Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fr72s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-20T04:53:26.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Substances as a core domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

Susan J. Hespos Open the ORCID record for Susan J. Hespos [Opens in a new window]  and
Lance J. Rips Open the ORCID record for Lance J. Rips [Opens in a new window]
Susan J. Hespos*
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA [email protected]; https://sites.northwestern.edu/ripslab/ MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognition, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia [email protected]; https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/babylab/people/researchers/professor_susan_hespos
Lance J. Rips
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA [email protected]; https://sites.northwestern.edu/ripslab/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Central to What Babies Know (Spelke, 2022) is the thesis that infants' understanding is divided into independent modules of core knowledge. As a test case, we consider adding a new domain: core knowledge of substances. Experiments show that infants' understanding of substances meets some criteria of core knowledge, and they raise questions about the relations that hold between core domains.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e131
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Anderson, E. M., Hespos, S. J., & Rips, L. J. (2018). Five-month-old infants have expectations for the accumulation of nonsolid substances. Cognition, 175, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourgeois, K. S., Khawar, A. W., Neal, S. A., & Lockman, J. J. (2005). Infant manual exploration of objects, surfaces, and their interrelations. Infancy, 8, 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheries, E. W., Mitroff, S. R., Wynn, K., & Scholl, B. J. (2008). Cohesion as a constraint on object persistence in infancy. Developmental Science, 11, 427–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiandetti, C., & Vallortigara, G. (2011). Intuitive physical reasoning about occluded objects by inexperienced chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2621–2627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiang, W.-C., & Wynn, K. (2000). Infants' tracking of objects and collections. Cognition, 77, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frege, G. (1980). The foundations of arithmetic: A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number (J. L. Austin, Trans., 2nd ed.). Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1884).Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J., Ferry, A. L., Anderson, E. M., Hollenbeck, E. N., & Rips, L. J. (2016). Five-month-old infants have general knowledge of how nonsolid substances behave and interact. Psychological Science, 27, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hespos, S. J., Ferry, A. L., & Rips, L. J. (2009). Five-month-old infants have different expectations for solids and liquids. Psychological Science, 20, 603–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hespos, S. J., & VanMarle, K. (2012). Physics for infants: Characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances, and number. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 19–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Huntley-Fenner, G., Carey, S., & Solimando, A. (2002). Objects are individuals but stuff doesn't count: Perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants' representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition, 85, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellman, P. J., & Spelke, E. S. (1983). Perceptions of partly occluded objects in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 483–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koslicki, K. (1997). Isolation and non-arbitrary division: Frege's two criteria for counting. Synthese, 112, 403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L. J., & Hespos, S. J. (2015). Divisions of the physical world: Concepts of objects and substances. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rips, L. J., & Hespos, S. J. (2019). Concepts of objects and substances in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1238–1256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, R. D., & Carey, S. (2009). Infants’ representations of material entities. In Hood, B. M. & Santos, L. R. (Eds.), The origins of object knowledge (pp. 165–188). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, R. (2012). Massive modularity. In Margolis, E., Samuels, R., & Stich, S. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 60–91). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, L. R., & Hauser, M. D. (2002). A non-human primate's understanding of solidity: Dissociations between seeing and acting. Developmental Science, 5, F1–F7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2022). What babies know: Core knowledge and composition (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellwood, A. (2019). The meaning of “more”. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar