Counterfactual Conditionals and False Belief

Counterfactual Conditionals and False Belief Eva Rafetseder Josef Perner CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

PART IICounterfactual and Belief-Desire Reasoning Josef Perner CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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 CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Implications for theory of mind CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

False belief task (Wimmer & Perner, 1983) Test question Where will he look first for his book? After that, Mum comes to tidy up the room Then she leaves to do some work in the kitchen. Then he leaves to play in the garden Maxi puts his book in the cupboard Mum takes the book out of the cupboard, Now, Maxi returns looking for his book and puts it in the bookshelf CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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). CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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). CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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 CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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. CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Thank you for your patience! CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Our guiding Question • When can we conclude that children are able to reason counterfactually? CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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. CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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 CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Counterfactual Reasoning CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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 (!) CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Objectives • Avoid False positives • using tasks in which counterfactual and hypothetical reasoning give different answers to a CF-question. CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Developmental Test (Maria Schwitalla 2010) • Basic (hypothetical): • If Carol has taken her shoes off, is the floor then 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] • 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] Show me: How would the floor look? CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Data Schwitalla adults 10 years 5 years 5 years CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

No premature objections, please! Comparabel results with quite different set up CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

A toy world: Pilz 2005 Thesis StartEvent-1Mid StateEvent-2 End State cookies cookies cookies cookies placed stored in transferred in girl's room top shelf tall girl Mother puts cookies small boy tall girl boy's room bottom shelf small boy CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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

False Belief CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Counterfactual Reasoning&False belief CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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 questions CF 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 CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

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? CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

cb 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“  CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

cb = 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“ CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Results Easy Tough : CFR Tough : FB CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

CCCUE-Düsseldorf ESF-LogiCCC

Counterfactual Conditionals and False Belief