Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion

We examined the extent to which findings from the literature on naive physics and representational momentum studies are consistent with impetus beliefs postulating imparted internal energy as a source of motion. In a literature review, we showed that, for situations in which impetus theory and physical principles make different predictions, representational momentum effects are consistent with impetus beliefs. In three new experiments, we examined people’s implicit and explicit knowledge of the effect of mass on the rate of ascending motion. The results suggest that implicit knowledge is consistent with impetus theory and is unaffected by explicit knowledge. Expert physicists, whose explicit knowledge is in accord with Newtonian principles, exhibited the same implicit impetus beliefs as novices when asked to respond in a representational momentum paradigm. We propose that, in situations in which an immediate response is required and one does not have specific contextual knowledge about an object’s motion, both physics experts and novices apply impetus principles as a default heuristic.

[1]  Paul Koseleff,et al.  Studies in the perception of heaviness. I.1.2: Some relevant facts concerning the size-weight-effect (SWE) , 1957 .

[2]  Paul Koseleff Studies in the Perception of Heaviness. II , 1958 .

[3]  D. Struik,et al.  The Mechanization of the World Picture. , 1963 .

[4]  Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Differential Equations , 1972 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[6]  Inertia in the middle ages , 1978 .

[7]  L. Viennot Spontaneous Reasoning in Elementary Dynamics. , 1979 .

[8]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naive beliefs about the motion of objects. , 1980, Science.

[9]  M. McCloskey Naive Theories of Motion. , 1982 .

[10]  J. Clement Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics , 1982 .

[11]  John J. Clement,et al.  A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students , 1983 .

[12]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Naive physics: the curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Michael McCloskey,et al.  Naive physics: the curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects , 1983 .

[14]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Intuitive physics: the straight-down belief and its origin. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  J. Freyd,et al.  Transformations of visual memory induced by implied motions of pattern elements. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Jon Ogborn Understanding students’ understandings: An example from dynamics , 1985 .

[18]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  The initial knowledge state of college physics students , 1985 .

[19]  J. Jonides,et al.  Intuitive reasoning about abstract and familiar physics problems , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[20]  R A Finke,et al.  Implied velocity and acceleration induce transformations of visual memory. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  L. Jones,et al.  Perception of force and weight: theory and research. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  J. Freyd Dynamic mental representations. , 1987, Psychological review.

[23]  J. Freyd,et al.  Probing the time course of representational momentum. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  S. C. Masin,et al.  Experimental demonstration of the sensory basis of the size-weight illusion , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  A. D. Pearman,et al.  Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader , 1999 .

[26]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Knowledge in pieces : An evolving framework for understanding knowing and learning , 1988 .

[27]  J. Bharucha,et al.  Judged displacement in apparent vertical and horizontal motion , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Explanatory Coherence and Belief Revision in Naive Physics , 1988 .

[29]  R A Finke,et al.  Mental extrapolation and cognitive penetrability: reply to Ranney and proposals for evaluative criteria. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  Ruth Stavy,et al.  The psychological structure of naive impetus conceptions , 1989 .

[31]  T. Hubbard Cognitive representation of linear motion: Possible direction and gravity effects in judged displacement , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Géry d'Ydewalle,et al.  Representational momentum and event course anticipation in the perception of implied periodical motions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  H. Hecht,et al.  Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Jennifer J. Freyd,et al.  Dynamic Representations Guiding Adaptive Behavior , 1992 .

[35]  Françoise Macar,et al.  Time, action, and cognition : towards bridging the gap , 1992 .

[36]  Jennifer J. Freyd,et al.  Five hunches about perceptual processes and dynamic representations , 1993 .

[37]  S. G. Eckstein,et al.  Stage theory of the development of alternative conceptions , 1993 .

[38]  H. Krist,et al.  Intuitive physics in action and judgment: the development of knowledge about projectile motion , 1993 .

[39]  A. diSessa Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[40]  N. J. Cook,et al.  Constructing naive theories of motion on the fly , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[41]  C. Mckenzie The Accuracy of Intuitive Judgment Strategies: Covariation Assessment and Bayesian Inference , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[42]  M. Ranney,et al.  Relative consistency and subjects’ “theories” in domains such as naive physics: Common research difficulties illustrated by Cooke and Breedin , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[43]  J. Freyd,et al.  Representational momentum for a spiral path. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[44]  T L Hubbard,et al.  Cognitive representation of motion: evidence for friction and gravity analogues. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[45]  R. Catrambone,et al.  Reasoning about curvilinear motion: Using principles or analogy , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[46]  T. Hubbard,et al.  Environmental invariants in the representation of motion: Implied dynamics and representational momentum, gravity, friction, and centripetal force , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  T. Hubbard,et al.  Representational momentum, centripetal force, and curvilinear impetus. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  C. Reed,et al.  Conceptual effects on representational momentum. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  Timothy L. Hubbard,et al.  Target size and displacement along the axis of implied gravitational attraction : Effects of implied weight and evidence of representational gravity , 1997 .

[50]  S. G. Eckstein,et al.  Parallelism in the development of children's ideas and the historical development of projectile motion theories , 1997 .

[51]  Alwyn C. Scott,et al.  Toward a Science of Consciousness II , 1998 .

[52]  Lynn A. Cooper,et al.  Extrapolating and remembering positions along cognitive trajectories: Uses and limitations of analogies to physical motion , 1999 .