counterfactual conditionals and false belief
DESCRIPTION
Counterfactual Conditionals and False Belief. Eva Rafetseder Josef Perner. PART II Counterfactual and Belief-Desire Reasoning. Josef Perner. Structure of the presentation. PART I (Rafetseder) Development of Conditional Reasoning Reasoning with premises counter to fact3 – 4 years - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
1
Counterfactual Conditionals and
False Belief
Eva Rafetseder
Josef Perner
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
2
PART II
Counterfactual and
Belief-Desire Reasoning
Josef Perner
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
4
Implications
for theory of mind
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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)
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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).
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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).
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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.
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
10
Thank you
for your patience!
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
11
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
12
Our guiding Question
• When can we conclude that children are able to reason counterfactually?
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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.
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
15
Counterfactual Reasoning
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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 (!)
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
17
Objectives
Avoid False positives
using tasks in which counterfactual and hypothetical reasoning give different answers to a CF-question.
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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?
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
20
No premature objections,please!
Comparabel results with quite different set up
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
22
Exp 1 – 3: Rafetseder Cristi-Vargas & Perner 2010Exp 4: Rafetseder & Perner (unpubl. data)
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
23
False Belief
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
24
Counterfactual Reasoning&
False belief
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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?
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
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
=
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
29
Results
Tough : CFR
Easy
Tough : FB
21-05-2011 CCCUE-DüsseldorfESF-LogiCCC
30