ReviewCognitive science2016
How Children and Adults Represent God's Mind.
Review in Cognitive science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The roles of cognitive dissonance and normative reasoning in attributions of minds to robots.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Article
- Autism and Religion.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Embodying the avatar of an omnipotent agent modulates the perception of one's own abilities and enhances feelings of invulnerability.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Correspondence in parents' and children's concepts of god: Investigating the role of parental values, religious practices and executive functioning.The British journal of developmental psychology · 2022Article
- Introduction to Special Issue: Diverse Disciplinary Approaches to the Study of Adolescent Religious and Spiritual Development.Adolescent research review · 2021Article
- The Minds of God(s) and Humans: Differences in Mind Perception in Fiji and North America.Cognitive science · 2019Article
- Representational coexistence in the God concept: Core knowledge intuitions of God as a person are not revised by Christian theology despite lifelong experience.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2018Article
- Article
- Dimensional Structure of and Variation in Anthropomorphic Concepts of God.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- The faces of God in America: Revealing religious diversity across people and politics.PloS one · 2018Article
- The explanatory structure of unexplainable events: Causal constraints on magical reasoning.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For centuries, humans have contemplated the minds of gods. Research on religious cognition is spread across sub-disciplines, making it difficult to gain a complete understanding of how people reason about gods' minds. We integrate approaches from cognitive, developmental, and social psychology and neuroscience to illuminate the origins of religious cognition. First, we show that although adults explicitly discriminate supernatural minds from human minds, their implicit responses reveal far less discrimination. Next, we demonstrate that children's religious cognition often matches adults' implicit responses, revealing anthropomorphic notions of God's mind. Together, data from children and adults suggest the intuitive nature of perceiving God's mind as human-like. We then propose three complementary explanations for why anthropomorphism persists in adulthood, suggesting that anthropomorphism may be (a) an instance of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic; (b) a reflection of early testimony; and/or (c) an evolutionary byproduct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.