Judgments About Forces in Described Interactions Between Objects

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 979-993

  White, Peter A ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Causal judgment; Force judgment; Heuristics; Naive physics

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; DECISION MAKING; EXERCISE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIOMECHANICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTION PERCEPTION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PHYSICAL EXERTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 79960306031     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0023258     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Allan L.G. Human contingency judgements: Rule based or associative?. Psychological Bulletin 1993, 114:435-448. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.435.
2. Andersson B. The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils' preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education 1986, 8:155-171.
3. Arnheim R. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye 1956, Faber and Faber, London, England.
4. Blakemore S.-J. Deluding the motor system. Consciousness and Cognition 2003, 12:647-655. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2003.07.001.
5. Blakemore S.-J., Frith C.D., Wolpert D.M. Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11:551-559. doi: 10.1162/089892999563607.
6. Blakemore S.-J., Wolpert D.M., Frith C.D. Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:237-242. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01907-1.
7. Cheng P.W. From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review 1997, 104:367-405. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367.
8. Dennis M.J., Ahn W.-K. Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition 2001, 29:152-164.
9. Desmurget M., Sirigu A. A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009, 13:411-419. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.001.
10. diSessa A.A. Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science 1982, 6:37-75. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0601_2.
11. diSessa A.A. Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction 1993, 10:105-225.
12. Frith C. Attention to action and awareness of other minds. Consciousness and Cognition 2002, 11:481-487. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00022-3.
13. Gilden D.L. On the origins of dynamical awareness. Psychological Review 1991, 98:554-568. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.554.
14. Griffiths T.L., Tenenbaum J.B. Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review 2009, 116:661-716. doi: 10.1037/a0017201.
15. Haggard P. Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9:290-295. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.012.
16. Hattori M., Oaksford M. Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science 2007, 31:765-814. doi: 10.1080/03640210701530755.
17. Hecht H., Bertamini M. Understanding projectile acceleration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:730-746.
18. Huber S., Krist H. When is the ball going to hit the ground? Duration estimates, eye movements, and mental imagery of object motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30:431-444. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.3.431.
19. Kozhevnikov M., Hegarty M. Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:439-453. doi: 10.3758/BF03196179.
20. Leyton M. Symmetry, causality, mind 1992, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
21. Lu H., Yuille A.L., Liljeholm M., Cheng P.W., Holyoak K.J. Bayesian generic prior for causal learning. Psychological Review 2008, 115:955-984. doi: 10.1037/a0013256.
22. Michaels C.F., De Vries M.M. Higher and lower order variables in the visual perception of relative pulling force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24:526-546. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.526.
23. Michotte A. The Perception of Causality 1963, Basic Books, New York, NY.
24. Oberle C.D., McBeath M.K., Madigan S.C., Sugar T.G. The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31:643-653. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.643.
25. Perales J.C., Shanks D.R. Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:577-596. doi: 10.3758/BF03196807.
26. Proffitt D.R. Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2006, 1:110-122. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x.
27. Runeson S. On visual perception of dynamic events. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Psychologica Upsaliensia 1983, Uppsala, Sweden.
28. Schlottmann A., Ray E., Mitchell A., Demetriou N. Perceived social and physical causality in animated motions: Spontaneous reports and ratings. Acta Psychologica 2006, 123:112-143. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.05.006.
29. Scholl B.J., Tremoulet P.D. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4:299-309. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01506-0.
30. Schwartz D.L. Physical imagery: Kinematic versus dynamic models. Cognitive Psychology 1999, 38:433-464. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0702.
31. Shim J., Carlton L.G., Kim J. Estimation of lifted weight and produced effort through perception of point-light display. Perception 2004, 33:277-291. doi: 10.1068/p3434.
32. Talmy L. Force dynamics in language. Cognitive Science 1988, 12:49-100. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2.
33. White P.A. Naive analysis of food web dynamics: A study of causal judgement about complex physical systems. Cognitive Science 2000, 24:605-650. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2404_3.
34. White P.A. Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: A test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:647-652. doi: 10.3758/BF03196815.
35. White P.A. Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychological Review 2009, 116:580-601. doi: 10.1037/a0016337.
36. Wolpert D.M., Flanagan J.R. Motor prediction. Current Biology 2001, 11:R729-R732. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00432-8.
37. Zago M., Lacquaniti F. Cognitive, perceptual and action-oriented representations of falling objects. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43:178-188. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.005.