Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 595

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Naive Theories of Motion

·2014·Mental Models

Abstract

In this chapter we describe research aimed at determining what sorts of knowledge are in fact acquired through experience with moving objects. We first present some basic findings from experiments in which subjects solved simple problems concerning objects in motion. We then show that these and other findings imply that people develop on the basis of their everyday experience remarkably well-articulated naive theories of motion. Further, we argue that the assumptions of the naive theories are quite consistent across individuals. In fact, the theories developed by different individuals are best described as different forms of the same basic theory. Although this basic theory appears to be a reasonable outcome of experience with real-world motion, it is strikingly incon­ sistent with the fundamental principles of classical physics. In fact, the naive theory is remarkably similar to a pre-Newtonian physical theory popular in the 14th through 16th centuries.

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 · 10.4324/9781315802725-17

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.

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

Cited by

See all 595

Metadata

Venue
Mental Models
Published
2014-01-14
Pages
307-332
OpenAlex
W2100895909
Cited by
595
References
0
FWCI
82.78
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Naive Theories of Motion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781315802725-17
The paper
Naive Theories of Motion. (2014). Mental Models. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315802725-17

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.