Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-58z7q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-05T23:40:45.398Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Infants' representations of causation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Stephen A. Butterfill
Department of Philosophy, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.


It is consistent with the evidence in The Origin of Concepts to conjecture that infants' causal representations, like their numerical representations, are not continuous with adults', so that bootstrapping is needed in both cases.

Open Peer Commentary
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)


Baillargeon, R., Kotovsky, L. & Needham, A. (1995) The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy. In: Causal cognition. A multidisciplinary debate, ed. Sperber, D. & Premack, D., pp. 79115. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Barrett, T. M., Davis, E. F. & Needham, A. (2007) Learning about tools in infancy. Developmental Psychology 43(22):352–68.Google Scholar
Berthier, N. E., De Blois, S., Poirier, C. R., Novak, M. A. & Clifton, R. K. (2000) Where's the ball? Two- and three-year-olds reason about unseen events. Developmental Psychology 36(3):394401.Google Scholar
Butterfill, S. (2009) Seeing causes and hearing gestures. Philosophical Quarterly 59(236):405–28.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, G. & Hagmann, S. (1998) Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 36:581–89.Google Scholar
Hood, B., Cole-Davies, V. & Dias, M. (2003) Looking and search measures of object knowledge in preschool children. Developmental Science 29(1):6170.Google Scholar
Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(2):71–8.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1985) The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21(1):136.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1991) Modularity and the effects of experience. In: Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives, ed. Hoffman, R. R. & Palermo, D. S., pp. 3338. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lockman, J. J. (2000) A perception-action perspective on tool use development. Child Development 71(1):137–44.Google Scholar
Menzies, P. & Price, H. (1993) Causation as a secondary quality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44(2):187203.Google Scholar
Michotte, A. (1946/1963) The perception of causality. Trans. Miles, T. R.. Meuthen.Google Scholar
Saxe, R. & Carey, S. (2006) The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psychologica 123:144–65.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. & Van de Walle, G. (1993) Perceiving and reasoning about objects., In: Spatial representation: Problems in philosophy and psychology, ed. Eilan, N., McCarthy, R. & Brewer, B., pp. 132–61. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, S.-H., Kaufman, L. & Baillargeon, R. (2003) Should all stationary objects move when hit? Developments in infants' causal and statistical expectations about collision events. Infant Behavior and Development 26:529–67Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2003) Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar