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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cites
An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1416950 · Cited by 3,340
Eye contact detection in humans from birth
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.152159999 · Cited by 1,442
Self-citationToMM, ToBY, and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity
Leslie, A. M. (1994) · Mapping the Mind · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752902.006 · Cited by 1,105 · cited 4×
“This idea has been incorporated into several theories of infant development (Mandler 1992; Baron-Cohen 1994; Carey & Spelke 1994; Leslie 1994) and was originally one of the hypotheses that inspired our studies (Gergely et al.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMaternal emotional signaling: Its effect on the visual cliff behavior of 1-year-olds.
Sorce, J. F., Emde, R. N., Campos, J. J., & Klinnert, M. D. (1985) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.1.195 · Cited by 885 · cited 1×
“For example, they cross a visual cliff, if their mother is smiling at the other side, but refrain from crawling over if she looks worried (Sorce et al. 1985).”
BackgroundAbell, F., Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2000) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/s0885-2014(00)00014-9 · Cited by 720
Cited by
Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000129 · Cited by 4,882
Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing
Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 · Cited by 2,306
Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states
Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0016923 · Cited by 1,261
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., & Liszkowski, U. (2007) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01025.x · Cited by 1,039
Understanding Other Minds: Linking Developmental Psychology and Functional Neuroimaging
Saxe, R., Carey, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142044 · Cited by 726
Metadata
- Authors
- Csibra, G.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- 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.