Causal Learning: Understanding the World

  • Gerald Young
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses heavily on empirical research on whether causal learning is evident very early in life as an associative or as a primitive inferential, abstract fashion. The current predominant view is that it is Bayesian, statistical, probabilistic, computational, and so on, and not governed by either innate preformed abstraction-ready modules or associative, nonrepresentational mechanisms. The Bayesian point of view in this chapter is complemented by the interventionist and causal mapping one. In working in this area, the traditional Piagetian perspective on mental schemas still appears useful, and it is much cited. However, others dismiss its utility. In my compromise position, I show how a modified, integrative Neo-Piagetian view can be informative.

The associative point of view is promoted by theorists who argue that too much is read into studies of very young infants in terms of their early abstractive abilities. Rather than being little logicians, young children are intuitive statisticians. A view that accommodates to the opposition of the fast minimal nativist and slow constructivist points of view on early causal learning concerns the middle-of-the-road one of rational constructivism.

Early cognitive structures in the associationist camp have been referred to as intuitive and nontheoretical, with motor resonance involved. Yet the field also encounters contrary concepts, such as infants possessing an abstract framework and the blessing of abstraction. In a nativist-friendly approach, neonates might even understand physical causation/Michottian launching events. Yet, in the contrary view, only older children might develop a full theory of mind, or a “theory” theory. Aside from innate factors, the chapter refers to natural pedagogy, and observational causal learning/interventionist, causality-informative behavior. For some of the intriguing methods used in the research, they include “blicket” detectors, sticky mittens, everted rabbits, and win-stay/lose-shift strategies. Other concepts in the chapter include causal, higher-order relational cognition and the quantum probability model of causal reasoning.

References

  1. Alvarez, A. L., & Booth, A. E. (2015). Preschoolers prefer to learn causal information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 60. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00060.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116, 953–970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atance, C. M., Metcalf, J. L., Martin-Ordas, G., & Walker, C. L. (2014). Young children’s causal explanations are biased by post-action associative information. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2675–2685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baillargeon, R., Li, J., Gertner, Y., & Wu, D. (2010). How do infants reason about physical events? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 11–48). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Banerjee, K., & Bloom, P. (2015). “Everything happens for a reason”: Children’s beliefs about purpose in life events. Child Development, 86, 503–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, T., Davis, E. F., & Needham, A. (2007). Learning to use a tool in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 43, 352–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechlivanidis, C., & Lagnado, D. A. (2013). Does the “why” tell us the “when”? Psychological Science, 20, 1221–1228.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, S. R., Riggs, K. J., & Burns, P. (2011). Multiple developments in counterfactual thinking. In C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & S. R. Beck (Eds.), Understanding counterfactual, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 110–122). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (2015). How people explain their own and others’ behavior: A theory of lay causal explanation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 139. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00139.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: Sampling in cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 497–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Booth, A. E. (2014). Effects of causal information on early world learning: Efficiency and longevity. Cognitive Development, 33, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 10918–10925.Google Scholar
  14. Brandone, A. C. (2015). Infants’ social and motor experience and the emerging understanding of intentional actions. Developmental Psychology, 51, 512–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brandone, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). You can’t always get what you want: Infants understand failed goal-directed actions. Psychological Science, 20, 85–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchsbaum, D., Seiver, E., Beidgers, S., & Gopnik, A. (2013). Learning about causes from people and about people as causes: Probabilistic models and social causal reasoning. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 125–160). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cacchione, T., Schaub, S., & Rakoczy, H. (2013). Fourteen-month-old infants infer the continuous identity of objects on the basis of nonvisible causal properties. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1325–1329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carey, S. (2009). The origins of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlson, S. M., Koenig, M. A., & Harms, M. B. (2013). Theory of mind. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 391–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cesana-Arlotti, N., Téglás, E., & Bonatti, L. L. (2013). The probable and the possible at 12 months: Intuitive reasoning about the uncertain future. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 1–25). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2013). Programs as causal models: Speculations on mental programs and mental representation. Cognitive Science, 37, 1171–1191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen, M. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2013). “Shall we blick?”: Novel words highlight actors’ underlying intentions for 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 49, 426–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cheng, P. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, L., Chaput, H., & Cashon, C. (2002). A constructivist model of infant cognition. Cognitive Development, 17, 1323–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Critcher, C. R., Dunning, D., & Rom, S. C. (2015). Causal trait theories: A new form of person knowledge that explains egocentric pattern projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 400–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O., & Gergely, G. (2003). One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2005). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. In Y. Munakata & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Process of change in brain and cognitive development. Attention and Performance XXI (pp. 249–274). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). Rational variability in children’s causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Denison, S., Reed, C., & Xu, F. (2013). The emergence of probabilistic reasoning in very young infants: Evidence from 4.5- and 6-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 49, 243–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Denison, S., Trikutam, P., & Xu, F. (2014). Probability versus representativeness in infancy: Can infants use naïve physics to adjust population base rates in probabilistic inference? Developmental Review, 50, 2009–2019.Google Scholar
  31. Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2010a). Integrating physical constraints in statistical inference by 11-month-old infants. Cognitive Science, 34, 885–908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2010b). Twelve- to 14-month-old infants can predict single-event probability with large set sizes. Developmental Science, 13, 798–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2013). Probabilistic inference in human infants. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 27–58). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Desrochers, S., Ricard, M., & Décarie, T. G. (1995). Understanding causality in infancy: A reassessment of Piaget’s theory. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 14, 255268.Google Scholar
  35. Dewar, K. M., & Xu, F. (2010). Induction, overhypothesis, and the origin of abstract knowledge. Psychological Science, 21, 1871–1877.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fernando, C. (2013). From blickets to synapses: Inferring temporal causal networks by observation. Cognitive Science, 37, 1426–1470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Flores, A., Cobos, P. L., López, F. J., & Godoy, A. (2014). The influence of causal connections between symptoms on the diagnosis of mental disorders: Evidence from online and offline measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 175–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kiraly, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi:10.1038/415755a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning about actions: The Naïve theory of rational actions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 287–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gergely, G., & Jacob, P. (2013). Reasoning about instrumental and communicative agency in human infancy. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 59–94). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gerken, L. (2006). Decisions, decisions, decisions: Infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition, 98, B67–B74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gerken, L. (2010). Infants use rational decision criteria for choosing among models of their input. Cognition, 115, 362–366.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gerson, S., & Woodward, A. L. (2010). Building intentional action knowledge with one’s hands. In S. P. Johnson (Ed.), Neo-constructivism (pp. 295–313). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Gerson, S. A., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). A claw is like my hand: Comparison supports goal analysis in infants. Cognition, 122, 181–192.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gilbert, E. A., Tenney, E. R., Holland, C. R., & Spellman, B. A. (2015). Counterfactuals, control, and causation: Why knowledgeable people get blamed more. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. doi:10.1177/0146167215572137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Goodman, N. D., Ullman, T. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Learning a theory of causality. Psychological Review, 118, 110–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gopnik, A., & Bonawitz, E. (2014). Bayesian models of child development. Cognitive Science, 6, 75–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2007). Introduction. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 1–15). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 620–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7, 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1085–1108.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Griffiths, T. L., Sobel, D. M., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gopnik, A. (2011). Bayes and blickets: Effects of knowledge on causal induction in children and adults. Cognitive Science, 35, 1407–1455.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Güss, C. D., & Robinson, B. (2014). Predicted causality in decision making: The role of culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 479. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00739.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Gweon, H., & Schulz, L. (2011). 16-month-olds rationally infer causes of failed actions. Science, 332, 1524. doi:10.1126/science.1204493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 9066–9071.Google Scholar
  58. Haidle, M. N. (2014). Building a bridge – An archeologist’s perspective on the evolution of causal cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1472. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01472.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hamlin, J. K. (2013). Moral judgment and action in preverbal infants and toddlers: Evidence for an innate moral core. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hamlin, J. K., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J. B., Goodman, N., & Baker, C. (2013). The mentalistic basis of core social cognition: Experiments in preverbal infants and a computational model. Developmental Science, 16, 209–226.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hamlin, J. K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development, 26, 30–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Heyes, C., & Frith, U. (2012). New thinking: The evolution of human cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 367, 2091–2096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., & Beck, S. R. (2011). Understanding counterfactual, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hohenberger, A., Elsabbagh, M., Serres, J., de Schoenen, S., Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Ascherslenben, G. (2013). Understanding goal-directed human actions and physical causality: The role of mother-infant interaction. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 898–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Howe, M. L., & Otgaar, H. (2013). Proximate mechanisms and the development of adaptive memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.Google Scholar
  67. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982a). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982b). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11, 143–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–238). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  70. Khemlani, S. S., Barbey, A. K., & Jonson-Laird, P. N. (2014). Causal reasoning with mental models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 849.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kim, S. H., Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2013). Perceived causality can alter the perceived trajectory of apparent motion. Psychological Science, 24, 575–582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kretch, K. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2013). Cliff or step? Posture-specific learning at the edge of a drop-off. Child Development, 84, 226–240.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kronenfeld, D. B. (2014). What “causal cognition” might mean. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1204. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01204.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 497–523). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  76. Kuhn, D. (2012). The development of causal reasoning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 327–335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognitive Development, 5, 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kuhn, D., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2009). Coordinating effects of multiple variables: A skill fundamental to causal and scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 268–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychological Science, 16, 678–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2007). Conditional probability versus spatial contiguity in causal learning: Preschoolers use new contingency evidence to overcome prior spatial assumptions. Developmental Psychology, 43, 186–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kushnir, T., Xu, F., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Young children use statistical sampling to infer the preferences of other people. Psychological Science, 21, 1134–1140.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Lefèvre, T., Lepresle, A., & Chariot, P. (2015). Detangling complex relationships in forensic data: Principles and use of causal networks and their application to clinical forensic science. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 129, 1163–1172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Legare, C. H. (2012). Exploring explanation: Explaining inconsistent evidence informs exploratory, hypothesis-testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83, 173–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Legare, C. H. (2014). The contributions of explanation and exploration to children’s scientific reasoning. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Legare, C. H., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. W. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81, 929–944.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lepage, J. F., & Théoret, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system: Grasping others’ actions from birth? Developmental Science, 10, 513–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lombrozo, T. (2009). Explanation and categorization: How “why?” informs “what?”. Cognition, 110, 248–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Loucks, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2011, October). Adult and infant attention during action perception in context dependent. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Cognitive Development Society, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  89. Loucks, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2012). The role of motor experience in understanding action function: The case of the precision grasp. Child Development, 83, 801–809.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Low, J. (2010). Preschoolers’ implicit and explicit false-belief understanding: Relations with complex syntactical mastery. Child Development, 81, 597–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lucas, C. G., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. In R. Camtrabone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2852–2857). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  92. Ma, L., & Xu, F. (2011). Young children’s use of statistical sampling evidence to infer the subjectivity of preferences. Cognition, 120, 403–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Martin, A., Vouloumanos, A., & Onishi, K. (2012). Understanding the abstract role of speech in communication at 12 months. Cognition, 123, 50–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Mascalzoni, E., Regolin, L., Vallortigara, G., & Simion, F. (2013). The cradle of causal reasoning: Newborns’ preference for physical causality. Developmental Science, 16, 327–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. McCormack, T., Frosch, C., & Burns, P. (2011). The relationship between children’s causal and counterfactual judgements. In C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & S. R. Beck (Eds.), Understanding counterfactual, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 54–74). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Meder, B., Mayrhofer, R., & Waldmann, M. R. (2014). Structure induction in diagnostic causal reasoning. Psychological Review, 121, 277–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). “Like me”: A foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science, 10, 126–134.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive science. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society London B, Biological Sciences, 358, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Meltzoff, A. N., Waismeyer, A., & Gopnik, A. (2012). Learning about causes from people: Observational causal learning in 24-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1215–1228.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Michotte, A. E. (1946/1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  101. Muentener, P., & Carey, S. (2010). Infants’ causal representations of state change events. Cognition Psychology, 61, 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255–258.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 109–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Xu, F. (2011). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120, 302–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Perner, J., & Rafetseder, E. (2011). Counterfactual and other forms of conditional reasoning: Children lost in the nearest possible world. In C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & S. R. Beck (Eds.), Understanding counterfactual, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 90–109). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. (Original work Le langage et la pensée chez l’enfant published 1923).Google Scholar
  109. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  110. Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  111. Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du reel chez l’enfant [The construction of reality in the child]. Neuchatel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestle.Google Scholar
  112. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Oxford, UK: International Universities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  114. Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  115. Rakison, D. H., & Krogh, L. (2012). Does causal action facilitate causal perception in infants younger than 6 months of age? Developmental Science, 15, 43–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Reuter, K., Kirfel, L., van Riel, R., & Barlassina, L. (2014). The good, the bad, and the timely: How temporal order and moral judgment influence casual selection. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1336. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01336.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  118. Rolfs, M., Dambacher, M., & Cavanagh, P. (2013). Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Current Biology, 23, 250–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Rottman, B. M., & Hastie, R. (2013). Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 109–139.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Schlottmann, A., Ray, E. D., & Surian, L. (2012). Emerging perception of causality in action-and-reaction sequences from 4 to 6 months of age: Is it domain-specific? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 208–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Schulz, L. (2013). Finding new facts; thinking new thoughts. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 269–294). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. Developmental Psychology, 40, 162–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Schulz, L. E., Gopnik, A., & Glymour, C. (2007). Preschool children learn about causal structure from conditional interventions. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1045–1050.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Schulz, L. E., & Sommerville, J. (2006). God does not play dice: Causal determinism and children’s inferences about unobserved causes. Child Development, 77, 427–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Schulz, L. E., Standing, H. R., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2008). Word, thought, and deed: The role of object categories in children’s inductive inferences and exploratory play. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1266–1276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Scott, R. M., & Baillargeon, R. (2013). Do infants really expect agents to act efficiently? A critical test of the rationality principle. Psychological Science, 24, 466–474.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Seiver, E., Gopnik, A., & Goodman, N. (2013). Did she jump because she was the big sister or because the trampoline was safe? Causal inference and the development of social attribution. Child Development, 84, 443–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18, 668–671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Sloman, S. A., Fernbach, P. M., & Ewing, S. (2009). Causal models: The representational infrastructure for moral judgment. In D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychological of learning and motivation (Moral judgment and decision making, Vol. 50, pp. 1–26). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. (2015). Causality in thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 223–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sobel, D. M. (2004). Exploring the coherence of young children’s explanatory abilities: Evidence from generating counterfactuals. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Sobel, D. M. (2011). Domain-specific causal knowledge and children’s reasoning about possibility. In C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & S. R. Beck (Eds.), Understanding counterfactual, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 123–146). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sobel, D., & Buchanan, D. (2009). Bridging the gap: Causality-at-a-distance in children’s categorization and inferences about internal properties. Cognitive Development, 24, 274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Sobel, D. M., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). Bayes nets and babies: Infants’ developing statistical reasoning abilities and their representation of causal knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 298–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sobel, D. M., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2013). The influence of social information of children’s statistical and causal inferences. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 321–350). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Sobel, D. M., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Knowledge matters: How children evaluate the reliability of testimony as a process of rational inference. Psychological Review, 120, 779–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Sobel, D. M., & Legare, C. H. (2014). Causal learning in children. Cognitive Science, 5, 413–427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Sobel, D. M., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Children’s causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 28, 303–333.Google Scholar
  140. Sommerville, J. A. (2007). From ends to means: Infants’ developing tool use representations. Invited talk at Department of Psychology colloquium series, Duke University, Raleigh-Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  141. Sommerville, J. A., Blumenthal, E. J., Venema, K., & Braun, K. (2011). The body in action: The impact of self-produced action on infants’ action perception and understanding. In V. Slaughter & C. Brownwell (Eds.), Early development of body representations (pp. 247–266). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Sommerville, J. A., Upshaw, M. B., & Loucks, J. (2013). The nature of goal-directed action representations in infancy. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 351–387). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Sommerville, J. A., & Woodward, A. L. (2005). Pulling out the intentional structure of action: The relation between action processing and action production in infancy. Cognition, 95, 1–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Soto, F. A., Gershman, S. J., & Niv, Y. (2014). Explaining compound generalization in associative and causal learning through rational principles of dimensional generalization. Psychological Review, 121, 526–558.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013–1019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, prediction, and search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  147. Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs to 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18, 580–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Teglas, E., Vul, E., Girotto, V., Gonzalez, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Bonatti, L. L. (2011). Pure reasoning in 12-month-old infants as probabilistic inference. Science, 332, 1054–1059.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35, 1518–1552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). A quantum probability model of causal reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00138.Google Scholar
  151. Turati, C., Natale, E., Bolognini, N., Seena, I., Picozzi, M., Longhi, E., et al. (2013). The early development of human mirror mechanisms: Evidence from electromyographic recordings at 3 and 6 months. Developmental Science, 16, 793–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Vaesen, K. (2012). The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 203–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Walker, C. M., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Toddlers infer higher-order relational principles in causal learning. Psychological Science, 25, 161–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Wellman, H., & Liu, D. (2007). Causal reasoning as informed by the early development of explanations. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 261–279). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Widlok, T. (2014). Agency, time, and causality. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1264. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01264.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  160. Wu, R., Gopnik, A., Richardson, D. C., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2011). Infants learn about objects from statistics and people. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1220–1229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Wu, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2010). No two cues are alike: Depth of learning during infancy is dependent on what orients attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 118–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Xu, F., & Denison, S. (2009). Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month-old infants. Cognition, 112, 97–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Xu, F., & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 5012–5015.Google Scholar
  164. Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (2013a). Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43). Waltham, MA: Academic.Google Scholar
  165. Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (2013b). Preface. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. xi–xiv). Waltham, MA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Young, A. G., Alibali, M. W., & Kalish, C. W. (2012). Disagreement and causal learning: Others’ hypotheses affect children’s evaluations of evidence. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1242–1253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Young, G. (2011). Development and causality: Neo-Piagetian perspectives. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Yu, Y., & Kushnir, T. (2014). Social context effects in 2- and 4-year-olds’ selective versus faithful imitation. Developmental Psychology, 50, 922–933.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Young
    • 1
  1. 1.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations