Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T12:25:50.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

False beliefs and naive beliefs: They can be good for you

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2010

Marco Bertamini  and
Roberto Casati
Marco Bertamini
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.liv.ac.uk/vp/
Roberto Casati
Affiliation:
CNRS Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]://www.institutnicod.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Naive physics beliefs can be systematically mistaken. They provide a useful test-bed because they are common, and also because their existence must rely on some adaptive advantage, within a given context. In the second part of the commentary we also ask questions about when a whole family of misbeliefs should be considered together as a single phenomenon.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2009 , pp. 512 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bertamini, M. & Parks, T. E. (2005) On what people know about images on mirrors. Cognition 98:85–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U. & Bertamini, M. (2008) Estimation and representation of head size (People overestimate their own head, evidence starting from the 15th century). British Journal of Psychology 99:513–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozzi, P. (1958) Analisi fenomenologica del moto pendolare armonico. Rivista di Psicologia 52:281–302.Google Scholar
Burger, J. M., Messian, N., Patel, S., del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. (2004) What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casati, R. (2008) The copycat solution to the shadow correspondence problem. Perception 37(4):495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanagh, P. (2005) The artist as neuroscientist. Nature 434:301–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeBruine, L. M. (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:1307–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, P. J. (1978) The Naive Physics manifesto. In: Expert systems in the micro-electronic age, ed. Michie, D., pp. 242–70. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hecht, H. H. & Bertamini, M. (2000) Understanding projectile acceleration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:730–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Hecht, H. H. & Proffitt, D. R. (1995) The price of expertise: Effects of experience on the water-level task. Psychological Science 6:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipmann, O. & Bogen, H. (1923) Naive Physik. Arbeiten aus dem Institut für angewandte Psychologie in Berlin. Theoretische und experimentelle Untersuchungen Über die Fähigkeit zu intelligentem Handeln. Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
McCloskey, M. (1983) Intuitive physics. Scientific American 248(4):114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A. & Green, B. (1980) Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science 210(5):1139–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuttin, J. M. J. R. (1985) Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect. European Journal of Social Psychology 15(3):353–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M. & Jones, J. T. (2005) Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14:106–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittenger, J. B. (1989) Detection of violation of the law of pendulum motion: Observers' sensitivity to the relation between period and length. Ecological Psychology 2:55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proffitt, D. R. (1999) Naive physics. In: The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, ed. Wilson, R. & Keil, F., pp. 577–79. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sedikides, C. & Gregg, A. P. (2008) Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(2):102–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. (1994b) Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin 116(1):21–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, J., Bessman, M., Dunne, M., Jertson, D., Sly, K. & Wendelboe, B. (1988) Are conceptions of motion based on a naive theory or on prototypes? Cognition 29:251–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed