New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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.”

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