Do striking biases in mass inference reflect a flawed mental model of physics?

To engage with the physical world, we rely on our intuitive sense of how objects will behave when we act on them or they interact with each other. Objects' latent properties such as mass and hardness determine how their physical interactions will unfold, and people have a keen ability to infer these latent properties by observing physical events. For example, we can precisely discriminate the relative masses of two objects when we see them collide. However, such inferences are sometimes subject to marked biases. When inferring mass from an observed collision, people consistently overestimate the mass of an incoming object that strikes a stationary one. Why? A number of plausible accounts have been put forward, variously arguing that the bias arises from rule-based reasoning, oversimplified stimuli, or noisy perceptual estimates of the scene dynamics. The implications of these views stand in stark contrast to one another: systematic biases may reveal a fundamental deficiency in the mental model of physical behavior, or they may be an expected consequence of reasoning over imperfect information. Here, we investigated all three accounts within a unified paradigm, presenting videos of real-world bowling ball collisions. We found that using richly detailed stimuli did not eliminate biases in mass inference. However, individual differences in the biases were task-specific and well-explained by noisy perceptual estimates rather than oversimplified physical inference mechanisms. Our findings collectively point toward an intuitive physics system that implements Newtonian principles but is subject to the quality of the information it operates on. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).