1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology
  4. Volume 6, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Developmental Psychology

Volume 6, 2024

Causal Explanations and the Growth of Understanding

Abstract

Causal explanations are central to cognitive development. Once considered beyond the grasp of young children, causal reasoning is now understood to be present in infants, driving curiosity and learning. The search for causal explanations underlying recurring patterns is evident in nonverbal forms. Causal explanations are diverse, varying in granularity, spanning different content domains, and encompassing both deterministic and probabilistic forms. These explanations support counterfactual reasoning, diagnostic thinking, and learning. The emergence of causal explanatory thought in infants is suggested by their responses to anomalies and by the development of exploratory behaviors. In the preschool years, children build upon early abilities to request, evaluate, and generate explanations. The decline of causal explanation-seeking in young schoolchildren can be dramatic and seems to arise from a convergence of social, cultural, and motivational factors. Overall, the development of causal explanations is essential to cognitive growth and mature understanding, with enduring influences on learning and reasoning.

Keyword(s): causality, concepts, explanation, intuitive theories, mechanisms
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603
2024-12-09
2025-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/devpsych/6/1/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aboody R, Yousif SR, Sheskin M, Keil FC. 2022.. Says who? Children consider informants’ sources when deciding whom to believe. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151:(10):2481–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amir D, McAuliffe K. 2020.. Cross-cultural, developmental psychology: integrating approaches and key insights. . Evol. Hum. Behav. 41:(5):430–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum LA, Danovitch JH, Keil FC. 2008.. Children's sensitivity to circular explanations. . J. Exp. Child Psychol. 100:(2):146–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bazhydai M, Westermann G, Parise E. 2020.. “I don't know but I know who to ask”: 12-month-olds actively seek information from knowledgeable adults. . Dev. Sci. 23:(5):e12938
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bechtel W, Abrahamsen A. 2005.. Explanation: a mechanist alternative. . Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. C 36:(2):421–41
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Binet A, Simon T. 1916.. The Development of Intelligence in Children (The Binet-Simon Scale), transl. ES Kite. Baltimore, MD:: Williams & Wilkins Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bobek E, Tversky B. 2016.. Creating visual explanations improves learning. . Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 1::27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonawitz EB, Lombrozo T. 2012.. Occam's rattle: children's use of simplicity and probability to constrain inference. . Dev. Psychol. 48::1156–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonawitz EB, van Schijndel T, Friel D, Schulz L. 2012.. Balancing theories and evidence in children's exploration, explanations, and learning. . Cogn. Psychol. 64:(4):215–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Boyd R. 1999.. Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. . In Species: New Interdisciplinary Studies, ed. R Wilson , pp. 141–85. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brockbank E, Lombrozo T, Gopnik A, Walker CM. 2023.. Ask me why, don't tell me why: Asking children for explanations facilitates relational thinking. . Dev. Sci. 26:(1):e13274
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bullock M, Gelman R, Baillargeon R. 1982.. The development of causal reasoning. . In The Developmental Psychology of Time, ed. W Friedman , pp. 209–54. San Diego, CA:: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Busch JTA, Willard AK, Legare CH. 2018.. Explanation scaffolds causal learning and problem solving in childhood. . In Active Learning from Infancy to Childhood: Social Motivation, Cognition, and Linguistic Mechanisms, ed. MM Saylor, PA Ganea , pp. 113–27. Cham, Switz:.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Carey S, Spelke E. 1996.. Science and core knowledge. . Philos. Sci. 63:(4):515–33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cartwright ND. 1999.. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cartwright ND. 2007.. Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Castelain T, Bernard S, Mercier H. 2018.. Evidence that two-year-old children are sensitive to information presented in arguments. . Infancy 23:(1):124–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cesana-Arlotti N, Martín A, Téglás E, Vorobyova L, Cetnarski R, Bonatti LL. 2018.. Precursors of logical reasoning in preverbal human infants. . Science 359::1263–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chi MTH, Bassok M, Lewis MW, Reimann P, Glaser R. 1989.. Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. . Cogn. Sci. 13::145–82
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Choi Y, Seok J, Luo Y. 2023.. Young infants' expectations about a self-propelled agent's body. . Cognition 241::105629
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chouinard NM. 2007.. Children's questions: a mechanism for cognitive development. . Monogr. Soc. Child Dev. 72:(1):1–112
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Chuey A, Lockhart K, Sheskin M, Keil F. 2020.. Children and adults selectively generalize mechanistic knowledge. . Cognition 199::104231
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chuey A, Lockhart K, Trouche E, Keil F. 2023.. Young children can infer information preferences from goals and recommend appropriate sources to others. . Dev. Psychol. 59:(8):1511–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Clark HH, Schreuder R, Buttrick S. 1983.. Common ground at the understanding of demonstrative reference. . J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22:(2):245–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Corriveau KH, Kurkul KE. 2014.. Why does rain fall? Children prefer to learn from an informant who uses noncircular explanations. . Child Dev. 85:(5):1827–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Craver CF. 2001.. Role functions, mechanisms and hierarchy. . Philos. Sci. 68::31–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Danovitch JH, Mills CM, Duncan RG, Williams AJ, Girouard LN. 2021.. Developmental changes in children's recognition of the relevance of evidence to causal explanations. . Cogn. Dev. 58::101017
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dennett D. 1987.. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Diesendruck G, Gelman SA. 1999.. Domain differences in absolute judgments of category membership: evidence for an essentialist account of categorization. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6:(2):338–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Engel S. 2011.. Children's need to know: curiosity in schools. . Harv. Educ. Rev. 81:(4):625–45
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fender JG, Crowley K. 2007.. How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. . J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 28:(3):189–210
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fodor JA. 1975.. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Frazier BN, Gelman SA, Wellman HM. 2009.. Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult–child conversation. . Child Dev. 80:(6):1592–611
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Frazier BN, Gelman SA, Wellman HM. 2016.. Young children prefer and remember satisfying explanations. . J. Cogn. Dev. 17:(5):718–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gelman SA. 2003.. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gelman SA. 2023.. Looking beyond the obvious. . Am. Psychol. 78:(5):667–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gelman SA, Kremer KE. 1991.. Understanding natural cause: children's explanations of how objects and their properties originate. . Child Dev. 62:(2):396–414
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gelman SA, Noles NS, Stilwell S. 2014.. Tracking the actions and possessions of agents. . Top. Cogn. Sci. 6:(4):599–614
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gergely G, Csibra G. 2003.. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action. . Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:(7):287–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Glennan S. 2002.. Rethinking mechanistic explanation. . Philos. Sci. 69:(S3):S342–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gopnik A, Sobel DM, Schulz LE, Glymour C. 2001.. Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. . Dev. Psychol. 37:(5):620–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Greif ML, Kemler Nelson DG, Keil FC, Gutierrez F. 2006.. What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information. . Psychol. Sci. 17:(6):455–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hamlin JK, Wynn K, Bloom P. 2007.. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. . Nature 450:(7169):557–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Harris PL. 2012.. Trusting What You're Told: How Children Learn from Others. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Harris PL, Koenig MA, Corriveau KH, Jaswal VK. 2018.. Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69::251–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hempel CG, Oppenheim P. 1948.. Studies in the logic of explanation. . Philos. Sci. 15:(2):135–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Henderson AM, Sabbagh MA, Woodward AL. 2013.. Preschoolers’ selective learning is guided by the principle of relevance. . Cognition 126:(2):246–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hickling AK, Wellman HM. 2001.. The emergence of children's causal explanations and theories: evidence from everyday conversation. . Dev. Psychol. 37:(5):66883
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hoyos C, Gentner D. 2017.. Generating explanations via analogical comparison. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24::1364–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Huang I. 1943.. Children's conception of physical causality: a critical summary. . Pedagog. Semin. J. Genet. Psychol. 63::71–121
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Huey H, Lu X, Walker CM, Fan JE. 2023.. Visual explanations prioritize functional properties at the expense of visual fidelity. . Cognition 236::105414
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jara-Ettinger J, Schulz LE, Tenenbaum JB. 2020.. The naive utility calculus as a unified, quantitative framework for action understanding. . Cogn. Psychol. 123::101334
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Johnson SG, Bilovich A, Tuckett D. 2023.. Conviction narrative theory: a theory of choice under radical uncertainty. . Behav. Brain Sci. 46::e82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Johnson SG, Keil FC. 2014.. Causal inference and the hierarchical structure of experience. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143:(6):2223–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Johnson SG, Valenti JJ, Keil FC. 2019.. Simplicity and complexity preferences in causal explanation: an opponent heuristic account. . Cogn. Psychol. 113::101222
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Johnston AM, Johnson SG, Koven ML, Keil FC. 2017.. Little Bayesians or little Einsteins? Probability and explanatory virtue in children's inferences. . Dev. Sci. 20:(6):e12483
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Johnston AM, Sheskin M, Keil FC. 2019.. Learning the relevance of relevance and the trouble with truth: evaluating explanatory relevance across childhood. . J. Cogn. Dev. 20:(4):555–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Joo S, Yousif SR, Keil FC. 2022.. Understanding “Why:” How implicit questions shape explanation preferences. . Cogn. Sci. 46:(2):e13091
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Keil FC. 1989.. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Keil FC. 1995.. The growth of understandings of natural kinds. . In Causal Cognition ed. S Sperber, D Premack, A Premack , pp. 234–67. Oxford, UK:: Clarendon Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Keil FC. 2006.. Explanation and understanding. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57::227–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Keil FC. 2022.. Wonder: Childhood and the Lifelong Love of Science. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Keil FC, Stein C, Webb L, Billings VD, Rozenblit L. 2008.. Discerning the division of cognitive labor: an emerging understanding of how knowledge is clustered in other minds. . Cogn. Sci. 32:(2):259–300
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Kelemen D. 1999a.. The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. . Cognition 70:(3):241–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Kelemen D. 1999b.. Why are rocks pointy? Children's preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. . Dev. Psychol. 35:(6):144052
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kelemen D, Rosset E. 2009.. The human function compunction: teleological explanation in adults. . Cognition 111:(1):138–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kelemen D, Rottman J, Seston R. 2013.. Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142:(4):1074–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kominsky JF, Gerstenberg T, Pelz M, Sheskin M, Singmann H, et al. 2021a.. The trajectory of counterfactual simulation in development. . Dev. Psychol. 57:(2):253–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Kominsky JF, Langthorne P, Keil FC. 2016.. The better part of not knowing: virtuous ignorance. . Dev. Psychol. 52:(1):31–45
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kominsky JF, Li Y, Carey S. 2022.. Infants’ attributions of insides and animacy in causal interactions. . Cogn. Sci. 46:(1):e13087
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Kominsky JF, Shafto P, Bonawitz E. 2021b.. “ There's something inside”: children's intuitions about animate agents. . PLOS ONE 16:(5):e0251081
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kominsky JF, Strickland B, Wertz AE, Elsner C, Wynn K, Keil FC. 2017.. Categories and constraints in causal perception. . Psychol. Sci. 28:(11):1649–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Kurkul KE, Castine E, Leech K, Corriveau KH. 2021.. How does a switch work? The relation between adult mechanistic language and children's learning. . J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 72::101221
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Kurkul KE, Corriveau KH. 2018.. Question, explanation, follow-up: a mechanism for learning from others?. Child Dev. 89:(1):280–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lachner A, Jacob L, Hoogerheide V. 2021.. Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining?. Learn. Instr. 74::101438
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Legare CH, Evans EM, Rosengren KS, Harris PL. 2012.. The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. . Child Dev. 83:(3):779–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Legare CH, Lombrozo T. 2014.. Selective effects of explanation on learning during early childhood. . J. Exp. Child Psychol. 126::198–212
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Leslie AM. 1982.. The perception of causality in infants. . Perception 11:(2):173–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Leslie SJ. 2013.. Essence and natural kinds: when science meets preschooler intuition. . Oxf. Stud. Epistemol. 4::108–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Lewry C, Gorucu S, Liquin EG, Lombrozo T. 2023.. Minimally counterintuitive stimuli trigger greater curiosity than merely improbable stimuli. . Cognition 230::105286
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Liquin EG, Lombrozo T. 2020.. Explanation-seeking curiosity in childhood. . Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 35::14–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Lockhart KL, Chuey A, Kerr S, Keil FC. 2019.. The privileged status of knowing mechanistic information: an early epistemic bias. . Child Dev. 90:(5):1772–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Lockhart KL, Keil FC, eds. 2018.. What heals and why? Children's understanding of medical treatments. . Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 83:(2)
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Lombrozo T. 2016.. Explanatory preferences shape learning and inference. . Trends Cogn. Sci. 20:(10):748–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Lombrozo T, Vasilyeva N. 2017.. Causal explanation. . In Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning, ed. M Waldmann , pp. 415–32. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Lombrozo T, Wilkenfeld DA. 2019.. Mechanistic versus functional understanding. . In Varieties of Understanding: New Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychology, and Theology, ed. SR Grimm , pp. 209–29. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF. 2000.. Thinking about mechanisms. . Philos. Sci. 67:(1):1–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Margoni F, Surian L, Baillargeon R. 2024.. The violation-of-expectation paradigm: a conceptual overview. . Psychol. Rev. 131:(3):716–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. McAuliffe K, Dunham Y. 2016.. Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement. . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371:(1686):20150073
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. McCarthy AM, Keil FC. 2023.. A right way to explain? Function, mechanism, and the order of explanations. . Cognition 238::105494
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Mead M. 1932.. An investigation of the thought of primitive children, with special reference to animism. . J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. 62::173–90
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Mercier H, Sudo M, Castelain T, Bernard S, Matsui T. 2018.. Japanese preschoolers’ evaluation of circular and non-circular arguments. . Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 15:(5):493–505
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. Mills CM, Danovitch JH, Rowles SP, Campbell IL. 2017.. Children's success at detecting circular explanations and their interest in future learning. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24::1465–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. Mills CM, Keil FC. 2004.. Knowing the limits of one's understanding: the development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. . J. Exp. Child Psychol. 87:(1):1–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Mills CM, Sands KR, Rowles SP, Campbell IL. 2019.. “ I want to know more!”: Children are sensitive to explanation quality when exploring new information. . Cogn. Sci. 43:(1):e12706
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Newman GE, Herrmann P, Wynn K, Keil FC. 2008.. Biases towards internal features in infants’ reasoning about objects. . Cognition 107:(2):420–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Noyes A, Keil FC, Dunham Y. 2020.. Institutional actors: children's emerging beliefs about the causal structure of social roles. . Dev. Psychol. 56:(1):7080
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Ojalehto B, Waxman SR, Medin DL. 2013.. Teleological reasoning about nature: intentional design or relational perspectives?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17:(4):166–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Pacer M, Lombrozo T. 2017.. Ockham's razor cuts to the root: simplicity in causal explanation. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 146:(12):1761–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Paulus M, Kammermeier M, Melzel S. 2023.. The emergence of pointing as a communicative gesture: age-related differences in infants’ non-social and social use of the index finger. . Cogn. Dev. 65::101298
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Pelz M, Kidd C. 2020.. The elaboration of exploratory play. . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375:(1803):20190503
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Perez J, Feigenson L. 2022.. Violations of expectation trigger infants to search for explanations. . Cognition 218::104942
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Piaget J. 1929.. The Child's Conception of the World. London:: Routledge & K. Paul
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Piaget J. 1930.. The Child's Conception of Physical Causality. New York:: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Rhodes M, Moty K. 2020.. What is social essentialism and how does it develop?. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 59::1–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Richardson E, Sheskin M, Keil FC. 2021.. An illusion of self-sufficiency for learning about artifacts in scaffolded learners, but not observers. . Child Dev. 92:(4):1523–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Riskin J. 2016.. The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries-Long Argument Over What Makes Living Things Tick. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Rittle-Johnson B, Saylor M, Swygert KE. 2008.. Learning from explaining: Does it matter if mom is listening?. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 100:(3):215–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Rozenblit L, Keil F. 2002.. The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. . Cogn. Sci. 26:(5):521–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Salmon WC. 1984.. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Saxe R, Tenenbaum JB, Carey S. 2005.. Secret agents: inferences about hidden causes by 10- and 12-month-old infants. . Psychol. Sci. 16:(12):995–1001
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Schneider W. 1993.. Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance in children. . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 5::257–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Schupbach JN, Glass DH, eds. 2023.. Conjunctive Explanations: The Nature, Epistemology, and Psychology of Explanatory Multiplicity. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Sehl CG, Denison S, Friedman O. 2022.. Using efficiency to infer the quality of machines. . In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. J Culbertson, A Perfors, H Rabagliati, V Ramenzoni , pp. 2532–57. Seattle, WA:: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Setoh P, Wu D, Baillargeon R, Gelman R. 2013.. Young infants have biological expectations about animals. . PNAS 110:(40):15937–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Shtulman A. 2023.. Learning to Imagine: The Science of Discovering New Possibilities. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Shultz TR, Mendelson R. 1975.. The use of covariation as a principle of causal analysis. . Child Dev. 46::394–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Siegler RS, Lin X. 2010.. Self-explanations promote children's learning. . In Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Instruction, ed. HS Waters, W Schneider , pp. 85–112. New York:: Guilford Press
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Simons DJ, Keil FC. 1995.. An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: the insides story. . Cognition 56:(2):129–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Stahl AE, Feigenson L. 2015.. Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration. . Science 348:(6230):91–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Strevens M. 2008.. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Taborda-Osorio H, Cheries EW. 2018.. Infants’ agent individuation: It's what's on the insides that counts. . Cognition 175::11–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Taylor M, Esbensen BM, Bennett RT. 1994.. Children's understanding of knowledge acquisition: the tendency for children to report that they have always known what they have just learned. . Child Dev. 65:(6):1581–604
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. Thagard P. 2021.. Naturalizing logic: how knowledge of mechanisms enhances inductive inference. . Philosophies 6:(2):52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. Tizard B, Hughes M. 2008.. Young Children Learning. New York:: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Tizard B, Hughes M, Carmichael H, Pinkerton G. 1983.. Children's questions and adults' answers. . J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 24:(2):269–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Vasil N, Ruggeri A, Lombrozo T. 2022.. When and how children use explanations to guide generalizations. . Cogn. Dev. 61::101144
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Vrantsidis TH, Lombrozo T. 2022.. Simplicity as a cue to probability: multiple roles for simplicity in evaluating explanations. . Cogn. Sci. 46:(7):e13169
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Walker CM, Bonawitz EB, Lombrozo T. 2017a.. Effects of explaining on children's preference for simpler hypotheses. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24:(5):1538–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Walker CM, Lombrozo T, Legare C, Gopnik A. 2014.. Explaining prompts children to privilege inductively rich properties. . Cognition 133:(2):343–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Walker CM, Lombrozo T, Williams JJ, Rafferty A, Gopnik A. 2017b.. Explaining constrains causal learning in childhood. . Child Dev. 88:(1):229–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Waxman S, Medin D, Ross N. 2007.. Folkbiological reasoning from a cross-cultural developmental perspective: early essentialist notions are shaped by cultural beliefs. . Dev. Psychol. 43:(2):294–308
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. Woodward J. 2003.. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Yousif SR, Aboody R, Keil FC. 2019.. The illusion of consensus: a failure to distinguish between true and false consensus. . Psychol. Sci. 30:(8):1195–204
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Zhao X, Wente A, Flecha MF, Galvan DS, Gopnik A, Kushnir T. 2021.. Culture moderates the relationship between self-control ability and free will beliefs in childhood. . Cognition 210::104609
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603
Loading
Causal Explanations and the Growth of Understanding
Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 6, 163 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103603
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error