The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The development of young infants' intuitions about support
Abstract
Previous research has shown that 3‐month‐old infants, like adults, expect a box to be stable when it is in full contact with a platform, and to fall when it loses all contact with the platform. Do young infants also have expectations about what should happen when the box is only in partial contact with the platform? The present research was designed to address this question. In Experiment 1, 6.5‐month‐old infants saw two test events: a full‐contact and a partial‐contact test event. In both events, the infants watched the extended finger of a gloved hand push a box along the top of a platform. In the full‐contact event, the box was pushed until its leading edge reached the end of the platform. In the partial‐contact event, the box was pushed until only 15% or 70% of its bottom surface remained on the platform. The infants looked reliably longer at the partial‐than at the full‐contact event when 15%, but not 70%, of the box rested on the platform. These results suggested that the infants were able to judge how much contact was needed between the box and the platform for the box to be stable. A control condition provided evidence for this interpretation. In Experiment 2, 5.5‐ to 6‐month‐old infants were found to look equally at the full‐ and the partial‐contact events, even when only 15% of the box's bottom surface remained on the platform. This result suggested that prior to 6.5 months of age infants perceive any amount of contact between the box and the platform to be sufficient to ensure the box's stability. Interpretations of this developmental sequence are considered in the Conclusion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The violation-of-expectation paradigm: A conceptual overview.
Margoni, F., Surian, L., & Baillargeon, R. (2024) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000450 · Cited by 127
IntPhys 2019: A Benchmark for Visual Intuitive Physics Understanding
Riochet, R., Castro, M. Y., Bernard, M., Lerer, A., Fergus, R., Izard, V., & Dupoux, E. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2021.3083839 · Cited by 19
Intuitive physics understanding emerges from self-supervised pretraining on natural videos
Garrido, Q., Ballas, N., Assran, M., Bardes, A., Najman, L., Rabbat, M., Dupoux, E., & LeCun, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11831 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Baillargeon, R., Needham, A., & Devos, J.
- Venue
- Early Development and Parenting
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 69-78
- ISSN
- 1057-3593 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0917
- OpenAlex
- W2156254163
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The development of young infants' intuitions about support. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/edp.2430010203
- The paper
- Baillargeon, R., Needham, A., & Devos, J. (1992). The development of young infants' intuitions about support. Early Development and Parenting. https://doi.org/10.1002/edp.2430010203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.