Children’s Reasoning on Their Personal Origins Natalie A. Emmons, Ph.D. Candidate

1. Children’s Reasoning on Their Personal Origins Natalie A. Emmons, Ph.D. Candidate Institute of Cognition & Culture, Queen’s University Belfast INTRODUCTION METHOD (continued) GRAPHS OF FINDINGS • What do I mean by origins? • In the context of this study, I investigated at what age children reason that there was a point of origin that set life in motion and how their inferences based on that knowledge affected attributions of functional capacities during the pre-life period. • Why study origins concepts? • Under-explored research topic • Studies on pre-life compliment existing work on after-life reasoning and may explain why after-life beliefs appear universally whereas pre-life beliefs do not. • Cultural specifics • Background Work (partial) • Evans, Poling, Mull (2001): Only 8-10-year-olds consistently grasped that animals and artefacts were not always here. • Bernstein & Cowan (1975): Most 3-4-year-olds believed babies have always existed; Most 7-8-year-olds used causal reasoning to explain baby origins but misunderstood reproductive processes; Half of 11-12-year-olds mentioned sperm and eggs as part of reproductive process, 40% cited fusion of genetic material as point of origin • Goldman & Goldman (1982): Cross-national study showed that most 5- & 7-year-olds misunderstood reproductive mechanisms; by 9 years began giving realistic explanations for baby origins; Swedish sample approx. 4 years ahead of English speaking samples in levels of reasoning about baby origins • Design • Four age groups: 5-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12 years • Three periods: baby, in utero, pre-life • Two question framing modalities: could, did* • 12 questions divided into 6 categories: • Could you(r)/ Did you(r) • Biological: Eyes work; Heart beat? • Psychobiological: Be Thirsty; Hungry? • Perceptual: Watch; Listen to something? • Epistemic: Think; Remember things? • Emotional: Be Happy; Sad? • Desire: Want; Desire anything? Conocoto sample, baby period RESULTS • Coding • Initial ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response + justification used to determine if responses indicated Functional or Non-functional reasoning. 6 codes used. The Functional and Functional- I don’t know codes comprised ‘Functional responses’ • Major Findings (based on ANOVAs) • Mean number of ‘Functional responses’ used as dependent variable; mean out of 2. Significance reported at p < .05 • Gender and Framing collapsed across variables: Gender no effect, Framing* had a main effect, p = .05, partial eta-squared small, ηp2= .02. Interactions not sig. • Conocoto Sample (N =211): all age groups reasoned that they had more mental and biological functions as a baby > in utero > pre-life • For baby period, Question category (Q.C.) and the Q.C. X Age Group (A.G.) interaction resulted in sig.effects. • For in utero period, A.G., Q.C. & the Q.C. X A.G. interaction resulted in sig. effects. The A.G. effect was limited to 5-6 > 7-8 • For pre-life period, A.G., Q.C. & the Q.C. X A.G. interaction resulted in sig. effects. A.G. effect was 5-6 > 7-8, 9-10, 11-12; 7-8 > 11-12. For Q.C. as age increased, emotional and desire states remained resistant to less attributions of function. • Shuar Sample (N = 72): 9-10 & 11-13 reasoned that they had more capacities as a baby > in utero > pre-life; 5-6 & 7-8 reasoned baby > in utero = pre-life • For baby period, only Q.C. produced a main effect. • For in utero period, only Q.C. produced a main effect. • For pre-life period, A.G. & Q.C. produced main effects. A.G. Effect was 5-6 = 7-8 > 11-13; 5-6 > 9-10. For Q.C. by 11-13, emotional > psychobiological & perceptual; desire = other question categories • Cultural Group Effects: a main effect of cultural group only appeared in the in utero period, Shuar group gave fewer functional responses than Conocoto group. For this period, A.G. & the Q.C. X Cultural Group interaction also had sig. effects. Shuar sample, baby period Conocoto sample, in utero period Shuar sample, in utero period METHOD • Two Ecuadorian Cultural Groups • Conocoto URBAN mestizo sample: 80% Catholic; Ecuadorian adults averaged 7.5 years of schooling in 2000 (Torres, 2005) • Shuar RURAL indigenous sample: Claim affiliation with Catholic or Christian church but most are not actively practising members; this community averaged 6 years of schooling with a 4 year standard deviation in a recent poll (Barrett, n.d.) • Purpose of Investigation • To determine the development of reasoning about one’s own mental and biological attributes during three distinct periods in the past; when one was a baby, while in utero, and prior to conception (i.e., pre-life) • Procedure • Participants introduced to three drawings used to depict three developmental periods; asked to complete ordering task of images; completed question sets. Conocoto sample, pre-life period Shuar sample, pre-life period CONCLUSION The development of pre-life reasoning appears to be related to age group. Ecuadorian children younger than 9-10 do not seem to fully grasp the concept of an origin point and give either higher than chance rates of function (5-6) or at chance rates (7-8) for the pre-life period. Question category differences also emerged but were dependent upon cultural group. *Shuar sample only received could framing References can be given upon request This research was partially funded by the John Templeton Foundation as part of the CRT project