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
Causes and consequences of mind perception
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 · Cited by 759
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions
Gregory, T. R. (2009) · Evolution Education and Outreach · doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1 · Cited by 574
“It therefore reappears easily even in those with some basic scientific training; for example, in descriptions of ecological balance (“fungi grow in forests to help decomposition”) or species survival (“finches diversified in order to survive”; Kelemen and Rosset 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialDivine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0025391 · Cited by 557
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0030399 · Cited by 429
Self-citationScientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions
Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005 · Cited by 418
“…evidence for the persistence of early intuitions is limited to studies that tap a single conceptual distinction, like the distinction between living and nonliving things (Zaitchik & Solomon, 2008) or the distinction between teleological and nonteleological processes (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009).”
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
