3.8 Article

Do minds switch bodies? Dualist interpretations across ages and societies

Journal

RELIGION BRAIN & BEHAVIOR
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 354-368

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2017.1377757

Keywords

Dualism; mind-perception; body-switching; developmental; cross-cultural; psychology

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 recruited 180 Canadian children (2-10 yrs) along with 42 Indigenous iTaukei 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 that 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 that dualist interpretations emerge early and everywhere fit our data better than models positing that 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).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available