INFORME
Dangerous Ground: One-Year-Old Infants are
Sensitive to Peril in Other Agents’ Action Plans
Shari Liu1,2,6*
, Bill Pepe3,6*, Manasa Ganesh Kumar4*, Tomer D. Ullman5,6,
Joshua B. Tenenbaum1,2, and Elizabeth S. Spelke5,6
1Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, CON
2Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Universidad Johns Hopkins
3Department of Psychology, University of California San Diego
4Department of Psychology, University of Bath
5Department of Psychology, Harvard University
6Center for Brains, Minds and Machines, CON
*While this work was conducted, S. Liu, B. Pepe and M. Ganesh Kumar were affiliated with Harvard University.
Palabras clave: cognitive development, infancy, agency, action understanding, open data, abierto
materiales, pre-registered
ABSTRACTO
Do infants appreciate that other people’s actions may fail, and that these failures endow risky
actions with varying degrees of negative utility (es decir., danger)? Three experiments, including a
pre-registered replication, addressed this question by presenting 12- to 15-month-old infants
(norte = 104, 52 femenino, majority White) with an animated agent who jumped over trenches of
varying depth towards its goals. Infants expected the agent to minimize the danger of its
comportamiento, and they learned which goal the agent preferred by observing how much danger it
risked to reach each goal, even though the agent’s actions were physically identical and never
failed. When we tested younger, 10-month-old infants (norte = 102, 52 femenino, majority White) en
a fourth experiment, they did not succeed consistently on the same tasks. Estos hallazgos
provide evidence that one-year-old infants use the height that other agents could fall from in
order to explain and predict those agents’ actions.
un acceso abierto
diario
Citación: Liu, S., Pepe, B., Ganesh
Kumar, METRO., Ullman, t. D., Tenenbaum,
j. B., & Spelke, mi. S. (2022). Dangerous
Ground: One-Year-Old Infants are
Sensitive to Peril in Other Agents’
Action Plans. Mente abierta: Descubrimientos
en Ciencias Cognitivas, 6, 211–231.
https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00063
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00063
Materiales suplementarios:
https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00063
INTRODUCCIÓN
Recibió: 15 Abril 2022
Aceptado: 31 Agosto 2022
Conflicto de intereses: Los autores
declare no conflict of interest.
Autor correspondiente:
Shari Liu
shariliu@jhu.edu
Derechos de autor: © 2022
Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts
Publicado bajo Creative Commons
Atribución 4.0 Internacional
(CC POR 4.0) licencia
La prensa del MIT
El Capitan is a wall of sheer granite rising 3000 feet from the ground in Yosemite Park, y
scaling it takes effort. But scaling El Capitan without safety gear is not just effortful; it is fraught
with danger. Danger describes the properties of a situation, but it also tells us something about
people’s actions, valores, and reasoning. If we see a parent chasing a child who is running
along a dangerous cliff, we may recognize that the child is unaware of the danger, y eso
the parent is willing to accept that danger to themselves because of the high value of bringing
their child to safety. These examples are extreme, but predicting and explaining other people’s
actions are part of our everyday lives: We consider both concrete action costs (p.ej., físico
esfuerzo) and costs abstracted away from actions themselves (p.ej., opportunity costs, risks, y
perils), and we reason not only about what has happened, but also what could have hap-
pened, and what could happen next. How and when does such reasoning develop? Aquí,
we explore the early development of these abilities, when infants observe an agent that
engages in dangerous but consistently successful actions.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro
i
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
d
oh
i
/
i
.
/
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
pag
d
/
.
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
9
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
Our ability to use observations of others’ behavior to reason about their hidden mental lives
(often termed intuitive psychology) has been a focus of cognitive science for more than half a
siglo (Dennett, 1987; Heider & Simmel, 1944; Perner, 1991; Premack & Woodruff, 1978;
Wellman, 2002). Adults, niños, and infants are sensitive to physical constraints on other agents’
actions and expect others to act efficiently by minimizing effort (Baker et al., 2009, 2017; Gergely
& Csibra, 2003; Jara-Ettinger et al., 2015, 2016; Liu et al., 2017; Liu & Spelke, 2017). In one series
of experiments testing for sensitivity to physical cost in human infants, participants first see movies
of animated agents or real people move or reach over a barrier towards a goal. Entonces, infants see
test events in which the intervening obstacle is removed. In one event, the agent moves in the
same curved path as they did before, but the absence of the obstacle makes this familiar path
appear inefficient. In the other event, the agent moves efficiently, on a direct but novel path to
the goal. The main finding from this literature is that infants look longer at the inefficient action at
prueba, even though the action itself is familiar, than at the efficient action, even though the action
itself is novel. From these experiments and many control conditions, researchers infer that infants
expect others to act efficiently with respect to their goals (Gergely & Csibra, 2003).
Además, infants use the physical costs of the actions that an agent took to attain its goals
to infer the value of these goal states to the agent (Liu et al., 2017). In these experiments,
infants first saw an agent take a low-cost action and reject a medium-cost action to arrive at
one goal, and accept a medium-cost action and reject a high-cost action to arrive at the other
meta, where the cost of the action varied with the height of an intervening barrier, the angle of
an inclined ramp, or the width of a gap in the surface of support (Cifra 1). The experiments
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro
i
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
d
oh
i
/
i
/
.
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
pag
d
.
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
9
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Cifra 1. Actions used in (A) previous research, manipulating physical action cost, and in (B) el
present research, manipulating danger. (A) As the width of the trench increases, all else being
igual, successful jumps follow a longer path and are perceived by adult observers to require greater
fuerza, be more exhausting, and be less likely to succeed (see SM). (B) As the depth of the trench
aumenta, todo lo demás es igual, successful jumps remain physically identical but are perceived by
adult observers to entail greater danger (Gjata et al., 2022).
MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva
212
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
tested whether infants would infer that the agent preferred the goal it worked harder to reach,
solely on the basis of how much cost they saw the agent incur. To investigate this question,
infants saw test events in which the agent was situated equidistant from the two goals, y
chose each of them in turn. The main finding was that infants looked longer when the agent
had performed more costly actions for one goal but then chose to approach the other goal in
the test events. Because infants responded similarly to actions with varying path lengths, ver-
tical movement, horizontal movement, and acceleration profiles across experiments, no single
perceptual variable accounts for their responses. Bastante, infants appear to represent all of these
actions as converging on a single variable: physical cost.
Beyond Physical Effort: Perception of Danger
Actions can carry negative utility for reasons beyond physical effort: They can require mental
esfuerzo, have a low probability of success, or lead to bad outcomes if the actor fails to complete
a ellos. Por ejemplo, consider the trenches depicted in Figure 1, inspired by a vast literature on
depth perception and motor development in humans and other animals (Adolph, 2000;
Adolph & Kretch, 2012; Gibson & Walk, 1960; Lashley & Russell, 1934; Walk et al., 1957).
The action of jumping across wider versus narrower trenches (Figura 1A) differ both in physical
esfuerzo (wider trenches require longer, more forceful jumps) and probability of failure ( jumps
over wider trenches are more likely to fail), but the consequences of failure are roughly equal,
because the agent falls from the same height in all cases. A diferencia de, physically identical jumps
across both deeper and shallower trenches (Figura 1B) follow the same path, require equal
esfuerzo, and carry an equal probability of failure. Pero, the negative consequences of falling into
a deep trench are worse than following into a shallow one—the deeper the trench, the farther
the fall, and the greater the injury. Such intuitions are verified empirically. We collected a pilot
dataset on adult participants (norte = 19 from Amazon Mechanical Turk) gauging these intuitions,
and found that varying the width of the trench strongly modulated people’s intuitions about the
probability of success, the force required to jump, and the perceived effort of the jump, más
so than manipulations of depth. See Supplemental Materials for full results, and Gjata et al.
(2022) for evidence that manipulations of trench depth influence how adults and children pre-
dict and explain other agents’ actions.
Where does our ability to perceive the danger behind other people’s actions come from?
Past studies show that with motor experience, human infants and toddlers begin to avoid step-
ping into or reaching across the edge of a sheer drop-off (Gibson & Walk, 1960; Kretch &
Adolph, 2013), and are less willing to cross over deeper trenches (Kretch & Adolph, 2013).
Sin embargo, it is unclear how infants would respond to this manipulation in the context of other
agents’ actions, when demands on their own motor planning are removed. To test whether
infants are sensitive to the dangers underlying other people’s actions, we used the experimen-
tal logic of the prior studies of Gergely et al. (1995) and Liu et al. (2017), and stimuli adapted
from the classic visual cliff literature and Gjata et al. (2022), in which an agent performed
identical jumps across the trenches shown in Figure 1B. En tono rimbombante, the agent always jumped
successfully to its goal, and all properties of its action were the same across the events. Por
varying the depth of the trenches, we manipulated the negative utility (es decir., ‘danger’) eso
would have resulted had the action failed. In order to appreciate these actions as dangerous,
por lo tanto, infants must look beyond the physical actions taken by the agent and analyze the
surrounding physical context in which the agent acts. Experimento 1 tested whether infants use
the degree of danger of an action to infer the value of its goal for the actor. Experimento 2 probado
whether infants expect others to minimize the danger of their actions. Experimento 3 was a
replication of Experiment 2 that tested whether infants would still have the same expectations
MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva
213
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro
i
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
d
oh
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
pag
d
/
.
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
9
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
if they did not have the opportunity to associate deeper trenches with more physical damage
during the study. In Experiment 4, we tested younger infants using methods identical to those
in Experiments 1–3. En general, we found that infants older than one year of age learned what
other agents prefer from observing the degree of danger these agents withstood, and expected
agents to minimize danger. Por el contrario, infants under one year of age did not succeed consis-
tently in either of these tasks.
EXPERIMENT 1
Experimento 1 used the methods of our past research on infants’ inferences of goal values from
physical costs (Liu et al., 2017). We tested whether 13-month-old infants infer the value of a
goal to an agent from the danger of the action that the agent undertook to obtain it, by varying
how far an agent would fall if its action failed, holding constant all physical properties of the
agent’s movement.
Métodos
Participantes. Our final sample of participants included 32 thirteen-month-old infants (m = 12.9
meses, range = 12.6–13.5, 17 femenino). Seven infants were excluded and replaced due to fuss-
iness (3 infantes) or inattentiveness during test trials (4 infantes). Participants were recruited
through a database of families who expressed interest in cognitive development research in
the Greater Boston Area. Of the families in this database who chose to provide demographic
información, 79.5% identified their children as White, 10.2% as Asian, 6.9% as Other, 2.5% como
Black or African American, 0.4% as American Indian/Alaska Native, y 0.4% as Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; 90.3% as not Hispanic or Latino, 9.5% as Hispanic or Latino,
y 0.2% as both. Most families in the database (90.4%) had at least one parent or legal guard-
ian with a college diploma or higher. All data were collected at the Harvard Lab for Develop-
mental Studies with procedures approved by the Harvard University Committee on the Use of
Human Subjects. We studied 13-month-old infants, rather than 10-month-old infants that par-
ticipated in previous studies of similar design (Liu et al., 2017) because the younger infants
lack experiences with walking and falling that may foster the development of these abilities.
The sample size was chosen based on a simulation power analysis over the confirmatory anal-
yses from 2 previous experiments with similar structure, conducted with 10-month-old infants
(Experiments 1–2 from Liu et al., 2017), and we collected data until we attained our pre-
specified N. The full pre-registration document, including details about methods, sample size,
hypotheses, and analysis plan, along with original data, scripts, and stimuli, are available at
https://osf.io/kz7br/.
Displays. Animated videos were created in Blender (Blender Development Team, 2021). Todo
stimuli were projected to a 1.02 × 1.32 m screen and displayed using Keynote. The actions
took place on a 3D surface layout with a uniform checkerboard texture, whose depth and
structure were specified by gradients of texture density, as in Eleanor Gibson’s classic studies
on the visual cliff (Gibson & Walk, 1960). Infants and non-human animals use these depth and
surface cues to perceive visible surfaces of support and the relative positions of surfaces that
vary in distance and depth, as early as 7 months of age (Kavšek & Granrud, 2013; Walk et al.,
1957; Yonas et al., 1986). The trench familiarization trials (Figura 2A) presented a ball emerg-
ing from one side of the screen (side counterbalanced across participants) and rolling into a
poco profundo (1 unit in Blender space), medio (8 units), and deep (15 units) trench at the center of
the screen (7.0s each, con un 0.5 black screen after), in that order, and falling to the bottom.
Depending on the depth of the trench, the ball remained unbroken, broke into 5 pieces, o
MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva
214
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro
i
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
d
oh
i
/
i
.
/
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
pag
d
.
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
9
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro
i
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
d
oh
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
pag
d
.
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
9
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Cifra 2. Trial and event structure (C.A) and main results (D) of Experiment 1. Infants first saw (A) a video of an inanimate object falling off
the edge of a shallow, medio, and deep trench, and breaking. Entonces, during action familiarization (B), infants saw the agent jump across a
shallow but not a medium trench for one goal (Blue, right panels) and a medium but not a deep trench for the other goal ( Yellow, left panels).
All jumps and all refusals were depicted with physically identical movements except for their location and direction, which were counter-
balanced. Each familiarization trial included all 4 events played in a loop in two orders. In order 1, the agent jumped over a shallow trench on
one side, refused to jump over a medium trench on that side, jumped over a medium trench on the opposite side, and refused to jump over a
deep trench on that side. In order 2, the order of these four actions was reversed Each order looped and repeated, contingent on infants’
looking time; the two orders appeared on alternating trials. Finalmente, at test (C), infants saw the agent face a choice between the two goals from
familiarization, and alternatingly chose to approach each one. Black lines within each still image indicate trajectories of motion, and filled
circles indicate start- and end-points of motion. Across infants, the order of the first familiarization trial (1 o 2) and the direction and target of
the more dangerous action were counterbalanced. (D) Looking time in seconds towards the test events in Experiment 1 (norte = 32 13-month-old
infantes). Red error bars around means indicate within-subjects 95% confidence intervals. Pairs of points indicate data from a single participant.
Horizontal bars within boxes indicate medians, and boxes indicate the middle 2 quartiles of data. Beta coefficients (b) indicate effect sizes in
desviaciones estandar. * Indicates pre-registered p < .05, two-tailed.
shattered into 100 pieces, with louder and longer sounds of breaking and shattering paired
with longer falls.
For the action familiarization trials (Figure 2B), infants saw 4 distinct animated events,
played on a loop in two orders. For each event, the red agent began at the center of the screen
and one of the targets appeared to its left or right, beyond a shallow, medium, or deep trench.
The target jumped up and down twice, making a noise, the agent turned and moved to the
edge of the trench, and either jumped over it (making a positive “Mmmm!” sound) (9.4 s), or
declined, backing away from its edge (making a reluctant “Hmmm …” sound) (7.7 s), followed
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
215
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
by a 0.5 s black screen before the next action. On each trial, these 4 events were played in one
of two orders: from low to high trench depth (order 1 in Figure 2B), or the reverse (order 2 in
Figure 2B). The location of the deeper trench (left vs. right) and more valued goal (blue vs.
yellow), and the order of the first familiarization trial (1 or 2), were counterbalanced across
participants. Thus, infants saw the agent accept and refuse equally effortful actions towards
each target with equal frequency and affect. Indeed, all the actions were physically identical
except for their direction (left vs. right, counterbalanced across infants). Relative trench depth
(hence, degree of danger) was the only variable that distinguished actions toward the two
targets.
In the test events (Figure 2C), which also looped, all three characters were presented in the
same scene, in the same locations as in familiarization, with no intervening trenches. The central
agent looked between the targets, making an uncertain ‘Hmmmm …’ sound (2.5 s), and then
moved on alternating trials to the target for which it had jumped deeper trenches (hereafter,
the higher value goal), and to the other target (the lower value goal) (3.4 s per action).
Infants were seated on their caregiver’s lap, approximately 1.5 m from the projec-
Procedure.
tor screen. Prior to the experiment, an experimenter attracted the baby’s attention to the left,
right, top, and bottom edges of the screen, generating calibration images to guide human
coders. Caregivers were asked to keep their eyes closed and to refrain from interacting with
their infants during the experiment. All infants saw 1 trench familiarization trial (Figure 2A), 6
action familiarization trials (Figure 2B), and 2 pairs of test trials (Figure 2C). Other than trench
familiarization, which was fixed in length, all trial durations depended on infants’ looking
times to the displays, and ended after infants looked at the events for 60 seconds total, or
looked away from the screen for 2 consecutive seconds (see Figure SS2 for infants’ looking
times during the familiarization trials, and the SM for an analysis of infants’ attention during
each of the 4 video clips from action familiarization trials).
Infant looking times were coded online using XHAB (Pinto,
Data Coding and Analysis Strategy.
1995), and offline using Datavyu (Datavyu Team, 2014). All experimenters and coders were
naive to the order of the test events and unable to see the video events (they relied on sound
cues to start each trial). To check for exclusions and coding errors, all test trial data were re-
coded in Datavyu and excluded if an infant looked away from a test event without ever having
seen the agent jump, or if the trial ended too early or late (15 out of 320 total familiarization
trials). We used these offline coded looking times for our final analyses. To assess the reliability
of the data, (160 out of 320 trials) were re-coded in Datavyu by an additional researcher who
was naive to test event order. Reliability was high, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC ) =
0.97, 95% confidence interval = [0.95, 0.98]. All decisions to include or exclude trials or par-
ticipants from our analysis were made by researchers who did not know the order of events
shown to infants.
Infant looking times often are log-normally distributed (Csibra et al., 2016), including in this
dataset (log-likelihood of average looking times during test and control trials for Experiments
1–4 under normal distribution −2624.45, under lognormal distribution = −2456.77). Our pre-
registered dependent measure therefore was the average looking time towards the higher- or
lower-danger choice at test in log seconds. All analyses were conducted on this measure, but
our summary statistics and plots feature untransformed looking times for interpretability. We
analyzed all looking times using mixed effects models (Bates et al., 2015) using Satterthwaite’s
degree of freedom method, implemented in R (R Core Team, 2020). Analyses with repeated
measures included a random intercept for participant identity; those conducted over multiple
experiments included a random intercept for experiment. For every model, we checked for
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
216
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
.
/
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
influential participants using Cook’s Distance (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2012) and excluded partic-
ipants who exceeded the standard 4/n threshold, where n is the number of participants. The
number of participants who met this criterion is listed in every model result; including or
excluding them does not change the interpretation of any primary analysis (for results including
all observations, see Supplemental Materials). Data manipulation and plotting were conducted
using the tidyverse packages ( Wickham et al., 2019). Cohen’s D derived from lme models were
calculated using the EMAtools package (Kleiman, 2017). To enhance reproducibility, all results
were written in R Markdown (Xie et al., 2018).
Prior to conducting Experiment 1, we did not have a clear prediction for the direction of
infants’ looking preferences during test events and therefore pre-registered a two-tailed alpha
of .05 for that experiment. In light of the findings of Experiment 1, we predicted longer looking
to unexpected events across Experiments 2–3 and therefore pre-registered a one-tailed alpha
threshold of .05 for infants’ looking preferences during the test events. We therefore report
one-tailed significance values for analyses of all the effects that replicate or extend those of
Experiment 1, and two-tailed p-values for all other analyses.
If infants are sensitive to danger in other people’s actions and view
Alternative Hypotheses.
potential falls from greater heights as more negative even when the actions are successful
and their motions are identical, then infants should infer that people who take more dangerous
actions towards certain goals value those goals more highly, as they do for people who take
more effortful actions toward those goals (Liu et al., 2017). Under this hypothesis, we expected
infants’ looking time during the test trials to differ, depending on whether they saw the agent
choose the goal for which it jumped deeper versus shallower trenches. Alternatively, if infants
are sensitive to the physical effort of actions based on their paths, their profiles of velocity or
acceleration, or their manner, but cannot appreciate that two physically identical actions can
nonetheless differ in danger, then they should attribute approximately equal value to the two
goals and look equally at the two test events.
Results
Infants looked longer when the agent chose the target achieved through the less dangerous
action (Mlowervalue = 24.60 s, pooled standard error (SE ) = 1.14), than when the agent chose
the target achieved through the more dangerous action (Mhighervalue = 21.51 s, SE = 1.14). See
Figure 2D. This difference was significant (95% confidence interval (CI) over difference in log
seconds [0.02, 0.39], standardized beta coefficient (β) = 0.34, unstandardized coefficient (B) =
0.212, t value over degrees of freedom t(31) = 2.16, p value ( p) = 0.039, two-tailed, Cohen’s
d = 0.79, no influential observations). As in the experiments of Liu et al. (2017) using similar
methods, but presenting physically different actions on the two test trials, infants looked longer
when the central agent performed costlier (previous work) or more dangerous (current work)
actions for one goal than another, and then chose against this goal at test. See Figures S3–4 and
associated supplemental text for evidence against an alternative interpretation of these results,
according to which infants attended to and compared only the jumps over trenches of medium
depth without using the relative differences in trench depth across the presented actions.
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 1 provided evidence that infants inferred the relative value of two goals to an agent
given the amount of danger the agent withstood for each of them, even though the agent’s
actions always succeeded and were physically identical. Experiment 2 used a different task
to ask whether one-year-old infants expect others to minimize the danger of the actions that
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
217
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
they direct to two targets of approximately equal value, using the logic of previous studies
(Gergely et al., 1995; Gjata et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2017; Liu & Spelke, 2017).
Methods
This study was originally pre-registered with a sample including both 10-month-old and
13-month-old infants. For clarity of presentation, we report the findings from 13-month-old
infants first, and then present the findings from 10-month-old infants along with other studies
of the same age group in Experiment 4. Our pre-registration document, data, and stimuli are
available at https://osf.io/kz7br/.
Participants. Our final sample of participants included 30 thirteen-month-old infants (M =
12.89 months, range = 12.53–13.50, 12 female). We chose this sample size using a simulation
power analysis over the confirmatory analysis of data from a pilot study, as well as estimates
of effect sizes of studies with similar displays and design (Liu et al., 2017). We collected data
until we attained our pre-specified N. Infants were excluded and replaced in the final sample
due to fussiness that prevented study completion (3 infants), inattentiveness during test trials
(2 infants), or interference from caregivers (2 infants).
Materials, Design, and Procedure. Figure 3 depicts the materials and procedure; infants saw 2
control trials, 1 trench familiarization trial, 6 action familiarization trials, and 2 pairs of test
trials. As in Experiment 1, familiarization, test, and control trials played on a loop and ended
after infants looked for 60 s total or looked away for 2 s consecutively.
To assess infants’ interest in the deep and shallow trenches outside of the context of goal-
directed action, two control trials (Figure 3A) presented a shallow and a deep trench with no
animated characters. An attention-getting star appeared above each of the trenches (order
counterbalanced across participants) accompanied by a sound. Next came a trench familiar-
ization trial (Figure 3B) identical to that of Experiment 1, followed by 6 action familiarization
trials (8.9 s apiece with a 0.5 s black screen following each event; Figure 3C), played in a
continuous, sequential loop, wherein the agent performed identical jumps over trenches of
3 intermediate depths towards two target agents. Each familiarization trial included all 6 of
these events, played in one of two pseudo-random orders that counterbalanced the starting
position (left or right) of the target and trench. In each event, the target jumped up and down
twice, making a noise, the agent turned to look in its direction, moved towards the trench,
looked down, and backed up and jumped over it, landing next to the target, making the same
positive “Mmmmm!” vocalization as in Experiment 1. There are two plausible ways to inter-
pret these stimuli. First, using the logic of Experiment 1 and its predecessors (Liu et al., 2017),
the observer could infer that the two targets are of approximately equal value–the agent was
willing to leap over trenches of equal depth to reach each of them. Second, the observer could
see these actions as directed towards the same agent that sometimes appeared on the left and
sometimes on the right side of the screen. Under either interpretation, infants see that the agent
leaps towards the right versus the left, over trenches of medium depth, with equal frequency.
To test whether infants expect agents to choose less over more dangerous actions, we then
presented 4 test trials (Figure 3C), in which the central agent chose to jump either a shallow or
deep trench, when both were presented simultaneously. Like in Experiment 1, these test trials
presented the three characters in the same scene, but unlike Experiment 1, reaching either of
the two targets required the central agent to jump over either a shallow or a deep trench. After
the two targets jumped up and down twice, the agent turned towards each target, making the
same uncertain “Mmmmm …” sound as in Experiment 1, and then jumped across the deeper
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
218
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
.
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Figure 3. Trial and event structure of Experiment 2. Infants first saw (A) an attention-getting star
wiggle above the deep and shallow trench. Next, they saw (B) a video of an inanimate object
falling off the edge of a shallow, medium, and deep trench and breaking not at all, into 5 pieces,
or into 100 pieces respectively. Infants then saw (C) the agent jump over trenches of slightly
varying medium depth (9, 10, and 11 Blender units - 10 units pictured here) to two target char-
acters of identical appearance, standing in alternation on the left and right sides of the display.
Finally, infants saw (D) the agent facing a choice between the two targets, one beyond a shallow
trench (2 Blender units) and the other beyond a deep trench (18 Blender units), and alternately
choosing to jump over to each target. Black lines within each still image indicate trajectories of
motion, and circles indicate start- and end-points of motion. All jumps were physically identical
except for the location and direction of movement, which were counterbalanced. Black arrows
outside of each still image indicate presentation order (B–C), and/or looping (C–D). Across
infants, the order of the actions and the direction and target of the more dangerous action were
counterbalanced.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
219
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
or shallower trench on alternating looped trials, following the same action path as during
familiarization (7.2 s per event, with a 0.5 s black screen following each event). Across infants,
we counterbalanced the order of events in the first familiarization trial (though all infants saw
3 trials of each kind, presented in alternating order), the order of the shallow and deep jumps
in the test events and in the control events, and the side of the deeper trench.
Data Coding and Analysis. The data coding and analysis strategies were the same as in Exper-
iment 1. Twenty-five out of 360 control and test trials were excluded from the analysis based
on inattentiveness or coding error. Half the test trials from the experiment (60/120 trials) were
re-coded in Datavyu by an additional researcher who was naive to test event order. Reliability
was high, ICC = 0.99, 95% CI [0.999, 0.999].
Alternative Hypotheses. Under the hypothesis that infants expect others to choose less danger-
ous over more dangerous (but otherwise identical) actions, infants will look longer when the
agent jumps over the deep trench. Under the alternative hypothesis that they do not see jumps
over deeper trenches as more dangerous and therefore more costly, they will look equally to
the two test events, which show two physically identical actions.
Results
Infants looked longer when the agent, at test, chose to cross the deeper over the shallower
trench (Mdeep = 26.5 s, SE = 1.61; Mshallow = 21.64 s, SE = 1.95; [0.03, 0.43], β = 0.36,
t (28) = 2.33, p = .014, one-tailed, d = 0.88, excluding one influential participant). In contrast,
when infants’ attention was drawn to each trench by an attention-getting star that hovered
above it, infants looked longer at events near the shallow trench (Mdeep = 12.73 s, SE =
1.11; Mshallow = 16.02 s, SE = 2.00; [−0.31, −0.08], β = −0.34, t(25.1) = −3.24, p = .003,
two-tailed, d = −1.29, excluding 2 influential participants). Looking preferences between
the control and test events differed significantly ([0.11, 0.88], β = 0.75, t(84.74) = 2.52, p =
.013, two-tailed, d = 0.55, no influential observations). See Figure 4A.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
Discussion
Together, Experiments 1 and 2 provided evidence that 13-month-old infants expect other
agents to choose safer over more dangerous actions, and they infer that an agent’s willingness
to tolerate greater danger to reach one goal is motivated by the higher reward of that goal for
the agent. However, the source of this expectation is not fully clear, because the initial famil-
iarization event presented an inanimate object that landed intact in the shallow trench and
broke when it landed in the medium or deep trench–state changes that adults perceive as
negative. Do infants come into the experiment appreciating that deeper trenches are more
dangerous, or did infants associate the deeper trench with the sound and sight of an object
breaking, interpret this outcome as negative, and generalize this association to all subsequent
events presented in the experiment? We address this question in Experiment 3.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
EXPERIMENT 3
Experiment 3 tested whether infants expect an agent to minimize the danger of its jumps over
trenches of varying depths, removing evidence that inanimate objects undergo enduring dam-
age when dropped into deeper trenches.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
220
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
.
/
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
(A) Looking response to test and control events and (B) example stimuli in Experiment 2
Figure 4.
(N = 30 13-month-old infants) and Experiment 3 (N = 42 12 to 15-month-infants). Boxplots indi-
cate data from the test events, in which the agent chose to jump across a deeper or shallower trench
for a goal, and the control events, in which a star drew infants’ attention to the deeper and shallower
trenches. Red error bars around means indicate within-subjects 95% confidence intervals. Pairs of
points indicate data from a single participant. Horizontal bars within boxes indicate medians, and
boxes indicate the middle 2 quartiles of data. Beta coefficients (β) list effect sizes in standard devi-
ations. P * < .05, ** <.01, *** <.001 (pre-registered as one-tailed for test events due to directional
prediction, two-tailed in all other cases). (B) Still frames from the control and test events across the
test and control events.
Methods
Participants. Our final sample included 42 twelve- to fifteen-month-old infants (M = 13.95
months, range = 12.29–15.67, 24 female): a slightly wider age range that enabled more rapid
testing of participants, who were recruited both from our lab database, and also through a
cross-institution platform for recruitment for developmental cognitive science (https://
childrenhelpingscience.com/). Our preregistered target sample size of 40 was determined
based on a simulation power analysis over infants’ looking preferences towards the test events
from Experiment 2; our stopping rule was to stop recruiting as soon as we reached our target N,
but to finish collecting data if we over-recruited. Thus, our final sample was N = 42. A further 6
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
221
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
infants were excluded from the study (3 due to technical issues, 2 due to inattentiveness and 1
due to interference from the caregiver). Our pre-registration, original data and scripts, and
stimuli are available at https://osf.io/kz7br/.
Materials and Design. The displays and counterbalancing structure in Experiment 3 were similar
to those from Experiment 2 (Figure 5). Infants saw a trench familiarization trial, a pre-
familiarization trial, 6 familiarization trials, a pre-test trial, 2 pairs of test trials, and 1 pair of control
trials. All familiarization, test, and control trials included looping events and infant-controlled
timing, and the remaining events occurred for fixed durations, as in Experiments 1 and 2.
Relative to Experiment 2, three changes were made to the methods of Experiment 3. The
most important change is that infants in Experiment 3 were familiarized to events with no break-
ing or shattering, or indeed any enduring damage (Figure 5A): a soft ball was dropped from the
top of the screen into shallow, medium and deep trenches, deforming to varying degrees as it
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Figure 5. Trial and event structure of Experiment 3. Infants first saw (A) a soft ball drop into a shallow, medium, or deep trench, and deform
more when it landed in deeper trenches. Next, they saw (B) two identical targets that appeared together at the center of the screen and then
moved to the sides of the display and exited the scene. During familiarization that followed (C), infants saw the agent jump over trenches of
medium depth to reach these two target characters, on the left and right sides of the display. Then, infants saw test trials in which the agent
faced a choice between the two targets, one beyond a shallow trench and the other beyond a deep trench. First, the agent looked down each
trench (D) and then alternately chose to jump over each of these obstacles (E). Lastly, during control events (E), an attention-getting star drew
infants’ attention above the deep vs shallow trench. Black lines indicate trajectories of motion; circles indicate start- and endpoints of motion;
black arrows indicate presentation order (A), and looping (C, E). Across infants, we counterbalanced the side of the deeper trench, the order of
the test and control events, and the first sequence of familiarization events.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
222
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
landed on the trench floor at varying speeds, and then returning to its original shape (3.4 s, 5.2 s,
and 6.6 s, with a 0.5 black screen following each event). Corresponding sounds of warping and
wobbling accompanied each event. These events, like those of Experiment 2, paired differing
outcomes with trenches of different depths, but all of the final outcomes (the ball returning to its
original shape) were identical and involved no breakage or observable damage. While prior
research has used state changes like breaking and deforming to study infants’ physical, causal,
and social understanding (Hauf et al., 2012; Kanakogi et al., 2017; Muentener & Carey, 2010),
and although adults may see both object breakage and object deformation as negative, it is
unclear whether infants assign negative value to either of these physical state changes. Here
we aimed to test whether the results of Experiment 2 are solely attributable to infants having
seen deeper trenches paired with the sight and sound of an object breaking.
A second change aimed to clarify the nature of the events by making minor edits to the
displays. We provided infants with evidence that there were two targets throughout the study
by showing them video clips (Figures 5B), of two identical agents entering (4.0 s) and exiting
the scene (7.1s). We also added a video clip during pre-test (Figure 5C) to more clearly convey
that the agent could see the depths of the two trenches. In this event, the agent, prior to choos-
ing to jump the shallow versus deep trench, looked down the edge of each trench in turn,
making a neutral “Hmmmm” sound (16.2 s total).
Third, we moved the control trials from the start of the experiment to the end (Figure 5E). In
Experiment 2, the control trials appeared at the beginning of the experiment, before any events
involving the trenches occurred. Thus, it is possible that infants did not closely attend to the trenches
during the control trials. By placing the control trials immediately after the test trials, we better
equated for infants’ exposure to the rest of the experimental displays across these two sets of trials.
Procedure. Whereas Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted in a quiet, dark room in a lab set-
ting, Experiment 3 was conducted using Zoom video conferencing, in infants’ homes, due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, following procedures approved by the Committee on the Use of
Human Subjects at Harvard University. We used materials developed by the Stanford Social
Learning Lab (Social Learning Lab, 2020) to introduce caregivers to the online testing setup
and to ask for verbal consent. Caregivers also provided written consent prior to the study ses-
sion. Infants sat in a highchair (25 out of 42 participants) or their caregivers’ laps (17/42),
depending on caregiver preferences, and watched the displays on a tablet (8/42) or a laptop
computer (34/42). We asked caregivers to minimize distractions (pets, people walking by, and
mirrors and windows, toys) during the study session.
Before the experiment, infants saw a calibration video where their attention was drawn to
the four corners of the screen, as well as the center of the screen. To maximize the quality of
the videos seen by infants, we shared our stimuli with caregivers through YouTube playlists,
controlled the caregiver’s screen using Zoom’s proprietary remote control feature, and coded
infants’ looking times during the study using jHab (Casstevens, 2007). Caregivers rated the
quality of the audio and video on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very poor; 5 = very good), giving
high ratings for both (video: M = 4.88, SD = 0.33; audio: M = 4.85, SD = 0.36). After the
session, we double checked for trial exclusions and generated the final data from the recording
of the session video using Datavyu (Datavyu Team, 2014). As before, experimenters only had
access to the video feed of infants’ faces (and not the displays) during the experiment, and
therefore were unaware of the order of test events. To allow caregivers to attend to potential
safety issues at home, we did not ask them to close their eyes, and instead instructed them to
refrain from directing their infants’ attention toward or away from the screen. Our full online
testing protocol is described in the Supplemental Materials.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
223
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
.
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
Data Coding and Analysis. The data coding and analysis strategy was identical to Experiment 2.
Fifty-three out of 504 trials (including familiarization, test, and control trials) were excluded
from analysis because of inattentiveness, distractions at home (e.g., pet noises, people walking
by), technical issues and coding errors. The proportion of excluded trials (10.52%) was higher
than what we observed in the lab in Experiment 2 (6.94%), likely due to distractions in the
home environment, the smaller size of the screen displaying the videos at home, and the lower
or more variable quality of the video feeds of the infants’ faces (which led to trial mis-timings).
As in Experiments 1 and 2, 50% of the test trials were recoded by an additional naive coder (84
of 168 test trials). Interrater reliability was high, ICC = 0.96, 95% CI [0.93, 0.97].
If the results of Experiment 2 are solely explained by infants’ learning to
Alternative Hypotheses.
pair breaking and shattering with deeper trenches, then this experiment, which removes these
associations, should yield null results. In contrast, if infants enter the experiment with the
understanding that falling a greater height leads to more positive cost or negative reward, then
the findings of Experiment 3 should replicate those of Experiment 2. Thus, we pre-registered
two confirmatory analyses: one comparing infants’ looking times across the two test events,
and a second comparing those looking times to infants’ looking preferences during the control
events that immediately followed, showing the same physical situation in the presence of an
object rather than an agent.
Results
Preregistered Results. We fully replicated the two key results from Experiment 2. Infants looked
longer at test when the agent chose to jump the deeper trench (Mdeep = 22.35 s, SE = 1.26;
Mshallow = 17.55 s, SE = 1.00; [0.09, 0.41], β = 0.47, t(41) = 3.06, p = .002, one-tailed, d =
0.96, no influential participants). Infants’ looking preferences between the control events and
the test events significantly differed from each other ([0.13, 0.75], β = 0.74, t(105.17) = 2.76,
p = .007, two-tailed, d = 0.54, excluding 1 influential participant).
Exploratory Results. During the control events, infants showed a numerical but non-significant
preference for the event in which the inanimate object appeared over the shallower trench
(Mdeep = 12.09 s, Mshallow = 13.9 s, pooled SE = 1.213, [−0.42, 0.07], β = −0.17, t(64) =
−1.39, p = .171, two-tailed, d = −0.35, excluding 2 influential participants). See Figure 4A.
Discussion
Experiment 3 fully replicated the key results of Experiment 2: Infants looked longer when an
agent chose to jump a deeper trench than a shallower trench, even though both obstacles were
equally different in depth from the medium trenches in familiarization, and the agent’s actions
were identical across the two events. This pattern of looking differed from when infants’ atten-
tion was simply drawn over the deep and shallow trenches. The results of Experiment 3 also
confirm that infants did not learn, over the course of the experiment, to associate deeper
trenches with worse physical outcomes. Infants saw the deeper trenches as more dangerous
even though the object that fell into the trench did not break on impact and returned to its
original form, apparently unharmed. It remains possible, however, that infants viewed the
temporary deformation of that object as a negative event. To our knowledge, no research to
date has tested whether infants see physical state changes in an inanimate object, like breaking
or deforming, as intrinsically negative (though see Kanakogi et al., 2013, 2022) for evidence
that infants see temporary deformation of an agent as negative).
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
224
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
EXPERIMENT 4
In Experiment 4, we investigated the developmental origins of the capacity to reason about dan-
ger by testing infants under one year of age, using the respective methods of Experiments 1–3.
We will reference these samples as Experiment 4, Studies 1, 2, and 3, parallel to Experiments 1,
2, and 3. All 3 studies focused on 10-month-olds because of their previous success in reasoning
about the physical costs of actions (Liu et al., 2017).
Methods
Participants. Our final sample included a grand total of 102 10-month-old infants. Studies 1
and 2 were conducted in the lab, and our final sample included 32 infants in Study 1 (M =
10.13 months, range = 9.60–10.63, 15 female; an additional 6 infants tested and excluded
from the final sample), and 30 infants in Study 2 (M = 9.95 months, range = 8.97–10.47,
17 female; an additional 2 infants tested and excluded). In Study 3, we collected an online
sample of 40 infants (M = 10.2 months, range = 9.53–11.1, 20 female, an additional 9 infants
tested and excluded). In the online sample, infants sat in a highchair (13 out of 40 participants)
or their caregivers’ laps (27/40), depending on caregiver preferences, and watched the displays
on a tablet (12/40) or a laptop computer (28/40). Caregivers gave high ratings for both the
video quality (M = 4.88, SD = 0.33) and audio quality (M = 4.86, SD = 0.34). All three of
these studies were pre-registered (Study 1: https://osf.io/7k8dt; Study 2: https://osf.io/twsaq;
Study 3: https://osf.io/tm9h5).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Data Reliability. As in Experiments 1–3, the reliability of the looking time data in Experiment 4
was high (Study 1: ICC = 0.995, 95% CI [0.991, 0.997]; Study 2: ICC = 0.999, 95% CI [0.998,
0.999]; Study 3: ICC = 0.909, 95% CI [0.859, 0.942])
Results
Inferring Value from Danger (Study 1). When we tested 10-month-old infants using identical
protocols as reported in Experiment 1, these younger infants did not show a statistically signif-
icant looking preference between the test events, (Mlower = 19.51 s, Mhigher = 19.15 s, [−0.121,
0.301], β = 0.168, B = 0.09, SE = 0.106, p = .202, one-tailed, d = 0.31, removing 1 influential
participant). Comparing the results from Experiment 1 and Study 1, 10- and 13-month-old
infants did not significantly differ in their looking preferences in this task, [0.009, 0.4], β =
−0.202, B = −0.115, SE = 0.142, p = .422, two-tailed, d = −0.21, removing 1 influential par-
ticipant. See Figure S5. Comparing 10-month-old infants’ looking responses in Study 1 to their
looking responses to a similar prior experiment that manipulates trench width (Liu et al., 2017,
Experiment 3), infants’ responses to the test events did not differ depending on whether trench
depth or width was manipulated, [−0.082, 0.568], β = 0.289, B = 0.243, SE = 0.166, p = .149,
two-tailed, d = 0.37, removing 1 influential participant.
Avoiding Danger (Studies 2–3). When we tested 10-month-old infants in identical protocols as in
Experiment 2, infants looked longer at test when the agent chose the deeper over the shallower
trench (Mdeep = 24.97 s, Mshallow = 20.31 s, pooled SE = 1.51, [−0.472, −0.047], β = −0.386,
B = −0.26, SE = 0.107, p = .011, one-tailed d = 0.92, removing 1 influential participant).
During control events, 10-month-old infants did not show a significant looking preference
(Mdeep = 12.74 s, Mshallow = 14.68 s, pooled SE = 1.97, [−0.174, 0.301], β = 0.109, B =
0.064, SE = 0.119, p = .598, two-tailed, d = −0.2, excluding 1 influential participant). These
two patterns of looking preference did not differ from each other, [−0.728, 0.073], β = −0.483,
B = −0.327, SE = 0.205, p = .115, two-tailed, d = 0.05, no influential participants.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
225
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
Notably, we did not replicate the results of Study 2 when we ran an additional online sam-
ple of infants, using the same methods of Experiment 3: In Study 3, 10-month-old infants did
not show a looking preference during the test events (Mdeep = 16.03 s, Mshallow = 18.22 s,
pooled SE = 1.26, [−0.067, 0.339], β = 0.251, B = 0.136, SE = 0.102, p = .0965, one-tailed,
d = 0.43, excluding 1 influential participant), or the control events (Mdeep = 12.74 s, Mshallow =
12.30 s, pooled SE = 1.24, [−0.213, 0.269], β = 0.05, B = 0.028, SE = 0.121, p = .818,
two-tailed d = −0.13, no influential participants), and their looking preferences did not differ
across the two phases of the experiment, [−0.28, 0.37], β = 0.08, B = 0.05, SE = 0.17, p = .78,
two-tailed, d = 0.05, no influential observations.
Pooling data across older and younger infants tested in Experiments 2–3, and in Studies 2–3 of
Experiment 4, we found a marginal 3-way interaction between cliff depth (shallow vs deep), phase
of experiment (control vs test), and age group (infants younger than 1 y vs older than 1 y), [−0.001,
0.699], β = 0.349, B = 0.349, SE = 0.179, p = .053, two-tailed, d = 0.2, excluding 1 influential
participant. This interaction appeared to be driven by differences in younger and older infants’
responses to the test events: we found a significant interaction between age group (younger
vs older than 1 y) and cliff depth (shallow vs deep) for the test events ([0.053, 0.453], β =
0.253, B = 0.253, SE = 0.103, p = .015, two-tailed, d = 0.36, excluding 1 influential participant),
but not the control events ([−0.362, 0.119], β = −0.121, B = −0.121, SE = 0.123, p =. 326, two-
tailed, d = −0.18, excluding 2 influential participants). Thus, in a large sample (N = 142), infants
younger and infants older than 1 year of age differed in their pattern of looking responses to
events where agents choose more vs less dangerous actions, but did not differ when their atten-
tion was simply drawn to the physical trenches where these actions occurred. See Figure S5.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
When we reason about the minds and actions of other people, we consider not only what they
wanted and did, but also the time and energy that they devoted to their actions. Recent work
suggests that even young children and infants use tradeoffs between reward and cost to under-
stand the actions of other people. Formally, this ability is captured by models of forward plan-
ning, that use known information about other agents’ utility functions to predict their actions,
and inverse planning, that allow observers to infer other agents’ utility functions given their
overt actions (Baker et al., 2009, 2017; Jara-Ettinger et al., 2015, 2016; Liu et al., 2017). In
this paper, we asked whether infants can assign negative utility to physical actions that always
succeed, but that could have failed and resulted in bad outcomes. We operationalized danger
as the height that another agent could fall from, following classic work on depth perception
and motor development (Adolph, 2000; Gibson & Walk, 1960). Across three experiments,
one-year-old infants used relative danger to predict and explain an agent’s actions. They
expected the agent to minimize danger, looking longer when the agent chose a more perilous
action when a safer action was available (Experiment 2–3). Moreover, infants used the danger
that an agent faced to infer the relative value of the goal state that the action achieved (Exper-
iment 1). When tested on these same tasks, infants younger than 1 year of age either did not
succeed (Experiment 4, Study 1), or did not succeed consistently (Experiment 4, Studies 2–3).
Pooling data across all the studies here reported, a reliable age effect emerged. These findings
suggest that the ability to assess the danger of an action, or the ability to use danger in calcu-
lating the cost of a successful action and the reward value of the goal state that the action
achieves, either emerges or strengthens around the start of the second year.
Although our highly controlled stimuli limited our ability to test whether infants understand
the danger underlying actions in more naturalistic settings, they allowed us to study infants’
responses to one variable—the height that an agent could fall from—while controlling for all
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
226
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
other aspects of that agent’s actions. Whereas past research tested infants’ sensitivity to the
costs of actions that also varied along perceptual features, like path length and vertical dis-
placement, and involved physical costs of different magnitudes (Liu et al., 2017), our experi-
ments isolate and test for infants’ sensitivity to the differing danger of two actions that were
identical with respect to physical and perceptual variables. The consistent effects of relative
danger on one-year-old infants’ looking patterns provide evidence that infants represent dan-
ger as a variable in an integrated calculus, trading off positive rewards and negative costs.
These findings suggest that our understanding of people’s actions, even in infancy, is based
not only on what someone chooses to do, but also what would have happened if a chosen,
successful action had gone awry.
Before discussing further implications of our findings, we would like to address one alter-
native interpretation of the results from Experiments 2 and 3. We interpreted infants’ longer
looking when the agent chose to jump the deeper cliff as evidence that infants expected an
outcome (the agent choosing to jump the shallower trench) that did not occur. But in Exper-
iments 2–3, infants could have looked longer when the agent chose to jump over the deeper
trench not because it was surprising, but because infants more vigilantly monitored this jump.
Under this interpretation, infants still assigned negative utility to potential falls from greater
heights but did not have an expectation about which action the agent would choose. This
account predicts that infants would also look longer at, and be less likely to look away from,
jumps over deeper trenches during the familiarization events from Experiment 1. This predic-
tion was not supported by the data: Infants were equally attentive to all familiarization events
from Experiment 1, regardless of whether the agent jumped or backed away, and regardless of
how deep the trench was (see SM for details). It was only when agents had a choice between
two trenches, during the test events of Experiments 2–3, that infants showed a looking prefer-
ence. Altogether, we believe that our results support the interpretation of looking during the
test events as reflecting expectations about action outcomes under conditions of varying dan-
ger, rather than lower-level preferences for deeper trenches, learning during the experiment to
associate deeper trenches with the sight and sound of objects breaking and shattering, or
heightened vigilance when agents jumped over deeper trenches.
The early-developing sensitivity to the negative utility of dangerous actions leaves open
three key questions. First, what is the computational basis for one-year-old infants’ sensitivity
to danger? Past work on action understanding conceived of the utility of other agents as com-
posed of two variables: the reward of goal states, R(S ), and the cost of actions, C(A) (Equation 1)
( Jara-Ettinger et al., 2016):
ð
U A; S
Þ ¼ R Sð Þ − C Að Þ
(1)
Our findings suggest either of two possible extensions to Equation 1 to capture the notion of
danger. The first extension assigns an additional negative value to the action, which expresses
the danger of an action, D(A), without explicitly representing either the possible states that could
result from the action (i.e., achieving the goal, falling down the trench), or the probability that
they will occur:
ð
U A; S
Þ ¼ R Sð Þ − C Að Þ − D Að Þ
(2)
Under this conception of danger, jumping over deep trenches carries negative utility defined
over the surrounding context of the action, as does physical exertion, so a reward must be greater
to justify both efforts and dangers. In other words, dangerous actions are dangerous in and
of themselves, as some inherent feature. Running at full speed, next to a cliff, is directly,
inherently, and immediately dangerous.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
227
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
But there is a different extension to Equation 1, which suggests a richer interpretation of our
findings. Infants may represent the set of possible states, S, that could result from an action, A,
each occurring with probability P(Si|A). Each state is associated with a separate reward, R(Si):
Reaching a goal state carries positive utility, while transitioning to a state of injury carries neg-
ative utility.
ð
U A; S
Þ ¼
X
Si 2S
P SijAð
ÞR Sið
Þ − C Að Þ
(3)
This notion of danger is closer to the notion of expected utility. It takes into account the
rewards (positive and negative) of possible states (observed and unobserved) that could result
from an action, and the likelihood of transitioning to each state. Running full speed next to
a cliff, under this definition, is dangerous because of the potential consequences of tripping
and falling.
Conceiving of danger in the second way requires more than perceiving the actions that
occurred and the states they led to: One must also posit states of the world that did not occur,
but could have resulted from a given action (counterfactuals), or states of the world that could
occur but have not yet occurred (hypotheticals). The development of counterfactual and hypo-
thetical reasoning remains controversial (e.g., Carey et al., 2020; Harris et al., 1996; Kominsky
et al., 2021; Nyhout & Ganea, 2018; Rafetseder & Perner, 2010). However, we note that a
commitment to inverse planning as a model of intuitive psychology requires a commitment
at least to hypothetical representations, because the forward model of rational planning must
assign utilities across multiple actions and states (e.g., choosing the apple vs the banana, jump-
ing the trench vs declining to jump) in order to calculate the likelihood of each of these
actions. If forward and inverse planning indeed guides infants’ action understanding, then the
difference between Equations 2 and 3 boils down to an ability to nest hypotheticals – to assign
multiple states to a single action, and then hold in mind these states nested within actions in
order to compare utilities across actions. Future research might shed light on the nature and
development of this understanding, by leveraging behavioral and neural correlates of simulation
that are sensitive enough to distinguish between these hypotheses (e.g., Gerstenberg et al., 2017;
Schuck & Niv, 2019).
A second open question is whether infants represent danger in terms of bodily states, men-
tal states, or both. That is, do 13-month-old infants view the deeper trench as harboring greater
injury to an agent who fails to clear it, as eliciting negative emotion in an agent as it jumps
(Gjata et al., 2022; Ruba et al., 2019; Skerry & Spelke, 2014), or as requiring greater attention
or care (Scott & Baillargeon, 2013)? Further research exploring children’s attributions of
emotion to agents, and testing for expectations of other people’s vigilance during dangerous
situations, might shed further light on this question.
A third question concerns the development of infants’ sensitivity to danger. How do infants
learn to see successful actions, performed with no negative consequences, as dangerous?
We have shown, when pooling data across experiments, that younger and older infants differ
in their looking behavior towards these stimuli. Even at 10 months of age (the mean age of
the infants in Experiment 4), research provides evidence that infants have the physical under-
standing required to infer that the body of an agent could fall without a supporting surface
(Needham & Baillargeon, 1993), that jumping comes at a physical cost (Gergely & Csibra,
2003), that agents tend to minimize this cost (Liu & Spelke, 2017), and that the choice to incur
a large cost for a goal is evidence that the agent assigns high reward to that goal (Liu et al.,
2017). We propose that even with these capacities, there are still challenges associated with
success in the current study, including recognizing that an agent could fall, even though it
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
228
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
.
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
.
/
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
never does, and inferring that a fall to a greater depth is worse than a fall to a lesser depth,
especially given that the actions of agents in these varying contexts were physically identical.
What accounts for the possible development over the ages of 10–15 months? It may not be
coincidental that these months span the age at which infants become capable of our species-
specific, upright locomotion. In the current study, 10-month-old infants, who, on average,
have not yet begun to stand or walk independently, do not show consistent responses to
the dangerous actions of other agents. Given that specific experience with walking and crawl-
ing predicts infant’s behavior when they are placed in similar situations as those featured in
these stimuli (Kretch & Adolph, 2013), It is possible that the experiences that accompany
motor development provide infants with insight into other people’s action plans. Infants
may learn from their own experience navigating with and without physical support, or from
the reactions of their caregivers when they find themselves in these situations, that there is
something negative about acting under lack of support. It is unclear whether 10-month-old
infants cannot appreciate the danger in the actions shown in these events, or whether they
would succeed in similar tasks with lower task demands. Future studies could explore the
emergence of infants’ attributions of danger and of the developmental changes that underlie
it, including developmental changes in motor abilities, working memory, action planning, and
counterfactual and hypothetical reasoning.
Conclusion
The present findings provide evidence that our early commonsense understanding of other
people’s actions includes representations of danger–in the current research, the height from
which an agent could fall, even if this outcome never occurs. Twelve to 15-month-old infants
expect others to maximize the utility of their actions in an integrated calculus where danger
trades off systematically against reward. Specifically, infants expect others to minimize the
danger of their actions, and they infer the value of an agent’s goal from the danger of the action
that the agent undertook to achieve it. Infants show this expectation when they are presented
with a novel agent whose actions never ended in failure, based only on the physical situations
in which those actions occurred. Finally, these findings suggest that infants use forward plan-
ning models, describing how other agents choose actions on the basis of their utilities (defined
over reward, danger, and effort), and invert these models to reason about the variables that
bear on these choices. For one-year-old infants, “danger” is one of the abstract variables that
infants may attribute to agents who plan and act under uncertainty.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the families who volunteered to participate, members of the Harvard Lab for Develop-
mental Studies for helpful discussion, the Cambridge Writing Group for writing feedback, Linette
Kunin for help with creating stimuli, Jane Hu for help with data collection, and Melyssa Almeida,
Cameron Calderwood, Caitlin Connolly, Linette Kunin, Laura Lee, Yuman Li, and Vanessa
Kudrnova for help with data coding. Funding: NSF CCF-1231216, Siegel Foundation Award
S4881, DARPA CW3013552, NSF GRFP DGE-1144152 (to SL), NIH F32HD103363 (to SL).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SL, BP, and MG carried out the experiments. SL analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of
the manuscript, and TU, JT, and ES helped provide critical feedback on the paper. All authors
helped to design the research.
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
229
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
OPEN PRACTICES STATEMENT
All experiments reported in this paper were formally pre-registered. All stimuli, data, code, and
pre-registrations of this paper are open access at https://osf.io/kz7br/.
REFERENCES
Adolph, K. E. (2000). Specificity of learning: Why infants fall over a
veritable cliff. Psychological Science, 11(4), 290–295. https://doi
.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00258, PubMed: 11273387
Adolph, K. E., & Kretch, K. S. (2012). Infants on the edge: Beyond
the visual cliff. In A. M. Slater & P. C. Quinn (Eds.), Developmen-
tal psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 36–55). Sage
Publications Ltd.
Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017).
Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts
in human mentalizing. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0064.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0064
Baker, C. L., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Action under-
standing as inverse planning. Cognition, 113(3), 329–349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.005, PubMed:
19729154
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear
mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,
67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Blender Development Team. (2021). Blender (Version 2.9.1)
[Computer software]. https://www.blender.org
Carey, S., Leahy, B., Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2020). Could it
be so? The cognitive science of possibility. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 24(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.007,
PubMed: 31870543
Casstevens, R. M. (2007). jHab: Java Habituation Software ( Version
1.0.0) [Computer software].
Csibra, G., Hernik, M., Mascaro, O., Tatone, D., & Lengyel, M.
(2016). Statistical treatment of looking-time data. Developmental
Psychology, 52(4), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000083,
PubMed: 26845505
Datavyu Team. (2014). Datavyu: A video coding tool. https://
datavyu.org
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy:
The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
7(7), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00128-1,
PubMed: 12860186
Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking
the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2),
165–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-H,
PubMed: 7554793
Gerstenberg, T., Peterson, M. F., Goodman, N. D., Lagnado, D. A.,
& Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Eye-tracking causality. Psychological
S c ie n ce , 28 ( 12 ) , 17 31 –17 44 . h t t p s : // d o i . o rg/ 1 0 . 117 7
/0956797617713053, PubMed: 29039251
Gibson, E. J., & Walk, R. D. (1960). The “visual cliff.” Scientific
A m e r i c a n , 2 0 2 ( 4 ) , 6 4 – 7 1 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8
/scientificamerican0460-64, PubMed: 13827949
Gjata, N. N., Ullman, T. D., Spelke, E. S., & Liu, S. (2022). What
could go wrong: Adults and children calibrate predictions and
explanations of others’ actions based on relative reward and
danger. Cognitive Science, 46(7), e13163. https://doi.org/10
.1111/cogs.13163, PubMed: 35738555
Harris, P. L., German, T., & Mills, P. (1996). Children’s use of
counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition, 61(3),
233–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00715-9,
PubMed: 8990973
Hauf, P., Paulus, M., & Baillargeon, R. (2012). Infants use compres-
sion information to infer objects’ weights: Examining cognition,
exploration, and prospective action in a preferential-reaching
task. Child Development, 83(6), 1978–1995. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01824.x, PubMed: 22861050
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of social
behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B.
(2016). The naïve utility calculus: Computational principles
underlying commonsense psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sci-
ences, 20(8), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.05
.011, PubMed: 27388875
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E.
(2015). Children’s understanding of the costs and rewards under-
lying rational action. Cognition, 140, 14–23. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.006, PubMed: 25867996
Kanakogi, Y., Inoue, Y., Matsuda, G., Butler, D., Hiraki, K., &
Myowa-Yamakoshi, M. (2017). Preverbal infants affirm
third-party interventions that protect victims from aggressors.
Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0037. https://doi.org/10.1038
/s41562-016-0037
Kanakogi, Y., Miyazaki, M., Takahashi, H., Yamamoto, H., Kobayashi,
T., & Hiraki, K. (2022). Third-party punishment by preverbal infants.
Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 1234–1242. https://doi.org/10.1038
/s41562-022-01354-2, PubMed: 35680993
Kanakogi, Y., Okumura, Y., Inoue, Y., Kitazaki, M., & Itakura, S.
(2013). Rudimentary sympathy in preverbal infants: Preference
for others in distress. PLOS ONE, 8(6), e65292. https://doi.org
/10.1371/journal.pone.0065292, PubMed: 23776467
Kavšek, M., & Granrud, C. E. (2013). The ground is dominant in
infants’ perception of relative distance. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 75(2), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414
-012-0394-9, PubMed: 23143918
Kleiman, E. (2017). EMAtools: Data management tools for
real-time monitoring/ecological momentary assessment data.
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EMAtools
Kominsky, J. F., Gerstenberg, T., Pelz, M., Sheskin, M., Singmann, H.,
Schulz, L., & Keil, F. C. (2021). The trajectory of counterfactual
simulation in development. Developmental Psychology, 57(2),
253–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001140, PubMed: 33539131
Kretch, K. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2013). Cliff or step? Posture-specific
learning at the edge of a drop-off. Child Development, 84(1),
226–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01842.x,
PubMed: 22906143
Lashley, K. S., & Russell, J. T. (1934). The mechanism of vision. XI.
A preliminary test of innate organization. The Pedagogical
Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 45(1), 136–144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1934.10534252
Liu, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2017). Six-month-old infants expect agents
to minimize the cost of their actions. Cognition, 160, 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.007, PubMed:
28040551
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
230
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
/
/
.
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Sensitivity to Danger In Infants
Liu et al.
Liu, S., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Spelke, E. S. (2017). Ten-
month-old infants infer the value of goals from the costs of
actions. Science, 358(6366), 1038–1041. https://doi.org/10
.1126/science.aag2132, PubMed: 29170232
Muentener, P., & Carey, S. (2010). Infants’ causal representations of
state change events. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 63–86. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.001, PubMed: 20553762
Needham, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1993). Intuitions about support in
4.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 47(2), 121–148. https://doi.org
/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90002-D, PubMed: 8324998
Nieuwenhuis, R., Te Grotenhuis, H. F., & Pelzer, B. J. (2012). influence.
ME: Tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models.
The R Journal, 4(2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2012-011
Nyhout, A., & Ganea, P. A. (2018). Mature counterfactual reason-
ing in 4- and 5-year-olds. Cognition, 183, 57–66. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.027, PubMed: 30414500
Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. MIT Press.
Pinto, J. (1995). XHAB64 [Computer software]. Stanford University.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a
theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512
Rafetseder, E., & Perner, J. (2010). Is reasoning from counterfactual
antecedents evidence for counterfactual reasoning? Thinking &
Reasoning, 16(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783
.2010.488074, PubMed: 22187537
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www
.R-project.org/
Ruba, A. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Repacholi, B. M. (2019). How do
you feel? Preverbal infants match negative emotions to events.
Developmental Psychology, 55(6), 1138–1149. https://doi.org
/10.1037/dev0000711, PubMed: 30829508
Schuck, N. W., & Niv, Y. (2019). Sequential replay of nonspatial
task states in the human hippocampus. Science, 364(6447),
eaaw5181. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw5181, PubMed:
31249030
Scott, R. M., & Baillargeon, R. (2013). Do infants really expect
agents to act efficiently? A critical test of the rationality principle.
Psychological Science, 24(4), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0956797612457395, PubMed: 23470355
Skerry, A. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Preverbal infants identify
emotional reactions that are incongruent with goal outcomes.
Cognition, 130(2), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition
.2013.11.002, PubMed: 24321623
Social Learning Lab. (2020). Online testing: Startup guide and
materials. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3762737
Walk, R. D., Gibson, E. J., & Tighe, T. J. (1957). Behavior of light-
and dark-reared rats on a visual cliff. Science, 126(3263), 80–81.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.126.3263.80.b, PubMed:
13442652
Wellman, H. M. (2002). Understanding the psychological world:
Developing a theory of mind. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell hand-
book of childhood cognitive development (pp. 167–187). Black-
well Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch8
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L.,
François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J.,
Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms,
J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019).
Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software,
4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Xie, Y., Allaire, J. J., & Grolemund, G. (2018). R Markdown: The
definitive guide. CRC Press. https://play.google.com/store/books
/ d e t a i l s ? i d = _ F w P E A A A Q B A J . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 2 0 1
/9781138359444
Yonas, A., Granrud, C. E., Arterberry, M. E., & Hanson, B. L. (1986).
Infants’ distance perception from linear perspective and texture
gradients. Infant Behavior & Development, 9(3), 247–256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-6383(86)90001-9
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
o
p
m
i
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
d
o
i
/
i
.
/
/
1
0
1
1
6
2
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
5
6
3
3
9
o
p
m
_
a
_
0
0
0
6
3
p
d
/
.
i
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science
231
