Counterfactual Reasoning

Counterfactual Reasoning

1. What is counterfactual reasoning?

   • the ability to reason about situations and events removed from, or contrary to, current reality .This includes the ability to think about the past and the future, and situations with multiple possible outcomes
   • Thinking of “what might have been” requires that we (i) separate ourselves from current reality… …and (ii) mentally construct an alternative version of the world in which one thing has changed… …and then (iii) track how this single change would have affected the rest of the world
   • Children can think about a single possibility in the future; they find it harder to think about multiple possibilities in the future Children’s difficulties arise not from the past or future per se, but from whether they are required to consider multiple possibilities
     • Children become better able to deal with more complex counterfactuals with age, as their general cognition improves Thus, development is not simply a conceptual shift from inability to full ability There are also incidental processing demands that children cope with better as they get older

2. Counterfactuals and complex emotion

   • Children solve informational CF tasks by around 5 years This isn’t adult-level performance: adults spontaneously reason counterfactually, particularly when things have gone wrong Counterfactual reasoning forms the basis of complex emotions like regret and relief
     • Understanding regret and relief is more difficult than understanding happiness or sadness It requires us to consider not just a particular situation… …but also how that situation compares to other possible alternatives
       • If you buy a scratchcard and win £10, you would probably be quite happy But if the person next in line won £500,000, you’d probably feel something negative, even though you’d made a profit This reaction arises from comparing one particular outcome in relation to an alternative outcome
         • 7-year-olds reported feeling regret on a gambling task – they felt worse when they found out a better prize was available …but when watching other people in the same situation, they reported those people would feel just as happy (Weisberg & Beck, 2010)
       • If a storm blows a branch off a tree so that it scratches your car, you’d probably be annoyed But if the two cars on either side of your car had both been crushed by fallen trees, you’d probably experience something positive This feeling requires that you compare a particular outcome in relation to an alternative

3. how the ability to reason in a counterfactual way develops, and how counterfactual emotions arise

   • How does it develop?
     • The first step towards counterfactual thinking is separating ourselves from the world around us Children first do this when they engage in pretend play – from around 18 months (Leslie, 1987)
     • The first step towards counterfactual thinking is separating ourselves from the world around us Children first do this when they engage in pretend play – from around 18 months (Leslie, 1987)
       • Creating an imaginary world (or object, or situation) can be done without any reference to current reality Pretending is not counterfactual thinking Counterfactual thinking involves considering specific ways that the current reality could be different

4. Critically discuss key studies in counterfactual research

   • Piaget (1958) noted that young children frequently make realist errors, and errors of egocentrism More recent research demonstrates that three-year-olds have difficulty separating themselves from their own view of the world. This is seen, for example, in their poor ability to reason counterfactually (e.g. Beck et al., 2006)
   • Evidence for counterfactual thinking emerges during the preschool years One way to assess the ability to think counterfactually is to tell children stories… …and get them to re-imagine the stories with one thing changed (Riggs, Peterson, Robinson & Mitchell, 1998)
     • Peter the fireman is at home. He gets a telephone call telling him that there is a fire at the post office. So he goes to the post office to help put the fire out.” “If there hadn’t been a fire, where would Peter be?” - Riggs, Peterson, Robinson & Mitchell, 1998
       • Only 47% of 3-year-olds answered correctly They responded comparably poorly on a standard Theory of Mind task This finding has been widely replicated Similar CF / ToM performance may be because both require children to consider more than one perspective on a situation
   • Harris et al. (1996) investigated young children’s CF thinking on very simple stories “Sally walks across the floor with muddy shoes. Now the floor’s dirty. Would the floor be dirty if she’d taken her dirty shoes off?” Three-year-olds: 75% correct Four-year-olds: 84% correct
     • These findings seem to suggest that children can reason counterfactually But these results go against most other findings (e.g. Beck et al., 2006; Riggs et al., 1998; Guajardo et al., 2004; Perner et al., 2004)
   • Robinson & Beck (2000) showed children a road with two garages, one at either end A toy car drove into one of the garages; children were asked either: What if he’d driven the other way – where would he be? What if next time he drives the other way – where will he be?
     • “Past” question (“What if he’d driven the other way?”): 3-year-olds: 30% correct 4-year-olds: 60% correct 5-year-olds: 95% correct “Future” question (“What if next time he drives the other way?”) : 3-year-olds: 95% correct 4-year-olds: 90% correct
   • Children were shown a slide with two outlets; their job was to place cotton wool to ensure that a mouse landed safely After the mouse slid down, children were asked two questions about the future: “What if next time he goes the other way?” “Can you put out cotton wool?” [to make sure the mouse lands safely next time] Beck et al., 2006
     • To answer “What if next time he goes the other way?” children need to think about a single possibility If the mouse went left, children must imagine [mouse going right] “Can you put out cotton wool so he lands safely?” requires children to think about two possibilities Both [mouse going left] AND [mouse going right]
   • Causal chains
     • What if the dog hadn’t squashed the flower… [short causal chain] What if the dog hadn’t escaped from the house… [medium causal chain] What if Mrs Rosy hadn’t called her husband… [long causal chain] …would she be happy or sad?
   • Beck et al. (2009) compared 3- and 4-year-olds’ performance on CF tasks, EF tasks and language CF performance was predicted both by Inhibitory control and by language ability Supports the idea that difficulty with CF reasoning is ignoring what we know to be true Contrasting with German & Nicholls, working memory did not predict CF performance Beck, Riggs & Gorniak, 2009
   • Amsel et al. (2003) asked children to play a game where they chose between two cards and received a reward based on the card they chose Sometimes the other card would have given a much better reward, and sometimes it would have given a much worse reward Children were asked to judge how other people would feel in particular game situations
     • 5-year-olds could correctly judge whether participants would be happy or sad if a particular outcome occurred However, they showed no understanding of how people would feel if they found out a better or worse alternative could have been chosen
       • In contrast, 7-year-olds correctly judged that a person would feel worse if they learned a better alternative had been available… …and that they’d feel better if they learned that a worse alternative had been available (Amsel et al., 2003)
   • Guttentag & Ferrell (2004) looked at children’s views of how other people would feel They gave children stories in which two people experienced negative outcomes, but varied whether: the event was typical or atypical for protagonists the outcome arose through action or inaction
     • 7-year-olds approached adult levels of performance when judging complex emotions (as in Amsel et al., 2003) In contrast, 5-year-olds’s responses only reflected an understanding of the actual outcome, and no influence of considering alternative outcomes

Images and files in the map