Upload
ulysses-woolridge
View
229
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REASONING WITH SUBJUNCTIVE (COUNTERFACTUAL)
AND INDICATIVE CONDITIONALS
A comparison of children, adolescents and adults
Eva Rafetseder & Josef Perner
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Counterfactual Reasoning [CFR] is related to
▴ Understanding of Causation
▴ Understanding of False Belief
▴ Feeling of Regret and Relief
▴ Understanding of Counterfactual and Actual Worlds as Alternative Possibilities at a Certain Time in the Past
▴ Executive Functions such as Inhibitory Control and Working Memory
Amsel et al. (2003), Beck et al. (2006), Harris et al. (1996), Riggs et al. (1998),…
DEVELOPMENTAL STEPS
3½ years: ▴ German & Nichols (2003, short chain) ▴ Harris, German, and Mills (1996)
4½ years: ▴ Beck, Robinson, Carroll, and Apperly (2006, standard counterfactuals) ▴ German & Nichols (2003, long chain) ▴ Riggs, Peterson, Robinson, and Mitchell (1998)
6 years: ▴ Amsel et al. (2003) ▴ Beck, and Crilly (2009) ▴ Beck, Robinson, Carroll, and Apperly (2006, open counterfactuals) ▴ Guttentag & Ferrell (2004) ▴ Pilz (2005)
Different Reasoning Strategies?
TYPICAL CFR-TEST
Story: Carol comes home and she doesn‘t take her shoes off.She comes inside and makes the floor all dirty with hershoes.
Test: Subjunctive (counterfactual) question: If Carol hadtaken her shoes off, would the floor be dirty or clean?
▴ younger children tend to answer with state of the world
„floor would be dirty“ (reality error)▴ understand that consequent differs from actual state
of the world
∴ Children who do not make the reality error are able toreason counterfactually!
Harris et al. (1996)
NEEDED DISTINCTION
▴ Reasoning asked for by experimenter
Subjunctive question about the past (present) asks for counterfactual reasoning
▴ Reasoning brought to bear by children
What kind of reasoning do children bring to bear when they are asked a subjunctive question about the past (present)?
Perner et al. (2008)
REASONING PROCESS
▴ Basic Conditional Reasoning
IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on a floor
THEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
▴ Factual Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on
a floor THEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
Factual Premise: Carol walks with dirty shoes on this floor.
Conclusion: This floor is dirty.
REASONING PROCESS
▴ Hypothetical Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on a floorTHEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
Hypothetical Premise: IF Carol walks with dirty shoes on this floor.
Conclusion: THEN this floor is dirty.
▴ Future Hypothetical Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on a floor THEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
Factual Premise: Carol’s brother walks with clean socks on this floor.
Hypothetical Premise: IF now Carol walks with dirty shoes on this floor.
Conclusion: THEN this floor will be dirty.
REASONING PROCESS
▴ Counterfactual Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on a floor
THEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
Factual Premise: Carol walks with her dirty shoes on this floor.
Hypothetical Premise: IF Carol had taken her shoes off.
Conclusion: THEN this floor would be clean.
Nearest Possible World by David Lewis
Nearest: counterfactual scenario needs to be maximally similar to the real
scenario Possible: the new scenario must stay logically coherent
REASONING PROCESS
▴ Counterfactual Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on a floor
THEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
Factual Premise: Carol walks with her dirty shoes on this floor.
Hypothetical Premise: IF Carol had taken her shoes off.
Conclusion: THEN this floor would be clean.
▴ Hypothetical Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone takes dirty shoes offTHEN the floor is (tends to be) clean.
Hypothetical Premise: IF Carol takes her shoes off.
Conclusion: THEN this floor is clean.
Perner et al. (2009)
DEVELOPMENTAL CLAIM
▴ Younger children might give correct answers to subjunctive (counterfactual) questions by using hypothetical reasoning.
▴ They might treat the subjunctive („If Carol had taken her shoes off...“)like an indicative („If Carol takes her shoes off...“)
▴ They reason with plausible assumptions (what ever comes to mind): (…then floors tend to stay clean“)
∴ We need to find scenarios in which hypothetical reasoningreceives a different answer than counterfactual reasoning.
POSSIBLE DISTINCTION
▴ Counterfactual Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone walks with dirty shoes on a floor
THEN the floor is (tends to be) dirty.
Factual Premise: Carol and her brother walk with her dirty shoes on this floor.
Hypothetical Premise: IF Carol had taken her shoes off.
Conclusion: THEN this floor would be dirty.
▴ Hypothetical Reasoning
Conditional Premise: IF (whenever) someone takes dirty shoes offTHEN the floor is (tends to be) clean.
Factual Premise: Carol and her brother walk with her dirty shoes on this floor.
Hypothetical Premise: IF Carol takes her shoes off.
Conclusion: THEN this floor is clean.
TASK
motherputs
sweets
bottom shelf
top shelf boy‘s room
girl‘s room
boy comes girl comes
OR
too short
1st Transformation 2nd Transformation
Pilz (2005)
Today mother puts sweets into the top box.
Memory 1: Where are the sweets now?
Future Hypothetical EventWhat will happen with the sweets, when the boy comes looking for sweets? Where will the sweets be? [boy´s room]
Look, the boy comes along looking for sweets. He finds them in the top boxand takes them to his room!
Memory 2: Where are the sweets now?
Counterfactual EventBut what, if not the boy but the small girl had come along looking for sweets. Where would the sweets be? [top shelf]
♂
♀
too short
Pilz (2005)
TASK
CONDITIONS
PARTICIPANTS
33 children
18 boys and 15 girls
2;11 – 5;9 (years; months)
Mean age = 4;4
S.D. = 9,4 months
RESULTS
FOLLOW UP EXPERIMENT
▴ elimination of asymmetry
▴ controlling for memory by making the 1st transformation counterfactually
„But what, if sweets had not been on the bottom but on the top shelf?”
♂
♀
PARTICIPANTS
32 children
19 boys and 13 girls
5;0 – 6;5 (years; months)
Mean age = 5;1
S.D. = 4 months
16 adults
7 men and 9 women
14;7 – 75;10 (years; months)
Mean age = 34;6
S.D. = 16;3
33 children
18 boys and 15 girls
2;11 – 5;9 (years; months)
Mean age = 4;4
S.D. = 9,4 months
20 adolescents
12 boys and 8 girls
9;0 – 14;5 (years; months)
Mean age = 12;1
S.D. = 25 months
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
▴ Most of the research concludes that counterfactual reasoning emerges between 3 and 5 years, while a few studies—mostly working with counterfactual emotions—point to at the later age of 6 years or older.
▴ Our guiding hypothesis is that the studies with the younger children document when children can engage in hypothetical reasoning when premises and conclusions contrast with reality.
▴ While the studies with older children may get at children's ability to obey Lewis' "nearest possible world" criterion by being able to systematically relating the counterfactual scenario to the real scenario.
DISCUSSION
Why is future hypothetical reasoning easier?
▴ The counterfactual assumption contradicts with the corresponding fact, while in future hypothetical reasoning the corresponding fact in the future is not (yet) known.
▴ Counterfactual reasoning requires that two different models of the world have to stay simultaneously active.
▴ The real sequence of events that is being counterfactually altered has to be kept active
SUMMARY
3years: ▴ reality bias: answering with the real state of the world
3½ - 4½ years:
▴ no reality bias because of hypothetical reasoning
6 years: ▴ first signs of counterfactual reasoning
13 years: ▴ adult like pattern of counterfactual reasoning
THANK YOU!