Folie 1

1
REASONING WITH SUBJUNCTIVE (COUNTERFACTUAL)
AND INDICATIVE CONDITIONALS A comparison of
children, adolescents and adults Eva Rafetseder
Josef Perner
2
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Amsel et al. (2003), Beck et al. (2006), Harris
et al. (1996), Riggs et al. (1998),

• 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

3
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?
4
TYPICAL CFR-TEST
Harris et al. (1996)

• Story Carol comes home and she doesnt take her
  shoes off.
• She comes inside and makes the floor all dirty
  with her
• shoes.
• Test Subjunctive (counterfactual) question If
  Carol had
• taken 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 to
• reason counterfactually!

5
NEEDED DISTINCTION
Perner et al. (2008)

• ? 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)?

6
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.

7
REASONING PROCESS

• ? Hypothetical Reasoning
• Conditional Premise IF (whenever) someone
  walks with dirty shoes on a floor
• THEN 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 Carols 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.

8
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

9
REASONING PROCESS
Perner et al. (2009)

• ? 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 off
• THEN the floor is (tends to be) clean.
• Hypothetical Premise IF Carol takes her shoes
  off.
• Conclusion THEN this floor is clean.

10
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 reasoning
• receives a different answer than counterfactual
  reasoning.

11
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 off
• THEN 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.

12
TASK
Pilz (2005)

1st Transformation
2nd Transformation
top shelf
boys room
too short
mother puts sweets
OR
bottom shelf
girls room
boy comes
girl comes
13
TASK
Pilz (2005)
?

• Today mother puts sweets into the top box.
• Memory 1 Where are the sweets now?
• Future Hypothetical Event
• What will happen with the sweets, when the boy
  comes looking for sweets? Where will the sweets
  be? boys room
• Look, the boy comes along looking for sweets. He
  finds them in the top box
• and takes them to his room!
• Memory 2 Where are the sweets now?
• Counterfactual Event
• But what, if not the boy but the small girl had
  come along looking for sweets. Where would the
  sweets be? top shelf

too short
?
14
CONDITIONS

15
PARTICIPANTS

• 33 children
• 18 boys and 15 girls
• 211 59 (years months)
• Mean age 44
• S.D. 9,4 months

16
RESULTS
17
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?

?
?
18
PARTICIPANTS

• 33 children
• 18 boys and 15 girls
• 211 59 (years months)
• Mean age 44
• S.D. 9,4 months

• 32 children
• 19 boys and 13 girls
• 50 65 (years months)
• Mean age 51
• S.D. 4 months

• 16 adults
• 7 men and 9 women
• 147 7510 (years months)
• Mean age 346
• S.D. 163

• 20 adolescents
• 12 boys and 8 girls
• 90 145 (years months)
• Mean age 121
• S.D. 25 months

19
RESULTS
20
DISCUSSION

• ? Most of the research concludes that
  counterfactual reasoning emerges between 3 and 5
  years, while a few studiesmostly working with
  counterfactual emotionspoint 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.

21
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

22
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
23
THANK YOU!