2011
DOI: 10.1002/wcs.150
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Folkbiology

Abstract: Recent work in cognitive science suggests that children have framework theories unique to specific domains such as physics, psychology, and biology that provide causal explanations and support predictions about phenomena within them. They further guide how children develop the later theories of adults, both formal and informal. In this article, we focus on a particular framework or naïve theory, folkbiology, and review debates concerning how it ought best to be characterized, its origins and developmental cour… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
11
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 100 publications
(86 reference statements)
2
11
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, it is also interesting to note that as a general rule, the younger the subjects of the sample are, the more frequent the trend is not to consider plants as living entities. Once again these findings are in line with previous research which indicates that young children tend to attribute animacy to a wide set of entities that includes moving objects (the sun and clouds) and, additionally, they tend to be reluctant to judge plants to be alive (Anggoro et al 2005; Gatt et al 2007; Leddon et al, 2009, 2011; Opfer & Siegler, 2004; Solomon & Zaitchik, 2012). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition, it is also interesting to note that as a general rule, the younger the subjects of the sample are, the more frequent the trend is not to consider plants as living entities. Once again these findings are in line with previous research which indicates that young children tend to attribute animacy to a wide set of entities that includes moving objects (the sun and clouds) and, additionally, they tend to be reluctant to judge plants to be alive (Anggoro et al 2005; Gatt et al 2007; Leddon et al, 2009, 2011; Opfer & Siegler, 2004; Solomon & Zaitchik, 2012). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…According to this paradigm, children’s limitations when handling non evident cause-and-effect relationships that underlie many biological phenomena and, also, the ontological egocentrism that characterizes children during the preoperational stage (Kesselring & M&üller, 2011) allow very little room for the consideration that young children’s concept of animacy might have some degree of internal coherence, consistency and predictive value (Solomon & Zaitchik, 2012). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development that age brings with it is a fundamental factor in achieving an understanding of the concept of the living being, and more specifically, in understanding that plants are beings with vitality and not mere inert objects [14]. In general, this information supports the hypothesis that the conceptualization of living things in young children is far from being fully understood by adults [25,26].…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…Preschool-and early elementary school-age children tend to construe life and its properties in animistic terms (Carey, 1985;Hatano & Inagaki, 1994;Solomon & Zaitchik, 2012). They identify life with the capacity for self-directed motion (as opposed to metabolic processing), and they identify biological properties with the psychological experiences that accompany those properties (as opposed to their role in sustaining vital functions).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%