Judgments of effort for magical violations of intuitive physics

15Citations
Citations of this article
57Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

People spend much of their time in imaginary worlds, and have beliefs about the events that are likely in those worlds, and the laws that govern them. Such beliefs are likely affected by people’s intuitive theories of the real world. In three studies, people judged the effort required to cast spells that cause physical violations. People ranked the actions of spells congruently with intuitive physics. For example, people judge that it requires more effort to conjure up a frog than to levitate it one foot off the ground. A second study manipulated the target and extent of the spells, and demonstrated with a continuous measure that people are sensitive to this manipulation even between participants. A pre-registered third study replicated the results of Study 2. These results suggest that people’s intuitive theories partly account for how they think about imaginary worlds.

References Powered by Scopus

Core systems of number

1933Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Origin of Concepts

1782Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought

1374Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Moral dynamics: Grounding moral judgment in intuitive physics and intuitive psychology

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Intuitions about magic track the development of intuitive physics

12Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Plausibility Paradox for Resized Users in Virtual Environments

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McCoy, J., & Ullman, T. (2019). Judgments of effort for magical violations of intuitive physics. PLoS ONE, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217513

Readers over time

‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 26

70%

Researcher 7

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

5%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 12

52%

Social Sciences 5

22%

Neuroscience 3

13%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

13%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 4
News Mentions: 2
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 360

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0