SpongeBob vs. Batman

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.


The ability to distinguish multiple fantasy worlds may be an innate skill. “Children’s metaphysical reasoning is much more complicated than previously thought,” says Deena Skolnick, a doctoral candidate in psychology at Yale University.

In a recent study entitled “What Does Batman Think about SpongeBob?” Skolnick and Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom asked 24 adults and 24 children ages four to six questions about familiar fictional characters. For example: Is Batman real? Does Batman think Robin is real? Does Batman think Nemo is real? (For those playing at home, the popular answers kids gave were no, yes, no.) In most cases, the youngsters’ responses closely matched the adults’. Notably, the kid crusaders did not simply place all make-believe characters in one universe.

To further test the claim that children make this multiworld distinction on their own, the dynamic duo now plans to test three-year-olds and also to explore how kids deal with their own pretend worlds. “Our hunch is that certain facts about how fiction works are not learned; they are natural by-products of the architecture of the human imagination,” Bloom explains. That would mean that the flight of fancy needed to write a novel or appreciate a blockbuster might spring from the same skills we use to predict what might be happening around a corner ahead of us or in an upcoming week. From the everyday to the extraordinary, we spend much of our lives immersed in hypothetical scenarios, and Skolnick hopes to track how we manage them all. The cartoon query, she says, “is just a first step.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe