Five-Month-Old Infants Have General Knowledge of How Nonsolid Substances Behave and Interact

Psychological Science

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 244-256

  Hespos, Susan J ^a   Ferry, Alissa L ^b   Anderson, Erin M ^a   Hollenbeck, Emily N ^a   Rips, Lance J ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SISSA   (Italy)

Author keywords

cognitive development; infant development

Indexed keywords

CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CHILD PSYCHOLOGY; CONCEPT FORMATION; DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY; FEMALE; HABITUATION; HUMAN; INFANT; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY;

CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HABITUATION, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLOGY, CHILD; PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL;

EID: 84958063075     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797615617897     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. R.BaillargeonM.StavansD.WuR.GertnerP.SetohA.K.KittredgeA.Bernard (2012). Object individuation and physical reasoning in infancy: An integrative account. Language Learning and Development, 8, 4–46.
2. C.J.BatesI.YildirimJ.B.TenenbaumP.W.Battaglia (2015). Humans predict liquid dynamics using probabilistic simulation. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2015/
3. K.S.BourgeoisA.W.KhawarA.S.NealJ.J.Lockman (2005). Infant manual exploration of objects, surfaces, and their interrelations. Infancy, 8, 233–252.
4. T.Cacchione (2013). The foundations of object permanence: Does perceived cohesion determine infants’ appreciation of the continuous existence of material objects?Cognition, 128, 397–406. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.006
5. H.M.Cartwright (1965). Heraclitus and the bath water. Philosophical Review, 74, 466–485. doi:10.2307/2183124
6. E.W.CheriesS.R.MitroffK.WynnB.J.Scholl (2008). Cohesion as a constraint on object persistence in infancy. Developmental Science, 11, 427–432.
7. W.C.ChiangK.Wynn (2000). Infants’ tracking of objects and collections. Cognition, 77, 169–195.
8. P.J.Hayes (1988). Naive physics I: Ontology for liquids. In (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 251–269). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
9. S.J.HesposR.Baillargeon (2001). Infants’ knowledge about occlusion and containment: A surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 141–147.
10. S.J.HesposR.Baillargeon (2006). Decalage in infants’ reasoning about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks. Cognition, 99, B31–B41.
11. S.J.HesposB.DoraL.RipsS.Christie (2012). Infants make quantity discriminations for substances. Child Development, 83, 554–567.
12. S.J.HesposA.L.FerryL.J.Rips (2009). Five-month-old infants have different expectations for solids and liquids. Psychological Science, 20, 603–611. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02331.x
13. S.J.HesposG.GredebackC.von HofstenE.S.Spelke (2009). Occlusion is hard: Comparing predictive reaching for visible and hidden objects in infants and adults. Cognitive Science, 33, 1483–1502. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01051.x
14. S.J.HesposT.Piccin (2009). To generalize or not to generalize: Spatial categories are influenced by physical attributes and language. Developmental Science, 12, 88–95.
15. S.J.HesposE.S.Spelke (2004). Conceptual precursors to spatial language. Nature, 430, 453–456.
16. S.J.HesposK.vanMarle (2012). Physics for infants: Characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances, and number. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 19–27.
17. G.Huntley-FennerS.CareyA.Solimando (2002). Objects are individuals but stuff doesn’t count: Perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants’ representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition, 85, 203–221.
18. P.LiY.DunhamS.Carey (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 487–524. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.12.001
19. Y.MunakataJ.L.McClellandM.H.JohnsonR.S.Siegler (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological Review, 104, 686–713.
20. L.K.PerryL.K.SamuelsonJ.B.Burdinie (2014). Highchair philosophers: The impact of seating context-dependent exploration on children’s naming biases. Developmental Science, 17, 757–765.
21. J.P.Pinto (1996). Xhab [Computer software]. (Available from J. P. Pinto, pinto@psych.stanford.edu)
22. L.J.RipsS.J.Hespos (2015). Divisions of the physical world: Concepts of objects and substances. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 786–811.
23. R.D.RosenbergS.Carey (2009). Infants’ representations of material entities. In (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge (pp. 165–188). London, England: Oxford University Press.
24. J.L.ShinskeyR.S.BogartzC.R.Poirier (2000). The effects of graded occlusion on manual search and visual attention in 5- to 8-month-old infants. Infancy, 1, 323–346. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0103_3
25. J.L.ShinskeyY.Munakata (2001). Detecting transparent barriers: Clear evidence against the means-end deficit account of search failures. Infancy, 2, 395–404. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0203_7
26. K.ShuttsK.F.CondryL.R.SantosE.S.Spelke (2009). Core knowledge and its limits: The domain of food. Cognition, 112, 120–140.
27. E.S.Spelke (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56.
28. E.S.SpelkeK.BreinlingerJ.MacomberK.Jacobson (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605–632.
29. K.vanMarleK.Wynn (2011). Tracking and quantifying objects and non-cohesive substances. Developmental Science, 14, 502–515. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00998.x
30. K.Wynn (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749–750.