Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical
belief structure in real and non-real figures
Rohan Kapita
´nyID
1,2
*, Nicole NelsonID
3
, Emily R. R. Burdett
2,4
, Thalia R. Goldstein
5
1School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, England, United Kingdom, 2School of
Anthropology and Museum Ethnology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, United Kingdom, 3School of
Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 4The University of Nottingham, Nottingham,
England, United Kingdom, 5Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United
States of America
*r.f.kapitany@keele.ac.uk
Abstract
To what extent do children believe in real, unreal, natural and supernatural figures relative to
each other, and to what extent are features of culture responsible for belief? Are some fig-
ures, like Santa Claus or an alien, perceived as more real than figures like Princess Elsa or
a unicorn? We categorized 13 figures into five a priori categories based on 1) whether chil-
dren receive direct evidence of the figure’s existence, 2) whether children receive indirect
evidence of the figure’s existence, 3) whether the figure was associated with culture-specific
rituals or norms, and 4) whether the figure was explicitly presented as fictional. We antici-
pated that the categories would be endorsed in the following order: ‘Real People’ (a person
known to the child,The Wiggles), ‘Cultural Figures’ (Santa Claus,The Easter Bunny,The
Tooth Fairy), ‘Ambiguous Figures’ (Dinosaurs,Aliens), ‘Mythical Figures’ (unicorns,ghosts,
dragons), and ‘Fictional Figures’ (Spongebob Squarepants,Princess Elsa,Peter Pan). In
total, we analysed responses from 176 children (aged 2–11 years) and 56 adults for ‘how
real’ they believed 13 individual figures were (95 children were examined online by their
parents, and 81 children were examined by trained research assistants). A cluster analysis,
based exclusively on children’s ‘realness’ scores, revealed a structure supporting our
hypotheses, and multilevel regressions revealed a sensible hierarchy of endorsement with
differing developmental trajectories for each category of figures. We advance the argument
that cultural rituals are a special form of testimony that influences children’s reality/fantasy
distinctions, and that rituals and norms for ‘Cultural Figures’ are a powerful and under-
researched factor in generating and sustaining a child’s endorsement for a figure’s reality
status. All our data and materials are publically available at https://osf.io/wurxy/.
Introduction
Children’s understanding of the real and unreal tends to be largely nuanced and accurate [1–
3]. By the age of three children can distinguish between veridical, imagined, and pretend enti-
ties [4,5] and between superficial and actual features of objects [6]. Even when children are
incorrect, it is often due to systematic cultural factors rather than their own idiosyncrasies or
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 1 / 25
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Kapita
´ny R, Nelson N, Burdett ERR,
Goldstein TR (2020) The child’s pantheon:
Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and
non-real figures. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0234142.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142
Editor: Jonathan Jong, Coventry University,
UNITED KINGDOM
Received: January 13, 2020
Accepted: May 19, 2020
Published: June 17, 2020
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142
Copyright: ©2020 Kapita
´ny et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: Our full data are
available at https://osf.io/wurxy/.
Funding: This research was supported by funding
from Horizon 2020 Excellent Science Grant
provided by the ERC (Ritual Modes, No. 694986).
cognitive abilities [7–9]. And in such cases children still show accuracy on the properties and
limits on the content of supernatural minds, suggesting a nuanced understanding of what such
figures can and cannot know [3,10,11]. And yet we have little idea how various kinds of non-
real figures are evaluated relative to each other: are different types of supernatural figures
endorsed with more or less confidence, and can children sensibly admit ambiguity within the
spectrum of their beliefs?
Not all supernatural figures are created equal. Some are concerned in particular domains of
life or behavior, while some are not [12]. Some act upon the world in direct ways, while others
do not interact at all; the presence of some figures is conditional, such that a set of behaviors
must be followed prior to, or in response to, the supernatural figure’s arrival. The latter is most
true for the most famous of the child’s pantheon—Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The
Tooth Fairy—who, somewhat uniquely in the western/European canon, require those who
believe to perform certain culturally sanctioned ritualistic actions. And while traditional forms
of testimony certainly contribute to belief, we argue that it may not be a coincidence the super-
natural figures commonly endorsed as real by children are the same figures who require chil-
dren to act in particular, culturally sanctioned ways.
Woolley and Ghossainy [13] argue that three factors can persuade a child of a figure’s verid-
icality: testimony, [indirect] evidence (e.g., chocolate eggs, or money left under a pillow), and
‘engagement in rituals’ (e.g., leaving cookies out for Santa, hiding teeth, or actively searching
for chocolate eggs; p. 1502) Additionally, Goldstein and Woolley [14] claim that [direct] evi-
dence (i.e., engagement with Santa at a mall) reduces skepticism and predicts belief. Children
use multiple forms of testimony to build beliefs about real and non-real figures, allowing for
fantasy-reality distinctions that extends beyond a simple binary evaluation of real or not-real,
and which may allow for sophisticated sub-categories and hierarchies (for a review see:
[15,16].
Cultural rituals and norms are only infrequently discussed as a form of testimony in the lit-
erature (perhaps due to the difficulty of experimental manipulation). And yet, there exist evi-
dence of its importance. Woolley, Boerger, & Markman (2004) created a fictional agent called
‘The Candy Witch’ in order to examine how a child’s understanding of supernatural figures
develops. They created an induction process that involved two different experimenters arriving
at a school on two separate occasions in the week preceding Halloween during which they
described and presented an image of the Candy Witch (in this manner they created a sense of
consensus). Children were told that The Candy Witch is a friendly witch who trades toys for
the candy that children collect at Halloween. In order to summon the Candy Witch, there
were multiple behavioral requirements: the child needed to refrain from eating some propor-
tion of their collected candy to pay the Candy Witch, while the child’s parent needed to phone
the witch to arrange the transaction. Across experiments this induction method led a majority
of children to report that the Candy Witch was real [17,18]. Among older children, participa-
tion in the behavioral aspects significantly increased endorsement of the reality of the Candy
Witch above those who only heard about the witch, with some weak evidence suggesting that
those who were visited, compared to those who were not, recalled more details about the
Candy Witch one year later [17,18].
In contrast, Piazza, Bering, and Ingram [19] created Princess Alice, but were unable to
arouse in children a response consistent with belief in her. Children were simply provided tes-
timony of Princess Alice: that she was magical, invisible, and present in the room. Children
later engaged in a task in which they were afforded the opportunity to cheat. While 11 children
(48%) professed belief in Princess Alice (5 were unsure, 7 did not) the ‘presence’ of Princess
Alice did not change their likelihood of cheating. Indeed, belief in Princess Alice did not signif-
icantly correlate with the child’s attempt to explore the place where she was ostensibly located
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 2 / 25
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
in the room, nor even with looking in her direction (subsequent research has also failed to find
positive results; see Kapita
´ny, Reindl, Nielsen, under review; [20]. These results suggest that
children’s beliefs are not so easily manipulated. We describe Princess Alice and the Candy
Witch as generalizable for larger real world beliefs, and argue that the degree of behavioral
involvement required on the part of children and the conspirators aids belief. Thus, children
may view the existence of some agents as being more plausible than others, and the key to this
distinction may be the associated behavioral requirements.
Behavior stipulations for figures may also be expressed as cultural and community rituals.
Henrich (2009) has argued that the ‘costliness’ of certain cultural actions are linked to the evi-
dential value of the act—one would not perform such strange actions (like erecting a dead tree
indoors and decorating it) if they did not think such actions were justified by sincere belief.
Broadly, the actions associated with beliefs, groups, and specific figures are culture-specific rit-
uals [21–25], which are argued to be necessary for the transmission of culture-specific values
and beliefs [26]. Consider Christmas: many families independently perform the same kinds of
behaviors for Santa, such as putting out milk and cookies (and a carrot for the flying reindeer),
erecting and decorating a tree inside a house, wrapping presents, and eating certain kinds of
food [27] in whole (or part) for Santa Claus. These behaviors are not just consistent within
families over time, but consistent between families within culture. Given that diverse consen-
sus of testimony leads to belief [18], diverse consensus of action may be just as (and possibly
even more) important. Rituals provide proxy evidence for the existence of such characters
upon which children rely, as they demonstrate the actor’s dedication to, or conviction for, the
specific figure [28]. Thus we argue that figures who require specific behavior under certain
conditions, which includes the performance of cultural rituals and norms, are more easily
accepted and endorsed as ‘real’ by children than figures who do not—particularly at the aggre-
gate level.
This study is the first attempt to present children with a range of real, cultural, and fantasti-
cal figures in order to determine whether children build a hierarchy of endorsement. We antic-
ipate that children will vary in the degree to which they endorse these figures as real, consistent
with a) the degree of direct evidence, b) the degree of indirect evidence, c) whether or not a
child performs certain actions or rituals for the figure, and d) whether a figure is endorsed
explicitly as fictional. We contend that certain kinds of rituals performed under specific condi-
tions—performed to appease or summon a figure—are a powerful method for strengthening a
child’s endorsement for a figure. For example, erecting a tree inside the house, or hunting for
eggs, only happens on a specific period of the year; and only teeth (and not toenails) are placed
under a pillow when they are lost from the body. We also anticipate that, based on the four
qualities outlined, that a hierarchy of endorsement will be apparent in children’s belief scores
—such that relative differences between figures will be apparent and ‘sensible’.
Of note, we use the term “figure” to broadly refer to all agents, entities, or persons presented
in our study (irrespective of other qualities); and the term ‘sensible’ to describe the endorse-
ment of these figures by adults. Finally, it is important to consider what exactly children and
adults understand the term ‘real’ to mean. While we grapple further with the nature of this
question in the discussion, it is worth noting that we approach this problem from two angles.
We conceptualize responses to the question ‘Do you think [the figure] is real?’ as ‘endorsement’
[of reality status], rather than of belief [in reality status] per se (since we did not measure any
behavior that might provide stronger evidence of a true conviction in a figure’s reality). That
is, ‘belief’ describes the degree to which a participant authentically holds that a figure is real,
while ‘endorsement’ can only be regarded as a self-report measure. We would also stress that
this is a study focussed on the cultural processes that sustain endorsement at the level of
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 3 / 25
populations, and not a specific study in individual differences or longitudinal developmental
trajectories.
Here we present ‘The Pantheon’, a list of figures and categories, as well as the associated
beliefs and rituals for each figure that are typical in western contexts. In Table 1 we define rele-
vant terms associated with our figures, and in Table 2 we outline the figures and their expected
groupings within the pantheon. We anticipated the existence of these categories with respect
to the 1) available direct evidence for the figure, 2) indirect evidence for the figure, 3) behav-
ioral rituals and cultural norms associated with the figure, and 4) presence or absence of an
explicit ‘fiction’ status. The categories and figures are presented in order of expected endorse-
ment, as a function of these four features.
The figures
Real figures. Our study includes two Real Figures (aggregated into the ‘Real’ category)—
an adult known to the child, but who is not particularly close to the child (selected by the par-
ent, and to be someone like a family friend, a doctor, or teacher) and The Wiggles. The Wiggles
are an Australian band who perform children’s music on a long-running TV show, and who
regularly tour Australia, The US, The UK, and the United Arab Emirates. The Wiggles (or at
least, the constituent members) are real humans, dressed like humans, and who appear on tele-
vision as themselves—they are non-animated, and have typical physical and biological limita-
tions. However, The Wiggles also share many qualities associated with animated, absurd, and
impossible fictional agents, such as appearing on television, singing and dancing, and having
friends who are impossible and who go on fantastic adventures. Given The Wiggle’s extensive
touring, children may or may not have had the opportunity to directly interact with these fig-
ures—they are, however, extremely popular and widely known in Australia (the population
under consideration). We expect by virtue of these figures’ obvious correspondence to human
models in the child’s life that children understand that interactions with the Wiggles are in
principle real (just as they are with real but non-present individuals in their lives), and that any
interactions with The Wiggles will be governed by the same behavioral expectations and
norms as any other real person, that they will report that The Wiggles are (highly) real, like a
truly real person in their lives. Though it is the case that Wiggles are primarily known to the
Table 1. Definition of terms.
Term Definition
‘Direct Evidence’ One has direct evidence of a thing when one has directly interacted, or in principle can
directly interact, with the thing in question, via ordinary means.e., Charlie has direct
evidence that the Eiffel Tower exists,as they have climbed it.
‘Indirect Evidence’ One has indirect evidence of a thing when one may not directly interact with a thing, but
can interact with a proxy of a thing. Direct interaction with the thing would require
extraordinary means. E.g., When Sammy thinks of a Homo neanderthalensis,they think of a
walking,talking,cultural being who lived as recently as 40,000 years ago.Sammy has seen the
bones of Neanderthals (and,as such,has indirectly interacted with them),but has not directly
interacted with walking,talking,cultural being.It would be impossible to directly interact
with a Neanderthal.
Cultural rituals and
norms
‘Ritual’ for short; A term used to denote a set of behavioral norms and requirements
performed in association with a thing. E.g., It is Peter’s birthday,they are turning 8.Peter
expects a sweet cake with 8 candles in it,people to sing ‘happy birthday’,and to receive gifts.
Peters parents and guests anticipate satisfying these expectations.
Fiction A thing that is not veridical, and known to have been the product of an intentional act of
creation. Fictional things do not often make claims to being real. I.e., Harry Potter,while
ostensibly human,is fictional,and is regarded as an intentional product of the mind of J.K.
Rowling.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t001
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 4 / 25
child via medium of TV, we believe this makes them an appropriate comparison group to the
other figures (who are also known primarily via same and similar mediums).
Cultural figures. Cultural figures share many similarities with real figures, despite the fact
that they are not, in fact, real. Much like interacting with a human, cultural figures are associ-
ated with specific norms and behavioral stipulation. Additionally, from the point of view of the
child, cultural figures also provide indirect evidence of their existence in the form of gifts.
Moreover, they are broadly endorsed as real by reliable models in the child’s life, and in the
media. However, the child does not receive direct evidence of the figure.
One notable exception to this statement is Santa. In many parts of the Western world, a typ-
ical Christmas time ritual for parents is to take their children to visit a live actor dressed as
Santa in a public place, to tell children that this is the real Santa, to take a picture of the child
with Santa, and for the child to tell Santa of their desired gifts [8]. Parents cite as their reason
for visiting a mall santa their desire to make-believe and play with their children, as well as to
increase their children’s belief in Santa [14]. Though we contend that meeting a magical simu-
lacrum in a mall or shopping is not quite the same as seeing, for example, a family doctor. It is
an empirical question whether or not this makes a difference in endorsement for Santa relative
to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy—and it appears that endorsement between these fig-
ures is not statistically different (as revealed by our own data).
Ambiguous figures. While real figures and cultural figures share many similarities the
relationship of these two groups to ambiguous figures is of particular interest. By ambiguous,
we mean that children are exposed to ideas about these figures, mostly presented either as real
(or at least possible), but without ritual or behavioral requirements, nor direct evidence of exis-
tence. Dinosaurs and aliens may exist in the world, or may not—but their existence does not
impact how the child lives their lives. When children are exposed to these ‘ambiguous’ figures
they are forced to make difficult evaluations. Frequently such figures are presented as real in
principle, despite the fact that they share many qualities with figures that are real and not real
respectively. Dinosaurs are similar to both lizards (real) and dragons (not real); while aliens
are similar to any novel biological entity (say, a Capybara) even though the child may never
Table 2. The categories of figures.
Category Qualities / Criteria Examples included
Human/Real
Figures
Figures that are both human and extant. They are real and are
presented as such. Children have direct evidence, or recognize that
direct evidence/interaction is possible (by virtue of the figure’s
humanness). As with all humans, there are norms associated with
the figure.
A person known to the
child, The Wiggles
Cultural Figures Figures that do not exist, but are presented to the child as real, and
done so culturally. These figures have cultural and social norms
associated with their cosmology, such as rituals, and children
receive indirect evidence in the form of gifts (ostensibly from the
figure in question).
Santa, The Easter Bunny,
Tooth Fairy
Ambiguous
Figures
Figures that were real, or are possibly real, and are presented to the
child as such. Children have received, or may have received,
indirect evidence of these figures’ existence (as with dinosaur
fossils, and other kinds of representations in various media).
Aliens, Dinosaurs
Mythical
Figures
Figures that are not real, which no standard norms associated with
their endorsement at a cultural level, but which parents may
idiosyncratically endorse. Children typically do not receive direct-
or indirect evidence for these figures’ existence.
Unicorns, Dragons, Ghosts
Fictional
Figures
Figures that are not real, and are presented as works of fiction,
which a child is likely to have had exposure to on television or
other media.
SpongeBob, Peter Pan, Elsa
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t002
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 5 / 25
have seen or experienced one first hand. While not perfectly equivalent, in the context of the
four factors of testimony (direct- and indirect evidence, rituals/norms, and fictional disclaim-
ers) that lead to endorsement, dinosaurs and aliens seem approximately equivalent: Ambigu-
ous figures are endorsed as real by reputable individuals and may be supported by indirect
evidence (various kinds of physical representations), but–importantly—are bereft of cultural
rituals or specific requirements for action. (We note that Aliens may not have indirect evi-
dence for their existence, per se. However, to the extent that they are biologically plausible and
may have vehicles that can travel into space (as we humans do), we have somewhat liberally
defined them as ambiguous. Had we not, we may have had particular trouble in accounting for
an adult understanding of these figures). A ‘reasonable’ understanding of such an agent would
be to admit a degree of ambiguity, without dismissing the possibility of their existence (or
non-existence) entirely.
Mythical figures. Mythical figures are not real, provide no direct or indirect evidence of
themselves, and are not associated with any kind of culturally prescriptive actions, but which
parents may, or may not, idiosyncratically endorse as real via testimony (e.g. Unicorn; [29].
While we recognize that myth is culturally dependent, the distinction between a mythical and
a cultural figure in this conceptualization is that cultural figures are associated with cultural rit-
uals. When reading a story, for example, unicorns, dragons, and ghosts may be presented as
real within the context of the story, and may even generate strong emotions in children, but
their presentation is not culturally standardized; dragons may be cruel (per The Hobbit) or
brave and kind (How to Train Your Dragon), unicorns may be pure (per Harry Potter) or
murderous (Cabin in the Woods), while ghosts can be friendly (Casper), vengeful (Hamlet),
lecherous (Beetlejuice), or paternalistic (Star Wars). Importantly, none of our proposed mythi-
cal figures are associated with a standard corpus of behavior that supports their belief. Note
also that we are discussing a generic mythical agent (i.e., a ‘dragon’ rather than ‘Smaug’ or
‘Toothless’), and that such generic agents may receive occasional testimony in support of their
existence (which is likely different from specific instantiations).
Fictional figures. Finally, in contrast to real, generic mythical, and cultural figures are ‘fic-
tional figures’, such as Peter Pan, Spongebob Squarepants, or Princess Elsa. These figures are
not endorsed as real by adults, rather, they are explicitly presented to children as fictional; they
are not associated with forms of evidence in favour of their existence, and are not associated
with any cultural practices. In these instances, these figures ought to be prima facie not-real,
and should occupy the tail end of a hierarchical scale of reality distinctions.
Study 1. Online data collection
We examined endorsement for a range of figures among children (aged 2–11), and adults
(over 18 years) in order to test the hypothesis that such figures feature in a sensible and relative
hierarchy of endorsement (where ‘sensible’ is defined relative to adult’s endorsement). We did
so using a parent-as-researcher model, which we validated using more traditional methods in
study 2. Parents were recruited via online advertisement and mailing lists, and gave consent
via survey check-box.
The current study expands on previous work by comparing levels of endorsement in differ-
ent kinds of figures [3,30], with specific reference to the four qualities associated with figures/
categories: direct- and indirect-evidence for reality status, ritual and normative behaviors, and
endorsement of fictional status. In so doing, we hope to empirically describe how children are
evaluating various kinds of cultural representations relative to each other, and whether we see
evidence for ambiguity within the spectrum of endorsement.
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 6 / 25
The figures we presented to children were chosen based on whether their exemplar charac-
teristics allowed them to fit clearly in one of our theorised categories (see Table 2). Both adult
and child participants’ provided an endorsement score for the realness of each figure on a 9
point likert scale, as well as responding to questions related to the epistemological qualities of a
subset of figures (see S1 Data)
Stimuli, hypotheses, and analyses plan
We made the following predictions regarding our data:
H1: We will observe the expected categorization of figures based on endorsement scores.
H2: Children’s endorsement will conform to a hierarchical pattern consistent with the degree
to which they are culturally and evidentially supported.
H3: Adults’ endorsement of the realness of figures will be high for ‘real figures’, lower for
ambiguous figures, and near floor for cultural, mythical, and fictional figures.
H4: As age increases, children’s endorsement patterns will become more adult-like.
Methods
A note on data collection and analyses
Data collection for this experiment was executed over the course of 12 months in a longitudi-
nal manner, and several additional hypotheses were proposed for this larger within-partici-
pants dataset. However, due to attrition we were not able to perform these planned analyses.
We have included descriptive, but not inferential, statistics of our longitudinal data in S1 Data,
as well as other information about this broader research effort. What follows is a description
and analysis of data from the first wave of data collection. We replicated our findings and pres-
ent them in study 2).
Recruitment procedures and participants
Using our lab databases, as well as our facebook page, we invited Australian parents to enroll
their children in a year long study examining their child’s endorsement for various kinds of
figures. The first wave of the survey was conducted in July 2015 over a 3 week period. The
administration of the study involved an online survey that the parent conducted with their
child/children. In order to avoid incomplete responses and to avoid causing offence to parents,
we asked parents to indicate which of the figures they were comfortable asking their children
about. This was done to ensure that parents could omit any figures they felt were inappropriate
(for example, some parents may wish to preserve in their children a belief in Santa, and so they
were able to opt-out of Santa-related questions. This explains the varying number of responses
between figures). In addition, parents agreed to a set of experimental protocols (common to
any lab based study) to minimize bias (see S1 Appendix).
A total of 154 children provided responses during the first wave of data collection. Surveys
that did not include an answer to the final question of the survey were excluded (which was
the only question asked of the parents specifically: Do you think your child was being truthful
with you?), among those that failed to answer the final question, none responded to more than
3 figures. A total of 95 children were included in the final analysis.
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 7 / 25
An adult comparison group (N = 57) was recruited from an undergraduate research pool in
exchange for course credit. Adults were asked to participate in this study after completing an
unrelated study on facial expressions.
Procedure
Training questions. Children first participated in a number of practice questions in order
to become familiar with the 9-point likert scale, which was visually represented as 9 grey stars
which turned gold when clicked. These questions related to obviously false things, obviously
true things, and confusing things. The goal of this task was to get children using the whole
scale (see S2 Data for the full list).
Children were asked whether ‘Elephants’ and ‘Chairs’ were real, and data suggested the
question was understood appropriately (respectively, M = 8.51, SD = 1.63; M = 8.4, SD = 1.99).
On the more challenging questions of whether ‘Floating Rocks’ (M = 4.64, SD = 3.41; ‘Short-
nosed Elephants’ (M = 4.07, SD = 3.36) were real, it was clear, that the mid-points of the scale
were used and understood by the sample, and that skewness and kurtosis were normal. The
lowest scores were associated with the obviously false things, such as ‘singing chairs’ (M = 3.30,
SD = 3.20); and ‘Upside down trees’ (M = 3.38, SD = 3.27).
Target questions. Children were asked to rate the realness of the 13 target figures (pre-
sented in random order) on the 9 star likert scale, by answering the question “Do you think
[figure] is real?”, with 1 stars indicating “not at all real” and nine stars indicating “definitely
real”. We reduced all values by 1, so that ‘1’ responses—which qualitatively represented ‘not at
all real’ were now represented by ‘0’—which we argue is a more interpretable value. During
the first wave of data collection we failed to collect data on a real person (who is known to the
child). This was an oversight. Data on this target were collected at T2 and have been used dur-
ing these analyses where appropriate.
Results
Descriptive statistics
A total of 95 children were included in the final analysis. The mean age of these children was
5.12 years (SD = 2.17); the youngest child was 1.97 years, while the oldest was 11.10 years (age
was calculated by determining days passed since the child’s reported birthday and the day of
testing). (As described previously, parents read the questions to their children, and honestly
reported their child’s responses. While some may argue that a 2-year old could not provide
useful data, we believe this is data worth having. We note that if we remove the three 2-year
olds that results for the analyses presented hereafter do not vary. Our full data are available at
https://osf.io/wurxy/, and we invite readers to download it). Sex data was not collected. A total
of 57 adults constituted the adult sample. Their mean age was 20.23 years (SD = 5.31). Eighteen
of these participants were raised overseas, and all spoke English at a tertiary/university level. A
single adult, aged 48, was 5.23 standard deviations above the mean for age, and appeared to
influence several regression values—inasmuch as we hope to make age-relevant claims, this
outlier is unduly influencing the predictive value of age as a predictor. For this reason, this sin-
gle individual was removed from regression analyses.
Hypothesis 1: Do figures form into categories?
Our first hypothesis was that the figures would fall into five groups—real, cultural, ambiguous,
mythical, and fictional (see Table 2)—due to the specific qualities associated with figures
described previously. We tested this hypothesis using a cluster analysis [31]. Here, we have a
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 8 / 25
population of children, who each provided a reality endorsement of up to 12 figures (or 12
‘variables’). Our aim is to identify whether those figures (variables) cluster together into
‘homogenous and distinct’ groups [32,33]. Note: At T1 we did not collect a child’s endorse-
ment of a real person known to them (though we did at all subsequent time-points). Thus, we
did not include ‘real person’ in the cluster analysis.
The method of clustering employed here is the hierarchical method (using iclust function of
the R-package Psych; Revelle, 2016). First, we produce a correlation matrix (see Table 3) of the
variables to cluster. If we first accept that each participant has provided one observation per
figure (in this case, there are 12 observations as there are 12 figures), then we can conceive of
each of these observations representing their own cluster, thus, there are 12 clusters. The next
step is to aggregate the two most highly correlated variables (figures) into a cluster, producing
a total of 11 clusters. For each repetition of this aggregating procedure, there is a correspond-
ing decrease in number of clusters. The psych package repeats this process until one of two
measures of internal consistency fail to increase (cronbach’s alpha, α, or worst-split-half-reli-
ability, β; respectively; [31,34], or until there is only one cluster. An assumption of cluster anal-
ysis is that the variables are not too strongly correlated with each other variable (i.e., r >.9;
[32,33]. Table 3 shows the correlation matrix of endorsement scores for each figure (note: only
one of 12 correlations between figures exceeds this threshold—between Peter Pan and Sponge-
bob; r = .945 and so does not pose substantive issues in interpretation). Meanwhile, the heuris-
tic-rule for sufficient power to extract factors can be described by the formula: 2
c
(where ‘c’ is
number of expected clusters, which in this case is five; [35]. Thus, we have sufficient power to
detect the 5 clusters predicted. In our case, our analysis created one super-ordinate cluster,
which is to say, that the lower-order clusters have the same measures of reliability independent
of whether we accept the single-cluster super-ordinate outcome, or a greater number of small
clusters. Because our hypothesis for the clusters were clear, and because the reliability values
remain the same at all levels of aggregation, we extracted 5-clusters (see Fig 1).
The clusters generated and presented in Fig 1 are fairly interpretable, however, it is not nec-
essarily clear why ‘Fictional (A)’ and ‘Fictional (B)’ are distinct. Allowing for a four-cluster
solution (see Fig 2), we find that Fictional A and B cluster together. Since the values of clusters
within the hierarchy do not change with level of analysis, we retain a 4-cluster solution for the
sake of interpretability.
Consistent with our hypothesis, ‘Cultural Figures’ clustered reliably. We expected that
Dinosaurs and Aliens would cluster together, however, we found that Aliens clustered with
Dragons and Ghosts (the latter two were expected to cluster). We have termed this the ambigu-
ous figures cluster, and we explore the nature of this cluster in the discussion. Similarly, we
note that the mythical category has dissolved, such that unicorns now cluster with fictional fig-
ures. We have no immediate interpretation for this, except to say that the initial distinction
between fictional and mythical may have been too fine. The primary notable difference is the
new ‘virtually real’ category: Dinosaurs clustered with The Wiggles. We believe this is because
both are real, and both figures only provide indirect testimony for their own existence. We
interpret this as attributable to other forms of testimony children receive regarding the reality
status of these figures; we note also the relatively low reliability statistics (which are a conse-
quence of moderate correlation even if absolute endorsement appear to vary; i.e., Wiggles are
endorsed more highly than dinosaurs in aggregate; see Fig 3).
Hypothesis 2: Do figures (and their categories) form a hierarchy?
We predicted with Hypothesis 2 that children’s endorsement will conform to a hierarchical
pattern consistent with the degree to which agents are culturally and evidentially supported.
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 9 / 25
Fig 3 shows the descriptive statistics (Mean and 95%CI) for children’s endorsement of each fig-
ure and each (revealed) category, respectively.
In order to determine whether there was a sensible hierarchy of endorsement, based on the
derived categories, we conducted a Multilevel Model in which age was the predictor variable
and ‘belief’ was the outcome variable, where we allowed y-intercepts to vary (i.e., we let each
category of figures have it’s own y-intercept value) and freely estimated slopes (i.e., the beta
value associated with age could vary as a function of category). Note that the results were con-
ducted on the categories of figures and not the individual figures. We imputed missing values
using the mice() package [36], which imputes missing values for each variable based with sepa-
rate regression models (with stochastic variation), each of which includes values from all other
variables. For example, a missing value for ‘Fictional Figures’ is imputed based on the beta
value of age, as well as the beta values associated with each other figure category. The stochastic
Table 3. Correlation matrix (r values) of ‘realness’ scores for figures.
Wiggles Santa Tooth Fairy Easter Bunny Aliens Dinosaurs Ghosts Unicorns Dragons Spongebob Princess Elsa Peter Pan
Wiggles -
Santa 0.065 -
Tooth Fairy -0.085 .548�� -
Easter Bunny 0.072 .741�� .697�� -
Aliens -0.19 .514�� .478�� .481�� -
Dinosaurs .516�� 0.071 0.031 .276�0.175 -
Ghosts 0.17 .356�0.281 .364�.514�� .321�-
Unicorns 0.01 .547�� .486�� .573�� .593�� 0.289 .416�-
Dragons 0.047 0.257 .428�� .395�� .583�� .308�.453�� .668�� -
Spongebob 0.281 .416�0.269 0.348 0.337 0.174 0.294 .701�� .518�� -
Princess Elsa 0.138 .431�� 0.282 .448�� 0.323 0.205 0.143 .854�� .386�.739�� -
Peter Pan 0.195 0.413 0.542 .463�� 0.387 0.203 0.385 .848�� .422�.945�� .793�� -
�deontes p <.05
�� denotes p <.01
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t003
Fig 1. A 5-cluster solution of the child’s pantheon.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g001
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 10 / 25
variation includes an estimated error term, in so doing, each datapoint is imputed with vari-
ance around the regression line—the value of this is that it compensates for an overestimation
associated with regression-imputation alone [36].
We identified that a model with a fixed y-intercept (Model I) for all categories was signifi-
cantly improved by a model with freely estimated y-intercepts (Model II), SD = 1.27, χ
2
(3) =
103.14, p<.001, suggesting a multilevel model might be appropriate. Next, we introduced age
as a predictor (Model III); Model III was a significant improvement on Model II, χ
2
(4) =
10.94, p= .001, indicating age (as a fixed effect for all categories) predicted endorsement. The
correlation between the category codes and regression intercepts r= -.411, indicating that as
age increased endorsement decreased. Next, we introduced freely estimated slopes for age
(Model IV) as we expected that age would be differentially predictive of endorsement accord-
ing to category. We found that Model IV was a significantly better fit than Model III, SD = .29,
χ
2
(6) = 32.62, p<.001, and the slopes and intercepts were correlated, r= -.628. Fig 4 shows
the results of Model IV (including βvalues), and Table 4 shows regression values.
It is important to note that the beta values associated with any given category (per Fig 4)
should not be interpreted independently from the other beta values within the model. That is,
Fig 4 and Model IV reveal that age interacts with category to predict endorsement.
Fig 2. A 4-cluster solution of the child’s pantheon.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g002
Fig 3. Childrens endorsement scores for individual figures and categories.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g003
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 11 / 25
Hypothesis 3: What does an ‘adult-like’ understanding look like?
Our third hypothesis was that adults’ endorsement of the realness of figures would be high for
‘real figures’, lower for ambiguous figures, and near floor for cultural, mythical, and fictional
figures.
Fig 5 shows adults endorsement of all individual figures. As can be seen, endorsement for
the majority of figures is effectively zero, with very little variation. Due to this low variation we
cannot conduct the cluster analysis to determine equivalent categories. However, visual
inspection reveals that adults endorse real figures near ceiling, and the figures constituting ‘cul-
tural, mythical, and fictional’ categories at floor. The only notable exception is that of Ghosts,
which are endorsed with a mean value of 2.26 (SD = 2.89), suggesting considerable idiosyn-
cratic variation. Aliens are endorsed at middling rates, while dinosaurs appear to be endorsed
at high rates by most participants, and floor rates by a few. Thus, we suggest there are three cat-
egories for adults—real, unreal, and ambiguous (with ghosts and aliens constituting the latter).
Hypothesis 4: Does age predict a more adult-like understanding of figures?
We predicted that as children age their endorsement will become more adult-like. It is clear
from the data presented in Fig 4 that the negative slopes associated with fictional characters
that age negatively predicts endorsement between participants. That is, endorsement for fig-
ures within that categories declines with age—which, predictably, will converge on values of
Fig 4. Results of the multilevel model in which a child’s age interacts with category of figure.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g004
Table 4. Results of iterative regression models for determining hierarchy of belief.
Model I Model II Model III Model IV
x
Age (Beta; SE) - - -.168 (0.051)��� -.168 (0.142)
Constant (int; SE) 5.774 (0.124)��� 5.774 (0.579)��� 6.643 (0.636)��� 6.643 (0.357)���
Observations 475 475 475 475
Log Likelihood -1144.203 -1092.631 -1087.159 -1070.850
��� p<.01; x = Final Model.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t004
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 12 / 25
endorsement reported by adults for the same figures. With regard to real and ‘virtually’ real
individuals, the positive slope suggests increasingly adult-like endorsement—that is, as chil-
dren age, they recognize the reality of those figures (or perhaps, are better able to sensibly
interpret the question). Notably, the slope for Cultural Figures, while nominally negative, is
largely flat. We have two possible explanations for this: the first is that children who do not
believe in these cultural figures, when reporting to their parents, are partially motivated to
deceive their parents that they actually do. The second is that belief in cultural figures is likely
an S-shaped curve, where belief declines precipitously around the ages of 7 or 8 [37], and that
having fit a linear model, we are unable to capture the true nature of this effect. Study 2
addresses the former concern. We also note that our data contains proportionally fewer chil-
dren over the age of 7 than it does under. Unfortunately, only future research will address this.
We observe three intermediate values among adults, aliens, dinosaurs, and ghosts (see Fig 5
for all values) among the ‘ambiguous figures’. By the spread of data, aliens and ghosts are
regarded as ambiguous as evinced through the use of middling values; dinosaurs are generally
strongly endorsed through a skew is introduced by a minority who do not affirm their reality.
We note that the difference between adult and children scores was not significant for Aliens, t
(91.89) = 1.616, p= .110, and Dinosaurs, t(109.95) = .809, p= .421 (as were non-parametric
tests). However, adults collectively endorsed Ghosts at significantly lower levels than did chil-
dren, t(89.073) = 2.246, p= .027.
Discussion
In study 1 we observed that a cluster analysis broadly supported our prediction that figures
would cluster into specific categories. Importantly, cultural figures—those associated with cul-
tural rituals and specific behaviors—formed their own category, while other figures formed
clusters with similar-others, even though some specific elements were off. We observed,
through the use of a multilevel model, support for the claim that these different categories had
differential base-rates of endorsements, consistent with the proposed hierarchy (as evinced by
Fig 5. Endorsement for figures for adults and children. Note: Child Figure is a reprint of Fig 3.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g005
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 13 / 25
the model fit in which y-intercepts varied), and that belief was predicted by age differentially
according to category. Relative to adult scores, children’s scores revealed that developmental
changes would produce broad convergence on adult-like (or ‘sensible’) levels of belief.
We note that some degree of imputation was used to arrive at these results, and that some
aspects of data collection (such as the use of parents-as-research-assistants) may raise ques-
tions about the accuracy of our findings. Thus, we conducted study 2 using more traditional
methods of data collection in order to address these limitations.
Study 2. Research assistant collected data
Recruitment procedures and participants. Between the months of April and July, a
trained research assistant (RA) from [redacted university] attended a Science Museum [details
redacted] in a capital city of Australia, in order to collect a corresponding sample of children.
The protocol was the same as with study 1, save for the following changes. The RA approached
parents in the foyer of the public science museum, and invited them to involve their children
in this research project. Parents were then briefed, and gave consent for their child to partici-
pate. Parents indicated which figures the child should not be asked about by the RA, and pro-
vided the name of a real person known to the child. Data was collected using an iPad, and
children were encouraged to interact with the iPad themselves.
Due to operational and time constraints, we were able to collect responses from 82 children
(though one child was excluded for not completing the task). In total, our final dataset included
81 children. The mean age of these children was 6.17 year (SD = 1.79) [Original mean = 5.12,
SD = 2.17]. The youngest child was 3.44 years [original 1.97 years] while the oldest was 11.67
[original 11.10 years]. As can be seen in Table 5, rates of consent for each figure were consider-
ably higher in the replication dataset, as were the proportion of responses to permitted figures.
Procedure
Training questions. Children first participated in a number of practice questions in order
to become familiar with the 10-point likert scale, which was visually represented as 10 stars
which turned gold when clicked. These questions related to obviously false things, obviously
true things, and confusing things. The goal of this task was to get children using the whole
scale (see S1 Data for the full list).
Table 5. The proportion of children for whom permission was granted for each figure (in each dataset), and the proportion thereof who subsequently provided
endorsement scores.
Original Dataset Replication Dataset
Permission Response Permission Response
Real Person - - 1.00 0.90
Wiggles 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86
Santa 0.94 0.78 0.99 0.91
Tooth Fairy 0.93 0.69 0.99 0.93
Easter Bunny 0.94 0.81 0.99 0.89
Alien 0.91 0.55 0.98 0.95
Dinosaur 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.88
Ghosts 0.88 0.54 0.94 0.84
Unicorns 0.94 0.51 0.99 0.90
Dragons 0.96 0.54 0.96 0.87
Spongebob 0.88 0.36 0.99 0.83
Princess Elsa 0.95 0.53 0.99 0.85
Peter Pan 0.91 0.41 0.99 0.83
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t005
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 14 / 25
Target questions. Children were asked to rate the realness of the 13 target figures (pre-
sented in random order) on the 10 star likert scale, by answering the question “Do you think
[figure] is real?”, with 1 stars indicating “not at all real” and 10 stars indicating “definitely real”.
Results
All analyses were identical to those of Study 1, and the R code we used to conduct the study is
available on open science framework (https://osf.io/wurxy/)
Hypothesis 1: Do figures form into categories?
Table 6 documents the correlation matrix. No correlation exceeded .9, and so the pattern of
relations does not substantially challenge our analysis; Per our original analyses, we ran a clus-
ter analysis on our data allowing for 5 categories, and not including ‘Real People’ (see Fig 6).
As before, we found that a ‘Cultural Figures’ cluster emerged, as well as a ‘Fictional Figures’
cluster. However, we observed some differences: Dinosaurs and The Wiggles did not aggregate
(in the primary dataset this cluster had relatively low reliability). Dragons, Aliens, and Ghosts
aggregated as before, but this time the cluster also included Unicorns (which had previously
aggregated into the fictional figure category).
Hypothesis 2: Do figures (and their categories) form a hierarchy?
We predicted that children’s endorsements will conform to a hierarchical pattern consistent
with the degree to which agents are culturally and evidentially supported. Below, we show
descriptive statistics (Mean and 95%CI) for children’s endorsement of each figure and each
category (Fig 7). Note that for Fig 7 that the original data is plotted 0–8, and replication data is
plotted 1–10. We are not making a direct inferential comparison between the two dataset (as
Table 6. Table of correlation between figures (with correlations from main manuscript in parentheses).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 Real Person -
2 Wiggles -0.05 -
3 Santa -0.07 -0.07
(0.07)
-
4 Tooth Fairy -0.04 -.13 (-0.09) 0.83
(0.55)
-
5 Easter
Bunny
-0.07 -.09 (0.07) 0.86 (.74) 0.83 (.70) -
6 Aliens -0.17 .05 (-0.19) 0.29 (.51) 0.31 (.48) 0.30 (.48) -
7 Dinosaurs -0.11 .07 (0.51) 0.17
(0.07)
0.08
(0.03)
0.08 (.28) 0.14
(0.18)
-
8 Ghosts -0.07 -0.15
(0.17)
0.16 (.36) 0.14
(0.28)
0.15 (.36) 0.48 (.51) 0.02 (.32) -
9 Unicorns -0.12 -.19 (0.01) 0.11 (.55) 0.22 (.49) 0.19 (.57) 0.38 (.59) -.28 (0.28) 0.41 (.42) -
10 Dragons 0.09 .25 (0.05) 0.16
(0.26)
0.13 (.43) 0.14 (.40) 0.35 (.58) 0.04
(0.31)
0.44
(0.45)
0.50
(0.67)
-
11 Spongebob -0.05 .03 (0.3) 0.33 (.42) 0.34
(0.27)
0.37
(0.35)
0.35
(0.34)
0.19
(0.17)
0.55
(0.29)
0.35
(0.70)
0.34
(0.52)
-
12 Princess Elsa -0.16 -.02 (0.14) 0.39 (.43) 0.37
(0.28)
0.39 (.45) 0.34
(0.32)
0.02
(0.21)
0.57
(0.14)
0.53
(0.85)
0.30 (.39) 0.69
(.74)
-
13 Peter Pan -0.03 -.06 (0.2) 0.23
(0.41)
0.30
(0.54)
0.30 (.46) 0.33
(0.39)
0.17
(0.20)
0.40
(0.39)
0.44
(0.85)
0.42
(0.42)
0.63
(.95)
0.48
(0.79)
-
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t006
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 15 / 25
they were collected under different circumstances, and with a slightly different scale), though
we hope to illustrate that the same broad descriptive patterns are apparent in the replication
data (also note that we used the categories in Fig 8 derived from the categories in study 1).
Per study 1, we conducted a multilevel model. However, given a priori analyses, we simply
compared the null model to a full model which included freely estimates intercepts and slopes
(i.e., Model IV). We identified that a model with a fixed y-intercept (Model I) for all categories
was significantly improved by the full model with freely estimated y-intercepts and slopes
(Model II), χ
2
(6) = 224.00, p<.001, The correlation between the category codes and regres-
sion intercepts r= -.634, indicating that as age increased endorsement (generally) decreased.
This is apparent in Fig 9 and Table 7.
Discussion of study 2
Study 2 served three purposes: First, to replicate observations made in study 1, second, to
determine whether the parent-as-research-assistant model was valid, and third, to collect data
with fewer missing values.
Fig 6. Cluster analysis with a 5 cluster solution.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g006
Fig 7. Plot of original vs replication endorsement values for figures.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g007
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 16 / 25
The present dataset was collected by trained research assistants in a large, metropolitan sci-
ence museum. Due to time constraints, we were able to collect data from 81 children (com-
pared to 95 in our original final dataset). While study 2 did not contain individual children as
young as those in study 1, we note that only very few children were younger than those in the
present dataset. One unintentional difference between study 2 and study 1 was that the chil-
dren in study 2 were recruited at a Science Museum. One potential implication is that these
children may be more science-savvy than the children in Study 1. To what extent this influ-
enced the data, we cannot know, yet we did observe remarkable similar observations, clusters,
and model results. The most salient difference in the results of these analyses was the beta
value associated with cultural figures. Specifically, in study 1 age only weakly predicts belief,
while in study 2 this relationship is considerably stronger. We propose that the nature of this
relationship is probably non-linear, where belief declines abruptly (and possibly totally), rather
than gradually. That said, we are generally confident in our central claim that belief in a range
of real and unreal figures conforms to a typology, and we predict that—beyond typical forms
of testimony—that rituals and cultural norms associated with cultural figures are a special
form of testimony. We hope that it is apparent that this replication, conducted by trained
research assistants, has yielded results that should give any reader confidence in the method of
parent-collected data and the results of Study 1.
General discussion
To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the relative hierarchy of children’s reality
endorsements across a range of figures. We made several predictions. First, that figures would
aggregate into a priori categories. Second, that children’s endorsement would conform to a
hierarchical pattern consistent with the stated criteria. Third, adults’ endorsement of the
Fig 8. Plot of original vs replication endorsement values for categories.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g008
Fig 9. Results of the multilevel model in which a child’s age interacts with category of figure.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.g009
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 17 / 25
realness of figures formed basic categories with less ambiguity. And fourth, age would predict
endorsement patterns that converge on sensible ‘adult like’ endorsement. We found broad
support for each hypothesis in two separate studies. We are also eager to note that the method
by which we collected data—by recruiting parents online, who subsequently acted as research
assistants—appears to have yielded results that do not meaningfully or systematically differ
from results collected by trained research assistants.
Regarding our first hypothesis, we identified that 12 figures aggregated into four clusters
which broadly corresponded to our predictions. This pattern we observed is most easily seen
in Figs 1and 2. Our second hypothesis was that children’s endorsement would conform to a
hierarchical pattern consistent with our stated criteria, and our fourth hypothesis was that
endorsement among children would become more adult-like with age. Using multilevel analy-
ses, we identified a clear hierarchy, one which becomes increasingly apparent among older
children (i.e., the regression lines diverge at different rates, and are most different amongst the
oldest age group; In technical sense, these differential values are associated with a greater
model fit when we freely estimated the slopes of each categories relative to a model in which
we constrained the slopes to a single regression coefficient). Our third hypothesis, that adults
would have three categories of figures—real, not-real, and ambiguous—was also supported.
Regarding the interaction between categories of figures and age: The biggest deviation in
our results from our hypothesis was that dinosaurs and aliens did not aggregate. But rather,
dinosaurs aggregated with The Wiggles in study 1 and that dinosaurs and wiggles did not
aggregate in study 2. We termed this cluster ‘virtually real’ as children have had no direct evi-
dence of either figure, and yet both figures are/were real—presumably according to different
criteria. Children appear to recognize that the wiggles are extant, and that dinosaurs were once
extant. Indeed, in study 1 we observed that the difference in endorsement scores between
Dinosaurs (and Aliens) was not significant between children and adults. This suggests that
children (as a group) appear to have an already stable and adult-like understanding of Dino-
saurs (and Aliens).
We had hypothesized the existence of a ‘mythical’ cluster—of unicorns, dragons, and
ghosts—which did not materialise (though we do note that dragons and ghosts did not differ
in levels of endorsement (Study 1: p= .351; Study 2, p= .066) that dragons did not differ from
unicorns (Study 1: p= .909; Study 2: p= .091) and that unicorns did not differ from ghosts
(Study 1: p= .057). (In study 2 the difference was significant, t(58) = 2.955, p= .005, such that
Unicorns, M = 5.45, were more endorsed than Ghosts, M = 3.406). Rather, unicorns clustered
with fictional figures (in study 1), and with dragons, aliens and ghosts (in study 2); while drag-
ons and ghosts clustered with aliens (in both studies). We note that Adults tended to endorse
aliens and ghosts at relatively high levels (relative to each other, and other figures), but did not
strongly endorse unicorns. Indeed, we were surprised at the levels adults endorsed ghosts.
Children endorse ghosts significantly more than adults, but only by a small margin. And yet,
aliens, ghosts, and dragons all provide the same amount of evidence for their own existence,
Table 7. Results of the regression models for determining hierarchy of belief.
Model I Model II
Age (Beta; SE) - -.387 (0.207)
Constant (int; SE) 7.020 (0.182)��� 9.462 (1.028)���
Observations 378 378
Log Likelihood 1014.300 -902.299
��� p<.01
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142.t007
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 18 / 25
make no demands on believers (inasmuch as behavior is concerned) and are all idiosyncrati-
cally presented in media (as evil, friendly, benevolent, greedy, generous, and so on). Any
attempted explanation of this would be post hoc speculation, and so we hereby refrain, and
look forward to future research efforts. The fictional cluster needs little discussion, except to
say that age predicts declining endorsement more strongly for this category than any other.
As predicted, we found that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny aggregated into
the a priori category of ‘Cultural Figures’ in both studies. We believe that this is primarily a
consequence of cultural rituals, as outlined in the introduction. At least at the population level,
it is the case that many families practice acts associated with these figures, and that these acts
are relatively standardized across the group. While the present analysis is not sufficiently con-
trolled to quantify the influence that such rituals and behaviors play, we note that the decline
in endorsement for cultural figures is considerably less steep than the decline in endorsement
for ambiguous and fictional figures in study 1, but is roughly as steep as it is ambiguous figures
in study 2. While our model assumes a linear relationship between age and belief for these fig-
ures, we suspect it is actually non-linear in real life (a point to be examined by future research).
An additional point of discussion is that children are likely exposed to more information
about Santa than the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. Though it’s largely an empirical ques-
tion as to how much exposure children receive for all the figures in studies, we maintain that
Cultural Figures are qualitatively different from other figures—particularly their nearest-
endorsed-neighbors, aliens and dinosaurs—as they are coupled with rituals and behavioral
norms.
The results of our multilevel model expands on existing findings, which has shown that
‘more than half of 8 year olds are still in transition [to disbelief in santa]’ [7] and that most, but
not all, 9 year olds have abandoned belief in Santa [8]. Blair, McKee, & Jernigan [38] report
similar findings. Our MLM shows that there appears to something interesting happening
between the ages of 7 and 9 with regard to declining endorsement, such that the figures which
we predicted to be least endorsed assume the lowest rank in the pantheon, while it is in this
period that ‘virtually real’ figures (such as dinosaurs and humans appearing on television)
appear to assume a higher standing than that of cultural figures (primarily observable in study
2). Speculatively, we believe this relationship is more pronounced than described by our mod-
els: we suspect that belief does not decline linearly (as our models assume) but may in fact be
non-linear, such that after a critical threshold is crossed, belief dissipates. That said, only future
research, using longitudinal methods and non-linear modelling may resolve this question. We
leave the point open to future researchers.
Our hypothesized structure was based primarily on the following features: 1) direct evi-
dence, 2) indirect evidence, 3) ritual and behavioral norms associated with the figure, and 4)
explicit presentation as fiction. We tentatively argue that behaviors associated with figures—
specifically, cultural rituals and behavioral norms—are a key feature that supports the endorse-
ment of cultural figures at rates approaching that of real figures (conceding explicitly that this
was not an experimental design). Of course, we can only make inferences to this causal factor
in the present work, and we have no data to show what kind of behavioral commitments were
apparent in the lives of the children we studied. (Though we have work in preparation in
which this was the focus).
We should note, however, that we are not attempting to dismiss the role that various kinds
of testimony play [30], nor the particular language used in such testimony [39], nor the source
[39,40]. Rather, we would like to elevate in significance the potential role that cultural rituals
and behavior play as a source of evidence alongside these well established features (keeping in
mind that participation in ritual has been described previously as a special kind of testimony,
albeit theoretically rather than empirically;[13]). Our intention was to conduct longitudinal
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 19 / 25
analyses in order to test this hypothesis more directly (see S1 Data), but were scuttled by issues
associated with missing data (in lieu of these analyses we have presented descriptive statistics
in Supplementary material A).
We would also like to emphasise the quality of the data collected in Study 1—where parents
administered the survey to their children—as evinced by its similarity to the data collection in
Study 2. We found no systematic or meaningful differences in our data (save for the fact that
RA collected data contained fewer missing values). We broadly replicated the factor structure,
multilevel model, and hierarchy within this data (as well as finding strong age effects for each
category in linear regression models). We hope that this replication attempt bolsters support
for the present findings, and—more broadly—reveals the value of using parents as research
assistants: provided sufficient guidelines and briefing, it appears that parents may be able to
efficiently and honestly report the belief, opinions, and preferences of their children, at least to
a degree comparable with a research assistant unknown to the child. The extent to which either
method (parent vs. RA) introduces idiosyncratic biases is unknown, but the net-results suggest
that neither method is empirically inferior to the other in the present context (save for the
advantage that RA’s appear to generate less missing data—though this may be due to the
nature of the topic, rather than a function of data collection). Largely, we believe that the par-
ent-collection model may be an efficient way to collect data of acceptable quality, even on top-
ics that might be intuitively considered difficult (such as belief in figures like Santa).
We believe there are three primary limitations, and some additional, smaller limitations.
The first primary limitation, is that children may ‘meet’ some figures in real life, thus having
something like direct evidence for the figure; second, the emotional impact and valence of the
figures likely plays a role, and this was not accounted for; and third, what exactly does ‘real’
mean in this context. This work should be considered a first attempt at demonstrating the pres-
ence of a hierarchy (rather than a dissection of stated phenomenon), and a sincere advance-
ment of the hypothesis (stated by authors elsewhere) that rituals play an important role in
facilitating belief in non-natural figures. We also advance the hypothesis that rituals are a spe-
cial form of testimony, rather than confidently asserting it is a known and quantified
explanation.
Regarding direct evidence for non-natural figures: nearly 41% of all children who
responded to questions about Santa reported having seen him in real life (the same proportion
as those who claim to have seen the Wiggles; see S1A-S1B Tables in S1 Data). Though we
argue that cultural figures do not routinely provide direct evidence of their own existence, but
rather that they provide indirect evidence of their existence (i.e., gifts, chocolate, and money,
respectively). We do not at presently know how many children would report having seen the
Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, but the extant literature suggests that the Santa data is not
surprising. At least in the United States (noting that our sample was Australian) children often
visit a ‘live Santa Claus’ in shopping centres and malls, with many visiting two or more live
Santas per year [14]. In these situations, children get to interact and physically be in the pres-
ence of a cultural figure, promoted as “the real thing”. This said, that the Tooth Fairy and The
Easter Bunny are endorsed at comparable levels to Santa suggests that either direct evidence is
not that important (which is highly unlikely), or that ritual participation is surprisingly power-
ful. Similarly, it is also somewhat popular for actors to dress as Princess Elsa as various kinds
of events, and so it is possible that some number of children have also ‘met’ Princess Elsa.
However, this practice is somewhat distinct in that children are less likely to seek out Elsa, and
do not engage in a typical and predictable set of culturally dictated customs (sitting on Santa’s
knee, describing oneself as good or bad, and making a wish for a present).
With regard to emotional valence and impact: it is likely that the concrete positive associa-
tions of the cultural figures contributes to a child’s endorsement of these figures—in classic
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 20 / 25
learning terms, Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth fairy provide positive reinforcement
for a position favourable to their existence, and it’s hard to make such a claim for any other fig-
ure in our pantheon. Moreover, the figures in our list all have positive associations, even those
that may also be represented as negative (e.g., dragons, ghosts). We did not, for example,
include more classically negative figures like vampires, or zombies (nor more esoteric but
undeniably ‘evil’ figures like succubi or lich). While there were ethical reasons for us to not
include such figures, we speculate that ‘bad is stronger than good’ [41], and acknowledge that
there is some evidence that ‘scary’ stimuli are more easily represented by children than non-
scary stimuli [4], though this effect fails to replicate in a similarly powered (albeit underpow-
ered) study [42]. Though Kapita
´ny et al. (under review; preprint available) describe the short-
cominings of empirically inculcating any kind of supernatural belief, and so while we believe
it’s possible (and even likely) emotional valence and intensity play a role, we cannot conclu-
sively draw on any empirical data.
Finally, an important criticism for this work, as with similar research, is what exactly we
mean by the term ‘real’, what exactly children understood the term to mean [43,44], and the
nature of the measurement. These questions are legitimate, and a full discussion is beyond the
scope of the present enquiry and the philosophical expertise of the authors. However, we
understand the term ‘real’ here to correspond with ‘confidence in the claim that [the figure]
exists or has existed in some embodied and autonomous way’. That we find middling rates of
endorsement for a number of agents (among all populations studied) indicates not that some-
thing is real and unreal at the same time, but that one has a middling-confidence that a thing is
real. One potentially problematic aspect of this can be highlighted by adults’ responses to
‘Dinosaurs’. There was a small number of floor responses for dinosaurs, which may reflect a
belief that dinosaurs—though once real—are no longer real. However, some small proportion
of those responses may also reflect the beliefs of religious fundamentalists. Largely, however,
we think these floor responses—though small in number—are legitimate, and should in aggre-
gate be taken to represent the diversity of respondents understandings of the term ‘real’
(indeed, some children anecdotally reported that dinosaurs are no longer real, which appears
to us to represent a relatively sophisticated understanding of the term, and should be taken
into account when the same children report that Santa is real). We also note that the measure-
ment we used—particularly for fictional figures—tended to cluster at the floor and the ceiling
producing a potentially misleadings ‘mean’ value. While regrettable, we note that the same
problem does not occur for the ambiguous and cultural figures, which tend to reveal middling
endorsements by individuals (in the former case; as revealed by the scatter plots of individual
values in Fig 7), and high confidence in their existence in the latter. During the peer-review
process, a reviewer suggested that rather than the multiple categories we propose, it may be
more sensible—based on an interpretation of mean values for category data (see Fig 8)—to
suggest only three categories: real,less real, and doubtful. We are not opposed to a ‘clumping’
strategy over a ‘splitting’ when making future hypotheses about this proposed pantheon. The
question all researchers ought to ask is: what utility do my distinctions serve? In the present
case, we had rather fine-grained hypotheses about the structure of the pantheon, and wished to
report and interpret at a corresponding level. Certainly three, rather than five, categories may
serve some purposes particularly well, though we hope that our data—imperfect that it is—can
serve as a foundation for future theory-building based on the relative contribution of different
forms of evidence and testimony, as described in brief by Woolley and Ghossainy [13]. Future
research may examine the nature of these differences and similarities using alternative statisti-
cal and theoretical models, though we again note that our data is publicly available for the
interested reader, and we are open to future discussion and collaboration on this topic. We
maintain, however, that our results, measurement, and analyses suggest that children are
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 21 / 25
generally capable of admitting nuance and ambiguity into their reality endorsements, and this
is apparent at population levels. That said, that we replicated our results in a second study
using traditional methods of enquiry should provide some confidence that the question is reli-
able and face-valid.
In anticipating some critique, one might question how sensible it is to include 3-year olds
in the present dataset. Our original intention was to examine longitudinal differences, and so
to observe the degree to which children vary over the course of the year, and in response to cul-
tural events. While we were unable to run these analyses, that’s not to suggest the inclusion of
the youngest might not yield meaningful aggregate data. Indeed, if the youngest have the great-
est noise to signal ratio, it doesn’t necessarily skew our results, and may more accurately
inform us of the nature of changing beliefs during the earliest years. That said, we re-examined
all analyses and excluded children 3-years and younger, and found no meaningful or statistical
differences in our results (primarily because there were so few that young in our sample).
The data we present here suggests that, when children (and even adults) are asked to report
their subjective confidence that various kinds of real and non-real figures exists, they are not
only able to do so, but do so with nuance, and in a consistent pattern apparent at the popula-
tion level. We argue that the possibility that cultural rituals and normative requirements on
the part of figures like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy may be very powerful cul-
tural tools that lead to children believing such figures are real. And we anticipate—but cannot
address directly—that ritual involvement is a key determinant in adult beliefs for more institu-
tional supernatural figures such as the deities of major world religions. We hope that treating
the corpus of real, supernatural, and fictional figures as a kind of pantheon, united by a coher-
ent structure of underlying qualities, opens the door for higher resolution understanding of
how children come to understand what is real and what is not (even when they are wrong),
and allow for more nuanced approaches to research when investigating the predictors of belief
and endorsement. In addition to testimony, content, and source information, we must pay
more attention to the specific role that cultural rituals play in widespread belief of culture-
bound supernatural figures.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Plots of endorsement for Time 2 (Early September, 2015).
(TIF)
S2 Fig. Plots of endorsement for Time 3 (Early November, 2015).
(TIF)
S3 Fig. Plots of endorsement for Time 4 (Mid December, 2015).
(TIF)
S4 Fig. Plots of endorsement for Time 5 (Mid February, 2016).
(TIF)
S5 Fig. Plots of endorsement for Time 6 (Early April, 2016).
(TIF)
S6 Fig. Plots of endorsement for Time 7 (Late May, 2016).
(TIF)
S1 Appendix. Parents agreed to the following conditions before helping their child com-
plete the survey.
(DOCX)
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 22 / 25
S1 Data. A note on data collection and analyses.
(DOCX)
S2 Data. Training questions.
(DOCX)
S1 Table. Responses to epistemological question for four figures.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We like to thank Brisbane’s Science Museum for supporting this research. We thank the chil-
dren and parents who participated in this research.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Rohan Kapita
´ny, Nicole Nelson, Thalia R. Goldstein.
Data curation: Rohan Kapita
´ny.
Formal analysis: Rohan Kapita
´ny.
Investigation: Rohan Kapita
´ny, Nicole Nelson.
Methodology: Rohan Kapita
´ny, Nicole Nelson.
Project administration: Rohan Kapita
´ny, Nicole Nelson.
Writing – original draft: Rohan Kapita
´ny, Nicole Nelson, Emily R. R. Burdett, Thalia R.
Goldstein.
Writing – review & editing: Rohan Kapita
´ny, Nicole Nelson, Emily R. R. Burdett, Thalia R.
Goldstein.
References
1. Harris PL. The Work of the Imagination. Wiley-Blackwell; 2000.
2. Woolley J. Thinking about fantasy: are children fundamentally different thinkers and believers from
adults? Child Development. 1997; 68: 991–1011. PMID: 9418217
3. Sharon T, Woolley JD. Do monsters dream? Young children’s understanding of the fantasy/reality dis-
tinction. Br J Dev Psychol. 2004; 22: 293–310.
4. Harris PL, Brown E, Marriott C, Whittall S, Harmer S. Monsters, ghosts and witches: Testing the limits
of the fantasy-reality distinction in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.
1991. pp. 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.1991.tb00865.x
5. Woolley JD, Wellman HM. Young Children’s Understanding of Realities, Nonrealities, and Appear-
ances. Child Dev. 1990; 61: 946. PMID: 2209198
6. Flavell JH, Flavell ER, Green FL. Development of the appearance—reality distinction. Cogn Psychol.
1983; 15: 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90005-1 PMID: 6831859
7. Prentice NM, Manosevitz M, Hubbs L. Imaginary figures of early childhood: santa claus, easter bunny,
and the tooth fairy. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1978; 48: 618–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.
1978.tb02566.x PMID: 707613
8. Prentice NM, Schmechel LK, Manosevitz M. Children’s Belief in Santa Claus: A Developmental Study
of Fantasy and Causality. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. 1979; 18: 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0002-7138(09)62213-5 PMID: 541471
9. Shtulman A, Yoo RI. Children’s understanding of physical possibility constrains their belief in Santa
Claus. Cogn Dev. 2015; 34: 51–62.
10. Knight N. Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence. Cogn Sci. 2004;
28: 117–126.
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 23 / 25
11. Wigger JB, Bradley Wigger J, Paxson K, Ryan L. What Do Invisible Friends Know? Imaginary Compan-
ions, God, and Theory of Mind. Int J Psychol Relig. 2013; 23: 2–14.
12. Purzycki BG, Finkel DN, Shaver J, Wales N, Cohen AB, Sosis R. What Does God Know? Supernatural
Agents’ Access to Socially Strategic and Non-Strategic Information. Cogn Sci. 2012; 36: 846–869.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01242.x
13. Woolley JD, Ghossainy ME. Revisiting the Fantasy-Reality Distinction: Children as Naïve Skeptics.
Child Development. 2013. pp. 1496–1510. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12081 PMID: 23496765
14. Goldstein TR, Woolley J. Ho! Ho! Who? Parent promotion of belief in and live encounters with Santa
Claus. Cogn Dev. 2016; 39: 113–127.
15. Weisberg DS, Bloom P. Young children separate multiple pretend worlds. Dev Sci. 2009; 12: 699–705.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00819.x PMID: 19702762
16. Skolnick D, Bloom P. What does Batman think about SpongeBob? children’s understanding of the fan-
tasy/fantasy distinction. Cognition. 2006; 101: B9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.10.001
PMID: 16305793
17. Boerger EA, Tullos A, Woolley JD. Return of the Candy Witch: Individual differences in acceptance and
stability of belief in a novel fantastical being. Br J Dev Psychol. 2009; 27: 953–970. https://doi.org/10.
1348/026151008x398557 PMID: 19994488
18. Woolley JD, Boerger EA, Markman AB. A visit from the Candy Witch: factors influencing young chil-
dren’s belief in a novel fantastical being. Dev Sci. 2004; 7: 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2004.00366.x PMID: 15484594
19. Piazza J, Bering JM, Ingram G. “Princess Alice is watching you”: Children’s belief in an invisible person
inhibits cheating. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011; 109: 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.003
PMID: 21377689
20. King AC. Development of inhibition as a function of the presence of a supernatural agent. J Genet Psy-
chol. 2011; 172: 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2011.554921 PMID: 22256685
21. Atkinson QD, Whitehouse H. The cultural morphospace of ritual form. Evol Hum Behav. 2011; 32: 50–
62.
22. Boyer P, Lie
´nard P. Why ritualized behavior? Precaution Systems and action parsing in developmental,
pathological and cultural rituals. Behav Brain Sci. 2006; 29: 595–613; discussion 613–50. https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0140525x06009332 PMID: 17918647
23. McCauley RN. How far will an account of ritualized behavior go in explaining cultural rituals? Behav
Brain Sci. 2006; 29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x06009447
24. Henrich J. The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion. Evol Hum Behav. 2009; 30: 244–
260.
25. Whitehouse H. Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Rowman Altamira;
2004.
26. Rossano MJ. The essential role of ritual in the transmission and reinforcement of social norms. Psychol
Bull. 2012; 138: 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027038 PMID: 22289109
27. Barrett J. Why Santa Claus is Not a God. J Cogn Cult. 2008; 8: 149–161.
28. Gervais WM, Henrich J. The Zeus Problem: Why Representational Content Biases Cannot Explain
Faith in Gods. J Cogn Cult. 2010; 10: 383–389.
29. Nyhof MA, Johnson CN. Is God just a big person? Children’s conceptions of God across cultures and
religious traditions. Br J Dev Psychol. 2017; 35: 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12173 PMID:
28220954
30. Harris PL, Pasquini ES, Duke S, Asscher JJ, Pons F. Germs and angels: the role of testimony in young
children’s ontology. Dev Sci. 2006; 9: 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00465.x PMID:
16445398
31. Revelle W. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis And The Internal Structure Of Tests. Multivariate Behav Res.
1979; 14: 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1401_4 PMID: 26766619
32. Sarstedt M, Mooi E. A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM
SPSS Statistics. Springer; 2014.
33. Tryfos P. Methods for Business Analysis and Forecasting: Text and Cases. Wiley; 1998.
34. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951; 16: 297–334.
35. Formann AK. Die Latent-Class-Analyse: Einfu¨hrung in Theorie und Anwendung. 1984.
36. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations inR. J Stat
Softw. 2011; 45. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i01 PMID: 22289957
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 24 / 25
37. Anderson CJ, Prentice NM. Encounter with reality: Children’s reactions on discovering the Santa Claus
myth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 1994. pp. 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02253287 PMID: 7842832
38. Blair JR, McKee JS, Jernigan LF. Children’s Belief in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. Psy-
chological Reports. 1980. pp. 691–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.46.3.691
39. Canfield CF, Ganea PA. “You Could Call It Magic”: What Parents and Siblings Tell Preschoolers About
Unobservable Entities. J Cogn Dev. 2014; 15: 269–286.
40. Robinson EJ, Haigh SN, Nurmsoo E. Children’s working understanding of knowledge sources: Confi-
dence in knowledge gained from testimony. Cogn Dev. 2008; 23: 105–118.
41. Baumeister RF. Bad is Stronger than Good. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1037/
e413792005-154
42. Golomb C, Galasso L. Make believe and reality: Explorations of the imaginary realm. Developmental
Psychology. 1995. pp. 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.800
43. Bunce L, Harris M. “He hasn’t got the real toolkit!” Young children’s reasoning about real/not-real status.
Dev Psychol. 2013; 49: 1494–1504. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030608 PMID: 23106843
44. Bunce L, Harris M. I saw the real Father Christmas! Children’s everyday uses of the words real, really,
and pretend. Br J Dev Psychol. 2008; 26: 445–455.
PLOS ONE
The Child’s pantheon: Children’s hierarchical belief structure in real and non-real figures
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234142 June 17, 2020 25 / 25
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
