Counterfactual Conditionals and False Belief

21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC

1

Counterfactual Conditionals and

False Belief

Eva Rafetseder

Josef Perner


2

PART II

Counterfactual and

Belief-Desire Reasoning

Josef Perner


3

Structure of the presentation

• PART I (Rafetseder)– Development of Conditional Reasoning

• Reasoning with premises counter to fact 3 – 4 years

• Counterfactual Reasoning 9 – 13 years

– False belief reasoning depends on conditional reasoning

• PART II– Implications for Folk Psychology (“Theory of Mind”)

• Theory theory

• Simulation

• Teleology in perspective


4

Implications

for theory of mind


5

False belief task

Maxi puts his book in the cupboard

Then he leaves to play in the garden

After that, Mum comes to tidy up

the roomMum takes the book out of the cupboard,

and puts it in the bookshelf

Then she leaves to do some work

in the kitchen.Now, Maxi returns looking for his book

Where will he look first for his book?

Test question

(Wimmer & Perner, 1983)


6

Stages

• 1) World (observed behaviour) mind– Maxi wasn‘t there when book was moved Maxi

thinks book is still in old place

• 2) Mind mind– mother thinks it was the little girl mother thinks she

couldn‘t reach sweets mother thinks sweets still on top shelf

• 3) Mind world (action)– Max wants the book & Max thinks book in cupboard &

Max knows to get the book is to go where it is –(practical inference) Maxi will go to the cupboard (where he thinks it is).


7

Ways into the mind

• Theory:– knowledge of what leads to which mental state, and

action.

• Simulation:– Imagining a situation elicits „similar“ mental states and

action tendencies as being in that situation imagine being in other‘s situation and read off (introspection) resulting states.

• Teleology (in perspective):– If the situation were as other believes it to be, then

what would be the action to take? (Counterfactual Reasoning).


8

Plausibility: World Mind

• theory: possible– Maxi wasn‘t there when book was moved Maxi

thinks book is still in old place

• simulation: possible – Imagine: putting book in cupboard, going out, coming

back look for book in cupboard.– problem of what to include in imagination.

• teleology = theory


9

Plausibility: Mind Mind Action• Theory: implausible

– requires knowledge about minds and their specific contents:– People who think that a small girl came to look for sweets, and who

know she cannot reach to top shelf, will think that the sweets will stay there.

(modular) theory not tenable

• Simulation: possible– pretend-thinking that girl, who ... pretend-thinking that the sweets

will stay on top shelves– attribute this pretend thought to mother as her real thought

• Teleology: more plausible– counterfactually for ourselves (simulative element): if the girl, who

cannot reach, had come ...– someone who thinks that the girl has come will draw the same

inferences (theory element)

• Our finding that belief attribution follows own inference ability supports this approach.


10

Thank you

for your patience!


11


12

Our guiding Question

• When can we conclude that children are able to reason counterfactually?


13

The Answer

• When children give correct answers to counterfactual questions and ...

• ...could not arrive at this answer by another kind of reasoning.

check on different kinds of reasoning with help of a research example.


14

Counterfactual Reasoning in 3-year olds (Harris et al 1986)

• Carol didn‘t take her muddy shoes off and walked over the sparkling clean floor.

• The floor is all dirty

• If Carol had taken her shoes off, would the floor be clean or dirty?

[clean]

• Counterfactual (subjunctive) Question

• correct answer they can reason

counterfactually (??)

Distinction: Reasoning with assumptions counter-to-fact

Counterfactual reasoning


15

Counterfactual Reasoning


16

Counterfactual Question Hypothetical Reasoning

• Consider!

• If Carol has taken her shoes off, is the floor clean or dirty?

[clean]

• Hypothetical (indicative) Question

• same (correct) answer

without reasoning counterfactually (!)


17

Objectives

Avoid False positives

using tasks in which counterfactual and hypothetical reasoning give different answers to a CF-question.


18

Developmental Test (Maria Schwitalla 2010)

• Basic (hypothetical):– If Carol has taken her shoes off, is the floor then clean or dirty? [clean]

• Counterfactual (Harris et al 1986)

– Carol walked with her muddy shoes over the sparkling clean floor. The floor is all dirty

– If Carol had taken her shoes off, would the floor be clean or dirty?

[clean]

• Semifactual (Schwitalla 2010)

– Carol & John walked with their muddy shoes over the sparkling clean floor. The floor is all dirty

– If Carol had taken her shoes off, would the floor be clean or dirty?

[dirty]

Show me: How would the floor look?


19

Kontrafaktisch vs. Semifaktisch im VergleichRichtige Antworten in %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5-Jährige 10-Järhige Erwachsene

kontrafaktisch

semifaktisch

Untergruppen der 10-Jährigen im Vergleich0,1 oder 2 richtige Antworten

(Bedingung: semifaktisch)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jüngere7;8 bis 10;0

Ältere10;0 bis 10;8

2

1

0

Data Schwitalla

5 years 10 years5 years adults


20

No premature objections,please!

Comparabel results with quite different set up


21

A toy world: Pilz 2005 Thesis

Start Event-1 Mid State Event-2 End Statecookies cookies cookies cookiesplaced stored in transferred in

Motherputs

cookies

topshelf

bottomshelf

girl'sroom

boy'sroom

tall girl

tall girlsmall boy

small boy


22

Exp 1 – 3: Rafetseder Cristi-Vargas & Perner 2010Exp 4: Rafetseder & Perner (unpubl. data)


23

False Belief


24

Counterfactual Reasoning&

False belief


25

CFR and FB (Riggs et al 1998)

Story:– Peter the fire fighter feels sick and goes to bed– His wife goes to the drug store to fetch some medicine– While his wife is out the sirens sound: Fire in the school. – Peter rushes to the school despite being sick.

CF-Q: Where would Peter be if there had been no fire?FB-Q: Where does his wife think Peter is?

Results: Around 4 years children manage both questionsCF somewhat easier than FB

Follow up: Perner Sprung & Steinkogler (2004)CF can be made easier but not FB

Reasoning with assumptions counter to fact is a precondition for attributing FB


26

Question

• If

• we use our „difficult“ CF-scenario

• and add an FB-question

• Will

• the FB-question still be as or more difficult than the CF-question?


27

Tough Condition 1: CFR Hypothetical

• Sweets are on the top shelf – boy comes and takes them.• He ducks when he sneaks back to his room • Mother thinks it was the little girl

• False belief question: – „Where does the mother think that the sweets are?

• Counterfactual Question:– „What if not the tall boy but the little girl had come looking for sweets,

where would they be?“

• Answers:– simple hypothetical: If little girl comes then sweets go to her room

„in the girl‘s room“

– counterfactual: sweets were on top shelf. If little girl had come they would stay there. „on the top shelf“

cb


28

Easy Condition 2: CFR = Hypothetical

• Sweets are on the bottom shelf – girl comes and takes them.• She is wearing boy‘s jacket - Mother thinks it was the boy

• False belief question: – „Where does the mother think that the sweets are?

• Counterfactual Question:– „What if not the little girl but the tall boy had come looking for sweets,

where would they be?“

• Answers:– simple hypothetical: If tall boy comes then sweets go to his room

„in the boy‘s room“

– counterfactual: sweets were on bottom shelf. If boy had come they would go to his room. „in the boy‘s room“

cb

=


29

Results

Tough : CFR

Easy

Tough : FB


30

Documents

Counterfactual Conditionals and False Belief