New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Children's Intuitions on Mind-Body Dualism Emerge Early

Minds are less replicable than physical traits, according to young kids

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Does the brain create the mind? Many neuroscientists would say yes, but most of us—suggests University of Bristol neuroscientist Bruce Hood—carry a conviction that the mind is a special entity, distinct from our physical body. In other words, if it were possible to make an exact copy of someone's body, including the brain, most people's gut feeling is that the duplicate's consciousness would differ in some way from the original. Hood, with colleagues at Bristol and at Yale University, decided to investigate this question with young children to see whether we hold views on this subject early in life.

The researchers introduced five- and six-year-old kids to a hamster. The hamster had special physical traits—a broken tooth, for example—and each child interacted with the hamster to create a few memories. Then the investigators placed the animal in an elaborate box they call the duplicator and revealed a second, seemingly identical hamster. The children were asked a series of questions to reveal the degree to which they believed this new hamster was like the original.

Most children believed that physical traits, such as the broken tooth, were the same in both hamsters. About half of them, however, believed that the hamsters would not share memories. The findings, reported in the journal Cognition last December, suggest that we may develop our beliefs about the uniqueness of identity and mind at a very young age. The distinction between mental and physical replication was even greater when the original hamster was introduced with a name, “Dax.” In this case, about 70 percent of the children doubted that mental traits had duplicated along with physical ones. What's in the name? Hood suspects that naming primes kids to see the hamster as more human and unique.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe