Cultural and experiential differences in the development of folkbiological induction

By N. Ross, Douglas L. Medin, J. Coley, Scott Atran. 2003

280 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Weird people, yes, but also weird experiments (2010, unknown): “ However, when the folkbiological reasoning of children in rural Native American communities in Wisconsin and Yukatek Maya in Mexico was investigated (Atran et al., 2001; Ross, Medin, Coley, & Atran, 2003; Waxman & Medin, 2007) none of these three empirical patterns emerged.”
Concepts and categories: Memory, meaning, and metaphysics (2012, background): “Furthermore, it appears that Carey’s (1985) results on psychology versus biology may only hold for urban children who have little intimate contact with nature (Atran et al., 2001; Ross et al., 2003).”
The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents (2005, background): “…of experiments shows that whereas young urban American children exhibit strong anthropocentric construals of nonhuman biological kinds, the youngest Maya children, as well as Native American (Menominee) and rural majority-culture American children, do not (Atran et al., 2001; Ross et al., 2003).”
Empathy for Animals: A Review of the Existing Literature (2018, background): “A study working with groups of children from an urban North American majority-culture, a rural North American majority-culture and the rural Menominee Tribe found that the environment in which children developed played a role in the perceived needs of animals (Ross et al. 2003).”