D OES G OD M AKE IT R EAL ? C HILDREN ’ S B ELIEF IN R ELIGIOUS S TORIES FROM THE J UDEO -C HRISTIAN T RADITION Jacqueline D. Woolley and Victoria Cox Vaden The University of Texas

HOW DO WE REPRESENT REALITY STATUS? Not real Real certainty certainty Boundary is movable. What factors affect movement of the boundary? Context (Woolley & Van Reet, 2006) Availability (Johnson & Harris, 1994; Bourchier & Davis, 2002) Emotion (Samuels & Taylor, 1994; Carrick & Quas) Motivation to believe / cost of believing (Carrick & Quas, 2006; Woolley & Phelps, 2001)

F OCUS OF THE PRESENT STUDY Reference to God as a potential factor that can affect shifting of the boundary between fantasy and reality

RELIGIOUS STORIES Often contain a mixture of natural and supernatural elements Ordinary people granted special powers Events that defy scientific principles Are conveyed as historical by authority figures Parents Sunday school teachers

BACKGROUND Goldman (1964) - 80% of children up to age 12 held literal views of Bible stories Bucher (1991) - children up to age 11 held literal views of Bible stories ABC news poll (Morris, 2004) - 6 in 10 adults hold literal views of Bible stories

W HAT DO CHILDREN THINK ABOUT STORYBOOK REALITY ? Woolley & Cox (2007) Presented 3- to 5-year-old children with three types of storybook: Fantastical – fantastical main character or fantastical theme throughout (e.g., Moon Soup) Realistic – realistic main character and events (e.g., book about a boy who climbs a hill with his grandfather) Religious – primarily religious parables adapted for children (e.g., Daniel in the Lion’s Den) Children asked to judge whether the characters were real and whether the events really happened.

W HAT DO CHILDREN THINK ABOUT STORYBOOK REALITY ? Woolley & Cox (2007)

W HAT FACTORS INFLUENCE CHILDREN ’ S REALITY STATUS BELIEFS ? God’s involvement in an event Familiarity Family religiosity

M ETHOD 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds, primary Christian Between (religiosity of stories) – Within (familiarity) design Two levels of religiosity of stories (between subjects): References to God intact References to God removed Two levels of familiarity (within subjects): Familiar Bible stories Unfamiliar Bible stories

MOSES AND MATTHEW AND THETHE RED SEAGREEN SEA Moses led God’s people, the Israelites, out of Egypt to get away from the mean Egyptians.. But the king of Egypt was mad. He sent his army to chase after them.. The Israelites called to God for help, and God told Moses, “Do not be afraid. Stretch out your hands over the sea to part the water..” God told Moses to stretch out his hands again so the sea would go back.. Matthew was helping the people of Ison, the Isonites, out of the town to get away from the mean king.. But the king of Ison was mad. He sent his army to chase after them.. The Isonites called to Matthew for help, and Matthew stretched his hands over the sea to part the water.. Matthew stretched out his hands again so the sea would go back together..

ELIJAH AND THE ETHAN AND THE FLOUR AND OILFLOUR AND OIL Elijah was hiding from King Ahab.. God told Elijah, “Pack up your things.. And so Elijah did exactly what God told him to do... Elijah said to the woman, “Don’t worry! God has promised that your flour and oil will not be used up.” The woman did this and each day more flour and oil appeared (in the jar). Ethan was hiding from the mayor of Morganton.. Ethan’s father told him, “Pack up your things.. And so Ethan did exactly what his father told him to do.. Ethan said to the woman, “Don’t worry! Your flour and oil will not be used up.” The woman did this, and each day more flour and oil appeared (in the jar).

T EST QUESTIONS Event factuality : Did the event happen in real life? Event possibility : Could the event happen in real life? Character factuality : Is the character a real person or is he just in the story? General principles task Parent religiosity questionnaire

EFFECTS OF CONDITION ON CLAIMS ABOUT EXISTENCE OF CHARACTERS

EFFECTS OF CONDITION ON CLAIMS ABOUT FACTUALITY OF EVENTS

EFFECT OF CONDITION ON CLAIMS ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF EVENTS

E FFECTS OF FAMILIARITY ON CHARACTER JUDGMENTS (R ELIGIOUS CONDITION ONLY )

E FFECTS OF FAMILIARITY ON EVENT JUDGMENTS (R ELIGIOUS CONDITION ONLY )

D ID REFERENCE T O G OD EXERT AN EFFECT INDEPENDENT OF FAMILIARITY ? Concern: Because (by definition) the religious references remained in the religious stories, the familiar religious stories were more familiar than the familiar non-religious stories. Question: Is the condition effect really just a familiarity effect? Test: Examine effects of condition in the Unfamiliar stories. Answer: No. ANCOVA revealed that condition exerts an effect over and above any potential effects of familiarity.

E FFECTS OF FAMILY RELIGIOSITY Children with higher family religiosity (FR) scores more often judged characters as real (Religious condition) Children with higher FR scores more often judged events as real (Religious condition) No differences re: event possibility No effects of FR in Non-religious condition Religious education an important component of FR

C ONCLUSIONS Between 4 and 6, children increasingly use God’s involvement as a cue to adjust the boundary between fantasy and reality. How does this work? Reference to God sets up a context God as part of causal chain

C ONCLUSIONS ( CONT.) Familiar stories are more likely to be judged as real How does this work? Increased familiarity  reality status Multiple contexts/formats  reality status Church  reality status

F UTURE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Do beliefs in God’s omnipotence lead to belief in the reality of stories OR Does belief in the reality of stories promote beliefs in omnipotence? What role is played by children’s knowledge that these stories come from the Bible? Would this process operate with more modern story events? What constraints are there on this? Other religions What other mechanisms can lead to shifting of reality/fantasy boundary?

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NICHD) Grant R01 HD to Jacqueline Woolley, and by a grant from the Deborah Beth Lobliner Graduate Fellowship to Victoria Cox. Thanks to undergraduate research assistants: Michael Aguhar, Amanda Amescua, Lacy Cervenka, Rebecca Feng, Janette Flores, Dorna Hoseiny, Matt Maa, Claudia Mejia, Oshma Raj, Rachel Riskind, Christine Setty, Elizabeth Shults, Betsy Sohmer, Courtney Stollon, Hayley Stulmaker, and Van Winn.