Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2011 | 16 | 1 | 54-72
Article title

Ruch i zmiana jako wskazówki wyzwalające abstrakcyjne schematy pojęciowe we wczesnym okresie rozwoju poznawczego

Title variants
Movement and change as signs releasing abstract notional schemas at early stage of cognitive development
Languages of publication
Contemporary research in cognitive development shows that even young infants conceptualize reality, rather than simply respond in the non-reflective manner to the stimulation from environment. During the first four years of the child’s life these conceptualizations take a form of theory-like schemata of certain categories of events and of objects involved in these events, e.g. physical bodies, intentionally acting agents, tools and other artifacts, and living kinds. These categories are framed within (1) “naive physics” – theory of bodies and physical causality, (2) intentional stance, (3) teleological and design stances, and (3) essentialist beliefs. One of the main issues to be solved at this early stage of development is demarcating the scopes of application of theses schemata. Perceived patterns of movement and change constitute a very early and rich source of information that the child uses to solve this task. In this paper I review available empirical evidence (including our own research) for early processing of dynamical information and its role in conceptual-cognitive development.
Physical description
  • Ahn, W., Gelman, S.A., Amsterlaw, J.A., Hohenstein, J., Kalish, C.W. (2000). Causal status effect in children’s categorization. Cognition, 76, B35-B43.
  • Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 547-611.
  • Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3 1/2-and 4 1/2-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655-664.
  • Baillargeon, R., Kotovsky, L., Needham, A. (1995). The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy. W: D. Sperber, D. Premack, A. J. Premack (red.) Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.
  • Baillargeon, R., Wang, S. (2002). Event categorization in infancy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 85-93.
  • Bertenthal, B.I. (1993). Perception of biomechanical motions by infants: intrinsic image and knowledge-based constraints. W: C. Granrud (red.) Carnegie Symposium on Cognition: Visual Perception and Cognition in Infancy (s. 175-214). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Białecka-Pikul, M. (2002). Co dzieci wiedzą o umyśle i myśleniu. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
  • Biro, S., Csibra, G., Koos, O., Gergely, G. (1997). Understanding rational action in infancy. Psychology of Language and Communication, 1(2), 39-38.
  • Bloom, P. (2002). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: The MI T Press.
  • Bokus, B., Shugar, G.W. (red.) (2007). Psychologia języka dziecka. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
  • Bonatti, L., Frot, E., Zangl, R., Mehler, J. (2002). The human first hypothesis: identification of conspecifics and individuation of objects in young infants. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 388-426.
  • Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MI T Press.
  • Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cohen, L.B., Chaput H.H., Cashon, C.H. (2002). Constructivist model of infant cognition. Cognitive Development, 17, 1323-1343.
  • Csibra, G. Gergely, G. (2009). Natural Pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 148-153.
  • Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1-42.
  • Dennett, D.C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge MA: The MI T Press.
  • diSessa, A.A. (1982). Understanding Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 31-75.
  • Gelman, S.A. (2003). The essential child. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gelman, S.A, Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103.
  • Gibson, J.J. (1968). What gives rise to the perception of motion? Psychological Review, 75, 335-346.
  • Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P. (2003). Naukowiec w kołysce. Poznań: Media Rodzina.
  • Haman, M. (1992). Dziecięca teoria umysłu jako podstawa porozumiewania się. W: B. Bokus, M. Haman (red.) Z badań nad kompetencją komunikacyjną dzieci. Warszawa: Energeia.
  • Haman, M. (2002). Pojęcia i ich rozwój: Percepcja, doświadczenie i naiwne teorie. Warszawa: Matrix.
  • Haman, M. (w druku). Internally-Driven Change and Feature Correspondence in Object Representation: A Key to Children’s Essentialism? Psychology of Language and Communication.
  • Haman, M., Hernik, M. (2011). Can multiple bootstrapping provide means of very early conceptual development? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 130-131.
  • Hamlin, J.K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450, 557-559.
  • Hamlin, J.K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P. (2010). Three-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations. Developmental Science, DOI : 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00951.x
  • Heider, F., Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243-259.
  • Hernik, M., Haman, M. (2010, Jan). Fourteen-month-olds transfer sequences of features derived from internally-driven object transformation. Cognitive Development Center Opening Conference. Budapeszt: Central European University.
  • Hernik, M., Haman, M. (w druku). The design stance in preschoolers.
  • Inagaki, K., Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 201-211.
  • Kaiser, M., Proffitt, D.R., McCloskey, M. (1985). The development of beliefs about falling objects. Perceptton & Psychophysics, 38, 533-539.
  • Kelemen, D. (1999). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241-272.
  • Kelemen, D., Carey, S. (2007). The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. W: E. Margolis, S. Laurence (red.) Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kuhlmeier, V., Wynn, K., Bloom, P. (2003). Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychological Science, 14, 402-408.
  • Leslie, A.M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11, 173-186.
  • Leslie, A.M. (1984). Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in infants. Perception, 13, 287-305.
  • Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.
  • Newcomb, N.S., Uttal, D.H. (2006). Whorf versus Socrates, round 10. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 394-396.
  • Newman, G., Herrmann, P., Wynn, K., Keil, F.C. (2008). Biases towards internal features in infants’ reasoning about objects. Cognition, 107, 420-432.
  • Piaget, J. (1981). Równoważenie struktur poznawczych. Warszawa: PWN.
  • Piaget, J. (2006). Jak sobie dziecko wyobraża świat. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  • Premack, D., Premack, A.J. (1995). Intention as psychological cause. W: D. Sperber, D. Premack, A.J. Premack (red.) Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (s. 185-199). New York, NY : Oxford University Press.
  • Schlottmann, A., Ray, E. (2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals: do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science, 13, 1-10.
  • Scholl, B.J. (2007). Object Persistence in Philosophy and Psychology. Mind & Language, 22, 563-591.
  • Spelke, E.S. (1990). Principles of object perception . Cognitive Science, 14, 29-56.
  • Surian, L., Caldi, S. (2010). Infants’ individuation of agents and inert objects. Developmental Science, 13, 143-150.
  • Tarłowski, A. (2005). The structure of biological knowledge in preschool age children. W: B. Bokus (red.) Studies in the psychology of child language (In honor of Grace Wales Shugar). Warszawa: Matrix.
  • Tarłowski, A. (2006). If it’s an animal it has axons: Experience and culture in preschool children’s reasoning about animates. Cognitive Development, 21, 249-265.
  • Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T.L., Niyogi, S. (2007). Intuitive Theories as Grammars for Causal Inference. W: A. Gopnik, L. Schulz (red.) Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Tomasello, M. (2002). Kulturowe źródła ludzkiego poznawania. Warszawa: PI W.
  • Van de Walle, G.A., Rubenstein, J.S., Spelke, E.S. (1998). Infant sensitivity to shadow motions. Cognitive Development, 13, 387-419.
  • Wang, S., Baillargeon, R. (2009). Detecting impossible changes in infancy: a three-system account. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 17-23.
  • Xu, F. (2007). Language acquisition and concept formation: count nouns and object kinds. W: G. Gaskell (red.) Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Xu, F., Carey, S. (1996). Infants’ metaphysics: the case of numerical identity. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 111-153.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.