Poster #26 - The coexistence of natural and supernatural concepts across causal and moral reasoning

• In Event: 1-061 - Poster Session 02
  In Poster Session: PS 02 Section - Cognitive Processes

Integrative Statement

Recent research has revealed that children and adults use both natural (including scientific) and supernatural (including religious) concepts to understand and interpret events—a phenomenon dubbed “coexistence” (Harris & Koenig, 2006; Legare, Evans, Rosengren & Harris, 2012; Legare & Gelman, 2008). Research has focused primarily on coexistence within the context of causal reasoning, and has not yet explored how it might exist across different reasoning contexts, including moral reasoning. The current study examined children’s and adult’s use of natural and supernatural concepts across causal and moral reasoning contexts. Our first goal was to determine whether there is a difference in people’s use of natural and supernatural concepts depending on the type of reasoning context (causal vs. moral). Our second goal was to compare the extent to which participants justified their claims using natural and supernatural sources of information.

In order to reach these goals, 30 participants (Nchildren=15, Mage=12.71; Nadults=15, Mage=46) from Vermont were interviewed using a series of hypothetical vignettes (cf. Woolley et al., 2011) and competing claims (cf. Kuhn et al., 2000) probing causal and moral reasoning. Interviews were transcribed, resulting in 256 pages for analysis.

A coding scheme was created for identifying types of natural and supernatural concepts. The process involved three researchers independently identifying, and then collaboratively discussing and revising common themes through multiple passes through the transcripts (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). The final scheme consisted of 14 categories (with 43 subcategories) (Cohen’s Kappa=.813). We identified 543 concepts total using this scheme (53.6% natural, 46.4% supernatural).

A chi-square test of independence revealed a significant relationship between type of concept type (natural vs. supernatural) and context of reasoning (causal vs. moral), X2 (1, N = 543) = 43.957, p=.000, Cramer’s V = 0.285. For causal reasoning, participants typically appealed to natural (61.4%) vs. supernatural (38.6%) concepts. For moral reasoning, participants typically appealed to supernatural (72.2%) over natural (27.8%) concepts.

To address our second study goal, we examined whether and how participants justified their claims by analyzing the sources of information they appealed to. Participants’ justifications were more likely to include natural concepts (e.g., empirical studies, sensory experience) than supernatural concepts (e.g., Scripture, pastor’s teachings).

Previous research suggests various ways that people’s natural and supernatural concepts coexist in their causal reasoning. Our study, by looking across causal and moral reasoning contexts, suggests another way that these concepts may coexist—namely, by answering different questions. Specifically, while natural concepts were used to talk about the causality of events, supernatural concepts were used to talk about morality. Further, discussions with natural concepts more frequently referred to the sources of those concepts. Together, these preliminary findings suggest that reasoning involving supernatural concepts is focused less on how we know what we know, and more on how to live one’s life. As we continue collecting data from more participants, our next step will be to examine developmental trajectories within these general trends. More broadly, studies of this kind can continue to illuminate how seemingly opposing concepts can coexist in people’s reasoning.

Authors

• Audrey Williams, Middlebury College
  Presenting Author

• Lily Massaro, Middlebury College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Katrina Drury, Middlebury College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Allison DiBianca Fasoli, middlebury college
  Non-Presenting Author