Children’s use of conversational cues to infer reality status

1. Children’s use of conversational cues to infer reality status Jacqueline Woolley Lili Ma University of Texas

2. The Problem • Children encounter novel entities frequently. • For all such entities, children must make reality status judgments. • For many of these entities, reality status is immediately apparent (e.g., the family dog). • However for many others, it is not; children very often hear about novel entities from other people and do not have the opportunity to interact with these entities.

3. How do children determine reality status? • They use the context in which the novel entity is encountered. • Woolley & Van Reet, 2006 • Cox & Woolley, 2009 • They weigh evidence for and against its existence. • Woolley, Boerger, & Markman, 2004 • Tullos & Woolley, 2009 • They ask questions. • Baxter & Sabbagh, 2003

4. Another potential cue: Talk • What might children pick up from listening to direct statements and/or conversations?

5. Similarities in how we talk about real and not-real entities • Real entities with sensory affordances: • Existence is assumed in conversation. • “Put your book down on the table.” • Real entities without sensory affordances: • Existence is also assumed in conversation. • “Wash your hands; they’re covered with germs!” • Not-real entities • Existence is also assumed in conversation. • “What did Santa Claus bring you this year?”

6. Differences in talk about real and not-real entities (explicit statements of belief vs. disbelief) Not-real entities (or entities for which belief varies): • “She still believes in Santa Claus.” • “We believe in God.” • “Fairies are not in real life.” Real entities (belief does not vary): We do not say, “I believe in the garbage man” or “cows are in real life.”

7. Research questions • Do children use these cues to figure out reality status? • To what extent can children learn about reality status simply from listening to talk? • When do children become aware that we imply reality status in the way we talk about things? • What is the relative effectiveness of explicit statements of belief (e.g., “civets are real; I believe in civets”) versus simple inclusions in everyday talk (e.g., “I almost ran over a civet today”) in conveying belief?

8. Study 1: 4 types of statements • Explicit belief • Do you know about civets? They are real. I believe in civets.” • Explicit denial • Do you know about civets? They’re not real. I don’t believe in civets.” • Implicit belief: Property statement + knowledge claim • Do you know about civets? They can move really fast. I know a lot about civets.” • Implicit belief: Involvement in event • “Do you know what happened? I almost ran over a civet when I was driving home! I almost hit the civet !”

10. Study 2 • Goals: • To make the situation more naturalistic and to increase input • Children can learn novel words through “overhearing”; can they also learn about novel entities this way? • To include a clear case in which we could demonstrate that children were willing to say that something was real • To explore decrease between 5 and 7 on explicit belief trials • Due to recognition of subjective nature of belief? • Due to skepticism regarding experimental procedure?

11. 4 types of conversations • Known real (control) • Implicit belief: Involvement in event • Explicit belief • Explicit denial

12. Known Real

13. Implicit Belief

14. Explicit Belief

15. Explicit Denial

17. Conclusions and future research • 3-year-olds not using talk, except for negative statements. • However exploratory follow-up analyses suggest competence • Development between 5 and 7 in use of both explicit and implicit statements • Explore changes between 5 and 7 • Are 5’s less competent in picking up conversational cues? • Are they more reluctant to accept testimony generally?

18. Conclusions and future research (cont.) • No clear evidence that children recognize that explicit expressions of belief imply ambiguity about reality status • Include older age groups (9-year-olds…) • Validate intuitions with an adult sample

19. P.S. Is (X) real or not real? Percent Real:

20. Acknowledgements • National Institutes of Health (NICHD) Grant R01 HD 030300 • Graduate student extraordinaire: Ansley Tullos • Amazing honors student: Melissa McInnis • Superb graphic assistance: Maliki Ghossainy • Fabulous undergraduate research assistants: Jamie Barstein, Sara Dimas, Brittany Kinard, Carol Leung, Kaitlin McLaughlin, Rachel Myerson, Cristina Porras, Oshma Raj