Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-zc66z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T14:48:39.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny, phylogeny, and the relational reinterpretation hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

Elizabeth V. Hallinan  and
Valerie A. Kuhlmeier
Elizabeth V. Hallinan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. [email protected]@queensu.cawww.infantcognitiongroup.com
Valerie A. Kuhlmeier
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. [email protected]@queensu.cawww.infantcognitiongroup.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If our knowledge of human cognition were based solely on research with participants younger than the age of 2 years, there would be no basis for the relational reinterpretation hypothesis, and Darwin's continuity theory would be safe as houses. Because many of the shortcomings cited apply to human infants, we propose how a consideration of cognitive development would inform the relational reinterpretation hypothesis.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 138 - 139
Copyright
Copyright ©Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

Blades, M. & Cooke, Z. (1994) Young children's ability to understand a model as a spatial representation. Journal of Genetic Psychology 155(2):201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buresh, J. S. & Woodward, A. L. (2007) Infants track action goals within and across agents. Cognition 104:287–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLoache, J. S. (1989) Young children's understanding of the correspondence between a scale model and a larger space. Cognitive Development 4:121–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flombaum, J. I. & Santos, L. R. (2005) Rhesus monkeys attribute perceptions to others. Current Biology 15(5):447–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (2003) Why we're so smart. In: Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, ed. Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S., pp. 195–235. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H. & Kiraly, I. (2002) Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415:755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiraly, I., Jovanovic, B., Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G. & Gergely, G. (2003) The early origins of goal attribution in infancy. Consciousness and Cognition 12:752–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhlmeier, V. A. & Boysen, S. T. (2002) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) recognize spatial and object correspondences between a scale model and its referent. Psychological Science 13(1):60–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhlmeier, V. A., Wynn, K. & Bloom, P. (2003) Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychological Science 14(5):402–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, Y. & Baillargeon, R. (2007) Do 12.5-month-old infants consider what objects others can see when interpreting their actions? Cognition 105(3):489–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. & Brooks, R. (2007) Eyes wide shut: The importance of eyes in infant gaze following and understanding other minds. In: Gaze following: Its development and significance, ed. Flom, R., Lee, K. & Muir, D.Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. & Baillargeon, R. (2005) Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308:255–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perner, J. (1991) Understanding the representational mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Povinelli, D. J. (2001) On the possibilities of detecting intentions prior to understanding them. In: Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition, Malle, B. F., Baldwin, D. & Moses, L., pp. 225–48. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, L. R., Nissen, A. G. & Ferrugia, J. A. (2006) Rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta, know what others can and cannot hear. Animal Behaviour 71(5):1175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, H., Baillargeon, R. & Fisher, C. (2005) Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action? Cognition 98(2):B45–B55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troseth, G. L., Pickard, M. E. & Deloache, J. S. (2007) Young children's use of scale models: Testing an alternative to representational insight. Developmental Science 10(6):763–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellman, H. M. & Liu, D. (2004) Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development 75(2):523–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, A. L. (1998) Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition 69(1):1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, A. L., Sommerville, J. A. & Guajardo, J. J. (2001) How infants make sense of intentional action. In: Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition, ed. Malle, B. F., Moses, L. J. & Baldwin, D. A., pp. 149–71. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar