Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:41:06.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quiddity and haecceity as distinct forms of essentialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2014

Bruce Hood
Bruce Hood*
Affiliation:
School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, United Kingdom. Bruce.Hood@bristol.ac.ukhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/people/bruce-m-hood/overview.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychological essentialism operates in two realms that have consequences for our attitudes towards groups and individuals. Although essentialism is more familiar in the context of biological group membership, it can also be evoked when considering unique artefacts, especially when they are emotionally significant items.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 492 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bloom, P. (2010) How pleasure works: Why we like what we like. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2010) The greatest show on earth: The evidence for evolution. Free Press.Google Scholar
Hall, D. G. (1998) Continuity and persistence of objects. Cognitive Psychology 37:28–59.Google Scholar
Hood, B. (2009) SuperSense: Why we believe the unbelievable. HarperOne.Google Scholar
Hood, B. M. & Bloom, P. (2008) Children prefer certain individuals over perfect duplicates. Cognition 106:455–62.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963) Animal species and evolution. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L. & Ortony, A. (1989) Psychological essentialism. In: Similarity and analogical reasoning, ed. Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A., pp. 179–95. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar