The effect of generic statements on children's causal attributions: Questions of mechanism

Developmental Psychology

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 159-170

  Cimpian, Andrei ^a   Erickson, Lucy C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal reasoning; Essentialism; Generic statements; Quantified statements

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CHILD PSYCHOLOGY; CONCEPT FORMATION; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CHILD PSYCHOLOGY; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CONCEPT FORMATION; CULTURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84855612993     PISSN: 00121649     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0025274     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abelson, R. P., & Kanouse, D. E. (1966). Subjective acceptance of verbal generalizations. In S. Feldman (Ed.), Cognitive consistency: Motivational antecedents and behavioral consequents (pp. 171-197). New York, NY: Academic Press.
2. Ahn, W., Kim, N. S., Lassaline, M. E., & Dennis, M. J. (2000). Causal status as a determinant of feature centrality. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 361-416. doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0741
3. Ahn, W. K., Kalish, C., Gelman, S. A., Medin, D. L., Luhmann, C., Atran, S.,.. Shafto, P. (2001). Why essences are essential in the psychology of concepts. Cognition, 82, 59-69. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00145-7
4. Benenson, J. F., & Dweck, C. S. (1986). The development of trait explanations and self-evaluations in the academic and social domains. Child Development, 57, 1179-1187. doi:10.2307/1130441
5. Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes' baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York, NY: Basic.
6. Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachussetts, Amherst.
7. Chambers, C. G., Graham, S. A., & Turner, J. N. (2008). When hearsay trumps evidence: How generic language guides preschoolers' inferences about unfamiliar things. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 749-766. doi:10.1080/01690960701786111
8. Cimpian, A. (2010). The impact of generic language about ability on children's achievement motivation. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1333-1340. doi:10.1037/a0019665
9. Cimpian, A., Arce, H. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children's motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314-316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x
10. Cimpian, A., Brandone, A. C., & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Generic statements require little evidence for acceptance but have powerful implications. Cognitive Science, 34, 1452-1482. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.x
11. Cimpian, A., & Cadena, C. (2010). Why are dunkels sticky? Preschoolers infer functionality and intentional creation for artifact properties learned from generic language. Cognition, 117, 62-68. doi:10.1016/ j.cognition.2010.06.011
12. Cimpian, A., Gelman, S. A., & Brandone, A. C. (2010). Theory-based considerations influence the interpretation of generic sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 261-276. doi:10.1080/ 01690960903025227
13. Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2008). Preschool children's use of cues to generic meaning. Cognition, 107, 19-53. doi:10.1016/j.cognition .2007.07.008
14. Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2009). Information learned from generic language becomes central to children's biological concepts: Evidence from their open-ended explanations. Cognition, 113, 14-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.004
15. Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2011). The generic/nongeneric distinction influences how children interpret new information about social others. Child Development, 82, 471-492. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01525.x
16. Cimpian, A., Meltzer, T. J., & Markman, E. M. (in press). Preschoolers' use of morphosyntactic cues to identify generic sentences: Indefinite singular noun phrases, tense, and aspect. Child Development. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01615.x
17. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
18. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
19. Friedman, A. P. (1972). The headache in history, literature, and legend. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 48, 661-681.
20. Galotti, K. M. (1989). Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 331-351. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.331
21. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
22. Gelman, S. A. (2009). Learning from others: Children's construction of concepts. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 115-140. doi:10.1146/ annurev.psych.59.103006.093659
23. Gelman, S. A., Chesnick, R. J., & Waxman, S. R. (2005). Mother-child conversations about pictures and objects: Referring to categories and individuals. Child Development, 76, 1129-1143. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00876.x-i1
24. Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K. S., Hartman, E., & Pappas, A. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of parental input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63, Serial No. 253.
25. Gelman, S. A., Goetz, P. J., Sarnecka, B. W., & Flukes, J. (2008). Generic language in parentchild- conversations. Language Learning and Development, 4, 1-31. doi:10.1080/15475440701542625
26. Gelman, S. A., & Raman, L. (2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74, 308-325. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00537
27. Gelman, S. A., & Raman, L. (2007). This cat has nine lives? Children's memory for genericity in language. Developmental Psychology, 43(5), 1256-1268. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1256
28. Gelman, S. A., & Tardif, T. (1998). A cross-linguistic comparison of generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin. Cognition, 66, 215-248. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00021-3
29. Gelman, S. A., Taylor, M. G., & Nguyen, S. P. (2004). Mother-child conversations about gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69, Serial No. 275.
30. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the nonobvious. Cognition, 38, 213-244. doi:10.1016/ 0010-0277(91)90007-Q
31. Gopnik, A. (1998). Explanation as orgasm. Minds and Machines, 8, 101-118. doi:10.1023/A:1008290415597
32. Halberda, J., Taing, L., & Lidz, J. (2008). The development of "most" comprehension and its potential dependence on counting ability in preschoolers. Language Learning and Development, 4, 99-121. doi: 10.1080/15475440801922099
33. Harris, P. L. (2002). What do children learn from testimony? In P. Carruthers, M. Siegal, & S. Stich (Eds.), The cognitive bases of science (pp. 316-334). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511613517.018
34. Hollander, M. A., Gelman, S. A., & Star, J. (2002). Children's interpretation of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 883-894. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.883
35. Jönsson, M. L., & Hampton, J. A. (2006). The inverse conjunction fallacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 317-334. doi:10.1016/ j.jml.2006.06.005
36. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128. doi:10.1037/h0034225
38. Khemlani, S., Leslie, S. J., Glucksberg, S., & Rubio-Fernandez, P. (2007). Do ducks lay eggs? How people interpret generic assertions. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 395-400). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
39. Lawson, C. A., & Kalish, C. W. (2006). Inductive inferences across time and identity: Are category members more alike than single individuals? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 233-252. doi:10.1207/ s15327647jcd0702_5
40. Leslie, S. J. (2007). Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 375-403. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2007.00138.x
41. Leslie, S. J. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review, 117, 1-47. doi:10.1215/00318108-2007-023
42. Leslie, S. J., & Gelman, S. A. (2011). Quantified statements are recalled as generics: Evidence from preschool children and adults. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
44. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179-196). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.009
45. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289
46. Papafragou, A., & Schwarz, N. (2005-2006). "Most" wanted. Language Acquisition, 13, 207-251. doi:10.1207/s15327817la1303_3
47. Rehder, B., & Hastie, R. (2001). Causal knowledge and categories: The effects of causal beliefs on categorization, induction, and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 323-360. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.323
48. Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2008). Categories influence predictions about individual consistency. Child Development, 79, 1270-1287. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01188.x
49. Rholes, W. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1984). Children's understanding of dispositional characteristics of others. Child Development, 55, 550-560. doi:10.2307/1129966
50. Wilson, R. A., & Keil, F. C. (Eds.). (2000). Explanation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.