The study of social cognition involves the attribution of states of mind to humans, as well as, quite recently, to nonhuman creatures, like God. Some studies support the role of social cognition in religious beliefs, whereas others ascribe religious beliefs to an ontological knowledge bias. The present study compares these distinct approaches in 37 catholic children aged 4 to 10 years, who were administered an adapted version of the unexpected content task assessing false beliefs of different agents: a human, a dog, a robot, and God. The children were also administered an intentionality understanding task, a component of mentalization abilities, and an interview on ontological knowledge assessing emotions, intentions, imagination, and epistemic knowledge. In line with previous research, the results showed that children did not attribute false beliefs to God as they did to the human and to other nonhuman agents. Importantly, while false-belief attribution to the human was associated with the children’s ability to attribute mental states (intentionality understanding), false-belief attribution to God was related to children’s ontological knowledge. We conclude that, contrary to false-belief attribution to the human and to other nonhuman agents, children’s understanding of God’s mind is largely a function of ontological knowledge about God, rather than of children’s social cognitive functions.

Di Dio, C., Isernia, S., Ceolaro, C., Marchetti, A., Massaro, D., Growing Up Thinking of God’s Beliefs: Theory of Mind and Ontological Knowledge, <<SAGE OPEN>>, 2018; 2018/8 (4): 1-14. [doi:10.1177/2158244018809874] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/127006]

Growing Up Thinking of God’s Beliefs: Theory of Mind and Ontological Knowledge

Di Dio, Cinzia
Primo
;
Isernia, Sara
Secondo
;
Marchetti, Antonella
Penultimo
;
Massaro, Davide
Ultimo
2018

Abstract

The study of social cognition involves the attribution of states of mind to humans, as well as, quite recently, to nonhuman creatures, like God. Some studies support the role of social cognition in religious beliefs, whereas others ascribe religious beliefs to an ontological knowledge bias. The present study compares these distinct approaches in 37 catholic children aged 4 to 10 years, who were administered an adapted version of the unexpected content task assessing false beliefs of different agents: a human, a dog, a robot, and God. The children were also administered an intentionality understanding task, a component of mentalization abilities, and an interview on ontological knowledge assessing emotions, intentions, imagination, and epistemic knowledge. In line with previous research, the results showed that children did not attribute false beliefs to God as they did to the human and to other nonhuman agents. Importantly, while false-belief attribution to the human was associated with the children’s ability to attribute mental states (intentionality understanding), false-belief attribution to God was related to children’s ontological knowledge. We conclude that, contrary to false-belief attribution to the human and to other nonhuman agents, children’s understanding of God’s mind is largely a function of ontological knowledge about God, rather than of children’s social cognitive functions.
Inglese
Di Dio, C., Isernia, S., Ceolaro, C., Marchetti, A., Massaro, D., Growing Up Thinking of God’s Beliefs: Theory of Mind and Ontological Knowledge, <<SAGE OPEN>>, 2018; 2018/8 (4): 1-14. [doi:10.1177/2158244018809874] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/127006]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2018_DiDio et al_SageOpen.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 365.5 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
365.5 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/127006
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 17
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact