1. “I saw the real Father Christmas!” How do we develop an understanding of what is real? Dr Louise Bunce, CPsychol 11 th September 2014 5 th Conference of Experimental Philosophy Group, UK Oxford Martin School, Oxford

2. Is it real?

3. Real or not real? Why?

9. On what basis were you making these judgments? Real or not real? Why?

10. Two notions of real Authenticity a)Not false or imitation, genuine, free from pretense, sincere, trustworthy b)Having reputed qualities or character Ontological Status - Exist a)To have being in the real world; to be b)To have life / the functions of vitality

11. Authenticity Existence

12. How do we develop the ability to make real/not real judgments? It’s difficult!

13. Two concepts; one word Authenticity Ontological Status Real

14. Children’s everyday uses of ‘real’ Bunce & Harris (2008). “I saw the real Father Christmas!” Children’s everyday uses of the words real, really and pretend. British Journal of Developmental Psychology

15. Children’s everyday uses of ‘real’ Diary study method Children aged 2-7-years 1000 utterances

16. Children’s everyday uses of ‘real’ Is it a real horse or a rocking horse? Babies can’t have real drills just play ones. It (the hosepipe) isn’t a real gun. You can’t eat it (toy cake) Daddy, it’s not real. I want a real dog. I’m the real Spiderman! I saw the real Father Christmas! There aren’t real monsters.

17. Uses of ‘real’ by age

18. Children’s everyday uses of ‘real’ Authenticity most frequent Fantasy characters? Existence: Father Christmas isn’t real Authenticity: That’s not the real Father Christmas Implications for questioning Bunce, L., & Harris, M. (2013). “He hasn’t got the real toolkit!” Young children’s reasoning about real/not-real status. Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1494.

19. Children’s real/not real judgments Real or not real? How do you know? Hypothesis: Children can make authenticity judgments before existence judgments 2 Age groups: Younger, M = 3;10 years Older M = 4;11 years 3 Conditions (items presented individually) Toy Dressing-up Fictional character

20. Toy condition: Is this fireman real? Why? Children’s real/not real judgments

21. Dressing-up condition: Is this fireman real? Why? Children’s real/not real judgments

22. Fictional character condition: Is this fireman real? Why? Children’s real/not real judgments

23. % of correct judgments 3;10-year-olds 4;11-year-olds

24. % of correct judgments 3;10-year-olds 4;11-year-olds

25. Children’s justifications Authenticity Not-real: It’s just a toy one; He’s just dressed-up; She’s a Lego person Real: He’s a proper fireman; He’s got the right tools Existence Not-real: He’s Postman Pat and he posts all the letters in Postman Pat world; She works on telly; I watch it on telly Real: He lives in the farm; It’s a south west train and I know it because I can see it in the station

26. 3;10-year-olds 4;11-year-olds % of authenticity (blue) and existence justifications (brown)

27. 3;10-year-olds 4;11-year-olds

28. Our question was intentionally vague Solicited children’s spontaneous judgments and justifications Can we improve performance? Can we reduce ambiguity of the judgment (especially for fictional characters) by presenting entities in pairs? Children’s real/not real judgments

29. Pair presentation: Is this fireman real? Why? Children’s real/not real judgments

30. % of correct judgments Single condition Pair condition 3;10-year-olds 4;11-year-olds

31. Judgments Single condition Pair condition Passed33%70% How did individuals perform? Categorised as pass or fail

32. Summary Children develop an understanding of ‘real’ in relation to authenticity before ontological status They can judge toys and people dressing-up as not-real by age 3½ years Understanding the ontological status of fictional characters emerges from 4½ yrs

33. “Is it real?” Oxford University Museum of Natural History

34. Authenticity and Ontological Status: Is it real?

35. Method Alone condition Toy condition Hypotheses: 1) Developmental change in number of real judgments and criteria 2) Increase in number of ‘real’ judgments in toy condition

36. Participants 4-5-year-olds 6-7-year-olds 8-10-year-olds Adults N = 149

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

38. Results: Is it real? (%)

39. Results Overall Context: 46% alone vs 76% with toy. Hypothesis supported: The toy condition significantly increased (children’s) perception of the rabbit as ‘real’. Age: Increase in ‘real’ with age What criteria?

40. Justifications: Why? Real (60%)Not Real (40%) LifeIt 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) PropertiesIt’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)

41. Justifications: Why? Real (60%)Not Real (40%) LifeIt 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) PropertiesIt’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)

42. Justifications: Why? Real (60%)Not Real (40%) LifeIt 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) PropertiesIt’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)

43. Justifications: Why? Real (60%)Not Real (40%) LifeIt 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) PropertiesIt’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% 40% 75%

44. Proportion of life and property justifications according to age and condition

46. Summary Do children categorise taxidermy as real? Depends on age and context Impact for museum practice to foster the ‘awe inspiring’ experience that comes only from knowingly interacting with the real thing –contrast taxidermy with toys In turn this will promote children’s curiosity, engagement and learning in NHM

47. Further Research

48. Acknowledgments: Janet Stott, Chris Jarvis and OUMNH as well as all my participants Thank you for listening Comments/Questions? @L_Bunce

49. 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