Biomedical subjects

Frank C Keil

Publications and source records attributed to Frank C Keil.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Reflections of other minds: how primate social cognition can inform the function of mirror neurons.

Mirror neurons, located in the premotor cortex of macaque monkeys, are activated both by the performance and the passive observation of particular goal-directed actions. Although this property would seem to make them the ideal neural substrate for imitation, the puzzling fact is that monkeys simply do not imitate. Indeed, imitation appears to be a uniquely human ability. We are thus left with a fascinating question: if not imitation, what are mirror neurons for? Recent advances in the study of non-human primate social cognition suggest a surprising potential answer.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information.

Children's questions may reveal a great deal about the characteristics of objects they consider to be conceptually important. Thirty-two preschool children were given opportunities to ask questions about unfamiliar artifacts and animals. The children asked ambiguous questions such as "What is it?" about artifacts and animals alike. However, they were more likely to ask about the functions of artifacts, but about category membership, food choices, and typical locations of animals. They never asked questions about either artifacts or animals that would be considered inappropriate by adults. The results indicate that children hold different expectations about the types of information important for categorizing living and artifact kinds. Young children conceive of artifacts in terms of functions, but conceive of animals in terms of biologically appropriate characteristics. Such results speak to debates about the role of function in children's biological reasoning and to accounts of children's artifact concepts.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

Explanation and understanding.

The study of explanation, while related to intuitive theories, concepts, and mental models, offers important new perspectives on high-level thought. Explanations sort themselves into several distinct types corresponding to patterns of causation, content domains, and explanatory stances, all of which have cognitive consequences. Although explanations are necessarily incomplete--often dramatically so in laypeople--those gaps are difficult to discern. Despite such gaps and the failure to recognize them fully, people do have skeletal explanatory senses, often implicit, of the causal structure of the world. They further leverage those skeletal understandings by knowing how to access additional explanatory knowledge in other minds and by being particularly adept at using situational support to build explanations on the fly in real time. Across development and cultures, there are differences in preferred explanatory schemes, but rarely are any kinds of schemes completely unavailable to a group.

Affect↗

PubMed2005

The development of cynicism.

Two experiments explored the development of cynicism by examining how children evaluate other people who make claims consistent or inconsistent with their self-interests. In Experiment 1, kindergartners, second graders, and fourth graders heard stories with ambiguous conclusions in which characters made statements that were aligned either with or against self-interest. Older children took into account the self-interests of characters in determining how much to believe them: They discounted statements aligned with self-interest, whereas they accepted statements going against self-interest. Experiment 2 examined children's endorsement of three different explanations for potentially self-interested statements: lies, biases, and mistakes. Like adults, sixth graders endorsed lies and bias as plausible explanations for wrong statements aligned with self-interest; younger children did not endorse bias. Implications for the development of cynicism and children's understanding of bias are discussed.

Affect↗

PubMed2005

Children's understanding of the Ulysses conflict.

Two studies explored children's understanding of how the presence of conflicting mental states in a single mind can lead people to act so as to subvert their own desires. Study 1 analyzed explanations by children (4--7 years) and adults of behaviors arising from this sort of 'Ulysses conflict' and compared them with their understanding of conflicting desires in different minds, as well as with changes of mind within an individual across time. The data revealed that only the adults were able to adequately explain the Ulysses conflict. Study 2 asked children (4--7 years) and adults to choose among three explicitly presented competing explanations for self-subverting behaviors. The results suggest that an understanding of the influence of conflicting mental states on behaviors does not occur until at least 7 years of age.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2004

Knowing the limits of one's understanding: the development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth.

Adults overestimate the detail and depth of their explanatory knowledge, but through providing explanations they recognize their initial illusion of understanding. By contrast, they are much more accurate in making self-assessments for other kinds of knowledge, such as for procedures, narratives, and facts. Two studies examined this illusion of explanatory depth with 48 children each in grades K, 2, and 4, and also explored adults' ratings of the children's explanations. Children judged their understanding of mechanical devices (Study 1) and procedures (Study 2). Second and fourth graders showed a clear illusion of explanatory depth for devices, recognizing the inaccuracy of their initial impressions after providing explanations. The illusion did not occur for knowledge of procedures.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

From symptoms to causes: diversity effects in diagnostic reasoning.

A single causal agent can often give rise to a cascade of consequences that can be envisioned as a branching pathway in which symptoms are the terminal nodes. In three studies, we investigated whether reasoning about root causes on the basis of such symptoms would conform to a diversity effect analogous to that found in inductive reasoning about properties of hierarchically organized categories. A strong diversity effect was found both for reasoning about medical diseases that drew on existing background knowledge and for reasoning that did not. Specifically, the presence of a root cause was more likely to be induced when the symptoms present were further apart in the branching structure.

Diagnosis, Differential↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Early understanding of the division of cognitive labor.

Two studies with 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds (N = 104) examined whether young children can differentiate expertise in the minds of others. Study 1 revealed that all children in the sample could correctly attribute observable knowledge to familiar experts (i.e., a doctor and a car mechanic). Further, 4- and 5-year-olds could correctly attribute knowledge of underlying scientific principles to the appropriate experts. In contrast, Study 2 demonstrated that 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds have difficulty making attributions of knowledge of scientific principles to unfamiliar experts. A computational analysis in Study 3 indicated that 4- and 5-year-olds' successes on the first two studies could not be attributed to the way in which words co-occur in discourse. Overall, these studies showed that young children have a sense of the division of cognitive labor, albeit fragile.

Child Development↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Should you ask a fisherman or a biologist?: Developmental shifts in ways of clustering knowledge.

Individuals can infer what others are likely to know by clustering knowledge according to common goals, common topics, or common underlying principles. Although young children are sensitive to underlying principles, that manner of clustering might not prevail when other viable means are presented. Two studies examined how a sample of 256 children at ages 5, 7, 9, and 11 decide how to generalize another person's knowledge when goals, topics, and principles are put in conflict. In both studies, younger children preferred generalizing according to goals and topics, whereas older children preferred clustering based on principles related to disciplines. The most naturalistic ways of envisioning how knowledge is clustered in the minds of others therefore seems to change significantly during the elementary school years.

Child↗