Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T18:28:27.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Scientific Thinking and Reasoning in Infants and Young Children

from Subpart II.1 - Infancy: The Roots of Human Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Mariel K. Goddu  and
Alison Gopnik
Edited by
Olivier Houdé  and
Grégoire Borst
Olivier Houdé
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Grégoire Borst
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Get access

Summary

For more than three decades, researchers have characterized the dramatic changes in early cognitive development and the learning mechanisms that underlie those changes by analogy to the thinking of professional scientists. This “child-as-scientist” view has emphasized the parallels between: (1) the evidence-based, theoretical nature of both children’s and scientists’ knowledge, (2) the rational process by which that knowledge is updated and revised, and (3) conceptual change, the often radical alterations to epistemic content that can result from those revisions. In this chapter, we begin by laying out the fundamentals of scientific thinking and reasoning, situating it in an “interventionist” framework of causal reasoning. Next, we review the history of the “child-as-scientist” approach in this context. Then, we outline recent work, open questions, and future directions in research on the development of scientific thinking in infancy, early childhood, and beyond.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Development , pp. 299 - 317
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Arend, R., Gove, F. L., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity of individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers. Child Development, 50, 950–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Astington, J. W., Harris, P. L., & Olson, D. R. (eds.) (1988). Developing Theories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3½- and 4½-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1998). Infants' understanding of the physical world. In Sabourin, M., Craik, F., & Robert, M. (eds.), Advances in Psychological Science, Vol. 2. Biological and Cognitive Aspects (pp. 503–529). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Beck, S. R., & Riggs, K. J. (2013). Counterfactuals and reality. In Taylor, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination (pp. 325–341). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, S. R., Robinson, E. J., Carroll, D. J., & Apperly, I. A. (2006). Children’s thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities. Child Development, 77, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014a). Win-stay, lose-sample: A simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference. Cognitive Psychology, 74, 35–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014b). Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: Sampling in cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 497–500.Google Scholar
Bonawitz, E. B., Ferranti, D., Saxe, R., Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., Woodward, J., & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Just do it? Investigating the gap between prediction and action in toddlers’ causal inferences. Cognition, 115, 104–117.Google Scholar
Bonawitz, E. B., & Lombrozo, T. (2012). Occam’s rattle: Children’s use of simplicity and probability to constrain inference. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, L. P. (2020). The empirical child? A framework for investigating the development of scientific habits of mind. Child Development Perspectives, 14, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2009) The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cesana-Arlotti, N., Martín, A., Téglás, E., Vorobyova, L., Cetnarski, R., & Bonatti, L. L. (2018). Precursors of logical reasoning in preverbal human infants. Science, 359, 1263–1266.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., & Steinberg, O. D. (2014). The inherence heuristic across development: Systematic differences between children’s and adults’ explanations for everyday facts. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 130–154.Google Scholar
Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 356–373.Google Scholar
Christie, S. & Gentner, D. (2014). Language helps children succeed on a classic analogy task. Cognitive Science, 38, 383–397.Google Scholar
Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120, 341–349.Google Scholar
Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2013). Rational variability in children’s causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126, 285–300.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The Essential Child. New York: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., & Gottfried, G. M. (1994). Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories. In Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture (pp. 341–365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogical reasoning and conceptual change: A case study of Johannes Kepler. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, J. W., Gopnik, A., & Heyman, G. D. (2002). Source monitoring reduces the suggestibility of preschool children. Psychological Science, 13, 288–291.Google Scholar
Goddu, M. K., & Gopnik, A. (2020). Learning what to change: Young children use “difference-making” to identify causally relevant variables. Developmental Psychology, 56, 275.Google Scholar
Goddu, M. K., Lombrozo, T., & Gopnik, A. (2020). Transformations and transfer: Preschool children understand abstract relations and reason analogically in a causal task. Child Development, 91, 1898–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddu, M., K. & Walker, C. M. (2018). Toddlers and adults simultaneously track multiple hypotheses in a causal learning task. Cognitive Science. Available from https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2018/papers/0330/index.html. Last accessed July 30, 2021.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1984). Conceptual and semantic change in scientists and children: Why there are no semantic universals. Lingusitics, 21.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1998). Explanation as orgasm. Minds and Machines, 8, 101–118.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337, 1623–1627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, Thoughts, & Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Sobel, D.M. (2000). Detecting Blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71, 1205–1222.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & 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. Developmental Psychology, 37, 620.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1085.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P. Y., Lopes, M., & Baranes, A. (2013). Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: Computational and neural mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 585–593.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, S., Keltner, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2018). Awe as a scientific emotion. Cognitive Science, 42, 2081–2094.Google Scholar
Greco, C., Hayne, H., & Rovee-Collier, C. (1990). Roles of function, reminding, and variability in categorization by 3-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 617.Google Scholar
Gweon, H., & Schulz, L. (2011). 16-month-olds rationally infer causes of failed actions. Science, 332, 1524.Google Scholar
Inagaki, K. (1990). The effects of raising animals on children’s biological knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, A. M., Johnson, S. G., Koven, M. L., & Keil, F. C. (2017). Little Bayesians or little Einsteins? Probability and explanatory virtue in children’s inferences. Developmental Science, 20, e12483.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. (1998). Reasons and causes: Children’s understanding of conformity to social rules and physical laws. Child Development, 69, 706–720.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1974). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition, 3, 195–212.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keil, F. C. (2012). Running on empty? How folk science gets by with less. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 329–334.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C., Lockhart, K. L., & Schlegel, E. (2010). A bump on a bump? Emerging intuitions concerning the relative difficulty of the sciences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 1.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D. (1999a). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241–272.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D. (1999b). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1440.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 3–31.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10, 307–321.Google Scholar
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88, 449–460.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In Goswami, U. (ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 371–393). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2007). Conditional probability versus spatial contiguity in causal learning: Preschoolers use new contingency evidence to overcome prior spatial assumptions. Developmental Psychology, 43, 186.Google Scholar
Lapidow, E., & Walker, C. M. (2020). Informative experimentation in intuitive science: Children select and learn from their own causal interventions. Cognition, 201, 104315.Google Scholar
Leahy, B. P.,& Carey, S. E. (2020). The acquisition of modal concepts. Trends in Cognitive Science, 24, 65–78.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H. (2012). Exploring explanation: Explaining inconsistent evidence informs exploratory, hypothesis‐testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83, 173–185.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H. (2014). The contributions of explanation and exploration to children’s scientific reasoning. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 101–106.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81, 929–944.Google Scholar
Lockhart, K. L., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2017). Overoptimism about future knowledge: Early arrogance? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, K. L., Goddu, M. K., Smith, E. D., & Keil, F. C. (2016). What could you really learn on your own?: Understanding the epistemic limitations of knowledge acquisition. Child Development, 87, 477–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. G., Bridgers, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). When children are better (or at least more open-minded) learners than adults: Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. Cognition, 131, 284–299.Google Scholar
Magid, R. W., Sheskin, M., & Schulz, L. E. (2015). Imagination and the generation of new ideas. Cognitive Development, 34, 99–110.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1217.Google Scholar
Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2004). Knowing the limits of one’s understanding: The development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 1–32.Google Scholar
Mills, C. M., Legare, C. H., Bills, M., & Mejias, C. (2010). Preschoolers use questions as a tool to acquire knowledge from different sources. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 533–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mody, S., & Carey, S. (2016). The emergence of reasoning by the disjunctive syllogism in early childhood. Cognition, 154, 40–48.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery (pp. 5–22). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Newman, G. E., Herrmann, P., Wynn, K., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Biases towards internal features in infants’ reasoning about objects. Cognition, 107, 420–432.Google Scholar
O’Neill, D. K., & Gopnik, A. (1991). Young children’s ability to identify the sources of their beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 27, 390.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1929). The Child’s Conception of the World. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object (Studies in Communication). New York: Technology Press of MIT.Google Scholar
Rafetseder, E., Cristi‐Vargas, R., & Perner, J. (2010). Counterfactual reasoning: Developing a sense of “nearest possible world.” Child Development, 81, 376–389.Google Scholar
Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2016). Children’s and apes’ preparatory responses to two mutually exclusive possibilities. Current Biology, 26, 1758–1762.Google Scholar
Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2020). Temporal junctures in the mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 52–64.Google Scholar
Repacholi, B. M., & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: Evidence from 14-and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 12.Google Scholar
Ronfard, S., Zambrana, I. M., Hermansen, T. K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Question-asking in childhood: A review of the literature and a framework for understanding its development. Developmental Review, 49, 101–120.Google Scholar
Ross, N., Medin, D., Coley, J. D., & Atran, S. (2003). Cultural and experiential differences in the development of folk biological induction. Cognitive Development, 18, 25–47.Google Scholar
Ruchlis, H. (1963). Discovering Scientific Method. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Ruggeri, A., & Lombrozo, T. (2015). Children adapt their questions to achieve efficient search. Cognition, 143, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruggeri, A., Sim, Z. L., & Xu, F. (2017). “Why is Toma late to school again?” Preschoolers identify the most informative questions. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1620–1632.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Saxe, R., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Carey, S. (2005). Secret agents: Inferences about hidden causes by 10-and 12-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16, 995–1001.Google Scholar
Schulz, L. E., Bonawitz, E. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007a). Can being scared give you a tummy ache? Naive theories, ambiguous evidence and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1124–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, L. E., Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Jenkins, A. C. (2008). Going beyond the evidence: Abstract laws and preschoolers’ responses to anomalous data. Cognition, 109, 211–223.Google Scholar
Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. Developmental Psychology, 40, 162.Google Scholar
Schulz, L. E., & Somerville, J. (2006). God does not play dice: Causal determinism and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Child Development, 77, 427–442.Google Scholar
Shtulman, A., & Carey, S. (2007). Improbable or impossible? How children reason about the possibility of extraordinary events. Child Development, 78, 1015–1032.Google Scholar
Shtulman, A., & Phillips, J. (2018). Differentiating “could” from “should”: Developmental changes in modal cognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 165, 161–182.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest – The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 57–60.Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: The insides story. Cognition, 56, 129–163.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. M., & Kushnir, T. (2006). The importance of decision making in causal learning from interventions. Memory & Cognition, 34, 411–419.Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. N., Scheines, R., & Heckerman, D. (1993). Causation, Prediction, and Search. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L. (2015). Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration. Science, 348, 91–94.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., Esbensen, B. M., & Bennett, R. T. (1994). Children’s understanding of knowledge acquisition: The tendency for children to report that they have always known what they have just learned. Child Development, 65, 1581–1604.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdesolo, P., Shtulman, A., & Baron, A. S. (2017). Science is awe-some: The emotional antecedents of science learning. Emotion Review, 9, 215–221.Google Scholar
Walker, C. M., Bonawitz, E., & Lombrozo, T. (2017). Effects of explaining on children’s preference for simpler hypotheses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1538–1547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, C. M., Bridgers, S., & Gopnik, A. (2016). The early emergence and puzzling decline of relational reasoning: Effects of knowledge and search on inferring abstract concepts. Cognition, 156, 30–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, C. M., & Gopnik, A. (2013). Causality and imagination. In Taylor, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination (pp. 342–358). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, C. M., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Toddlers infer higher-order relational principles in causal learning. Psychological Science, 25, 161–169.Google Scholar
Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., Legare, C. H., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Explaining prompts children to privilege inductively rich properties. Cognition, 133, 343–357.Google Scholar
Wang, S. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2008). Can infants be “taught” to attend to a new physical variable in an event category? The case of height in covering events. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 284–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, D. S., & Gopnik, A. (2013). Pretense, counterfactuals, and Bayesian causal models: Why what is not real really matters. Cognitive Science, 37, 1368–1381.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (1992). The Child’s Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In Damon, W. (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, Perception, and Language (pp. 523–573). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Woolley, J. D. (1990). From simple desires to ordinary beliefs: The early development of everyday psychology. Cognition, 35, 245–275.Google Scholar
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L. (1999). Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 145–160.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, F., Dewar, K., & Perfors, A. (2009). Induction, overhypotheses, and the shape bias: Some arguments and evidence for rational constructivism. In Hood, B. M., & Santos, L. (eds.), The Origins of Object Knowledge (pp. 263–284). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Infants are rational constructivist learners. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 28–32.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×