Counterfactual reasoning and false belief

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

2. Programme TBA Josef Perner Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC

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

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

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

16. False Belief Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC

17. 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 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. 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“  Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC

22. 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“ Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC

23. Results Easy Tough : CFR 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. It‘s high time to ... Thank You ! or else... counter- factual- ity ! Dipleap Vienna ESF-LogiCCC