychology of harm and fairness is innate. This chapter discusses how morality might be partially innate, meaning organized, to some extent, in advance of experience. In Study 3 an even more complex picture emerged in which non-Christians were more likely to endorse banning art critical of Islam in comparison to art critical of Christianity. Also consistent across Studies 1 and 2 individuals who based their moral foundation on purity and have Christian religious beliefs were more likely to endorse banning said artwork. Studies 1 and 2 suggest that the artwork that mixes the sacred and profane (whether critical of Christianity or Islam) is particularly likely to elicit a negative emotional response and is more likely to be the target for censorship.

Of particular interest was the response to artwork critical of Christianity in comparison to artwork critical of Islam. Research was undertaken to examine what aspects of artwork lead to the most aversive reactions and desire to ban art and individual differences in response to controversial art. While there have been several controversies in the West concerning art critical of Christianity, a more complex dynamic has arisen as some Western artists have created art critical of Islam. Current events have marked the increasing tension between freedom of artistic expression and religious tolerance and sensitivity.

Blasphemous artwork