人不是物：社会认知的稽古维新

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0173

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

当代社会认知的理论版图可分为经典概念工具箱与正在与之对抗的新概念工具两部分。经考证, 理论论和模拟论等经典概念工具集中诞生于1980年代的美国认知科学界, 可以被视为1956认知革命蔓延至社会心理学领域的产物, 而新概念工具可以被视为与第二代认知革命相适合的替代理论。历史上, 社会心理学接受了认知主义的“物”的抽象认知原理, 也全盘接受了它带来的理论负荷, 即对“人”的感知被还原为对“物”的感知, 并且隶属于后者。然而, 基于“物”的抽象认知原理始终无法与社会认知的以“人”为本的实践经验相结合, 也未能实现该领域的自治。事实上, 这一理论困难并非一直存在于“社会认知”的历史路径中, 至少在以Heider为标志性人物的1950年代早期社会认知中便不是这样。Heider “人不是物”理论体系在个体层面上包括知觉实在论、事件归因和生命性−非生命性范畴区分三个部分, 但是第三个理论部件彼时囿于作者主题侧重、证据不足、技术匮乏等多种原因未能完成。结合当代来自演化和比较的、行为和发展的以及神经通路假设的新证据, 通过重新发掘并最终完整构建了“人不是物”论题, 尝试为当代社会认知理论困难提供一个建设性意见。

关键词: 社会认知, 人的感知, 认知革命, 生命性, 主体间性

Abstract:

The dominant classical conceptual toolkits of social cognition primarily originate from the creations of scientists or philosophers of cognitive sciences in the 1980s. From the perspective of long-term history, the ongoing theoretical disputes in social cognition today are an extension of broader struggles between two generations of cognitive sciences. Social cognition, having embraced the fundamental tenets of cognitivism, also wholly incorporates its attendant theoretical burdens. As social psychology transitions into a sub-domain of information processing psychology, its historical route during the early periods of social cognition—which predates the cognitive revolution of 1956—has been inadvertently discarded and destroyed. This has led to the drastic theoretical ramification of “person” perception being forcibly diminished to “thing” perception. “Social cognition” has not always had the theoretical difficulty of devaluing persons to things, at least not during its early periods. This paper seeks to revisit and refine the “persons are not things” thesis (The PANT Thesis) from the early period of social cognition, aiming to offer a constructive proposal to address the theoretical challenges facing contemporary social cognition mainly through the lens of Fritz Heider’s object theory. This proposal emerges not simply out of speculative retrospection, but is problem-oriented and has significant reciprocated ties with fresh evidence from cognitive neuroscience. Although this proposal has indeed revived the traditional historical route and classic thesis of early social cognition predating the 1956 cognitive revolution, it has comprehensively incorporated the debates and attempts to transcend the disputes spanning over three decades between two generations of cognitive sciences, indeed.
The abstraction principle of cognition in information processing psychology has always been unable to be well applied to “social” cognition. If the abstraction principle of cognition applies to a universal object and differentiates the living/animate person and the non-living/inanimate thing as distinctive sub-categories of objects, it should naturally extend to the sub-domain of social cognition. However, this abstraction principle is primarily derived from the abstraction of non-living objects (things, machines, computers). Accordingly, its application to living objects (persons, agents) merely appends the prefix “social” to “cognition.” Thus, the information processing psychology of “things” hardly facilitates basic requirements of social cognition—“would stoop to any way to learn more about a person,” the phenomena of the person, the experience of the person, the knowledge of the person.
The PANT Thesis inherently posits that there are categorical distinctions between a “person” and a “thing” as perceptual objects, although both belong to the general category of (perceptual) objects. Thus, this thesis mainly contains two parts of theoretical components in defining objects: defining general objects and the person-thing object distinction (the latter in the contemporary context also involves the animate-inanimate distinction). This paper reviews and refines this thesis in two sections. Section 4 arranges a system of perceptual object theory based on the person-thing distinction resorting to insights from Heider’s text. Next, section 5 further confirms the independence and fundamentality of person perception as different from thing perception drawing upon contemporary new experimental evidence and new neural pathway hypotheses.
In the end, while both the abstraction principle of cognition as favored by information processing psychology and the PANT Thesis of early social cognition uphold the objectives of autonomy in social cognition, they take contrasting approaches. The abstraction principle of cognition engenders an epistemological reduction, which results in person perception being diminished to thing perception. The PANT Thesis, proficiently addresses this theoretical challenge, thereby reinforcing theoretical autonomy and unity within social cognition.

Key words: social cognition, person perception, cognitive revolution, animacy, intersubjectivity

中图分类号:

B84-09

董达, 陈巍. (2025). 人不是物：社会认知的稽古维新. 心理学报, 57(1), 173-189.

DONG Da, CHEN Wei. (2025). Persons are not things: Rejuvenating social cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(1), 173-189.

图/表 4

表1 “人不是物”论题的理论部件

对象	理论部件	领域
一般对象	知觉因果分析	知觉实在论
人/物对象(区分)	生命性等级	认知神经科学
事件	归因	常识心理学
人−人关系, 或人−社会关系	社会单元分析	社会心理学

图1 涉及物的感知(a)与人的感知(b)的事件归因(Heider, 1958, pp. 107−108) 注：图(a)描述了不涉及“人”的事件x在不同情况(circumstances, 记为c1, c2, c3)下如何导致不同的效应(effects, 记为e1, e2, e3)。同一事件基于不同非社会情况将分别导致不同的效应, 可以说是情况(原因)正向因果地(forward causally)引起了效应(结果), 标记为：e → c。图(b)体现了人的行动的合目的性。此时, x表示涉及人的行动的事件, 即使在不同情况下, 同一个人可能采取不同手段m以期望导致同一效应(目标)e。这里人的感知的因果分析的区别在于, 不是c引起了e, 而是效应(目标)e反向因果地(backward causally)引起了给定情况c下的手段m (手段服务于目标), 可标记为：e → m/c。

图2 对象的生命性等级注：图2表示视觉感官对象的生命性等级, 同时也是用于视觉生命性感知实验的实验材料。从有生命性的脸(人)、身体(人)、脸(非人)、身体(非人), 到无生命性的自然物(小)、自然物(大)、人工物(小)、人工物(大), 构成了包含两种对象子范畴的一般对象连续统。右侧雷达图根据人−物区分九点标准尝试给出可视化分析。被试在感知不同生命性等级的对象图片时, 脑中涉及生命性感知的脑区的激活程度不同, 从而外部对象与内部神经通路之间存在相应的一致性。彩图见电子版。

图3 背侧流、腹侧流与外侧流

参考文献 116

[1]	Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.
[2]	Apperly, I. (2001). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “theory of mind”. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
[3]	Baars, B. J. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[4]	Bao, P., She, L., McGill, M., & Tsao, D. (2020). A map of object space in primate inferotemporal cortex. Nature, 583, 103-108.
[5]	Becchio, C., Koul, A., Ansuini, C., Bertone, C., & Cavallo, A. (2018). Seeing mental states: An experimental strategy for measuring the observability of other minds. Physics of Life Reviews, 24, 67-80. doi: S1571-0645(17)30145-8 pmid: 29066076
[6]	Bracci, S., & Op de Beeck, H. P. (2023). Understanding human object vision: A picture is worth a thousand representations. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 113-135.
[7]	Bruner, J. S. (1983). In search of mind: Essays in autobiography. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
[8]	Bruner, J. S., Brunswik, E., Festinger, L., Heider, F., Muenzinger, K. F., Osgood, C. E., & Rapoport, D. (1957). Contemporary approaches to cognition: A symposium held at the University of Colorado. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[9]	Calvillo, D. P., & Jackson, R. E. (2014). Animacy, perceptual load, and inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 670-675.
[10]	Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78(2), 255-270.
[11]	Dai, D. (2020). Translations and notes of Da Dai Li Ji. Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House.
	[戴德. (2020). 大戴礼记译注. 上海: 上海古籍出版社.]
[12]	de Chardin, P. T. (2012). Le phénomène humain (Y. Fan, Trans.). Nanjing: Yilin Press. (Original work published 1956).
	[德日进. (2012). 人的现象 (范一译). 南京: 译林出版社.]
[13]	Dennett, D. (1981). Three kinds of intentional psychology. In R. Healey (Ed.), Reduction, time and reality: Studies in the philosophy of the natural sciences (pp. 37-61). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[14]	Di Cesare, G., Gerbella, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (2020). The neural bases of vitality forms. National Science Review, 7(1), 202-213. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwz187 pmid: 34692032
[15]	Di Cesare, G., Marchi, M., Lombardi, G., Gerbella, M., Sciutti, A., & Rizzolatti, G. (2021). The middle cingulate cortex and dorso-central insula: A mirror circuit encoding observation and execution of vitality forms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(44), e2111358118.
[16]	Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., Sears, R. R., Ford, C. S., ... Sollenberger, R. T. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[17]	Donovan, T., Dunn, K., Penman, A., Young, R. J., & Reid, V. M. (2020). Fetal eye movements in response to a visual stimulus. Brain and Behavior, 10(8), e01676.
[18]	Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[19]	Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York, NY: Random House.
[20]	Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2021). Social cognition: From brains to culture (4th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
[21]	Foucault, M. (2016). Les mots et les choses une archeologie des sciences humaines. (W. Mo, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai SanlianPress. (Original work published 1966).
	[福柯. (2016). 词与物:人文科学的考古学 (莫伟民译). 上海: 上海三联书店.]
[22]	Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[23]	Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535-543. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.003 pmid: 18442924
[24]	Gallagher, S. (2020). Action and interaction. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
[25]	Gao, T., McCarthy, G., & Scholl, B. J. (2010). The wolfpack effect: Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1845-1853.
[26]	Gao, T., Newman, G., & Scholl, B. J. (2009). The psychophysics of chasing: A case study in the perception of animacy. Cognitive Psychology, 59(2), 154-179. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.03.001 pmid: 19500784
[27]	Gao, T., & Scholl, B. J. (2011). Chasing vs. stalking: Interrupting the perception of animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 669-684. doi: 10.1037/a0020735 pmid: 21639674
[28]	Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
[29]	Gordon, R. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind and Language, 1(2), 158-171.
[30]	Graumann, M., Ciuffi, C., Dwivedi, K., Roig, G., & Cichy, R. M. (2022). The spatiotemporal neural dynamics of object location representations in the human brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(6), 796-811. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01302-0 pmid: 35210593
[31]	Hauber, M., Winnicki, S., Hoover, J., Hanley, D., & Hays, I. (2021). The limits of egg recognition: Testing acceptance thresholds of American robins in response to decreasingly egg-shaped objects in the nest. Royal Society Open Science, 8(1), 201615.
[32]	He, J. (2021). Social mind: descriptive prediction and normative anticipation. Philosophical Research, (8), 119-129.
	[何静. (2021). 社会心智: 描述性预测与规范性预期. 哲学研究, (8), 119-129.]
[33]	Heal, J. (1986). Replication and functionalism. In J. Butterfield (Ed.), Language, mind and logic (pp. 135-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[34]	Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James’s radical empiricism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[35]	Heider, F. (1920). Zur subjektivität der sinnesqualitäten [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Graz.
[36]	Heider, F. (1926). Ding und medium. Symposion, 1, 109-157.
[37]	Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358-374.
[38]	Heider, F. (1957). Trends in cognitive theory. In J. S. Bruner, E. Brunswik, L. Festinger, F. Heider, K. F. Muenzinger, C. E. Osgood, & D. Rapoport (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition: A symposium held at the University of Colorado (pp. 201-210). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[39]	Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[40]	Heider, F. (1959). Thing and medium. In G. Klein (Ed.), On perception, event structure, and psychological environment: Selected papers by Fritz Heider (pp. 1-34). New York, NY: International Universities Press.
[41]	Heider, F. (1983). The life of a psychologist: An autobiography. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
[42]	Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243-259.
[43]	Hepper, P. G., Scott, D., & Shahidullah, S. (1993). Newborn and fetal response to maternal voice. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11(3), 147-153.
[44]	Hilton, D. (2012). The emergence of cognitive social psychology: A historical analysis. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 45-79). Psychology Press.
[45]	Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social psychology (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
[46]	Huang, I. (1943). Children’s conception of physical causality: A critical summary. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 63, 71-121.
[47]	Huang, I., & Lee, H. W. (1945). Experimental analysis of child animism. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 66, 69-74.
[48]	Huang, M., Yang, G., Wang, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2023). Animacy perception from motion cues: Cognitive and neural mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Sciences, 31(8), 1460-1476.
	[黄梅, 杨格晴, 王莹, 蒋毅. (2023). 基于动态线索感知生命性的认知神经机制. 心理科学进展, 31(8), 1460-1476.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01460
[49]	James, D. K. (2010). Fetal learning: A critical review. Infant and Child Development, 19(1), 45-54.
[50]	Jia, Y. (2011). Xinshu. Nanjing: Phoenix Press.
	[贾谊. (2011). 新书. 南京: 凤凰出版社.]
[51]	Jozwik, K. M., Najarro, E., van den Bosch, J. J. F., Charest, I., Cichy, R. M. & Kriegeskorte, N. (2022). Disentangling five dimensions of animacy in human brain and behaviour. Communications Biology, 5(1), 1247. doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-04194-y pmid: 36376446
[52]	Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2006). Ultra-rapid object detection with saccadic eye movements: Visual processing speed revisited. Vision Research, 46(11), 1762-1776. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.10.002 pmid: 16289663
[53]	Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. M., Brown, C. A., Lee, C. T., Cowperthwaite, B., Stutzman, S. S., ... Wang, Z. (2009). Fetal sensitivity to properties of maternal speech and language. Infant Behavior & Development, 32(1), 59-71.
[54]	Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., Ruff, D. A., Kiani, R., Bodurka, J., Esteky, H., ... Bandettini, P. A. (2008). Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron, 60(6), 1126-1141. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043 pmid: 19109916
[55]	Krueger, J. (2012). Seeing mind in action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 149-173.
[56]	Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[57]	Li, Q. W. (2008). Cognitive revolution and second-generation cognitive science. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(12), 1306-1327.
	[李其维. (2008). “认知革命”与“第二代认知科学”刍议. 心理学报, 40(12), 1306-1327.]
[58]	Li, X. C. (2018). Hyperscanning and social cognition. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
	[李先春. (2018). 超扫描与社会认知. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.]
[59]	Liu, Q., Zhang, J., Dong, D., & Chen, W. (2022). A glimpse into social perception in light of vitality forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 823971.
[60]	Lorenz, K. (1935). Der kumpan in der umwelt des vogels. Journal für Ornithologie, 83(2), 137-213.
[61]	Lorenzi, E., & Vallortigara, G. (2021). Evolutionary and neural bases of the sense of animacy. In A. Kaufman, J. Call, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of animal cognition (pp. 295-321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[62]	Ma, X., Yuan, X., Liu, J., Shen, L., Yu, Y., Zhou, W., ... Jiang, Y. (2022). Gravity-dependent animacy perception in zebrafish. Research, 2022, 9829016.
[63]	Mahon, B., & Caramazza, A. (2011). What drives the organization of object knowledge in the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 97-103. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.004 pmid: 21317022
[64]	Maylott, S., Paukner, A., Ahn, Y., & Simpson, E. (2020). Human and monkey infant attention to dynamic social and nonsocial stimuli. Developmental Psychobiology, 62(6), 841-857. doi: 10.1002/dev.21979 pmid: 32424813
[65]	McMahon, E., Bonner, M. F., & Isik, L. (2023). Hierarchical organization of social action features along the lateral visual pathway. Current Biology, 33(23), 5035-5047.
[66]	Meinong, A. (1906). Über die erfahrungsgrundlagen unseres wissens. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
[67]	Michotte, A. E. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (Original work published 1946).
[68]	Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[69]	Morton, A. (1980). Frames of mind: Constraints on the common- sense conception of the mental. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[70]	Movalled, K., Sani, A., Nikniaz, L., & Ghojazadeh, M. (2023). The impact of sound stimulations during pregnancy on fetal learning: A systematic review. BMC Pediatrics, 23(1), 1-15.
[71]	Nagy, E., Thompson, P., Mayor, L., & Doughty, H. (2021). Do foetuses communicate? Foetal responses to interactive versus non-interactive maternal voice and touch: An exploratory analysis. Infant Behavior & Development, 63, 101562.
[72]	New, J. J., Schultz, R. T., Wolf, J., Niehaus, J. L., Klin, A., German, T. C., & Scholl, B. J. (2010). The scope of social attention deficits in autism: Prioritized orienting to people and animals in static natural scenes. Neuropsychologia, 48(1), 51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.008 pmid: 19686766
[73]	Newen, A., de Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4e cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[74]	Newman, G., Choi, H., Wynn, K., & Scholl, B. (2008). The origins of causal perception: Evidence from postdictive processing in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 57(3), 262-291. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.02.003 pmid: 18555212
[75]	Ostrom, T. M. (1984). The sovereignty of social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[76]	Partanen, E., Kujala, T., Näätänen, R., Liitola, A., Sambeth, A., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(37), 15145-15150. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302159110 pmid: 23980148
[77]	Patnoe, S. (1988). A narrative history of experimental social psychology: The Lewin tradition. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
[78]	Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world (J. Tomlinson & A. Tomlinson, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (Original work published 1926)
[79]	Pitcher, D., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2021). Evidence for a third visual pathway specialized for social perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 100-110. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.006 pmid: 33334693
[80]	Pratt, J., Radulescu, P. V., Guo, R. M., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). It’s alive! Animate motion captures visual attention. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1724-1730. doi: 10.1177/0956797610387440 pmid: 20974713
[81]	Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515-526.
[82]	Ramachandran, V. (2011). The tell-tale brain: A neuroscientist’s quest for what makes us human. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
[83]	Reid, V. M., Dunn, K., Young, R. J., Amu, J., Donovan, T., & Reissland, N. (2017). The human fetus preferentially engages with face-like visual stimuli. Current Biology, 27(12), 1825-1828. doi: S0960-9822(17)30580-8 pmid: 28602654
[84]	Reissland, N., Francis, B., Buttanshaw, L., Austen, J. M., & Reid, V. (2016). Do fetuses move their lips to the sound that they hear? An observational feasibility study on auditory stimulation in the womb. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 2(1), 1-7.
[85]	Reissland, N., Francis, B., Mason, J., & Lincoln, K. (2011). Do facial expressions develop before birth? PLoS One, 6(8), e24081.
[86]	Rips, L. (2011). Causation from perception. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 77-97. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393525 pmid: 26162117
[87]	Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 264-274. doi: 10.1038/nrn2805 pmid: 20216547
[88]	Rutherford, M. D., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (Eds.). (2013). Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[89]	Sahakian, W. S. (1982). History and systems of social psychology (2nd ed.). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
[90]	Schaal, B., Marlier, L., & Soussignan, R. (2000). Human foetuses learn odours from their pregnant mother’s diet. Chemical Senses, 25(6), 729-737. pmid: 11114151
[91]	Scheerer, M. (1954). Cognitive theory. In G. Lindzey. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 91-142). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[92]	Scheler, M. (2018). Die stellung des menschen im kosmos (B. Li, Trans.). Guiyang: Guizhou People’s Press. (Original work published 1928).
	[舍勒. (2018). 人在宇宙中的地位 (李伯阳译). 贵阳: 贵州人民出版社.]
[93]	Schilbach, L. (2010). A second-person approach to other minds. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(6), 449-449. doi: 10.1038/nrn2805-c1 pmid: 20485366
[94]	Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second- person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393-462. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000660 pmid: 23883742
[95]	Schlicht, T. (2023). Philosophy of social cognition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
[96]	Scholl, B., & Tremoulet, P. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(8), 299-309. pmid: 10904254
[97]	Schultz, J., & Frith, C. D. (2022). Animacy and the prediction of behaviour. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 140, 104766.
[98]	Sinigaglia, C. (2010). Mirroring and making sense of others. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(6), 449-449. doi: 10.1038/nrn2805-c2 pmid: 20485367
[99]	Sliwa, J. (2021). Toward collective animal neuroscience. Science, 374(6566), 397-398. doi: 10.1126/science.abm3060 pmid: 34672744
[100]	Sliwa, J., & Freiwald, W. (2017). A dedicated network for social interaction processing in the primate brain. Science, 356(6339), 745-749. doi: 10.1126/science.aam6383 pmid: 28522533
[101]	Spaulding, S. (2020). What is mindreading? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 11(3), e1523.
[102]	Stergiou, N. (2020). Biomechanics and gait analysis. Academic Press.
[103]	Tagiuri, R., & Petrullo, L. (Eds.). (1958). Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press.
[104]	Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[105]	Trevarthen, C. (1974). Conversations with a two-month old. New Scientist, 2 May: 230-235.
[106]	Trevarthen, C., & Aitken, K. J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(1), 3-48. pmid: 11205623
[107]	Ustun, B., Reissland, N., Covey, J., Schaal, B., & Blissett, J. (2022). Flavor sensing in utero and emerging discriminative behaviors in the human fetus. Psychological Science, 33(10), 1651-1663.
[108]	Vallortigara, G. (2012). Aristotle and the chicken: Animacy and the origins of beliefs. In A. Fasolo (Ed.), The theory of evolution and its impact (pp. 189-199). Milano: Springer Milan.
[109]	Vallortigara, G. (2021). Born knowing: Imprinting and the origins of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[110]	Vallortigara, G., & Regolin, L. (2006). Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Current Biology, 16(8), 279-280. pmid: 16631570
[111]	Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (Rev. ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[112]	Veissière, S. P. L., Constant, A., Ramstead, M. J. D., Friston, K. J., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2020). Thinking through other minds: A variational approach to cognition and culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e90.
[113]	Westfall, M. (2023). Perceiving agency. Mind & Language, 38(3), 847-865.
[114]	Wurm, M. F., & Caramazza, A. (2022). Two ‘what’ pathways for action and object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(2), 103-116.
[115]	Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Srull, T. K. (Eds.). (1984). Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[116]	Yang, T., Bayless, D. W., Wei, Y., Landayan, D., Marcelo, I. M., Wang, Y., ... Shah, N. M. (2023). Hypothalamic neurons that mirror aggression. Cell, 186(6), 1195-1211. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.01.022 pmid: 36796363

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

1295

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	51	0	0	1244

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	919	376
比例	71%	29%

摘要

862

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	862

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	781	81
比例	91%	9%