IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v8y2018i4p2158244018809874.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Cinzia Di Dio
  • Sara Isernia
  • Chiara Ceolaro
  • Antonella Marchetti
  • Davide Massaro

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cinzia Di Dio & Sara Isernia & Chiara Ceolaro & Antonella Marchetti & Davide Massaro, 2018. "Growing Up Thinking of God’s Beliefs: Theory of Mind and Ontological Knowledge," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:2158244018809874
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244018809874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018809874
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244018809874?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Ian Jack & Jared Parker Friedman & Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis & Scott Nolan Taylor, 2016. "Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mustafa Emre ÇAĞLAR, 2020. "Why does intellectuality weaken faith and sometimes foster it?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Michaela Hiebler-Ragger & Johanna Falthansl-Scheinecker & Gerhard Birnhuber & Andreas Fink & Human Friedrich Unterrainer, 2016. "Facets of Spirituality Diminish the Positive Relationship between Insecure Attachment and Mood Pathology in Young Adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-9, June.
    3. David L R Maij & Frenk van Harreveld & Will Gervais & Yann Schrag & Christine Mohr & Michiel van Elk, 2017. "Mentalizing skills do not differentiate believers from non-believers, but credibility enhancing displays do," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-31, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:2158244018809874. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.