Doctoral Dissertation Research: Understanding possibilities in children's counterfactual reasoning

Counterfactual conditional sentences (e.g., “If giraffes had fins, they would swim”) involve an antecedent (e.g., “If giraffes had fins”) which is false in the actual state of affairs. They also involve a consequent (e.g., “they would swim”), which is true given the antecedent. Reasoning about counterfactual conditionals requires thinking about possibilities, and being able to choose among them in a principled manner.

Despite the conceptual complexity involved in temporarily imagining falsehoods as true, humans can readily reason about possibilities arising from counterfactual antecedents. This form of reasoning develops fairly late for children, due to the complexity involved in choosing among different possibilities. To further our understanding of these abilities, the researchers analyze children’s use (i.e., their production and understanding) of these sentences, and the kinds of possibilities children are able to reason over when they are thinking of non-actual state of affairs.

Developing and practicing children’s counterfactual reasoning abilities is crucial for both critical and scientific thinking, benefiting children’s ability to control variables when testing hypotheses. Counterfactual reasoning is also closely related to emotional and social development, for example, when understanding regret and relief. By understanding which counterfactuals facilitate development, the researchers encourage children at an earlier age, or when they have developmental difficulties, to respond to counterfactual prompts, and thereby foster more complex forms of reasoning.

This doctoral dissertation project answers the following open questions: How do the possibilities arising from counterfactual situations that children think about differ from the ones that adults think about? Do children consider more possibilities than adults when reasoning counterfactually? Finally, do children’s possibilities involve any linguistic and conceptual features which adults do not use?

To answer these questions, the researchers conduct five studies. Two studies examine children’s production of counterfactual conditionals – considering the types of sentences children use, and the ways in which they differ from those of adults, looking at both children’s natural production of counterfactuals (e.g., produced contexts where they are playing or having a casual conversation with a caregiver), as well as production elicited through experimental prompts.

The other three studies examine children’s reasoning when hearing counterfactual utterances. The researchers ask targeted experimental questions (e.g., “If giraffes had fins, could they swim?”) and analyze children’s responses to understand the ways in which the possibilities they reason over differ from those of adults.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.