Children's thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Children's thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities. / Beck, Sarah; Robinson, Elizabeth; Carroll, Daniel; Apperly, Ian.

In: Child Development, Vol. 77, No. 2, 01.03.2006, p. 413-426.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{667b8136396f44efa2062cda0db6aa97,
title = "Children's thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities",
abstract = "Two experiments explored whether children's correct answers to counterfactual and future hypothetical questions were based on an understanding of possibilities. Children played a game in which a toy mouse could run down either 1 of 2 slides. Children found it difficult to mark physically both possible outcomes, compared to reporting a single hypothetical future event, {"}What if next time he goes the other way ...{"} (Experiment 1: 3-4-year-olds and 4-5-year-olds), or a single counterfactual event, {"}What if he had gone the other way ...?{"} (Experiment 2: 3-4-year-olds and 5-6-year-olds). An open counterfactual question, {"}Could he have gone anywhere else?,{"} which required thinking about the counterfactual as an alternative possibility, was also relatively difficult.",
author = "Sarah Beck and Elizabeth Robinson and Daniel Carroll and Ian Apperly",
year = "2006",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00879.x",
language = "English",
volume = "77",
pages = "413--426",
journal = "Child Development",
issn = "0009-3920",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Children's thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities

AU - Beck, Sarah

AU - Robinson, Elizabeth

AU - Carroll, Daniel

AU - Apperly, Ian

PY - 2006/3/1

Y1 - 2006/3/1

N2 - Two experiments explored whether children's correct answers to counterfactual and future hypothetical questions were based on an understanding of possibilities. Children played a game in which a toy mouse could run down either 1 of 2 slides. Children found it difficult to mark physically both possible outcomes, compared to reporting a single hypothetical future event, "What if next time he goes the other way ..." (Experiment 1: 3-4-year-olds and 4-5-year-olds), or a single counterfactual event, "What if he had gone the other way ...?" (Experiment 2: 3-4-year-olds and 5-6-year-olds). An open counterfactual question, "Could he have gone anywhere else?," which required thinking about the counterfactual as an alternative possibility, was also relatively difficult.

AB - Two experiments explored whether children's correct answers to counterfactual and future hypothetical questions were based on an understanding of possibilities. Children played a game in which a toy mouse could run down either 1 of 2 slides. Children found it difficult to mark physically both possible outcomes, compared to reporting a single hypothetical future event, "What if next time he goes the other way ..." (Experiment 1: 3-4-year-olds and 4-5-year-olds), or a single counterfactual event, "What if he had gone the other way ...?" (Experiment 2: 3-4-year-olds and 5-6-year-olds). An open counterfactual question, "Could he have gone anywhere else?," which required thinking about the counterfactual as an alternative possibility, was also relatively difficult.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645090415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00879.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00879.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 16611181

VL - 77

SP - 413

EP - 426

JO - Child Development

JF - Child Development

SN - 0009-3920

IS - 2

ER -