CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 332Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentParanormal Experiences and BeliefsEvolution and Science Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development

Open access
Legare, Cristine H, Evans, E Margaret, Rosengren, Karl S, Harris, Paul L·2012·Child Development
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although often conceptualized in contradictory terms, the common assumption that natural and supernatural explanations are incompatible is psychologically inaccurate. Instead, there is considerable evidence that the same individuals use both natural and supernatural explanations to interpret the very same events and that there are multiple ways in which both kinds of explanations coexist in individual minds. Converging developmental research from diverse cultural contexts in 3 areas of biological thought (i.e., the origin of species, illness, and death) is reviewed to support this claim. Contrary to traditional accounts of cognitive development, new evidence indicates that supernatural explanations often increase rather than decrease with age and supports the proposal that reasoning about supernatural phenomena is an integral and enduring aspect of human cognition.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Astuti, 2011, Children and death: From biological to religious conceptions, 1
  2. Astuti, 2004, Constraints on conceptual development: A case study of the acquisition of folkbiological and folk sociological knowledge in Madagascar, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69
  3. Dawkins, 2006, The God delusion
  4. Emmons, 2010, Children’s beliefs about themselves as babies, in utero, and before they were conceived
  5. Gallup, CNN, 2007, U.S.A. Today Poll
  6. Gould, 1997, Nonoverlapping magisteria, Natural History, 106, 16
  7. Harris, 2011, Children and death: From biological to religious conceptions
  8. Horton, 1979, Reader in comparative religion, 347
  9. John, 1997, Truth cannot contradict truth (Open Letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), The Scientist, 8
  10. Jones, 2005, Smart sponsors
  11. Miller, 1999, Finding Darwin’s God
  12. Rutledge, 1992, The Vietnamese experience, 10.2979/3254.0 · DOI
  13. Shweder, 1997, Morality and health, 119
  14. Talwar, 2011, Children and death: From biological to religious conceptions
  15. Vosniadou, 2008, International handbook of research on conceptual change, 3
  16. Wellman, 1997, New directions for child development: Children’s theories, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 332

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., & Harris, P. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Legare, Cristine H
ORCID
Venue
Child Development
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-05-01
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
779-793
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x
OpenAlex
W1576580351
Cited by
332
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/I005455/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
Keywords
supernatural explanations, dual-process theory, cognitive development, cross-cultural comparison, origin of species, illness beliefs, death beliefs, religious cognition
MeSH terms
Attitude to Death, Attitude to Health, Child, Child Development, Concept Formation, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Biological Evolution, Humans, Knowledge

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