Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory

Psychological Bulletin

Volumn 138, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1085-1108

  Gopnik, Alison ^a   Wellman, Henry M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian inference; Causal knowledge; Cognitive development; Intuitive theories; Theory of mind

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMITATION; INFANT; INTUITION; LEARNING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RECREATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORY OF MIND;

BAYES THEOREM; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; INFANT; INTUITION; LEARNING; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PLAY AND PLAYTHINGS; THEORY OF MIND;

EID: 84862870521     PISSN: 00332909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0028044     Document Type: Article

References (164)

1. Amsterlaw, J., & Wellman, H. M. (2006). Theories of mind in transition: A microgenetic study of the development of false belief understanding. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 139-172. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0702_1
2. Astington, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory-of-mind development. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1311-1320. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1311
3. Baillargeon, R. (2008). Innate ideas revisited: For a principle of persistence in infants' physical reasoning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 2-13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00056.x
4. Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E. S., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120, 322-330. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001
5. Bonawitz, E. B., Ferranti, D., Saxe, R., Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., Woodward, J., & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Just do it? Investigating the gap between prediction and action in toddlers' causal inferences. Cognition, 115, 104-117. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.001
6. Brahe, T. (1598). Astronomiæ instauratæ mechanica. Wandsbek, Ger-many: von Ohr.
7. Buchsbaum, D., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (2011). Children's imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence. Cognition, 120, 331-340. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010 .12.001
8. Buchsbaum, D., Bridgers, S., Weisberg, D., & Gopnik, A. (in press). The power of possibility: Causal learning, counterfactual reasoning, and pretend play. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
9. Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers' questions and parents' explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7, 213-233. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(92)90012-G
10. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-sity Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001
12. Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children's theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032- 1053. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00333
13. Casasola, M. (2005). Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants' categorization of support spatial relations. Develop-mental Psychology, 41, 183-192. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.183
14. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081
15. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
16. Cook, C., Goodman, N., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play. Cognition, 120, 341-349. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.03.003
17. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. In Y. Munakata & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Attention and performance XXI: Processes of change in brain and cognitive development (pp. 249-274). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
18. Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (2010, August). Preschoolers sample from probability distributions. Poster presented at the meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, OR.
19. Dewar, K. M., & Xu, F. (2010). Induction, overhypothesis, and the origin of abstract knowledge. Psychological Science, 21, 1871-1877. doi: 10.1177/0956797610388810
20. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
21. Eberhardt, F., & Scheines, R. (2007). Interventions and causal inference. Philosophy of Science, 74, 981-995. doi:10.1086/525638
22. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspec-tive on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Estes, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57, 94-107. doi:10.1037/h0058559
24. Geisler, W. S. (1989). Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discrim-inations. Psychological Review, 96, 267-314. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.267
25. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003). Bayesian analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
26. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford; England: Oxford University Press.
27. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition, 38, 213-244. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-Q
28. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002, February 14). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi:10.1038/415755a
29. Glymour, C., & Cooper, G. F. (1999). Computation, causation, and dis-covery. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
30. Glymour, C. N. (2001). The mind's arrows: Bayes nets and graphical causal models in psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447-474. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5
32. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997). When gestures and words speak differently. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 138-143. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772905
33. Gómez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431-436. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00476
34. Goodman, N. D. (1955). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Goodman, N. D., Bonawitz, E. B., Baker, C. L., Mansinghka, V. K, Gopnik, A., Wellman, H.,...Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Intuitive theo-ries of mind: A rational approach to false belief. In R. Sun and N. Miyake, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Goodman, N. D., Ullman, T. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Learning a theory of causalitiy. Psychological Review, 118, 110-119. doi:10.1037/a0021336
37. Gopnik, A. (1988). Conceptual and semantic development as theory change: The case of object permanence. Mind & Language, 3, 197-216. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1988.tb00143.x
38. Gopnik, A. (2000). Explanation as orgasm and the drive for causal under-standing: The evolution, function and phenomenology of the theory-formation system. In F. Keil & R. Wilson (Eds.), Cognition and expla-nation (pp. 299-323). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children's understanding of rep-resentational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development, 59, 26-37.
40. Gopnik, A., Choi, S., & Baumberger, T. (1996). Cross-linguistic differ-ences in early semantic and cognitive development. Cognitive Develop-ment, 11, 197-225. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90003-9
41. 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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3
42. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covaria-tion. Developmental Psychology, 37, 620-629. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620
44. Gopnik, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Bayesian networks, Bayesian learning and cognitive development. Developmental Science, 10, 281- 287. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00584.x
45. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1992). Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7, 145-171. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00202.x
46. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. Hirschfeld & S. Gelman (Eds.), Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257-293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511752902.011
47. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
48. Griffiths, T., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Two proposals for causal grammars. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychol-ogy, philosophy, and computation (pp. 323-345). New York, NY: Ox-ford University Press.
49. Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 357-364. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004
50. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01203.x
51. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Theory-based causal induc-tion. Psychological Review, 116, 661-716. doi:10.1037/a0017201
52. Gweon, H., & Schulz, L. (2011, June 24). 16-month-olds rationally infer causes of failed actions. Science, 332, 1524. doi:10.1126/science .1204493
53. Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 9066-9071. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003095107
54. Heckerman, D., Meek, C., & Cooper, G. F. (1999). A Bayesian approach to causal discovery. In C. N. Glymour & G. F. Cooper (Eds.), Compu-tation, causation, and discovery. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
55. Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2003). Einstein never used flash cards: How our children really learn-and why they need to play more and memorize less. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
56. Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8, 164-181. doi:10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6
57. Hume, D. (1973). A treatise of human nature. London, England: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739)
58. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children's naive thinking about the biological world. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
59. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2004). Vitalistic causality in young children's naive biology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 356-362. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.06.004
60. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.582
61. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10, 307-321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00585.x
63. Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271-304. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142005
64. Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Vital statistical learning in infancy: Evidence of a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83, B35-B42. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00004-5
65. Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 712-719. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.10.007
66. Koenig, M. A., Clément, F., & Harris, P. L. (2004). Trust in testimony: Children's use of true and false statements. Psychological Science, 15, 694-698. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00742.x
67. Kristen, S., Thoermer, C., Hofer, T., Aschersleben, G., & Sodian, B. (2006). Skalierung von "theory of mind" aufgaben [Scaling of theory of mind tasks]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 38, 186-195. doi:10.1026/0049-8637.38.4.186
68. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
69. Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychological Science, 16, 678- 683. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01595.x
70. Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2007). Conditional probability versus spatial contiguity in causal learning: Preschoolers use new contingency evi-dence to overcome prior spatial assumptions. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 43, 186-196. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.186
71. Kushnir, T., Xu, F., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Young children use statistical sampling to infer the preferences of other people. Psycholog-ical Science, 21, 1134-1140. doi:10.1177/0956797610376652
72. Lalonde, C. E., & Chandler, M. J. (1995). False belief understanding goes to school: On the social-emotional consequences of coming early or late to a first theory of mind. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 167-185. doi: 10.1080/02699939508409007
73. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scien-tific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
74. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75. Legare, C. H. (2012). Exploring explanation: Explaining inconsistent information guides hypothesis-testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83, 173-185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01691.x
76. Leslie, A. M. (2005). Developmental parallels in understanding minds and bodies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 459-462. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.002
77. Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25, 265-288. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80006-9
78. Li, J. (2001). Chinese conceptualization of learning. Ethos, 29, 111-137. doi: 10.1525/eth.2001.29.2.111
79. Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
80. Liu, D., Sabbagh, M. A., Gehring, W. J., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Neural correlates of children's theory of mind development. Child Develop-ment, 80, 318-326. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01262.x
81. Lu, H., Yuille, A., Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955-984. doi:10.1037/a0013256
82. Lucas, C. G., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. In R. Cam-trabone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2852-2857). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
83. Lyons, D. E., Santos, L. R., & Keil, F. C. (2006). Reflections of other minds: How primate social cognition can inform the function of mirror neurons. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 230-234. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.015
84. Ma, L., & Xu, F. (2011). Young children's use of statistical sampling evidence to infer the subjectivity of preferences. Cognition, 120, 403- 411. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.003
85. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
86. Meltzoff, A. N., Waismeyer, A., & Gopnik A. (2012). Learning about causes from people: Observational causal learning in 24-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0027440
87. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
88. Muentener, P., & Carey, S. (2010). Infants' causal representations of state change events. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 63-86. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.001
89. 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
90. Nisbet, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. London, England: Brealey.
91. Notaro, P. C., Gelman, S. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2001). Children's understanding of psychogenic bodily reactions. Child Development, 72, 444-459. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00289
92. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
93. O'Neill, D. K. (1996). Two-year-old children's sensitivity to a parent's knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67, 659- 677. doi:10.2307/1131839
94. Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005, April 8). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255-258. doi:10.1126/science.1107621
95. Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
96. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
97. Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (2005, April 8). Infants' insight into the mind: How deep? Science, 308, 214-216. doi:10.1126/science.1111656
98. Peterson, C. C., Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2005). Steps in theory-of-mind development for children with deafness or autism. Child Devel-opment, 76, 502-517. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00859.x
99. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. (Original work Le langage et la pensée chez l'enfant published 1923)
100. Piaget, J. (1930). The child's conception of physical causality. London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.
101. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
102. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
103. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York, NY: Norton.
104. Pyers, J. E., & Senghas, A. (2009). Language promotes false-belief under-standing: Evidence from learners of a new sign language. Psychological Science, 20, 805-812. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02377.x
105. Ramsey, J., Gazis, P., Roush, T., Spirtes, P., & Glymour, C. (2002). Automated remote sensing with near infrared reflectance spectra: Car-bonate recognition. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 6, 277-293. doi:10.1023/A:1015421711749
106. Rehder, B., & Kim, S. (2006). How causal knowledge affects classifica-tion: A generative theory of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(Suppl.), 659-683. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.659;10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.659.supp
107. Repacholi, B. M., & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: Evidence from 14-and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 12-21. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.12
108. Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (in press). A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cognitive Psychology.
109. Richardson, T., & Spirtes, P. (2002). Ancestral graph Markov models. Annals of Statistics, 30, 962-1030. doi: 10.1214/aos/1031689015
110. Robert, C. P., & Casella, G. (1999). Monte Carlo statistical methods. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
111. Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
112. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996, December 13). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
113. Schulz, L. E., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2007). Serious fun: Preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1045-1050. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1045
114. Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. Developmental Psychology, 40, 162-176. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.162
115. Schulz, L. E., Gopnik, A., & Glymour, C. (2007). Preschool children learn about causal structure from conditional interventions. Developmental Science, 10, 322-332. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00587.x
116. Schulz, L. E., & Sommerville, J. (2006). God does not play dice: Causal determinism and preschoolers' causal inferences. Child Development, 77, 427-442. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00880.x
117. 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. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.5.1266
118. Seiver, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (in press). Developmental differ-ences in learning the forms of causal relationships. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
119. Seiver, E., Gopnik, A., & Goodman, N. (in press). "Did she jump because she was not afraid or because the trampoline was safe?" Causal inference and the development of social cognition. Child Development.
120. Shafto, P., & Goodman, N. (2008). Teaching games: Statistical sampling assumptions for pedagogical situations. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1-6). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
121. Shipley, B. (2000). Cause and correlation in biology: A user's guide to path analysis, structural equations and causal inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605949
122. Shusterman, A., & Spelke, E. S. (2005). Language and the development of spatial reasoning. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and contents (pp. 89-106). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
123. Siegler, R. S. (1995). Children's thinking: How does change occur? In W. Schneider & F. Weinert (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies: Issues in growth and development (pp. 405-430). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.
124. Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10, 104-109. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00571.x
125. Silva, R., Scheines, R., Glymour, C., & Spirtes, P. (2003). Learning measurement models for unobserved variables. In C. Meek & U. Kjaer-ulff (Eds.), UAI '03: Proceedings of the 19th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 543-550). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
126. Simons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: The insides story. Cognition, 56, 129-163.
127. Slaughter, V., & Gopnik, A. (1996). Conceptual coherence in the child's theory of mind: Training children to understand belief. Child Develop-ment, 67, 2967-2988. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01898.x
128. Sloman, S. A. (2005). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. New York:, NY: Oxford University Press.
129. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cog-nition, 21, 177-237. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90025-3
130. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00589.x
131. 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. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.11.001
132. Sobel, D. M., Yoachim, C. M., Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Blumenthal, E. J. (2007). The blicket within: Preschoolers' inferences about insides and causes. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 159-182. doi: 10.1080/15248370701202356
133. Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013-1019. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00861.x
134. Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605-632. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.605
135. Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89-96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x
136. Spirtes, P., Meek, C., & Richardson, T. (1995). Causal inference in the presence of latent variables and selection bias. In P. Besnard & S. Hanks, UAI '95: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 499-506). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauf-mann.
137. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed., Springer Lecture Notes in Statistics series). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
138. Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18, 580-586. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01943.x
139. Tardif, T., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Acquisition of mental state language in Mandarin-and Cantonese-speaking children. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 36, 25-43. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.25
140. Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011, March 11). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279-1285. doi:10.1126/science.1192788
141. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
142. Tomasello, M. (1993). It's imitation, not mimesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 771-772. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00032921
143. Ullman, T. D., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Theory acquisition as stochastic search. In R. Camtrabone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2840-2845). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
144. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W
145. Waldmann, M. R., Hagmayer, Y., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2006). Beyond the information given: Causal models in learning and reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 307-311. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00458.x
146. Watson, A. C., Nixon, C. L., Wilson, A., & Capage, L. (1999). Social interaction skills and theory of mind in young children. Developmental Psychology, 35, 386-391. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.386
147. Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
148. Wellman, H. M. (2002). Understanding the psychological world: Devel-oping a theory of mind. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 167-187). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
149. Wellman, H. M. (2011). Reinvigorating explanations for the study of early cognitive development. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 33-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00154.x
150. Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., Liu, D., Zhu, L., & Liu, G. (2006). Scaling of theory-of-mind understandings in Chinese children. Psychological Sci-ence, 17, 1075-1081. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01830.x
151. Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., & Peterson, C. C. (2011). Sequential progres-sions in a theory of mind scale: Longitudinal perspectives. Child Devel-opment, 82, 780-792. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01583.x
152. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foun-dational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002005
153. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychol-ogy: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 523-573). Hobo-ken, NJ: Wiley.
154. Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523-541. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x
155. Wellman, H. M., Lopez-Duran, S., LaBounty, J., & Hamilton, B. (2008). Infant attention to intentional action predicts preschool theory of mind. Developmental Psychology, 44, 618-623. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.618
156. Williamson, R. A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Markman, E. M. (2008). Prior experiences and perceived efficacy influence 3-year-olds' imitation. Developmental Psychology, 44, 275-285. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.275
157. Wolpert, D. M. (2007). Probabilistic models in human sensorimotor con-trol. Human Movement Science, 26, 511-524. doi:10.1016/j.humov .2007.05.005
158. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explana-tion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
159. Woodward, A. L., & Needham, A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning and the infant mind. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
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. doi:10.1037/a0024023
161. Xu, F., Carey, S., & Quint, N. (2004). The emergence of kind-based object individuation in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 155-190. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.01.001
162. Xu, F., Dewar, K., & Perfors, A. (2009). Induction, overhypotheses, and the shape bias: Some arguments and evidence for rational constructiv-ism. In B. M. Hood & L. Santos (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge (pp. 263-284). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
163. Xu, F., & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 5012-5015. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704450105
164. Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114, 245-272. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245