Rosengren K S, Hickling A K
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign 61820.
Child Dev. 1994 Dec;65(6):1605-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00838.x.
Children's magical explanations and beliefs were investigated in 2 studies. In Study 1, we first asked 4- and 5-year-old children to judge the possibility of certain object transformations and to suggest mechanisms that might accomplish them. We then presented several commonplace transformations (e.g., cutting a string) and impossible events (magic tricks). Prior to viewing these transformations, children suggested predominantly physical mechanisms for the events and judged the magical ones to be impossible. After seeing the impossible events, many 4-year-olds explained them as "magic," whereas 5-year-olds explained them as "tricks." In Study 2, we replaced the magic tricks with "extraordinary" events brought about by physical or chemical reactions (e.g., heat causing paint on a toy car to change color). Prior to viewing the "extraordinary" transformations, children judged them to be impossible. After viewing these events, 4-year-olds gave more magical and fewer physical explanations than did 5-year-olds. Follow-up interviews revealed that most 4-year-olds viewed magic as possible under the control of an agent (magician) with special powers, whereas most 5-year-olds viewed magic as tricks that anyone can learn. In a third study, we surveyed parents to assess their perceptions and conceptions of children's beliefs in magic and fantasy figures. Parents perceived their children as beliefs in magic and fantasy figures. Parents perceived their children as believing in a number of magic and fantasy figures and reported encouraging such beliefs to some degree. Taken together, these findings suggest that many 4-year-olds view magic as a plausible mechanism, yet reserve magical explanations for certain real world events which violate their causal expectations.
两项研究对儿童的神奇解释和信念进行了调查。在研究1中，我们首先让4岁和5岁的儿童判断某些物体变形的可能性，并提出可能实现这些变形的机制。然后，我们展示了几个常见的变形（例如，剪断一根绳子）和不可能的事件（魔术）。在观看这些变形之前，孩子们主要为这些事件提出物理机制，并认为神奇的事件是不可能的。在看到不可能的事件后，许多4岁的孩子将其解释为“魔法”，而5岁的孩子则将其解释为“把戏”。在研究2中，我们用由物理或化学反应引起的“非凡”事件（例如，热量使玩具汽车上的油漆变色）取代了魔术。在观看“非凡”变形之前，孩子们认为它们是不可能的。在观看这些事件后，4岁的孩子比5岁的孩子给出了更多神奇的解释，而物理解释则更少。后续访谈显示，大多数4岁的孩子认为在有特殊能力的主体（魔术师）的控制下魔法是可能的，而大多数5岁的孩子则认为魔法是任何人都可以学会的把戏。在第三项研究中，我们对家长进行了调查，以评估他们对孩子对魔法和奇幻人物信念的看法和观念。家长们认为他们的孩子相信魔法和奇幻人物。家长们报告说他们的孩子相信许多魔法和奇幻人物，并在一定程度上鼓励这种信念。综合来看，这些发现表明，许多4岁的孩子将魔法视为一种合理的机制，但只为某些违反他们因果预期的现实世界事件保留神奇的解释。
