PreprintCited by 133Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do Minds Switch Bodies? Dualist interpretations across ages and societies_postprint

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1080/2153599x.2017.1377757 · Paper page

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).

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/q67te

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Metadata

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
Published
2018-01-08
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
354-368
ISSN
2153-5981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2761419577
Cited by
133
References
1
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
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 › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › 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