IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0220886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Mickey Mouse problem: Distinguishing religious and fictional counterintuitive agents

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Swan
  • Jamin Halberstadt

Abstract

The Mickey Mouse problem refers to the difficulty in predicting which supernatural agents are capable of eliciting belief and religious devotion. We approached the problem directly by asking participants to invent a “religious” or a “fictional” agent with five supernatural abilities. Compared to fictional agents, religious agents were ascribed a higher proportion of abilities that violated folk psychology or that were ambiguous–violating nonspecific or multiple domains of folk knowledge–and fewer abilities that violated folk physics and biology. Similarly, participants rated folk psychology violations provided by the experimenter as more characteristic of religious agents than were violations of folk physics or folk biology, while fictional agents showed no clear pattern. Religious agents were also judged as more potentially beneficial, and more ambivalent (i.e., similar ratings of benefit and harm), than fictional agents, regardless of whether the agents were invented or well-known to participants. Together, the results support a motivational account of religious belief formation that is facilitated by these biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Swan & Jamin Halberstadt, 2019. "The Mickey Mouse problem: Distinguishing religious and fictional counterintuitive agents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220886
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220886
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220886&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0220886?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Gill & Erik Lundsgaarde, 2004. "State Welfare Spending and Religiosity," Rationality and Society, , vol. 16(4), pages 399-436, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hungerman, Daniel & Rinz, Kevin & Weninger, Tim & Yoon, Chungeun, 2018. "Political campaigns and church contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-426.
    2. Philipp Ager & Antonio Ciccone, 2018. "Agricultural Risk and the Spread of Religious Communities," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1021-1068.
    3. Aloys L. Prinz & Christian J. Sander, 2020. "Political leadership and the quality of public goods and services: Does religion matter?," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 299-334, December.
    4. Elgin, Ceyhun & Goksel, Turkmen & Gurdal, Mehmet Y. & Orman, Cuneyt, 2013. "Religion, income inequality, and the size of the government," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 225-234.
    5. Ronen Bar-El & Teresa García-Muñoz & Shoshana Neuman & Yossef Tobol, 2013. "The evolution of secularization: cultural transmission, religion and fertility—theory, simulations and evidence," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(3), pages 1129-1174, July.
    6. Philipp Bagus & José Antonio Peña-Ramos & Antonio Sánchez-Bayón, 2021. "COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Gaël Giraud & Cécile RENOUARD & Rakesh GUPTA N. R. & Thomas ROCA, 2017. "Relational Capability Index 2.0," Working Paper aaa92c4c-2ea2-4cb1-abbf-b, Agence française de développement.
    8. Sascha O. Becker & Steven Pfaff, 2022. "Church and State in Historical Political Economy," Monash Economics Working Papers 2022-09, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    9. Anthony Gill, 2021. "The comparative endurance and efficiency of religion: a public choice perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(3), pages 313-334, December.
    10. Xingqiang Du, 2014. "Does Religion Mitigate Tunneling? Evidence from Chinese Buddhism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 299-327, December.
    11. Esteban, Joan & Levy, Gilat & Mayoral, Laura, 2018. "Liberté, égalité... religiosité," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87659, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Oscar Zapata, 2018. "Turning to God in Tough Times? Human Versus Material Losses from Climate Disasters in Canada," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 259-281, October.
    13. Rongjia Su & Dianjie Liang & Weili Teng, 2023. "The impact of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism on CSR practices in family businesses in China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 1394-1417, September.
    14. Daniel M. Hungerman & Kevin Rinz & Jay Frymark, 2019. "Beyond the Classroom: The Implications of School Vouchers for Church Finances," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 588-601, October.
    15. Ziad Esa Yazid & Joriah Mohamad & Henk Folmer, 2011. "Secularization In Malaysia: Evidence From Zakat Contribution," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1645, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Mark Pingle & Tigran Melkonyan, 2012. "To believe or not believe…or not decide: A decision-theoretic model of agnosticism," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(4), pages 408-441, November.
    17. Hien, Josef, 2017. "The European Sovereign Debt Crisis and the Danger of Ideational Monocultures," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 115-124.
    18. Brian Burgoon, 2006. "On Welfare and Terror," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(2), pages 176-203, April.
    19. Philipp Ager & Antonio Ciccone, 2013. "Rainfall Risk and Religious Membership in the Late Nineteenth-Century US," Working Papers 2013-17, FEDEA.
    20. Jo Thori Lind & Daniel Chen, 2016. "The Political Economy Of Beliefs: Why Fiscal And Social Conservatives/Liberals Come Hand-In-Hand," 2016 Meeting Papers 606, Society for Economic Dynamics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.