Evolution & Human Behavior
Volume 26, Issue 4 , Pages 313-331 , July 2005

Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone: A cross-cultural study

  • H. Clark Barrett

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Box 951553, Haines Hall 341, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553, United States
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 310 267 4260.
    • ,
  • Peter M. Todd

      Affiliations

    • Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • Geoffrey F. Miller

      Affiliations

    • University of New Mexico, NM, United States
    • ,
  • Philip W. Blythe

      Affiliations

    • Myretsu, Melbourne, Australia

Received 5 March 2004 ,Accepted 30 August 2004.

References 

  1. Abell F, Happé F, Frith U. Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Journal of Cognitive Development. 2000;15:1–20
  2. Adolphs R. Social cognition and the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1999;3:469–479
  3. Antoci A, Galeotti M, Sacco PL. Evolutionary selection of correlation mechanisms for coordination games. Interaction and Market Structure. 2000;484:225–234
  4. Barrett, H. C. (in press). Adaptations to predators and prey. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Wiley.
  5. Berry DS, Springer K. Structure, motion, and preschoolers' perception of social causality. Ecological Psychology. 1993;5:273–283
  6. Blakemore S-J, Boyer P, Pachot-Clouard M, Meltzoff A, Segebarth C, Decety J. The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex. 2003;13:837–844
  7. Blythe PW, Todd PM, Miller GF. How motion reveals intention: categorizing social interactions. In:  Gigerenzer G,  Todd PM, the ABC Research Group  editor. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999;p. 257–286
  8. Castelli F, Happe F, Frith U, Frith CD. Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage. 2000;12:314–325
  9. Castelli F, Frith CD, Happe F, Frith U. Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes. Brain. 2002;125:1839–1849
  10. Cliff D, Miller GF. Tracking the Red Queen: methods for measuring co-evolutionary progress in open-ended simulations. In:  Moran F,  Moreno A,  Merelo JJ,  Cachon P editor. Advances in artificial life: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL95). Berlin: Springer; 1995;p. 200–218
  11. Cliff D, Miller GF. Co-evolution of pursuit and evasion: II. Simulation methods and results. In:  Maes P,  Mataric MJ,  Meyer J-A,  Pollack J,  Wilson SW editor. From animals to animats: 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996;p. 506–515
  12. Crawford VP. An evolutionary interpretation of Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil experimental results on coordination. Games and Economic Behavior. 1991;3(1):25–59
  13. Cressman R. Evolutionary dynamics and extensive form games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003;
  14. Csibra G, Gergely G, Bíró S, Koós O, Brockbank M. Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of ‘pure reason’ in infancy. Cognition. 1999;72:237–267
  15. Csibra G, Bíró S, Koós O, Gergely G. One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science. 2003;27:111–133
  16. Dittrich W, Lea S. Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception. 1994;23:253–268
  17. Dittrich WH, Troscianko T, Lea SEG, Morgan D. Perception of emotion from dynamic light-point displays represented in dance. Perception. 1996;25:727–738
  18. Dockner EJ, Jorgensen S, Van Long N, Sorger G. Differential games in economics and management science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000;
  19. Driver PM, Humphries N. Protean behavior: the biology of unpredictability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1988;
  20. Fagen R. Animal play behavior. New York: Oxford University Press; 1981;
  21. Gelman SA, Opfer JE. Development of the animate–inanimate distinction. In:  Goswami U editors. Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2002;p. 151–166
  22. Gergely G, Nádasdy Z, Csibra G, Bíró S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition. 1995;56:165–193
  23. German, T. P., & Barrett, H. C. (in press). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science.
  24. Goto K, Lea SEG, Dittrich WH. Discrimination of intentional and random motion paths by pigeons. Animal Cognition. 2002;5:119–127
  25. Haselton MG, Buss DM. Error management theory: a new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;78:81–91
  26. Heider F, Simmel M. An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology. 1944;57:243–259
  27. Isaacs R. Differential games: a mathematical theory with applications to warfare and pursuit, control, and optimization. New York: Dover; 1999;
  28. Johansson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics. 1973;14:201–211
  29. Johnson SC. The recognition of mentalistic agents in infancy. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2000;4:22–28
  30. McKinney F, Derrickson SR, Mineau P. Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour. 1983;86:250–294
  31. Miller GF. Protean primates: the evolution of adaptive unpredictability in competition and courtship. In:  Whiten A,  Byrne RW editor. Machiavellian intelligence: II. Extensions and evaluations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997;p. 312–340
  32. Miller, G. F., & Freyd, J. J. (1993). Dynamic mental representations of animate motion: the interplay among evolutionary, cognitive, and behavioral dynamics. Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP-290, University of Sussex.
  33. Miller GF, Todd PM. The role of mate choice in biocomputation: sexual selection as a process of search, optimization, and diversification. In:  Banzhaf W,  Eeckman FH editor. Evolution and biocomputation: computational models of evolution. Berlin: Springer; 1995;p. 169–204
  34. Morris MW, Peng K. Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67:949–971
  35. Nesse RM, Williams GC. Why we get sick: the new science of Darwinian medicine. New York: Random House; 1995;
  36. Opfer JE. Identifying living and sentient kinds from dynamic information: the case of goal-directed versus aimless autonomous movement in conceptual change. Cognition. 2003;86:97–122
  37. Rakison DH, Poulin-Dubois D. Developmental origin of the animate–inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;127:209–228
  38. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. 2nd ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991;
  39. Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000;4:299–309
  40. Steen FF, Owens SA. Evolution's pedagogy: An adaptationist model pretense and entertainment. Journal of Cognition and Culture. 2001;1:289–321
  41. Tremoulet P, Feldman J. Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception. 2000;29:943–951
  42. Uller C, Nichols S. Goal attribution in chimpanzees. Cognition. 2000;76:B27–B34
  43. Wellman HM, Cross D, Watson J. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development. 2001;72(3):655–684

PII: S1090-5138(04)00080-7

doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.015

Evolution & Human Behavior
Volume 26, Issue 4 , Pages 313-331 , July 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution