From 8dafd8aec819e85fd36cbd1d6231aad24e62c31b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Holden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:21:57 -0400
Subject: Finished work from last semester

---
 stanzione/rev4.tex | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 119 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 stanzione/rev4.tex

(limited to 'stanzione/rev4.tex')

diff --git a/stanzione/rev4.tex b/stanzione/rev4.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fc2c4a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stanzione/rev4.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+% Mastery Mailing 1
+\documentclass[12pt]{apa7}
+\usepackage[style=apa,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\setlength{\headheight}{15pt}
+
+% According to several sources, the following commands should be active
+% for an APA paper, but I just hate them.
+% \raggedright
+% \language255 % no hyphenation
+\parindent=.5in
+\linespread{2}
+
+\shorttitle{Article Review IV}
+
+\addbibresource{sources.bib}
+
+\leftheader{Rohrer}
+
+\begin{document}
+\centerline{\textbf{Article Review IV: Does God Make It Real?}}
+
+We carry our beliefs and ideas with us from childhood to adulthood, but
+how do we discern what's true and what's fiction?
+Adults have very established frameworks for figuring out the truth, and
+these frameworks can start developing in childhood.
+Judeo-Christian religion is one of these frameworks.
+The study ``Does God Make It Real? Children's Belief in Religious
+Stories from the Judeo-Christian Tradition'' analyzed the epistemology
+of children between ages four and six based on their level of belief in
+fictional stories told by researchers (some stories being religious and
+others being nonreligious).
+However, this research, unlike previous literature, controlled for the
+content of the stories better (instead of using varying levels of
+fantasy/realistic elements in the story).
+Whether the story was religious or nonreligious was an independent
+variable tested in this study.
+The nonreligious stories were the same as the comparable biblical story
+except without mentioning God (ex: Matthew and the Green Sea).
+The authors also measured family religiosity (a self-report survey for
+parents on how important faith was to themselves and their children) and
+how familiar the stories were, also determined from the parents
+\autocite{god}.
+
+After telling the children the story, the researchers asked children
+whether the characters in the story really existed, whether the miracle
+from the story actually happened, and whether the miraculous event could
+happen in modern times in real life.
+Each of these questions was scored from 0 (no belief) to 4 (high
+belief) and treated as the dependent variable.
+Children were also asked to explain how the scientifically impossible
+event in the story happened, which was classed into four categories:
+a ``don't know,'' a religious explanation, a scientific explanation, or
+a magical explanation.
+Last, the children were asked questions about general principles for
+what could happen in real life related to the miracles in the stories
+they had heard (questions like ``could flour appear in a container all
+on its own?'' or ``could a pumpkin grow out of pumpkin seeds?'')
+
+The authors hypothesize that children told a religious story are more
+likely to believe it because stories about God are epistemically
+different and are less required to adhere to scientific truth.
+Authority figures like parents and trusted adults also often present
+religious stories as historically true events.
+At this age, children are learning to distinguish real versus
+fantastical events, so the lines of what's real are blurrier than for
+older children.
+This hypothesis was confirmed, as children did call the religious
+stories real more often than the nonreligious ones, but this effect was
+only significant within the 6-year-old group.
+
+Another independent variable that was analyzed was family religiosity as
+reported by parents.
+Children from religious families were significantly more likely to claim
+that religious events happened in real life, but were not significantly
+more likely to say that the event in question could happen now.
+This points to children distinguishing religious stories as a different
+class of explanation from those that apply to their lived experience.
+Then, researchers looked at religious education and familiarity with the
+religious stories.
+Level of religious education had an insignificant effect beyond
+increasing children's familiarity with the stories researchers were
+telling, which did in fact increase children's level of belief in the
+stories.
+The general principle questions also showed that children new that these
+events were impossible, so they were not misunderstanding the physical
+principles behind the miracles in the story and actually had a different
+truth-finding method in this domain.
+
+The other measured dependent variable is the reported explanations for
+the events in the tales.
+Children in the nonreligious condition were more likely to offer a
+natural explanation, and children in the religious condition were more
+likely to offer a religious explanation of the event.
+Children also offered more religious explanations as they got older (5-
+and 6-year olds had significantly more religious explanations than
+4-year-olds)
+Also, offering a religious explanation of the focal event correlated
+with higher reality status beliefs.
+
+Researchers believe that God may be an important ``reality status'' cue
+for children, engaging a different context and shifting
+reality-nonreality boundaries for participants.
+This context change may be explained, however, by general principle of
+increased familiarity (hearing a story repeatedly) or by a specific
+religious principle where hearing a story in church confers a greater
+reality status than it would otherwise have.
+
+\iffalse
+- Hypothesis
+- IV/DV
+- Controls
+- Results
+- Conclusions
+\fi
+
+\vfil\eject
+\printbibliography
+\end{document}
-- 
cgit 

