Advertisement

Studia Logica

, Volume 102, Issue 4, pp 793–810 | Cite as

Basic Conditional Reasoning: How Children Mimic Counterfactual Reasoning

  • Brian Leahy
  • Eva Rafetseder
  • Josef Perner
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Children approach counterfactual questions about stories with a reasoning strategy that falls short of adults’ Counterfactual Reasoning (CFR). It was dubbed “Basic Conditional Reasoning” (BCR) in Rafetseder et al. (Child Dev 81(1):376–389, 2010). In this paper we provide a characterisation of the differences between BCR and CFR using a distinction between permanent and nonpermanent features of stories and Lewis/Stalnaker counterfactual logic. The critical difference pertains to how consistency between a story and a conditional antecedent incompatible with a nonpermanent feature of the story is achieved. Basic conditional reasoners simply drop all nonpermanent features of the story. Counterfactual reasoners preserve as much of the story as possible while accommodating the antecedent.

Keywords

Counterfactual Reasoning Basic Conditional Reasoning Counterfactuals Possible worlds semantics Generic reasoning 

References

  1. 1.
    Beck, S., D. P. Weisberg, P. Burns., and K. J. Riggs, Conditional reasoning and emotional experience: a review of the development of counterfactual thinking, Studia Logica, this issue.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, J. F., A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatt, R., and R. Pancheva, Conditionals, in The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Blackwell, Boston, 2007, pp. 638–687.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csibra G., G. Gergely: Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Science 13(4), 148–153 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edgington, D., Counterfactuals and the benefit of hindsight, in P. Dowe and P. Noordhof (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals, Routledge, London, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edgington D.: Counterfactuals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108(1), 1–21 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edgington, D., Estimating conditional chances and evaluating counterfactuals, Studia Logica, this issue.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelman S. A., Goetz P. J., Sarnecka B. W., Flukes J.: Generic language in parent-child conversations. Language Learning and Development 4(1), 1–31 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris P. L., German T., Mills P.: Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition 61(3), 233–259 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollander M. A., Gelman S. A., Star J.: Children’s interpretation of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology 38(6), 883–894 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leslie S.J.: Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives 21(1), 375–403 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leslie S.J., Gelman S.A.: Quantified statements are recalled as generics. Cognitive Psychology 64(3), 186–214 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewis, D., Counterfactuals, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lycan, W. G., Real Conditionals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obermayr, S., Kontrafaktisches Denken unter Berücksichtigung hypothetischer Annahmen, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Salzburg, 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pelletier, J., and N. Asher, Generics and defaults, in J. van Bentham and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rafetseder E., Cristi-Vargas R., Perner J.: Counterfactual reasoning:developing a sense of ‘nearest possible world’. Child Development 81(1), 376–389 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rafetseder E., Schwitalla M., Perner J.: Counterfactual reasoning: from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114, 389–404 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ward, T. B., and C. M. Sifonis, Task demands and generative thinking: what changes and what remains the same? Journal of Creative Behavior 31:245–259, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversität KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Salzburg, University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and Centre for Neurocognitive ResearchUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations