Do minds switch bodies? Dualist interpretations across ages and societies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Researchers explain cultural phenomena ranging from cognitive biases to widespread religious beliefs by assuming intuitive dualism: humans imagine minds and bodies as distinct and separable. We examine dualist intuition development across two societies that differ in normative focus on thinking about minds. We use a new method that measures people’s tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli using mind-body dualist thinking. We recruit 180 Canadian children (2-10 yrs.) along with 42 Indigenous iTuakei Fijian children (5-13 yrs.) and 38 Indigenous iTaukei Fijian adults (27-79 yrs.) from a remote island community. Participants tracked a named character within ambiguous animations that could be interpreted as a mind-body switch. Animations vary ‘agency cues’ participants might rely on for dualistic interpretations. Results indicate early emerging dualistic inclinations across populations and reliance on ‘agency cues’ of body proximity and appearance of eyes. ‘Agency cues’ increase dualist interpretations from 10% to 70%, though eyes mattered more for Westernized participants. Overall, statistical models positing dualist interpretations ‘emerge early and everywhere’ fit our data better than models positing dualism ‘develops gradually with exposure to Western cultural traditions.’ Fijian participants, who normatively avoid focus on minds, offered even more dualistic interpretations when they had less Western cultural exposure (via formal education).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Eye contact detection in humans from birth
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.152159999 · Cited by 1,442 · see citing works
ToMM, ToBY, and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity
Leslie, A. M. (1994) · Mapping the Mind · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752902.006 · Cited by 1,105 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…of the distinct evolutionary phylogenies of our cognitive systems for tracking agents’ goals and perceptual access (Bloom, 2004; Csibra & Gergely, 1998; Johnson, 2003; Leslie, 1994; Low & Perner, 2012); or, they might be a cultural contrivance invented by French philosophers (Descartes, 1985).”
BackgroundMind Perception Is the Essence of Morality
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.651387 · Cited by 1,008 · see citing works
Can a Self-Propelled Box Have a Goal?: Psychological Reasoning in 5-Month-Old Infants
Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01582.x · Cited by 406 · see citing works
Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1133398 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Self-citationThe prevalence of mind–body dualism in early China
Slingerland, E., & Chudek, M. (2011) · Cognitive science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01186.x · Cited by 124 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Historically, ancient Chinese texts show a dualist signature despite a reputation for mind-body monism (Slingerland & Chudek, 2011).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
White, C. J. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2019) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.03.001 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
McNamara, R. A., Senanayake, R., Willard, A. K., & Henrich, J. (2021) · Evolutionary Human Sciences · doi:10.1017/ehs.2021.1 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chudek, M., McNamara, R. A., Birch, S., Bloom, P., & Henrich, J.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Yale University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McNamara, Rita Anne
- Venue
- Religion, Brain & Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 354-368
- ISSN
- 2153-5981 (ISSN-L)
- 2153-599X
- OpenAlex
- W2761419577
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 14.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Religion Brain & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- Victoria University of Wellington
- University of British Columbia
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Keywords
- mind-body dualism, eye, children, cross-cultural cognition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review