The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
When Minds Migrate: Conceptualizing Spirit Possession
Abstract
To investigate possible cognitive factors influencing the cross-cultural incidence of spirit possession concepts and to develop a more refined understanding of the precise contours of 'intuitive mind-body dualism' (Bloom, 2004), two studies were conducted that explored adults' intuitions about the relationship between minds and bodies. Specifically, the studies explored how participants reason about the effects of a hypothetical mind-migration across a range of behaviours. Both studies used hypothetical mind-transfer scenarios in which the mind of one person ("Beth") is transferred into the body of another person ("Ann"). Participants were asked to reason about the new post-transfer person's behaviours and aptitudes. In Study 1, participants (n=25) were provided with a scale on which they indicated their answers; in Study 2, participants (n=26) responded to open-ended questions. In both studies, the majority of participants reasoned that while the post-transfer person's performance on physical tasks (e.g., sprinting) would be similar to the host (i.e., Ann) performance on mental tasks (e.g., story-telling) would be similar to the person whose mind has been transferred (i.e., Beth). Further, participants tended to assume a complete displacement of minds, such that the post-transfer person's performance on mental task items was reasoned to be identical to incoming person's performance normally. The relevance of these findings for explaining the variable incidence and spread of different possession concepts is discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
When reasoning about topics such as spirit possession or the afterlife, study participants in the Western world have intuitions about which capacities clearly go with 'the mind' (abstract thoughts and personal identity), which clearly go with 'the body' (physiological functions), and which are intermediate capacities, such as appetites and habits, that straddle body and mind.
“When reasoning about topics such as spirit possession or the afterlife, study participants in the Western world have intuitions about which capacities clearly go with ' the mind ' (abstract thoughts and personal identity); which clearly go with ' the body ' (physiological functions); and which are intermediate capacities, such as appetites and habits, that straddle body and mind (Cohen 2007; Cohen”
From Body and Mind in Early China: An Integrated Humanities–Science Approach (2013) · cites this paper as Cohen and Barrett 2008
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Cohen, E., & Barrett, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Cognition and Culture
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 23-48
- ISSN
- 1567-7095 (ISSN-L)
- 1568-5373
- OpenAlex
- W2013418559
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cognition and Culture (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- spirit possession, mind-body dualism, cross-cultural variation, mind-body problem, physical abilities
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