From 8dafd8aec819e85fd36cbd1d6231aad24e62c31b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Holden Rohrer 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