Cited by 107Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceLanguage Development and Disorders

Learning about causes from people: observational causal learning in 24-month-old infants

Open access
Meltzoff, Andrew N., Waismeyer, Anna, Gopnik, Alison·2012·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

How do infants and young children learn about the causal structure of the world around them? In 4 experiments we investigate whether young children initially give special weight to the outcomes of goal-directed interventions they see others perform and use this to distinguish correlations from genuine causal relations--observational causal learning. In a new 2-choice procedure, 2- to 4-year-old children saw 2 identical objects (potential causes). Activation of 1 but not the other triggered a spatially remote effect. Children systematically intervened on the causal object and predictively looked to the effect. Results fell to chance when the cause and effect were temporally reversed, so that the events were merely associated but not causally related. The youngest children (24- to 36-month-olds) were more likely to make causal inferences when covariations were the outcome of human interventions than when they were not. Observational causal learning may be a fundamental learning mechanism that enables infants to abstract the causal structure of the world.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0027440

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Meltzoff AN Blumenthal EJ Causal understanding and imitation: Effect monitoring in infants 2007 3 Paper presented at the Harvard University n-SRCD meeting Cambridge, MA
  2. Spirtes P Glymour C Scheines R Causation prediction, and search (Lecture notes in statistics) 1993 New York, NY Springer-Verlag

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meltzoff, A. N., Waismeyer, A., & Gopnik, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2012
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
1215-1228
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2155678792
Cited by
107
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
18.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (HD-22514)
  • National Science Foundation (OMA-0835854)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
causal inference, infants, young children, correlation versus causation, time reversal, causal structure, social learning, covariation
MeSH terms
Association Learning, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Choice Behavior, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Causality, Observation

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