:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:撞擊事件因果知覺的發展
作者:張建妤 引用關係
作者(外文):CHIEN-YU CHANG
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:心理學研究所
指導教授:張欣戊
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2001
主題關鍵詞:因果知覺因果推理causal perceptioncausal reasoning
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:51
在發展心理學中,對於兒童因果關係理解的問題,因果知覺與因果推理的研究皆無法提供完整解釋,因此本研究主要的問題有兩個:第一,兒童對撞擊事件的因果關係理解及其發展趨勢。第二,知覺線索與物理知識對因果關係建立的影響。本研究提出綜合考慮知覺線索與知識的分析架構,方法上是以電腦和問卷呈現相同的刺激,藉由相互比對的模式確認知覺線索與知識對因果理解的影響。實驗一比較兒童與大學生對撞擊事件的反應,結果顯示,一、三、五年級兒童和大學生的因果反應不同,其中最明顯的差異是顯現在物體移動方向和速度比率線索;另外由對照不同年齡層受試者在電腦測驗與問卷上的表現,歸納出四種因果關係理解的反應型態。實驗二調查物體移動速度比率與物體大小比例對因果反應的影響,結果顯示:速度比率與物體大小線索不影響一年級兒童在電腦測驗上的因果反應,但會影響其他年齡層受試者的反應;同時物體大小對撞擊事件因果反應的影響不但比速度比率更顯著,而且更早發生。實驗三操弄不同年齡層的受試者在有桌子與沒有桌子的背景下,對A球撞B球,B球往不同方向移動的因果反應,結果顯示:對撞擊事件的因果反應不僅有發展上的差異,不同背景也會發生影響。在有桌子背景下,發展上的差異是顯現0∘和90∘的移動方向,年齡愈大,電腦測驗與問卷的反應愈符合一般生活經驗;但在沒有桌子背景下,發展上的差異是顯現在B球被撞擊後朝有角度的方向(45∘、67.5∘、90∘)移動,年齡愈大,對於這類撞擊事件的反應有愈分化的趨勢。綜合三個實驗的結果,知覺線索與知識對不同年齡層個體的因果反應有不同的影響,但並不是具備相關的物理知識就能作出相對應的因果反應,其中時間空間連續性線索對因果反應的影響力是不容小覷。本研究並由實驗一所歸納的四種反應型態討論因果關係理解的發展歷程。
In view that developmental psychology studies in causal perception and causal reasoning cannot fully account for the developmental process of children’s causal understanding, the present study mainly focuses on the following two areas: (1) children’s causal understanding of collision and its developmental trend, and (2) the effect of perceptual cues and physical knowledge on the establishment of causality. This study presents an analytical framework that accounts for both perceptual cues and physical knowledge. The subjects were given the same stimulus by a computerized test and a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Cross-examination of the results determined the effects of perceptual cues and physical knowledge on causal understanding. Experiment 1 compared the responses of children and college students to the collision. The results showed that grade 1, 3, and 5 pupils and college students had distinct causal responses, varying the most in the direction of the objects’ (B) motion and the speed ratio cue. In addition, four different causal understanding patterns were induced from the results of the computerized tests and paper-and-pencil questionnaires filled out by different age groups. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of the objects’ speed ratio and size (area) ratio on causal understanding. The objects’ speed ratio and size ratio cues did not affect the results of grade 1 pupils’ causal understanding on computerized test, but the results of the other age groups were affected. Meanwhile, the objects’ size ratio not only exerted a greater influence on the causal understanding of collision than the speed ratio, but its influence also occurred at a younger age. Experiment 3, in which one of the two objects (object A) started to move toward a second, initially stationary object, (object B), and set it into motion toward different directions, different causal understanding responses with varying background and direction were observed. With the background of a desk, the results showed developmental differences at the horizontal (0∘) and vertical (90∘) direction. Furthermore, with increasing age, the results tended to correspond more to daily life experiences. On the other hand, without the background of a desk, the results showed developmental differences in the direction of motion of object B, at the 45∘, 67.5∘, and 90∘angle. With increasing age, the causal responses to collision showed a more diversified trend. It was concluded from these experiments that perceptual cues and physical knowledge affected the causal understanding of different age groups. Possession of relevant physical knowledge did not necessarily yield a correct causal understanding response. The temporal and spatial contiguity cues had a considerable impact on causal understanding. This study also contained a discussion on the developmental process of causal understanding based on the four response patterns summarized in experiment 1.
張欣戊(1999)。The effect of auditory information on causal
perception of mechanical collision(手稿).
張欣戊(2000)。移動連續性線索與因果知覺,中華心理學刊,42卷,101-new window
112.
張建妤(1998)。練習對因果知覺的影響,中華心理學刊,40卷,87-103.new window
黃守廉(2000)。『國小兒童的因果知覺所遵循的規則』。台灣大學心理學
研究所碩士論文(未出版).
Ausubel, D.P. & Schiff, H.M. (1954). The effect of incidental
and experimental induced experience in the learning of
relevant and irrelevant causal relationships by children.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 84, 109-123.
Baillargeon, R. (1991). Reasoning about the height and location
of a hidden object in 4.5- and 6.5-month-old infants.
Cognition, 38, 13-42.
Baillargeon, R., Kotovsky, L., & Needham, A. (1995). The
acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy. In D.
Sperber, D. Premack, & A.J., Premack, (Eds.). Causal
Cognition, (pp. 79-116), Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Barry, D. C. & Dienes, Z. (1993). Implicit Learning:The
Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Hillsdale:LEA.
Berzonsky, M.D. (1971). The role of familiarity in children’s
explanations of physical causality. Child Development,
42, 705-716.
Bingham, G. P. (1987). Kinematic form and scaling:further
investigations on the visual perception of lifted weight.
Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and
Performance, 13(2), 155-177.
Boyle, D.G. (1975). Research note:A new technique for studying
phenomenal causality. British Journal of Psychology, 66
(3), 383-385.
Bullock, M., & Gelman, R. (1979). The young child’s
understanding of causality:temporal ordering. Child
Development, 50, 89-96.
Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The
development of causal reasoning. In W.J. Friedman (Ed.).
The Developmental Psychology of Time, (pp. 209-254), New
York:Academic Press.
Bullock, M. (1985). Causal reasoning and developmental change
over the preschool years. Human Development, 28, 169-191.
Carey, S. (1993). Are children fundamentally different kinds of
thinkers and learners than adults? In Chipmann, Segal,
Glaser, Thinking and Learning Skills, vol.2, Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Cheng, P.W. (1993). Separating causal laws from causal facts:
pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In G. Bower
(Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation, vol.30,
(pp. 215-264), San Diego(etc.), New York:Academic Press.
Cheng, P.W. (1997). From covariation to causation:a causal
power theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 367-405.
Cohen, L.B., & Oakes, L.M. (1993). How infants perceive a
simple causal event, Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 421-
433.
Costall, A. (1991). Phenomenal causality. In G. Thines, A.
Costal, & G. Butterworth(Eds.). Michotte’s Experimental
Phenomenology of Perception, (pp.51-64). Hillsdale:LEA.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R.M. (1986). Judging probable cause,
Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 3-19.
Fodor, J.A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge:The MIT
Press.
Gelman, R., Durgin, F., & Kaufman, L. (1995). Distinguishing
between animatates and inanimates:not by motion alone.
In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack(Eds.). Causal
Cognition, (pp. 150-184), Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Gemelli, A., & Cappellini, A. (1958). The influence of the
subject‘s attitude in perception. Acta Psychologica, 14,
12-23.
Gilden, D.L. & Proffitt, D.R. (1989). Understanding collision
dynamics, Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human
Perception & Performance, 15, 372-383.
Gogel, W.C. (1964). Origin and nature of the causal impression.
Contemporary Psychology, 9(6), 241-242.
Gordon, I.E., Day, R.H., & Stecher, E.J. (1990). Perceived
causality occurs with stroboscopic movement of one or
both stimulus elements. Perception, 19, 17-20.
Gruber, H.E., Fink, C.D., & Damm, V. (1957). Effects of
experience of perception of causality. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 89-93.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hume, D. (1739/1978).A treatise of human nature. Oxford:Oxford
University Press.
Joynson, R.B. (1971). Michotte’s experimental method. British
Journal of Psychology, 62(3), 293-302.
Kaiser, M.K., & Proffitt, D.R. (1984). The development of
sensitivity to causally relevant dynamic information.
Child Development, 55, 1614-1624.
Kaiser, M.K., Proffitt, D.R., & Anderson, K. (1985). Judgments
of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and
absence of motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 795-803.
Kaiser, M.K., McMlosky, M., & Proffitt, D.R. (1986).
Development of intuitive theories of motion:motion in
the absence of external forces. Developmental Psychology,
22(1), 67-71.
Kaiser, M.K., & Proffitt, D.R.(1987).Observers’ sensitivity to
dynamic anomalies in collisions. Perception &
Psychophysics, 47(3), 275-280.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Taking development seriously. In
Beyond modularity:A developmental perspective on
cognitive science, (pp.1-29), Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Kassin, S.M., & Baron, R.M.(1985). Basic determinants of
attribution and social perception. In J.H. Harvey & G.
Weary(Eds.). Attribution:Basic Issues and Applications,
(pp. 37-64), Orlando, Fla.:Academic Press.
Koslowski, B., Okagaki, L., Lorenz, C., & Umbach, D. (1989).
When covariation is not enough:the role of causal
mechanism, sampling method, and sample size in causal
reasoning. Child Development, 60, 1316-1327.
Kotovsky, L., & Baillargeon, R. (1994). Calibration-based
reasoning about collision events in 11-momth-old infants.
Cognition, 51, 107-129.
Kotovsky, L., & Baillargeon, R. (1998). The development of
calibration-based reasoning about collision events in
young infants. Cognition, 67, 311-351.
Kun, A. (1978). Evidence for preschoolers’ understanding of
causal direction in extended causal sequences. Child
Development, 49, 218-222.
Leslie, A.M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants.
Perception, 11, 173-186.
Leslie, A.M. (1984). Spatiotemporal continuity and the
perception of causality in infants. Perception, 13, 287-
305.
Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants
perceive causality? Cognition, 25, 265-288.
Leslie, A.M. (1988). The necessity of illusion:Perception and
thought in infancy. In L. Weiskrantz(Ed.). Thought
without Language, (pp. 185-210), Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Leslie, A.M. (1995). A theory of agency. In D. Sperber, D.
Premack, & A.J. Premack,(Eds.). Causal Cognition, (pp.
121-141), Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Lesser, H.(1977). The growth of perceived causality in
children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 130, 145-152.
Lien Y., & Cheng, P.W. (2000). Distinction genuine from
spurious causes:a coherence hypothesis. Cognitive
Psychology, 40, 87-137.
McClosky, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear
motion in the absence of external forces:Naïve beliefs
about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139-1141.
McClosky,M.(1983a). Intuitive Physics. Scientific American, 248
(4), 114-122.
McClosky,M.(1983b). Naïve theories of motion. In D.
Gentner & A. L. Stevens(Eds.). Mental Models, (pp. 299-
324), Hillsdale, N.J.: LEA.
Michotte, A. (1946/1963). The perception of causality. New
York:Basic books.
Michotte, A. & Thines, G. (1991). Perceived causality. In G.
Thines, A. Costall and G. Butterworth (Eds.). Michotte
‘s Experimental Phenomenology of Perception, (pp. 67-87),
Hillsdale:LEA Press.
Morris, M.W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause:American
and Chinese attributions for social and physical events.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949-
971.
Natsoulas, T. (1960). Judgments of velocity and weight in a
causal situation. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 404-
410.
Natsoulas, T. (1961). Principles of momentum and kinetic energy
in the perception of causality. American Journal of
Psychology, 74, 394-402.
Oakes, L.M.& Cohen, L.B. (1990). Infant perception of a causal
event. Cognitive Development, 5, 193-207.
Oakes, L.M. (1994). Development of infants‘ use of contiguity
cues in their perception of causality. Developmental
Psychology, 30(6), 869-879.
Olum, V. (1956). Developmental differences in the perception of
causality. American Journal of Psychology, 69, 417-425.
Piaget, J. (1961/1969). The mechanism of perception. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Piaget, J. (1937/1954). The construction of reality in the
child. New Yprk:Basic Books, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1927/1930). The child’s conception of physical
causality. London:Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child.
London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Proffitt, D.R. & Gilden, D.L. (1989). Understanding natural
dynamics, Journal of Experimental psychology:Human
Perception & Performance, 15, 384-393.
Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge:The MIT
Press.
Runeson, S., & Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of
dynamics as an informational basis for person and action
perception:expectation, gender recognition, and
deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 112, 585-615.
Runeson, S., & Vendeler, D. (1993). The indispensability of
precollision kinematics in the visual perception of
relative mass. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(6), 617-632.
Schlottmann,A., & Shanks, D.R. (1992). Evidence for a
distinction between judged and perceived causality.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A(2), 321-
342.
Schlottmann, A., & Anderson, N.H. (1993). An information
integration approach to phenomenal causality. Memory &
Cognition, 21(6), 785-801.
Schlottmann, A. (1999). Seeing it happen and knowing how it
works:how children understand the relation between
perceptual causality and underlying mechanism.
Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 303-317.
Scholl, B., & Tremoulet, P.D. (2000). Perceptual causality and
animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(8), 299-309.
Shanon B. (1976). Aristotelianism, Newtonianism and the physics
of the layman. Perception, 5, 241-243.
Shultz, T. R. & Mendelson, R. (1975). The use of covariation as
a principle of causal analysis. Child Development, 46,
394-399.
Shultz, T.R., & Ranvinsky, F.B. (1977). Similarity as a
principle of causal inference. Child Development, 48,
1552-1558.
Shultz, T.R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, serial
no.194, 47(1), 1-51.
Shultz, T.R., Pardo, S., & Altmann, E. (1982). Young children’
s use of transtive inference in causal chains. British
Journal of Psychology, 73, 235-241.
Shultz, T. R. & Kestenbaum, N.R. (1985). Causal reasoning in
children. Annals of Child Development, 2, 159-249.
Shultz, T.R., Fisher, D.W. , Pratt, C.C., & Rulf, S. (1986).
Selection of causal rules. Child Development, 57, 143-152.
Spelke, E.S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K.
(1992). Oringins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99,
605-632.
Spelke, E.S. (1994). Initial knowledge:six suggestions.
Cognition, 50, 431-445.
Spelke, E.S., Katz, G., Purcell, S.E., Ehrlich, S.M., & K.
Breinlinger (1994). Early knowledge of object motion:
continuity and inertia. Cognition, 51, 131-176.
Spelke, E.S., & Phillips, A., & Woodward, A.L. (1995).
Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action. In
D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A.J. Premack, (Eds.). Causal
Cognition, (pp. 44-78), Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Spelke, E.S., & Van de Walle, G. (1993). Perceiving and
reasoning about objects:insights from infants. In N.
Eilan, W. Brewer, & R. Mccarthy(Eds.). Spatial
Representation, (pp. 132-161), Cambridge, Mass:Blackwell.
Todd, J.T., & Warren, W.H. (1982). Visual perception of
relative mass in dynamic events. Perception, 11, 325-335.
Vernon, M.D. (1964). Review of Michotte(1963). British Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 74-75.
Weir, S. (1978). The perception of motion:Michotte revisited.
Perception, 7, 247-260.
White, P.A. (1988). Causal processing:origins and development,
Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 36-52.
White, P.A. (1989). A theory of causal processing. British
Journal of Psychology, 80, 431-454.
White, P.A. (1990). Ideas about causation in philosophy and
psychology, Psychological Bulletin, 108(1), 3-18.
White, P.A. (1992). Causal powers, causal questions, and the
place of regularity in formation in causal attribution.
British Journal of Psychology, 83, 161-188.
White, P.A. (1993). Psychological metaphysics. London and New
York:Routledge Press.
White, P.A. (1994). Causal and non-causal interpretations of
regularity information. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 33, 345-354.
White, P.A. (1995). Use of prior beliefs in the assignment
of causal roles:causal powers versus regularity-based
accounts. Memory & Cognition, 23(2), 243-254.
White, P.A. & Milne, A. (1997). Phenomenal causality:
impressions of pulling in the visual perception of
objects in motion. American Journal of Psychology, 110
(4), 573-602.
White, P.A. & Milne, A. (1999). Impression of enforced
disintegration and bursting in the visual perception of
collision events. Journal of Experimental psychology:
General, 128(4), 499-516.
White, P.A. (1999). Toward a causal realist account of causal
understanding. American Journal of Psychology, 112(4),
605-642.
Young, M.E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(1), 83-104.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE