View Item 

Show simple item record

Domains and naïve theories
dc.contributor.authorGelman, Susan A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNoles, Nicholaus S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-10T15:38:56Z
dc.date.available2012-11-02T18:56:51Zen_US
dc.date.issued2011-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationGelman, Susan A.; Noles, Nicholaus S. (2011). "Domains and naïve theories." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2(5): 490-502. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87128>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1939-5078en_US
dc.identifier.issn1939-5086en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87128
dc.description.abstractHuman cognition entails domain‐specific cognitive processes that influence memory, attention, categorization, problem‐solving, reasoning, and knowledge organization. This article examines domain‐specific causal theories, which are of particular interest for permitting an examination of how knowledge structures change over time. We first describe the properties of commonsense theories, and how commonsense theories differ from scientific theories, illustrating with children's classification of biological and nonbiological kinds. We next consider the implications of domain‐specificity for broader issues regarding cognitive development and conceptual change. We then examine the extent to which domain‐specific theories interact, and how people reconcile competing causal frameworks. Future directions for research include examining how different content domains interact, the nature of theory change, the role of context (including culture, language, and social interaction) in inducing different frameworks, and the neural bases for domain‐specific reasoning. WIREs Cogni Sci 2011 2 490–502 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.124 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs websiteen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.en_US
dc.titleDomains and naïve theoriesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPsychologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87128/1/124_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/wcs.124en_US
dc.identifier.sourceWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956, 63: 81 – 97.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewport EL. Critical periods in language development. In: Nadel L, ed. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Macmillian; 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRo T, Russell C, Lavie N. Changing faces: a detection advantage in the flicker paradigm. Psychol Sci 2001, 12: 94 – 99.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSakamoto Y, Love BC. Schematic influences on category learning and recognition memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 2004, 133: 534 – 553.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColey JD, Hayes B, Lawson C, Moloney M. Knowledge, expectations, and inductive reasoning within conceptual hierarchies. Cognition 2004, 90: 217 – 253.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeltzoff AN. Understanding the intentions of others: re‐enactment of intended acts by 18‐month‐old children. Dev Psychol 1995, 31: 838 – 850.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWoodward AL. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition 1998, 69: 1 – 34.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChase WG, Simon HA. Perception in chess. Cogn Psychol 1973, 4: 55 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChase WG, Ericsson KA. Skill and working memory. In: Bower G, ed. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press; 1982.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePiaget J. Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press; 1970.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWason PC, Johnson‐Laird PN. The Psychology of Deduction: Structure and Content. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1972.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCheng P, Holyoak K. Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cogn Psychol 1985, 17: 391 – 416.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCosmides L. The logic of social exchange: has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 1989, 31: 187 – 276.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWellman HM, Gelman SA. Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In: Damon W, Kuhn D, Siegler RS, eds. Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKanwisher NG, Yovel G. Face perception. In: Bernston GG, Cacioppo JT, eds. Handbook of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2009, 841 – 858.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke ES. Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 2004, 7: 307 – 314.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePinker S. The Language Instinct. New York: W. Morrow; 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCosmides L, Tooby J. Unraveling the enigma of human intelligence: evolutionary psychology and the multimodular mind. In: Sternberg RJ, Kaufman JC, eds. The Evolution of Intelligence. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEricsson KA. Recent advances in expertise research: a commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005, 19: 233 – 241.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGopnik A, Meltzoff AN. Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge: Bradford, MIT Press; 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaillargeon R. Infants' understanding of the physical world. In: Sabourin M, Craik F, Robert M, eds. Advances in Psychological Science. vol. 2. London: Psychology Press; 1998.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarey S. Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge: Bradford, MIT Press; 1985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpelke ES, Phillips AT, Woodward AL. Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. In: Sperber D, Premack D, eds. Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKushnir T, Gopnik A. Children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychol Sci 2005, 16: 678 – 683.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhn W, Kim NS, Lassaline ME, Dennis MJ. Causal status as a determinant of feature centrality. Cogn Psychol 2000, 41: 361 – 416.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGopnik A, Sobel D. Detecting blickets: how young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Dev 2000, 71: 1205 – 1222.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegare CH, Gelman SA, Wellman HM. Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children's causal explanatory reasoning. Child Dev 2010, 81: 929 – 944.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWellman HM. The Child's Theory of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1990.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGelman SA. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKuhn D. How do people know? Psychol Sci 2001, 12: 1 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGopnik A, Wellman HM. The “theory theory”. In: Hirschfield L, Gelman S, eds. Domain Specificity in Culture and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInagaki K, Hatano G. Young Children's Na ï ve Thinking about the Biological World. New York: Psychology Press; 2002en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceXu F. Language acquisition and concept formation: count nouns and object kinds. In: Gaskell G, ed. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGould SJ. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton; 1989.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRhodes M, Gelman SA. A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cogn Psychol 2009, 59: 244 – 274.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGelman SA, Markman EM. Categories and induction in young children. Cognition 1986, 23: 183 – 209.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeil FC. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1989.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRhodes M, Gelman SA. Five‐year‐olds' beliefs about the discreteness of category boundaries for animals and artifacts. Psychon Bull Rev 2009, 16: 920 – 924.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrandone AC, Gelman SA. Differences in preschoolers' and adults' use of generics about novel animals and artifacts: a window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition 2009, 110: 1 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrief ML, Kemler Nelson DG, Keil FC, Gutierrez F. What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain‐specific requests for information. Psychol Sci 2006, 17: 455 – 459.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBooth AE, Waxman SR. Word learning is ‘smart’: evidence that conceptual information effects preschoolers' extension of novel words. Cognition 2002, 84: B11 – B22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSloman S, Lombrozo T, Malt B. Ontological commitments and domain‐specific categorization. In: Roberts MJ, ed. Integrating the Mind: Domain General Versus Domain Specific Processes in Higher Cognition. Hove: Psychology Press; 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeak DO. Do children really confuse appearance and reality? Trends Cogn Sci 2006, 10: 546 – 550.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKalish CW. Preschoolers' understanding of germs as invisible mechanisms. Cogn Dev 1996, 11: 83 – 106.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaxe R, Tenebaum JB, Carey S. Secret agents: inferences about hidden causes by 10‐ and 12‐month‐old infants. Psychol Sci 2005, 16: 995 – 1001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarey S. The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWynn K. Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 1992, 358: 749 – 750.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKelly DJ, Liu S, Lee K, Quinn PC, Pascalis O, Slater AM, Ge L. Development of the other‐race effect in infancy: evidence towards universality? J Exp Child Psychol 2009, 104: 105 – 114.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSommerville JA, Woodward AL, Needham A. Action experience alters 3‐moth‐old infants' perception of others' actions. Cognition 2005, 96: B1 – B11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGelman SA. Learning from others: children's construction of concepts. Annu Rev Psychol 2009, 60: 115 – 140.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoenig MA, Harris PL. Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Dev 2005, 76: 1261 – 1277.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGergely G, Csibra G. Natural pedagogy. Trends Cogn Sci 2009, 13: 148 – 153.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJaswal VK. Don't believe everything you hear: preschoolers' sensitivity to speaker intent in category induction. Child Dev 2004, 75: 1871 – 1885.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVosniadou S, Brewer WF. Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cogn Psychol 1992, 24: 535 – 585.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBartsch K, Wellman HM. Children Talk About the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegare CH, Wellman HM, Gelman SA. Evidence for an explanation advantage in naïve biological reasoning. Cogn Psychol 2009, 58: 177 – 194.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmsterlaw J, Wellman H. Theories of mind in transition: a microgenetic study of the development of false belief understanding. J Cogn Dev 2006, 7: 139 – 172.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWellman HM, Liu D. Causal reasoning as informed by the early development of explanations. In: Gopnik A, Schulz LE, eds. Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, Computation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSouthgate V, Senju A, Csibra G. Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2‐year‐olds. Psychol Sci 2007, 18: 587 – 592.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLombrozo T. Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cogn Psychol 2007, 55: 232 – 257.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNotaro PC, Gelman SA, Zimmerman MA. Children's understaning of psychogenic bodily reaction. Child Dev 2003, 72: 444 – 459.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchulz LE, Bonawitz EB, Griffiths TL. Can being scared cause tummy aches? Naïve theories, ambiguous evidence, and preschoolers' causal inferences. Dev Psychol 2007, 43: 1124 – 1139.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBonawitz EB, Fischer A, Schulz LE. Teaching three‐and‐a‐half year olds to reason about ambiguous evidence. J Cogn Dev; In press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeyman G, Phillips A, Gelman S. Children's reasoning about physics within and across ontological kinds. Cognition 2003, 89: 43 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNoles NS, Keil FC, Bloom P, Gelman SA. Children's intuitions about who can own things; submitted.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSubbotsky E. Causal reasoning and behavior in children and adults in a technologically advanced society: are we still prepared to believe in magic and animism? In: Mitchell P, Riggs KJ, eds. Children's Reasoning and the Mind. Hove: Psychology Press; 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDunbar K, Fugelsang J, Stein C. Do naïve theories ever go away? In: Lovett M, Shah P, eds. Thinking with Data: 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCloskey M. Intuitive physics. Sci Am 1983, 248: 122 – 130.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegare CH, Gelman SA. Bewitchment, biology, or both: the co‐existence of natural and supernatural explanatory frameworks across development. Cogn Sci 2008, 32: 607 – 642.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNguyen S, Rosengren K. Causal reasoning about illness: a comparison between European and Vietnamese‐American children. J Cogn Cult 2004, 4: 51 – 78.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarris PL, Gimenez M. Children's acceptance of conflicting testimony: the case of death. J Cogn Cult 2005, 5: 143 – 164.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalker SJ. Supernatural beliefs, natural kinds, and conceptual structure. Mem Cognit 1992, 20: 655 – 662.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWoolley JD, Van Reet J. Effects of context on judgments concerning the reality status of novel entities. Child Dev 2006, 77: 1778 – 1793.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosengren KV, Johnson CN, Harris PL. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHood B. Supersense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable. New York: HarperCollins; 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeslie AM, Friedman O, German TP. Core mechanisms in ‘theory of mind’. Trends Cogn Sci 2004, 8: 528 – 533.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRakison DH, Poulin‐Dubois D. The developmental origin of the animate‐inanimate distinction. Psychol Bull 2001, 2: 209 – 228.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSloutsky VM, Fisher AV. Induction and categorization in young children: a similarity‐based model. J Exp Psychol Gen 2004, I 133: 166 – 188.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith LB. How domain‐general processes may create domain‐specific biases. In: Bowerman M, Levinson SC, eds. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNew J, Krasnow MM, Truxaw D, Gaulin SJ. Spatial adaptations for plant foraging: women excel and calories count. Proc R Soc B 2007, 274: 2679 – 2684.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrusec JE, Davidov M. Integrating different perspectives on socialization theory and research: a domain‐specific approach. Child Dev 2010, 81: 687 – 709.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoung L, Dodell‐Feder D, Saxe R. What gets the attention of the temporo‐parietal junction? An fMRI investigation of attention and theory of mind. Neuropsychologia 48: 2658 – 2664.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMedin DL, Atran S. The native mind: biological categorization, reasoning and decision making in development across cultures. Psychol Rev 2004, 111: 960 – 983.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A. Culture and systems of thought: holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 2001, 108: 291 – 310.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOnishi KH, Baillargeon R. Do 15‐month‐old infants understand false beliefs? Science 2005, 308: 255 – 258.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceXu F, Tenenbaum JB. Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychol Rev 2007, 114: 245 – 272.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
124_ftp.pdf
Size:
258.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.