Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Is reasoning from counterfactual antecedents evidence for counterfactual reasoning?
Author(s): Rafetseder, Eva
Perner, Josef
Contact Email:
Keywords: Basic conditional reasoning
Counterfactual reasoning
Developmental psychology
Realist error
Reasoning from counterfactual antecedents
Issue Date: 2010
Date Deposited: 26-Sep-2013
Citation: Rafetseder E & Perner J (2010) Is reasoning from counterfactual antecedents evidence for counterfactual reasoning?. Thinking and Reasoning, 16 (2), pp. 131-155.
Abstract: In most developmental studies the only error children could make on counterfactual tasks was to answer with the current state of affairs. It was concluded that children who did not show this error are able to reason counterfactually. However, children might have avoided this error by using basic conditional reasoning (Rafetseder, Cristi-Vargas, & Perner, 201022. Perner, J. and Rafetseder, E. 2010. "Counterfactual and other forms of conditional reasoning: Children lost in the nearest possible world". In Understanding counterfactuals/Understanding causation, Edited by: Hoerl, C., McCormack, T. and Beck, S. R. New York: Oxford University Press. View all references). Basic conditional reasoning takes background assumptions represented as conditionals about how the world works. If an antecedent of one of these conditionals is provided by the task, then a likely conclusion can be inferred based only on background assumptions. A critical feature of counterfactual reasoning is that the selection of these additional assumptions is constrained by actual events to which the counterfactual is taken to be counterfactual. In contrast, in basic conditional reasoning one enriches the given antecedent with any plausible assumptions, unconstrained by actual events. In our tasks basic conditional reasoning leads to different answers from counterfactual reasoning. For instance, a doctor, sitting in the park with the intention of reading a paper, is called to an emergency at the swimming pool. The question, "If there had been no emergency, where would the doctor be?" should counterfactually be answered "in the park". But by ignoring the doctor's intentions, and just reasoning from premises about the default location of a hospital doctor who has not been called out to an emergency, one might answer: "in the hospital". Only by 6 years of age did children mostly give correct answers.
DOI Link: 10.1080/13546783.2010.488074
Rights: The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Rafetseder2010a.pdfFulltext - Published Version307.26 kBAdobe PDFUnder Embargo until 2999-12-18    Request a copy

Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.