Corradi et al. (British Journal of Psychology, 2019) argue that their new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity (as responsiveness to aesthetic features in one’s preferences) presents several advantages in comparison with the current ability view of aesthetic sensitivity, usually defined as the ability to judge aesthetic stimuli in accordance with standards (The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57 and 49). Although the measure they propose is interesting and presents advances to the field, we point to important issues. Notably, the authors conveniently base their comparison between the two conceptions on psychometric double standards, discard a century of research on aesthetic sensitivity by focusing on Eysenck’s speculations, and disguise an extension of already existing aesthetic preference tests (e.g., The Journal of Psychology, 1952, 33 and 199; Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2005, 23 and 165) as a redefinition of aesthetic sensitivity. We conclude that both aesthetic preference and aesthetic sensitivity research are legitimate objects of study, that the authors present interesting ideas to further the study of aesthetic preferences, but that their approach is not new and that its proposed renaming only adds confusion to the field.

中文翻译：

---

Corradi et al. (2019) 审美敏感性新概念评论：能力概念死了吗？

科拉迪等人。（英国心理学杂志，2019 年）认为，与当前的审美敏感性能力观（通常定义为判断审美刺激的能力）相比，他们对视觉审美敏感度的新概念（作为对个人偏好中审美特征的反应）具有几个优势按照标准（心理学杂志, 1964, 57 和 49)。尽管他们提出的措施很有趣，并为该领域带来了进步，但我们指出了重要的问题。值得注意的是，作者方便地将这两种概念的比较建立在心理测量的双重标准上，通过专注于艾森克的推测而放弃了一个世纪以来对审美敏感性的研究，并掩盖了已经存在的审美偏好测试的延伸（例如，心理学杂志，1952 , 33和 199;艺术实证研究, 2005, 23和 165）作为审美敏感性的重新定义。我们得出的结论是，审美偏好和审美敏感性研究都是合法的研究对象，作者提出了有趣的想法来进一步研究审美偏好，但他们的方法并不新鲜，其提议的重命名只会增加该领域的混乱。