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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alvarez, A. L., & Booth, A. E. (2015). Preschoolers prefer to learn causal information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 60. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00060.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116, 953–970.
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.
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.
Banerjee, K., & Bloom, P. (2015). “Everything happens for a reason”: Children’s beliefs about purpose in life events. Child Development, 86, 503–518.
Barrett, T., Davis, E. F., & Needham, A. (2007). Learning to use a tool in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 43, 352–368.
Bechlivanidis, C., & Lagnado, D. A. (2013). Does the “why” tell us the “when”? Psychological Science, 20, 1221–1228.
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.
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.
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.
Booth, A. E. (2014). Effects of causal information on early world learning: Efficiency and longevity. Cognitive Development, 33, 99–107.
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.
Brandone, A. C. (2015). Infants’ social and motor experience and the emerging understanding of intentional actions. Developmental Psychology, 51, 512–523.
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.
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.
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.
Carey, S. (2009). The origins of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carlson, S. M., Koenig, M. A., & Harms, M. B. (2013). Theory of mind. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 391–402.
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.
Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2013). Programs as causal models: Speculations on mental programs and mental representation. Cognitive Science, 37, 1171–1191.
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.
Cheng, P. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405.
Cohen, L., Chaput, H., & Cashon, C. (2002). A constructivist model of infant cognition. Cognitive Development, 17, 1323–1343.
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.
Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O., & Gergely, G. (2003). One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27, 111–133.
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.
Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). Rational variability in children’s causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126, 285–300.
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.
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.
Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2010a). Integrating physical constraints in statistical inference by 11-month-old infants. Cognitive Science, 34, 885–908.
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.
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.
Desrochers, S., Ricard, M., & Décarie, T. G. (1995). Understanding causality in infancy: A reassessment of Piaget’s theory. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 14, 255–268.
Dewar, K. M., & Xu, F. (2010). Induction, overhypothesis, and the origin of abstract knowledge. Psychological Science, 21, 1871–1877.
Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.
Fernando, C. (2013). From blickets to synapses: Inferring temporal causal networks by observation. Cognitive Science, 37, 1426–1470.
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.
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kiraly, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi:10.1038/415755a.
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning about actions: The Naïve theory of rational actions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 287–292.
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.
Gerken, L. (2006). Decisions, decisions, decisions: Infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition, 98, B67–B74.
Gerken, L. (2010). Infants use rational decision criteria for choosing among models of their input. Cognition, 115, 362–366.
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.
Gerson, S. A., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). A claw is like my hand: Comparison supports goal analysis in infants. Cognition, 122, 181–192.
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.
Goodman, N. D., Ullman, T. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Learning a theory of causality. Psychological Review, 118, 110–119.
Gopnik, A., & Bonawitz, E. (2014). Bayesian models of child development. Cognitive Science, 6, 75–86.
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.
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.
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.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7, 145–171.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1085–1108.
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.
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.
Gweon, H., & Schulz, L. (2011). 16-month-olds rationally infer causes of failed actions. Science, 332, 1524. doi:10.1126/science.1204493.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hamlin, J. K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development, 26, 30–39.
Heyes, C., & Frith, U. (2012). New thinking: The evolution of human cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 367, 2091–2096.
Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., & Beck, S. R. (2011). Understanding counterfactual, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Howe, M. L., & Otgaar, H. (2013). Proximate mechanisms and the development of adaptive memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 16–22.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
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.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982b). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11, 143–157.
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.
Khemlani, S. S., Barbey, A. K., & Jonson-Laird, P. N. (2014). Causal reasoning with mental models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 849.
Kim, S. H., Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2013). Perceived causality can alter the perceived trajectory of apparent motion. Psychological Science, 24, 575–582.
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.
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2014). What “causal cognition” might mean. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1204. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01204.
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.
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.
Kuhn, D. (2012). The development of causal reasoning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 327–335.
Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognitive Development, 5, 261–288.
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.
Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychological Science, 16, 678–683.
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.
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.
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.
Legare, C. H. (2012). Exploring explanation: Explaining inconsistent evidence informs exploratory, hypothesis-testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83, 173–185.
Legare, C. H. (2014). The contributions of explanation and exploration to children’s scientific reasoning. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 101–106.
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.
Lepage, J. F., & Théoret, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system: Grasping others’ actions from birth? Developmental Science, 10, 513–523.
Lombrozo, T. (2009). Explanation and categorization: How “why?” informs “what?”. Cognition, 110, 248–253.
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.
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.
Low, J. (2010). Preschoolers’ implicit and explicit false-belief understanding: Relations with complex syntactical mastery. Child Development, 81, 597–615.
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.
Ma, L., & Xu, F. (2011). Young children’s use of statistical sampling evidence to infer the subjectivity of preferences. Cognition, 120, 403–411.
Martin, A., Vouloumanos, A., & Onishi, K. (2012). Understanding the abstract role of speech in communication at 12 months. Cognition, 123, 50–60.
Mascalzoni, E., Regolin, L., Vallortigara, G., & Simion, F. (2013). The cradle of causal reasoning: Newborns’ preference for physical causality. Developmental Science, 16, 327–335.
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.
Meder, B., Mayrhofer, R., & Waldmann, M. R. (2014). Structure induction in diagnostic causal reasoning. Psychological Review, 121, 277–301.
Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). “Like me”: A foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science, 10, 126–134.
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.
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.
Michotte, A. E. (1946/1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.
Muentener, P., & Carey, S. (2010). Infants’ causal representations of state change events. Cognition Psychology, 61, 63–86.
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255–258.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Xu, F. (2011). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120, 302–321.
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.
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).
Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du reel chez l’enfant [The construction of reality in the child]. Neuchatel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestle.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Oxford, UK: International Universities Press.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
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.
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.
Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rolfs, M., Dambacher, M., & Cavanagh, P. (2013). Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Current Biology, 23, 250–254.
Rottman, B. M., & Hastie, R. (2013). Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 109–139.
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.
Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 299–309.
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.
Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. Developmental Psychology, 40, 162–176.
Schulz, L. E., Gopnik, A., & Glymour, C. (2007). Preschool children learn about causal structure from conditional interventions. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1045–1050.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18, 668–671.
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.
Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. (2015). Causality in thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 223–247.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sobel, D. M., & Legare, C. H. (2014). Causal learning in children. Cognitive Science, 5, 413–427.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013–1019.
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, prediction, and search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs to 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18, 580–586.
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.
Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35, 1518–1552.
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.
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.
Vaesen, K. (2012). The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 203–218.
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.
Walker, C. M., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Toddlers infer higher-order relational principles in causal learning. Psychological Science, 25, 161–169.
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541.
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.
Widlok, T. (2014). Agency, time, and causality. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1264. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01264.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wu, R., Gopnik, A., Richardson, D. C., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2011). Infants learn about objects from statistics and people. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1220–1229.
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.
Xu, F., & Denison, S. (2009). Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month-old infants. Cognition, 112, 97–104.
Xu, F., & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 5012–5015.
Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (2013a). Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43). Waltham, MA: Academic.
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.
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.
Young, G. (2011). Development and causality: Neo-Piagetian perspectives. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Yu, Y., & Kushnir, T. (2014). Social context effects in 2- and 4-year-olds’ selective versus faithful imitation. Developmental Psychology, 50, 922–933.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Young, G. (2016). Causal Learning: Understanding the World. In: Unifying Causality and Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24094-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24094-7_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24092-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24094-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)