One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively

Two experiments investigated whether infants represent goal-directed actions of others in a way that allows them to draw inferences to unobserved states of affairs (such as unseen goal states or occluded obstacles). We measured looking times to assess violation of infants' expectations upon perceiving either a change in the actions of computer-animated figures or in the context of such actions. The first experiment tested whether infants would attribute a goal to an action that they had not seen completed. The second experiment tested whether infants would infer from an observed action the presence of an occluded object that functions as an obstacle. The looking time patterns of 12-month-olds indicated that they were able to make both types of inferences, while 9-month-olds failed in both tasks. These results demonstrate that, by the end of the first year of life, infants use the principle of rational action not only for the interpretation and prediction of goal-directed actions, but also for making productive inferences about unseen aspects of their context. We discuss the underlying mechanisms that may be involved in the developmental change from 9 to 12 months of age in the ability to infer hypothetical (unseen) states of affairs in teleological action representations.

[1]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Developmental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal infants , 2002, Nature.

[3]  E. Spelke,et al.  Origins of knowledge. , 1992, Psychological review.

[4]  G. Csibra,et al.  The teleological origins of mentalistic action explanations: A developmental hypothesis , 1998 .

[5]  S. Gelman,et al.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity In Cognition And Culture , 1994 .

[6]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  E. Spelke Initial knowledge: six suggestions , 1994, Cognition.

[8]  T. Wilcox Object individuation: infants’ use of shape, size, pattern, and color , 1999, Cognition.

[9]  E. Spelke,et al.  Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change , 1994 .

[10]  J. Mandler How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. , 1992, Psychological review.

[11]  Albert Yonas,et al.  Infants' responsiveness to static-monocular depth information : a recovery from habituation approach , 1991 .

[12]  F. Heider The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[13]  S. Carey,et al.  Whose gaze will infants follow? The elicitation of gaze-following in 12-month-olds , 1998 .

[14]  A. Premack,et al.  Causal cognition : a multidisciplinary debate , 1996 .

[15]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy. , 1995 .

[16]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Fourteen-through 18-month-old infants di eren-tially imitate intentional and accidental actions , 1998 .

[17]  J. Sommerville,et al.  Twelve-Month-Old Infants Interpret Action in Context , 2000, Psychological science.

[18]  L. Frank The Society for Research in Child Development , 1935 .

[19]  P. Rochat,et al.  Young infants' sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality , 1997 .

[20]  S. Carey,et al.  Infants’ Metaphysics: The Case of Numerical Identity , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  U. Frith,et al.  Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development , 2000 .

[22]  Gergely Csibra,et al.  Illusory contour figures are perceived as occluding surfaces by 8‐month‐old infants , 2001 .

[23]  A. Meltzoff Understanding the Intentions of Others: Re-Enactment of Intended Acts by 18-Month-Old Children. , 1995, Developmental psychology.

[24]  Renee L Baillargeon,et al.  Physical reasoning in young infants: Seeking explanations for impossible events , 1994 .

[25]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Re-enacting intended acts: Comparing 12- and 18-month-olds , 1999 .

[26]  G. Csibra,et al.  Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of ‘pure reason’ in infancy , 1999, Cognition.

[27]  F. Heider,et al.  An experimental study of apparent behavior , 1944 .

[28]  D. Premack The infant's theory of self-propelled objects , 1990, Cognition.

[29]  S. Lea,et al.  Visual Perception of Intentional Motion , 1994, Perception.

[30]  György Gergely,et al.  Teleological reasoning in infancy: The infant's naive theory of rational action A reply to Premack and Premack , 1997, Cognition.

[31]  A. Woodward Infants' ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors , 1999 .

[32]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds. , 1995 .

[33]  Jodie A. Baird,et al.  Discerning intentions in dynamic human action , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  A. Leslie Mapping the mind: ToMM, ToBY, and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity , 1994 .

[35]  Z. Nadasdy,et al.  Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age , 1995, Cognition.

[36]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  Understanding other minds : perspectives from autism , 1994 .

[37]  D. Dennett The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .