Keep it real, keep it relevant: Developing a research study on authenticity Seminar 3 Natural History Museum, London, 8th July 2014

Is it real? Perceptions of Authenticity in Museums of Natural History Dr Louise Bunce, CPsychol Natural History Museum, London, 8th July 2014

Is it real? The ability to categorise on the basis of real/not-real status is important because it guides our cognitions and behaviours and enables us to predict and explain novel entities on the basis of features that they share with other category members (Gelman, 2003) If an entity can be categorised correctly as real or not-real then a range of inferences follows from the classification. Thus the ability to categorise is a vital skill that facilitates learning – if we know that something is real then we are more likely to take it seriously and apply knowledge from it to other category members.

Is it real? Why?

Authenticity Not false or imitation, genuine, free from pretense 1) Artifactual Objects Original, intentional origin vs copy, fake 2) Objects of Nature Natural, not intentional origin vs man made Evans, Mull & Polling (2002)

Is it real? The Messiah (violin) 1716 Stradivari exhibition Ashmolean Oxford

Is it real? T-Rex, Marwell Zoo

Is it real? Ring-tailed Coatie, Marwell Zoo

Is it real? Rhinoceros NHM at Tring

“Crap in the attic?1” 1http://tinyurl.com/n6gw3mc ‘Crap in the Attic?’: the management and use of natural history collections 20 November 2013, 10.30-17.15, Oxford University Museum of Natural History Oxford University Museum of Natural History, in partnership with Oxford ASPIRE, would like to invite colleagues from organisations with natural history collections in the region to ‘Crap in the Attic?’: a symposium on the challenges facing natural history collections in the region, the role of natural history collections within the wider sector, and what the region needs in order to ensure the future of these significant collections. 1http://tinyurl.com/n6gw3mc Oxford University Museum of Natural History

Is it real? Oxford University Museum of Natural History

Participants 4 age groups, Total = 149 4-5-year-olds 6-7-year-olds Adults

Method Questions included: Is it real? Is it alive? Did it used to be alive? Was it born? Does it have a heart inside? Did it used to have a heart inside? Does it belong in a museum?

Method Alone condition +toy condition Hypothesis: The +toy condition would increase children’s perception of the taxidermy as ‘real’

Results: Is it real? (%) One adult said the taxidermy rabbit (in the toy condition) is not real They explained this by saying ‘it used to be real, but its dead’

Results Overall 60% Context: 46% alone vs 76% with toy Age: 45%, 56%, 63%, 95% 4yr, 6yr, 8yr, Adults Hypothesis supported: The toy condition significantly increased children’s perception of the rabbit as ‘real’.

Justifications: Why? Real (60%) Not Real (40%) Life (37%) It was alive before it died (7) It looks like it used to be alive but its not alive now (7) It used to hop around at one point (Ad) It lived such a long time ago, so it's dead by now (6) It’s stuck on here (the base) and it’s not alive (4) It’s stuffed so it’s not alive now (10) Authenticity (58%) It’s got spikey claws and bunnies are supposed to have spikey claws (4) It has real fur and real actual ears (5) It feels like the real thing (6) The fur feels like a real one and it just looks real (8) Normal rabbits are meant to be soft, this one isn’t because it’s plastic (6) It’s a model (7) I don’t think an actual bunny would feel like it is (9)

Justifications: Why? Real (60%) Not Real (40%) Life (37%) It was alive before it died (7) It looks like it used to be alive but its not alive now (7) It used to hop around at one point (Ad) It lived such a long time ago, so it's dead by now (6) It’s stuck on here (the base) and it’s not alive (4) It’s stuffed so it’s not alive now (10) Authenticity (58%) It’s got spikey claws and bunnies are supposed to have spikey claws (4) It has real fur and real actual ears (5) It feels like the real thing (6) The fur feels like a real one and it just looks real (8) Normal rabbits are meant to be soft, this one isn’t because it’s plastic (6) It’s a model (7) I don’t think an actual bunny would feel like it is (9)

Justifications: Why? Real (60%) Not Real (40%) Life (37%) It was alive before it died (7) It looks like it used to be alive but its not alive now (7) It used to hop around at one point (Ad) It lived such a long time ago, so it's dead by now (6) It’s stuck on here (the base) and it’s not alive (4) It’s stuffed so it’s not alive now (10) Authenticity (58%) It’s got spikey claws and bunnies are supposed to have spikey claws (4) It has real fur and real actual ears (5) It feels like the real thing (6) The fur feels like a real one and it just looks real (8) Normal rabbits are meant to be soft, this one isn’t because it’s plastic (6) It’s a model (7) I don’t think an actual bunny would feel like it is (9)

25% 60% 75% 40% Justifications: Why? Real (60%) Not Real (40%) Life (37%) It was alive before it died (7) It looks like it used to be alive but its not alive now (7) It used to hop around at one point (Ad) It lived such a long time ago, so it's dead by now (6) It’s stuck on here (the base) and it’s not alive (4) It’s stuffed so it’s not alive now (10) Authenticity (58%) It’s got spikey claws and bunnies are supposed to have spikey claws (4) It has real fur and real actual ears (5) It feels like the real thing (6) The fur feels like a real one and it just looks real (8) Normal rabbits are meant to be soft, this one isn’t because it’s plastic (6) It’s a model (7) I don’t think an actual bunny would feel like it is (9) 25% 60% 75% 40% In relation to changes according to age: -There was no change in the authenticity category -In the life category, it was more common for younger children than older children to say that the rabbit was not real because it’s not alive (49%) than to say that it is real because it used to be alive (22%). For older children and adults, it was the other way around: a life justification was used slightly more often to justify a real judgment (18%) than not real judgment (11%). In relation to the effect of condition (taxidermy alone vs taxidermy paired with toy): -More authenticity justifications were given in the toy condition (56%) than taxidermy alone condition (44%) -In contrast, more life justifications were given in the taxidermy alone condition (67%) compared to the toy condition (33%).

Further Research

Summary Do children categorise taxidermy as real? Depends on age and context Increase with age from 45% - 63% in 4-10 yr olds Context: 46% alone vs 76% with toy. We need to foster the ‘awe inspiring’ experience that comes only from knowingly interacting with the real thing In turn this will promote children’s curiosity, engagement and learning from objects of natural history in museums

References -Bunce, L. & Harris, M. (2013) “He’s not real because he hasn’t got the real tool kit” Young children’s reasoning about real/not-real status. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1494-1504 -Bunce, L. & Harris, M. (2008) “I saw the real Father Christmas!” Children’s everyday uses of the words real, really, and pretend. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 445-455. -Chiou, W. B., & Chao, Y. H. (2011). Genuineness matters: Using cheaper, generic products induces detrimental self-evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 672-675. -Evans, E., Mull, M. & Poling, D. (2002). The authentic object? A child’s-eye view. In S. G. Paris (Ed.) Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums. (pp. 55-77). Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. -Frazier, B.N., Gelman, S.A., Wilson, A., & Hood, B. (2009). Picasso paintings, moon rocks, and hand-written Beatles lyrics: Adults’ evaluations of authentic objects. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 9(1-2), 1-14. -Gelman, S. A., Frazier, B. N., Noles, N. S., Manczak, E. M., & Stilwell, S. M. (2014). How Much Are Harry Potter's Glasses Worth? Children's Monetary Evaluation of Authentic Objects. Journal of Cognition and Development, (just-accepted). -Hamp, C., & Schwan, S. (2014)The role of authentic objects in museums of the history of science and technology: Findings from a visitor study. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. -Huang, M., Bridge, H., Kemp, M. J., & Parker, A. J. (2011). Human cortical activity evoked by the assignment of authenticity when viewing works of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 134, 1-9. -Leinhardt, G., & Crowley, K. (2002). Objects of learning, objects of talk: Changing minds in museums. In S.G. Paris (Ed.) Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums (pp. 301-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Acknowledgments: Thank you for listening @L_Bunce Janet Stott, Chris Jarvis and OUMNH as well as all my participants Thank you for listening @L_Bunce