Learning & Behavior

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 337–347 | Cite as

Adult humans’ understanding of support relations: an up-linkage replication

  • Francisco J. Silva
  • Merritt I. ten Hope
  • Ali L. Tucker
Article

Abstract

In an up-linkage replication, three experiments examined adult humans’ folk physics, i.e., their naturally occurring and spontaneous understanding of the physical world, using a violation of expectation (VOE) task and stimuli similar to those used to study chimpanzees’, monkeys’, and rooks’ folk physics. Unlike what has been reported with nonhuman primates, adult humans did not look longer at physically impossible than possible events, though they did rate the physically impossible events as more interesting and novel than the possible events. These results underscore that behavior during a VOE experiment has many possible causes, only one of which may be a subject’s folk physics.

Keywords

Up-linkage Folk physics Support relations Looking time response Humans 

Notes

Author Note

We thank Armando Machado and Kathleen Silva for their feedback and assistance, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions, particularly with regard to up-linkage replications.

References

  1. Baillargeon, R. (2002). The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy: A summary in eight lessons. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 47–83). Oxford, England: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillargeon, R., & Hanko-Summers, S. (1990). Is the top object adequately supported by the bottom object? Young infants’ understanding of support relations. Cognitive Development, 5, 29–53. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(90)90011-H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillargeon, R., Needham, A., & DeVos, J. (1992). The development of young infants’ intuitions about support. Early Development and Parenting, 2, 69–78. doi:10.1002/edp.2430010203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, C. D., & Emery, N. J. (2009). Rooks perceive support relations similar to six-month-old babies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 147–151. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1456 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogartz, R. S., Shinskey, J. L., & Speaker, C. J. (1997). Interpreting infant looking: The event set × event set design. Developmental Psychology, 33, 408–422. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.408 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacchione, T., & Krist, H. (2004). Recognizing impossible object relations: Intuitions about support in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 140–148. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.2.140 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cashon, C. H., & Cohen, L. B. (2000). Eight-month-old infants’ perception of possible and impossible events. Infancy, 1, 403–428. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0104_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles, E. P., & Rivera, S. M. (2009). Object permanence and method of disappearance: Looking measures further contradict reaching measures. Developmental Science, 12, 991–1006. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00844.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clearfield, M., & Westfahl, S. M.-C. (2006). Familiarization in infants’ perception of addition problems. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 27–43. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0701_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, L. B., & Marks, K. S. (2002). How infants process addition and subtraction events. Developmental Science, 5, 186–212. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hachiga, Y., Silberberg, A., Parker, S., & Sakagami, T. (2009). Humans (Homo sapiens) fail to show an inequity effect in an “up-linkage” analog of the monkey inequity test. Animal Cognition, 12, 359–367. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0195-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haith, M. M. (1998). Who put the cog in infant cognition? Is rich interpretation too costly? Infant Behavior & Development, 21, 167–179. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90001-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2008). Young infants’ actions reveal their developing knowledge of support variables: Converging evidence for violation-of-expectation findings. Cognition, 107, 304–316. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.009 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan, P. S., & Werner, J. S. (1986). Habituation, response to novelty, and dishabituation in human infants: Tests of a dual-process theory of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 199–217. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(86)90023-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Machado, A., Lourenço, O., & Silva, F. J. (2000). Facts, concepts, and theories: The shape of psychology’s epistemic triangle. Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 1–40.Google Scholar
  16. Machado, A., & Silva, F. J. (2007). Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 671–681. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.671 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mix, K. (2002). Trying to build on shifting sand: Commentary on Cohen and Marks. Developmental Science, 5, 205–206. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00221_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murai, C., Tanaka, M., & Sakagami, M. (2011). Physical intuitions about support relations in monkeys (Macaca fuscata) and apes (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125, 216–226. doi:10.1037/a0022099 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Needham, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1990). Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 47, 121–148. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90002-D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Translated and edited by G. V. Anrep. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Povinelli, D. J. (2000). Folk physics for apes: The chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Reaux, J. E., & Povinelli, D. J. (2000). The tube-trap problem. In D. J. Povinelli, Folk physics for apes: The chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works (pp. 108–131). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schilling, T. H. (2000). Infants’ looking at possible and impossible screen rotations: The role of familiarization. Infancy, 1, 389–402. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0104_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schöner, G., & Thelen, E. (2006). Using dynamic field theory to rethink infant habituation. Psychological Review, 113, 273–299. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.273 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silberberg, A., Parker, S., Allouch, C., Fabos, M., Holberman, H., McDonald, L., … Wyatt, L. (2013). Human risky choice in a repeated-gambles procedure: An up-linkage replication of Lakshminarayanan, Chen and Santos (2011). Animal Cognition, 16, 907–914. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0623-1
  27. Silva, F. J., Page, D. M., & Silva, K. M. (2005). Methodological-conceptual problems in the study of chimpanzees’ folk physics: How studies with adult humans can help. Learning & Behavior, 33, 47–58. doi:10.3758/bf03196049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silva, F. J., & Silva, K. M. (2006). Humans’ folk physics is not enough to explain variations in their tool-using behavior. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 689–693. doi:10.3758/bf03193982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, S., Baillargeon, R., & Brueckner, L. (2004). Young infants’ reasoning about hidden objects: Evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only. Cognition, 93, 167–198. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749–750. doi:10.1038/358749a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco J. Silva
    • 1
  • Merritt I. ten Hope
    • 1
  • Ali L. Tucker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of RedlandsRedlandsUSA

Personalised recommendations