Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Sep;48(5):1215-28.
doi: 10.1037/a0027440. Epub 2012 Feb 27.

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

Andrew N Meltzoff  1 , Anna Waismeyer, Alison Gopnik
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Andrew N Meltzoff et al. Dev Psychol. 2012 Sep.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Phase 1 setup for the human intervention group (A) and natural covariation group (B).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Experiment 3 used two sets of test objects: Set A (button boxes) and Set B (platforms). The stick was used to push the buttons; the dog was put on the platforms. These target acts (causes) made other things happen at a distance (effects): The central object lit up (egg or black box).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The causal and control events in Experiment 3 contained the same elements. The elements were simply arranged differently in time. (A) For the causal event, the light came on immediately when the button was pushed by the stick. The button pushing appeared to cause the light to come on. (B) For the control event, the light came on 2 s before the button push. This did not give a causal impression. In both events the target act and the light illumination were equally associated, inasmuch as they overlapped for the identical duration (2 s).
Figure 4
Figure 4
In the demonstration phase in Experiment 3, the experimenter acted on two objects differing only in color. (A) When the button on one of the boxes was pushed, the light came on. (B) When the button on the other box was pushed, it did not.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Two sets of objects were used in Experiment 4. The small, central object was either self-mobile (controlled by a magnet beneath the top surface) or moved by a human hand, depending on group assignment. For the human intervention group, the adult’s hand moved the object laterally so that it made contact with one of the blocks. This caused the effect (the egg or box lit up). For the natural covariation group, the object moved autonomously to make contact with one of the blocks, which caused the effect. The spatiotemporal trajectory that followed, the timing of the events, and the effect were identical in both groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bonawitz EB, Ferranti D, Saxe R, Gopnik A, Meltzoff AN, Woodward J, Schulz LE. Just do it? Investigating the gap between prediction and action in toddlers’ causal inferences. Cognition. 2010;115:104–117. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Buchsbaum D, Gopnik A, Griffiths TL, Shafto P. Children’s imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence. Cognition. 2011;120:331–340. - PubMed
    1. Carey S. The origins of concepts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009.
    1. Csibra G. Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language. 2010;25:141–168.
    1. Gopnik A, Glymour C, Sobel DM, Schulz LE, Kushnir T, Danks D. A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review. 2004;111:3–32. - PubMed

Publication types