Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 1 Counterfactual reasoning and false belief Eva Rafetseder original

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 2 TBA Josef Perner Programme

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 3 Stenning updated Josef Perner in collaboration with Eva Rafetseder & Christine Hofer Finally

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 4 Structure of the presentation Counterfactual Reasoning (CFR) –Types of conditional reasoning –Developmental Examples Attributing false beliefs Counterfactual Reasoning and Beief-Desire Reasoning Implications for “Theory of Mind”

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 5 Our guiding Question When can we conclude that children are able to reason counterfactually?

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 6 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.

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 7 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

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 8 Counterfactual Reasoning

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 9 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 (!)

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 10 Objectives  Avoid False positives  using tasks in which counterfactual and hypothetical reasoning give different answers to a CF-question.

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 11 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?

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 12 Data Schwitalla 5 years 10 years 5 years adults

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 13 No premature objections, please! Comparabel results with quite different set up

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 14 A toy world : Pilz 2005 Thesis Start Event-1 Mid StateEvent-2 End State cookiescookiescookiescookies placedstored intransferredin Mother puts cookies top shelf bottom shelf girl's room boy's room tall girl small boy

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 15 Exp 1 – 3: Rafetseder Cristi-Vargas & Perner 2010 Exp 4: Rafetseder & Perner (unpubl. data)

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 16 False Belief

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 17 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 room Mum 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)

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 18 Counterfactual Reasoning & False belief

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 19 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

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 20 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?

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 21 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 

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 22 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 =

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 23 Results Tough : CFR Easy Tough : FB

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 24 Implications for theory of mind

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 25 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) –Maxi thinks book in cupboard & Maxi wants the book & Maxi thinks (knows) to get the book is to go where it is –(practical inference)  Maxi will go to the cupboard (where he thinks it is).

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 26 Ways into the mind Theory: –knowledge of what leads to which mental state, and action. Simulation: –Intuitive: Imaging a situation elicits „similar“ mental states and action tendencies as being in that situation  imagine being situation and read off (introspection) resulting states. –My criterion The way one‘s own mind works is essential for understanding what goes on in someone else‘s (or one‘s own) mind.

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 27 Plausibility World  mind –theory: possible –simulation: possible problem of what to include in imagination. Mind  mind  action –implausible to have ready made knowledge about minds: 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 –more plausible that we reason: 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 underlines this intuitive argument

Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC 28 or else... counter- factual- ity ! It‘s high time to... Thank You !