Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy

Open access
Csibra, Gergely·2003·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

There are two fundamentally different ways to attribute intentional mental states to others upon observing their actions. Actions can be interpreted as goal–directed, which warrants ascribing intentions, desires and beliefs appropriate to the observed actions, to the agents. Recent studies suggest that young infants also tend to interpret certain actions in terms of goals, and their reasoning about these actions is based on a sophisticated teleological representation. Several theorists proposed that infants rely on motion cues, such as self–initiated movement, in selecting goal–directed agents. Our experiments revealed that, although infants are more likely to attribute goals to self–propelled than to non–self–propelled agents, they do not need direct evidence about the source of motion for interpreting actions in teleological terms. The second mode of action–based mental state attribution interprets actions as referential, and allows ascription of attentional states, referential intents, communicative messages, etc., to the agents. Young infants also display evidence of interpreting actions in referential terms (for example, when following others' gaze or pointing gesture) and are very sensitive to the communicative situations in which these actions occur. For example, young infants prefer faces with eye–contact and objects that react to them contingently, and these are the very situations that later elicit gaze following. Whether or not these early abilities amount to a ‘theory of mind’ is a matter of debate among infant researchers. Nevertheless, they represent skills that are vital for understanding social agents and engaging in social interactions.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2002.1235

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Csibra, G.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2003-02-18
Volume
358
Issue
1431
Pages
447-458
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W1996358880
Cited by
225
References
5
FWCI
29.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2002.1235
The paper
Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1235

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.