The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Human Function Compunction: Teleological explanation in adults
Abstract
Research has found that children possess a broad bias in favor of teleological--or purpose-based--explanations of natural phenomena. The current two experiments explored whether adults implicitly possess a similar bias. In Study 1, undergraduates judged a series of statements as "good" (i.e., correct) or "bad" (i.e., incorrect) explanations for why different phenomena occur. Judgments occurred in one of three conditions: fast speeded, moderately speeded, or unspeeded. Participants in speeded conditions judged significantly more scientifically unwarranted teleological explanations as correct (e.g., "the sun radiates heat because warmth nurtures life"), but were not more error-prone on control items (e.g., unwarranted physical explanations such as "hills form because floodwater freezes"). Study 2 extended these findings by examining the relationship between different aspects of adults' "promiscuous teleology" and other variables such as scientific knowledge, religious beliefs, and inhibitory control. Implications of these findings for scientific literacy are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the creative power of blind selection also conflicts with our teleological intuitions (in the sense of goal-directedness) about functional complexity, and our intuitive design stance (Kelemen and Rosset 2009; Reiss 2009).”
From Natural Selection Does Care about Truth (2014) · cites this paper as Kelemen and Rosset 2009
In the citing paper
“Subsequent experiments have demonstrated that teleological thinking is a cognitive default, to which people resort if they have no alternative explanations.”
From The Challenge of Evolution to Religion (2019) · cites this paper as Kelemen & Rosset, 2009
In the citing paper
“These intuitions tend to translate in religious beliefs, but they can also contribute to a 103 quasi-religious view on nature [30,31].”
From Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition (2015) · cites this paper as [30]
Citations
Cites
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03204507 · Cited by 2,802
Child's Conception of the World
Piaget, J. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315006215 · Cited by 2,689
The essential child: origins of essentialism in everyday thought
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-1239 · Cited by 1,380
Wright, L. (1973) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2183766 · Cited by 983
Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection
Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10053 · Cited by 575
The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children
Kelemen, D. A. (1999) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00010-4 · Cited by 493
Self-citationQualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution
Shtulman, A. (2005) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 · Cited by 367
Why are rocks pointy? Children's preference for teleological explanations of th natural world.
Kelemen, D. (1999) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1440 · Cited by 356 · cited 6×
“For example, from preschool, children attribute functions to entities like lions, mountains, and icebergs, viewing them as ‘‘made for something” (Kelemen, 1999a).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationMisconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students
Brumby, M. (1984) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730680412 · Cited by 325
Functional explanation and the function of explanation
Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. E. (2005) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.009 · Cited by 301
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Keil, 1992, The origins of an autonomous biology, Vol. 25, 103
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 479
Religious Studies as a Life Science
Bulbulia, J. A., Bulbulia, J. A., & Slingerland, E. (2012) · Numen · doi:10.1163/15685276-12341240 · Cited by 39
“For example, when adults are required to respond quickly to questions about the purpose of inanimate objects, adults ascribe purposes and intentions to such objects (Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundAn fMRI study of scientists with a Ph.D. in physics confronted with naive ideas in science
Allaire‐Duquette, G., Foisy, L. B., Potvin, P., Riopel, M., Larose, M., & Masson, S. (2021) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-021-00091-x · Cited by 46
Mills, C. M., Danovitch, J. H., Mugambi, V. N., Sands, K. R., & Fox, C. P. (2021) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13681 · Cited by 37
“…parents produce teleological explanations in conversations with their children, although past research supports that in response to why questions, children (and adults under cognitive load) frequently prefer teleological explanations over mechanistic ones (Kelemen, 1999; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., SPIEGEL, A. N., & Diamond, J. (2013) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662513496954 · Cited by 36
“Recent research finds that even when people state scientifically accepted views, they may still hold naïve theories that exert an influence on their behavior and thought (Kelemen and Rosset, 2009; Shtulman and Valcarcel, 2012).”
BackgroundNg, B. K. L., & Gervais, W. M. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316161579.015 · Cited by 36
Students’ reasons for preferring teleological explanations
Trommler, F., Martens, H., & Hammann, M. (2017) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1404658 · Cited by 37
“…assume that individuals who accept teleological explanations, also reason teleologically (Casler & Kelemen, 2008; Kelemen, 1999c, 1999b, 2003; Kelemen et al., 2013; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Richardson, 1990; Lombrozo et al., 2007; Rottman et al., 2017), whereas other authors are more sceptical.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPersistence through function preservation
Rosé, D. (2014) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0555-6 · Cited by 37
“…highly believable even after extensive high school and college level instruction in both the physical and life sciences (Kelemen et al. 2013; also Kelemen and Rosset 2009) Taken together, the best evidence suggests that telomentalism is the more accurate characterization of folk teleology.”
BackgroundThe relative unnaturalness of atheism: On why Geertz and Markússon are both right and wrong
Barrett, J. L. (2009) · Religion · doi:10.1016/j.religion.2009.11.002 · Cited by 35
Maij, D. L. R., van Schie, H. T., & van Elk, M. (2017) · Religion Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1080/2153599x.2017.1362662 · Cited by 37
“Indeed, it has been empirically supported that the human default seems to be to judge actions as if they were intentionally caused (e.g., Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Rosset, 2008).”
BackgroundFrom Ends to Causes (and Back Again) by Metaphor: The Paradox of Natural Selection
Blancke, S., Schellens, T., Soetaert, R., Keer, H. V., & Braeckman, J. (2013) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9648-8 · Cited by 35
“However, when questioned under time pressure, adults too seem to revert to a teleological way of thinking (Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundHartelt, T., & Martens, H. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1450947 · Cited by 52
Singular Clues to Causality and Their Use in Human Causal Judgment
White, P. A. (2013) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12075 · Cited by 38
“A tendency to accept teleological (purposive) explanations of both biological and non-biological events is common among young children and persists in adults (Kelemen, 1999; Kelemen & DiYanni, 2005; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundTapia, I. S., Krajcik, J. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2017) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21422 · Cited by 44
The Challenge of Evolution to Religion
De Smedt, J., & De Cruz, H. (2019) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/9781108685436 · Cited by 33
“…(commonly referred to as “speeded condition”) adults tend to endorse teleological incorrect explanations, e.g., “the sun radiates heat because warmth nurtures life,” but they still reject false mechanistic explanations, e.g., “hills form because floodwater freezes” (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundReflecting on explanatory ability: A mechanism for detecting gaps in causal knowledge.
Johnson, D. R., Murphy, M. P., & Messer, R. M. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000161 · Cited by 30
Folk intuitions of actual causation: a two-pronged debunking explanation
Rosé, D. (2016) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-016-0762-8 · Cited by 33
“Other work suggests that even adults never fully outgrow their childhood tendencies toward promiscuous teleology (e.g., Kelemen and Rosset, 2009; Kelemen, Rottman and Seston, 2013; Lombrozo, Kelemen and Zaitchick, 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialChildren’s Intuitive Teleology: Shifting the Focus of Evolution Education Research
Kampourakis, K., Palaiokrassa, E., Παπαδοπούλου, Μ., Pavlidi, V., & Argyropoulou, M. (2012) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1007/s12052-012-0393-2 · Cited by 32
“Consequently, children are not expected to undergo any spontaneous conceptual change from teleological to non-teleological intuitions, as even adults tend to intuitively provide teleological explanations as well (e.g., Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundKarin, J. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00431 · Cited by 35
“Stress, fatigue and cognitive pressure encourage reversion to naïve beliefs (Kelemen and Rosset, 2009; Shtulman and Valcarcel, 2012; Kelemen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundBeggrow, E. P., & Sbeglia, G. C. (2019) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1186/s12052-018-0094-6 · Cited by 32
Cognitive Construal-Consistent Instructor Language in the Undergraduate Biology Classroom
Betz, N., Leffers, J. S., Thor, E. D., Fux, M., de Nesnera, K., Tanner, K. D., & Coley, J. D. (2019) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.19-04-0076 · Cited by 34
Functions in biological kind classification
Lombrozo, T., & Rehder, B. (2012) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.06.002 · Cited by 32
“Both children and adults prefer to explain biological traits by appeal to functions or purpose (e.g., Kelemen, 1999; Lombrozo & Carey, 2006; Lombrozo, Kelemen, & Zaitchik, 2007), even when doing so is potentially unwarranted (e.g., Gould & Lewontin, 1979; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundFolk teleology drives persistence judgments
Rosé, D., Schaffer, J., & Tobia, K. P. (2018) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-018-01974-0 · Cited by 34
Willard, A. K., Cingl, L., & Norenzayan, A. (2019) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619841629 · Cited by 31
“We used a series of statements created by Kelemen and Rosset (2009) with levels of agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., Earthworms tunnel underground to aer-ate the soil; The sun makes light so that plants can photosynthe-size; a ¼ .92).”
MethodAversion to playing God and moral condemnation of technology and science
Waytz, A. G., & Young, L. (2019) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0041 · Cited by 29
Scott, E. E., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. (2019) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.19-03-0059 · Cited by 32
“, 2012); 2) students’ nonscientific conceptual frameworks and ideas can persist even as they acquire scientific ideas (Kelemen and Rosset, 2009; Shtulman and Valcarcel, 2012; Evans, 2018); and 3) students’ nonscientific conceptual frameworks can both hinder and facilitate scientific reasoning (Hammer et al.”
BackgroundGalli, L. G., & Meinardi, E. N. (2015) · Ciência & Educação (Bauru) · doi:10.1590/1516-731320150010007 · Cited by 30
Blasi, C. H., Bjorklund, D. F., & Soler, M. R. (2015) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1177/147470491501300212 · Cited by 30
“…in most adults in traditional societies (Guthrie, 1993; Woolley, 1997), for most educated adults in pre-Renaissance Europe (see Brainerd, 1978), as well as in both nonschooled and educated adults today (e.g., Casler and Kelemen, 2008; Goldberg and Thompson-Schill, 2009; Kelemen and Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundStructure-function fit underlies the evaluation of teleological explanations
Liquin, E. G., & Lombrozo, T. (2018) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.09.001 · Cited by 32
“More generally, we know that explanation quality judgments are based on a host of factors: simplicity (Bonawitz & Lombrozo, 2012; Lombrozo, 2007; Pacer & Lombrozo, 2017), scope (Johnson, Johnston, Toig, & Keil, 2014; Preston & Epley, 2005), explanatory power (Schupbach, 2011), and more (Zemla, Sloman, Bechlivanidis, &…”
Martens, H. (2020) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1186/s12052-020-00125-9 · Cited by 36
McNabb, T. D. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108558365 · Cited by 29
Laski, E. V., & Dulaney, A. (2015) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000034 · Cited by 32
Chandler-Campbell, I. L., Leech, K. A., & Corriveau, K. H. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01934 · Cited by 29
“…provided explanations that propagated misconceptions about the causal mechanisms of evolutionary processes, such as the inaccurate idea that animals that share similar physical features are likely to share evolutionary ancestry (see also Kelemen and Rosset, 2009; Coley and Tanner, 2012, 2015).”
BackgroundAllchin, D., & Werth, A. J. (2016) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-016-9336-x · Cited by 28
“We should be prepared to examine further teleological reasoning as a common, perhaps default cognitive pattern that contributes to the naturalizing error. order (Ayala 1970; Gonzalez Galli and Meinardi 2010; Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundHeiphetz, L., Lane, J. D., Waytz, A. G., & Young, L. (2018) · British Journal of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12231 · Cited by 28
“This result is consistent with work that has not found effects of religious background (Heiphetz et al., 2013; Kelemen, 2004; Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) and with work suggesting that atheists sometimes display theistic tendencies (Heiphetz et al., 2015; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
ResultExplanatory preferences for complexity matching
Lim, J. B., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230929 · Cited by 28
Educational potential of teaching evolution as an interdisciplinary science
Hanisch, S., & Eirdosh, D. (2020) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1186/s12052-020-00138-4 · Cited by 31
Barlev, M., & Shtulman, A. (2021) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000298 · Cited by 32
Teleological Essentialism: Generalized
Rosé, D., & Nichols, S. (2020) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12818 · Cited by 28
“Knobe et al. (2013) suggest that, in thinking about this, we might think of the following features: developing theories, running experiments, considering opposing views, and conducting statistical analyses. The question then is whether there is some deeper thing that all of these features serve to realize. The Platoni…”
BackgroundAvoiding the Pitfall of Progress and Associated Perils of Evolutionary Education
Werth, A. J. (2012) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1007/s12052-012-0417-y · Cited by 27
“Part of the explanation for this disconnect stems from the fact that people are inherently teleological creatures (Kelemen and Rosset 2009) who have a difficult time accepting change when it relates to the philosophical materialism offered by Darwin—with its unsettling consequences for our place in…”
BackgroundInfluentialSecondary school students’ reasoning about evolution
To, C., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Hogh, H. (2016) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21347 · Cited by 30
Introductory essay: Evolutionary science and the study of religion
Slingerland, E., & Bulbulia, J. (2011) · Religion · doi:10.1080/0048721x.2011.604513 · Cited by 26
Natural Selection Does Care about Truth
Boudry, M., & Vlerick, M. (2014) · International Studies in the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1080/02698595.2014.915651 · Cited by 26
“Moreover, the creative power of blind selection also conflicts with our teleological intuitions (in the sense of goal-directedness) about functional complexity, and our intuitive design stance (Kelemen and Rosset 2009; Reiss 2009).”
Backgroundvan Mulukom, V. (2017) · Religion Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1080/2153599x.2016.1232304 · Cited by 25
“…are natural teleologists, reasoning about natural phenomena in terms of purpose (Kelemen, 1999, 2004), but adults also provide more teleological explanations (even if they are scientifically unwarranted) when tasks are speeded and participants are put under time pressure (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundAllaire‐Duquette, G., Bélanger, M., Grabner, R. H., Koschutnig, K., & Masson, S. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.24435 · Cited by 29
“Behavioral studies show a tendency to endorse spontaneous conceptions in speeded response conditions designed to limit inhibi‐ tory control capacities (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Kelemen, Rottman, & Seston, 2013).”
BackgroundHeiphetz, L., Spelke, E. S., & Young, L. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.017 · Cited by 26
“Kelemen et al. (2013; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009) interpreted the difference between adults' slow and speeded responses as an indication that intuitions present in childhood persist even in adulthood.”
Dealing with creationist challenges. What European biology teachers might expect in the classroom
Blancke, S., Boudry, M., Braeckman, J., Smedt, J. D., & Cruz, H. D. (2011) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2010.546677 · Cited by 25
“For example, some studies (eg Kelemen and Rosset 2009) show that even educated adults continue to make incorrect teleological inferences when put under time pressure, endorsing statements such as ‘Earthworms tunnel underground to aerate the soil’.”
‘Will polar bears melt?’ A qualitative analysis of children’s questions about climate change
Lee, K., & Barnett, J. C. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520952999 · Cited by 26
“Some of the science-fiction ideas evidenced in the questions indicate that these participants are generating intuitive but inaccurate theories about the science of climate change (Carey, 2009), which may persist if they are not addressed (Kelemen and Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundChildren's ideas about fossils and foundational concepts related to fossils
Borgerding, L. A., & Raven, S. (2017) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21331 · Cited by 24
Categories convey prescriptive information across domains and development
Foster‐Hanson, E., Roberts, S. O., Gelman, S. A., & Rhodes, M. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105231 · Cited by 28
“…in speeded judgment tasks, adults often endorse more homogeneous views of categories—similar to young children—about both familiar animal kinds (e.g., Kelemen & Rosset, 2009) and familiar social kinds (e.g., Eidson & Coley, 2014; but see also Roberts & Horii, 2019, for contrasting findings with…”
Anthropocentric by Default? Attribution of Familiar and Novel Properties to Living Things
Arenson, M. B., & Coley, J. D. (2017) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12501 · Cited by 25
“In contrast, older children and adults are much less likely to provide teleological explanations for natural objects and organisms, although teleological explanations for biological parts persist (Coley & Tanner, 2015; Kelemen, 1999; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundBrain activations associated with scientific reasoning: a literature review
Nenciovici, L., Allaire‐Duquette, G., & Masson, S. (2018) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-018-0896-z · Cited by 25
Werth, A. J., & Allchin, D. (2020) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1186/s12052-020-00118-8 · Cited by 25
Inhibitory control and the understanding of buoyancy from childhood to adulthood
Foisy, L. B., Ahr, E., Sarrasin, J. B., Potvin, P., Houdé, O., Masson, S., & Borst, G. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105155 · Cited by 29
Socio-cognitive biases in folk AI ethics and risk discourse
Laakasuo, M., Herzon, V., Perander, S., Drosinou, M., Sundvall, J. R. I., Palomäki, J., & Visala, A. (2021) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00060-5 · Cited by 27
Death and design: The terror management function of teleological beliefs
Davis, W. E., Juhl, J., & Routledge, C. D. (2010) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9193-6 · Cited by 23
The scope of formal explanation
Prasada, S. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1276-x · Cited by 24
“In fact, our conceptual systems naturally make use of multiple modes of explanation (e.g., Keil, 1994; Kelemen, 1999; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Lombrozo, 2009; Lombrozo & Gwynne, 2014; Prasada & Dillingham, 2006).”
BackgroundHa, M., Wei, X., Wang, J., Hou, D., & Nehm, R. H. (2019) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1572936 · Cited by 23
“Teleological ideas are widely documented challenges to understanding evolution (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009), and our sample of Chinese PBTs also displayed difficulty in this regard.”
BackgroundBiological agency: a concept without a research program
DiFrisco, J., & Gawne, R. (2024) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1093/jeb/voae153 · Cited by 33
Teleological pitfalls in reading evolutionary trees and ways to avoid them
Schramm, T., & Schmiemann, P. (2019) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1186/s12052-019-0112-3 · Cited by 22
“One of the fundamental difficulties in learning evolutionary biology is that human beings tend to see the world from a purpose-driven and goal-oriented perspective (Gregory 2009; Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundBoudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/656904 · Cited by 22
“…to be sure), and it is plausible that the persistence of anti-evolutionary sentiments and the continuing appeal of the design argument is also a function of deeply rooted cognitive dispositions and hard-toshake teleological intuitions about the world (Kelemen 2004; Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundSolomon, G. E. A., & Zaitchik, D. (2011) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.150 · Cited by 22
Mechanistic versus Functional Understanding
Lombrozo, T., & Wilkenfeld, D. (2019) · Varieties of Understanding · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0011 · Cited by 29
“Kelemen and colleagues have argued that a teleological mode may be a “cognitive default” that emerges early in development and remains throughout the lifespan, re-emerging when alternative cognitive resources are taxed (Kelemen, Rottman, and Seston 2013; see also Shtulman & Lombrozo 2016).”
BackgroundYates, T. B., & Marek, E. A. (2015) · Creative Education · doi:10.4236/ce.2015.68085 · Cited by 21
“…1992; Kampourakis & Zogza, 2008, 2009; Passmore & Stewart, 2002; Pedersen & Halldén, 1992; Prinou et al., 2008; Samarapungavan & Wiers, 1997; Settlage, 1994; Shtulman, 2006; Southerland et al., 2001; Tamir & Zohar, 1991) and even into postsecondary education (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
Wingert, J. R., Bassett, G. M., Terry, C. E., & Lee, J. (2022) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1186/s12052-022-00162-6 · Cited by 24
“College-educated adults demonstrate a tendency toward teleological reasoning when they are uncertain or lack knowledge of an appropriate explanation and when they are under timed test conditions (Kelemen and Rosset 2009; Roberts et al.”
BackgroundDifferences in the Evaluation of Generic Statements About Human and Non‐Human Categories
Tasimi, A., Gelman, S. A., Cimpian, A., & Knobe, J. (2016) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12440 · Cited by 20
“…statements 31 response by intuition and to another response by careful reasoning, children tend to be drawn more toward the response that is characteristic of intuition in adults (e.g., Cimpian & Steinberg, 2014; Eidson & Coley, 2014; Epley, Morewedge, & Keysar, 2004; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundStricker, J., Vogel, S., Schöneburg-Lehnert, S., Krohn, T., Dögnitz, S., Jud, N., Spirk, M., Windhaber, M.-C., Schneider, M., & Grabner, R. H. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104789 · Cited by 26
Tapia, I. S., Gelman, S. A., Hollander, M. A., Manczak, E. M., Mannheim, B., & Gutiérrez, C. E. (2016) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12497 · Cited by 20
“Eventually children learn to restrict this tendency, but even adults revert to PT under speeded conditions (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009) or This research was supported by NICHD Grant HD-36043 to Susan A. Gelman.”
MethodResultYoung children’s learning and generalization of teleological and mechanistic explanations
Lombrozo, T., Bonawitz, E. B., & Scalise, N. R. (2018) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2018.1427099 · Cited by 21
“Moreover, adults err in the direction of accepting scientifically unwarranted teleological explanations when responding under time pressure (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Kelemen et al., 2013) or when cognitively impaired (Lombrozo, Kelemen, & Zaitchik, 2007), suggesting that a preference for…”
BackgroundVosniadou, S., Pnevmatikos, D., & Makris, N. (2018) · Neuroeducation · doi:10.24046/neuroed.20180502.62 · Cited by 20
Switching Between Everyday and Scientific Language
Blown, E. J., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2016) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9520-3 · Cited by 23
“Among school-aged children, Kelemen and Rosset (2009) observed that Bteleological intuitions explicitly link to beliefs about intentional causality in nature…with children’s ideas not straightforwardly explained by parental explanations…or ambient cultural religiosity^ (p. 138).”
BackgroundBlancke, S., & Smedt, J. D. (2013) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0020 · Cited by 22
How We Simplify, Circumvent, or Distort Causal Mechanistic Reasoning in Chemistry
Talanquer, V. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00281 · Cited by 20
Natural selection as an emergent process: instructional implications
Cooper, R. A. (2016) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2016.1217905 · Cited by 19
“Since these explanations attribute intentions (or agency) to the diffusing molecules or to individuals in an adapting population they are teleological (Moore et al. 2002; Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundIs Weaker Inhibition Associated with Supernatural Beliefs?
Lindeman, M., Riekki, T. J. J., & Hood, B. M. (2011) · Journal of Cognition and Culture · doi:10.1163/156853711x570038 · Cited by 21
PALEY'S iPOD: THE COGNITIVE BASIS OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT WITHIN NATURAL THEOLOGY
Cruz, H. D., & Smedt, J. D. (2010) · Zygon® · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01120.x · Cited by 19
How “is” shapes “ought” for folk-biological conceptsPreprint
Foster‐Hanson, E., & Lombrozo, T. (2021) · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101507 · Cited by 20
Villarroel, J. D. (2013) · SpringerPlus · doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-87 · Cited by 18
Understanding “Why:” How Implicit Questions Shape Explanation Preferences
Joo, S., Yousif, S. R., & Keil, F. C. (2022) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13091 · Cited by 19
The Association Between Belief in God and Fertility Desires in Slovenia and the Czech Republic
Cranney, S. (2015) · Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health · doi:10.1363/47e2915 · Cited by 17
How We Think about Human Nature: The Naturalizing Error
Allchin, D., & Werth, A. J. (2020) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/708707 · Cited by 17
“…we easily interpret intent and motive in all aspects of nature — in other humans we relate to socially, in other life forms, as well as in natural phenomena (storms, fi res, clouds) and even in inanimate objects (rocks, dolls, teddy bears; Kelemen and Rosset 2009; Mead and Scott 2010a, 2010b).”
Guilfoyle, L., & Erduran, S. (2021) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2021.2004330 · Cited by 23
“Furthermore, Kelemen and Rosset (2009) indicate that teleological thinking continues to adulthood including professional scientists (Kelemen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundGinnobili, S., Galli, L. G., & Ariza, Y. (2021) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-020-00186-8 · Cited by 18
Birch, J. (2014) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s10539-013-9421-z · Cited by 17
Cognitive load affects early processes involved in mentalizing robot behaviour
Spatola, N., Marchesi, S., & Wykowska, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19213-5 · Cited by 20
“For instance, facing unpredictable behaviour people tend to attribute more intentionality to agents under cognitive load 21 .”
BackgroundTardiff, N., Bascandziev, I., Sandor, K. P., Carey, S. E., & Zaitchik, D. (2017) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.04.004 · Cited by 17
“Similarly, Zaitchik and Solomon (2009) found that adults in the early stages of AD responded like young children on the Species Transformation task (Keil, 1989).”
BackgroundMethodAnalytical Thinking Predicts Less Teleological Reasoning and Religious Belief.
Zemla, J. C., Steiner, S., & Sloman, S. A. (2016) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14
Griffioen, A. L. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108699952 · Cited by 17
Bjorklund, D. F., Blasi, C. H., & Periss, V. (2010) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-010-9099-8 · Cited by 12
Core Knowledge Confusions Among University Students
Lindeman, M., Svedholm‐Häkkinen, A. M., Takada, M., Lönnqvist, J., & Verkasalo, M. (2009) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-009-9210-x · Cited by 16
“That core knowledge confusions are strongly related to paranormal beliefs, that paranormal believers make the same ontological mistakes as children do (Lindeman and Saher 2007; Kelemen and Rosset 2009 ), and that core knowledge confusions (Aarnio and Lindeman 2005; Lindeman and Aarnio 2007) and paranormal beliefs (Eps…”
BackgroundCognitive and Evolutionary Approaches to Religion
Mccauley, R. N. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118657775.ch32 · Cited by 16
“She has subsequently offered evidence of a similar tendency in adults (Kelemen and Rosset 2009), and even in scientists (Kelemen, Rottman, and Seston 2013).”
BackgroundThe role of cognitive biases in shaping irrational beliefs: a multi-Study Investigation
Teovanović, P., Purić, D., Živanović, M. M., Lukić, P., Branković, M., Stanković, S., Knežević, G., Lazarević, B., & Žeželj, I. (2024) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2024.2421367 · Cited by 18
“Teleological bias was assessed by three items (e.g., Bacteria mutate to become resistant to antibiotics ) drawn from Kelemen & Rosset (2009).”
Werth, A. J. (2009) · The Journal of Effective Teaching · Cited by 15
Reasoning about nature’s agency and design in the cultural context of China
Järnefelt, E., Zhu, L., Canfield, C. F., Chen, M., & Kelemen, D. A. (2018) · Religion Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1080/2153599x.2018.1449137 · Cited by 14
“…conception of Nature (i.e., the “Gaia” notion that earth or nature has intrinsic agency and is alive) has been found to relate to secular individuals’ intuitions that natural phenomena result from intentional design (Järnefelt et al., 2015; see also Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Kelemen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationPickett, S. B., Nielson, C., Marshall, H., Tanner, K. D., & Coley, J. D. (2022) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.00220-21 · Cited by 21
“It emerges early in development (9, 10), persists into adulthood (2, 5), and is even evident in PhD-level scientists when responding under time pressure (11).”
BackgroundMethodSulik, J., van Paridon, J., & Lupyan, G. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105464 · Cited by 16
Skepticism: Genuine unbelief or implicit beliefs in the supernatural?
Lindeman, M., Svedholm‐Häkkinen, A. M., & Riekki, T. J. J. (2016) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2016.03.019 · Cited by 18
“In the last study, we used speeded and non-speeded response conditions because responding very quickly increases cognitive load, decreases the possibility to engage in effortful processes, and brings out intuitive beliefs and heuristic reasoning (Evans, 2007; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
MethodMoney as an Institution and Money as an Object
Guala, F. (2020) · Journal of Social Ontology · doi:10.1515/jso-2020-0028 · Cited by 19
Persistence of the “Moving Things Are Alive” Heuristic into Adulthood: Evidence from EEG
Skelling-Desmeules, Y., Foisy, L. B., Potvin, P., Lapierre, H. G., Ahr, E., Léger, P., Masson, S., & Charland, P. (2021) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.19-11-0244 · Cited by 16
“For instance, it has been argued that both undergraduate students and professional scientists persistently tend to endorse naive explanations when having to answer a question in a short amount of time (Kelemen and Rosset, 2009; Kelemen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundLabotka, D., & Gelman, S. A. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105413 · Cited by 15
“…with a growing body of evidence that scientific explanatory models do not necessarily replace prior intuitive theories but rather may co-exist (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009; Legare, Evans, Rosengren, & Harris, 2012; Legare & Gelman, 2008; Shtulman & Harrington, 2016; Shtulman & Legare, 2020;…”
Reasons Things Happen for a Reason: An Integrative Theory of Teleology
Scott, M. J. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691621995753 · Cited by 15
“The authors also used a speeded responding method that has demonstrated higher acceptance of teleology when participants are rushed (Kelemen et al., 2013; Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kelemen, Deborah
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 138-143
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073307787
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 141.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- teleological reasoning, implicit reasoning, scientific literacy, religious beliefs, inhibitory control, scientific knowledge, explanation evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Reading, Religion, Intuition, Young Adult
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