Children’s and Apes’ Preparatory Responses to Two Mutually Exclusive Possibilities
Open accessAbstract
Animal brains have evolved to predict outcomes of events in the immediate environment [1-5]. Adult humans are particularly adept at dealing with environmental uncertainty, being able to mentally represent multiple, even mutually exclusive versions of the future and prepare accordingly. This capacity is fundamental to many complex future-oriented behaviors [6, 7], yet little is known about when it develops in children [8] and whether it is shared with non-human animals [9]. Here we show that children become able to insightfully prepare for two mutually exclusive versions of an undetermined future event during the middle preschool years, whereas we find no evidence for such a capacity in a sample of chimpanzees and orangutans. We gave 90 preschool children and 8 great apes the opportunity to catch an item dropped into a forked tube with two bottom openings. Children's performance improved linearly across age groups (2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 years), with none of the youngest group but most of the oldest group spontaneously covering both openings the first time they prepared to catch the item. The apes performed like 2-year-olds on the first trial, with none of them covering both openings. Some apes and 2-year-olds eventually passed the task, but only in a manner consistent with trial-and-error learning. Our results reveal the developmental trajectory of a critical cognitive ability that allows humans to prepare for future uncertainty, and they also raise the possibility that this ability is not shared with other hominids.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The sample size was chosen to be comparable with previous studies that examined differences in performance across age groups and/or conditions and observed large effect sizes.
“We chose the sample size to be comparable with previous studies that examined differences in performance across age groups and/or conditions and observed large effect sizes (e.g., Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016, Turan-Küçük & Kibbe, 2024).”
From Children’s reasoning about possible outcomes of events in the present and the future (2025) · cites this paper as Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016
The supplied passages contain no match. Searches of our copy for sample size, age-group differences, experimental conditions, and effect sizes returned no passages, so I cannot verify whether this study provides the cited example. (LLM, conf=0.67)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Experiment 1, 4-year-olds placed their hands under both exits more often than 3-year-olds.
“We did observe a significant main effect of age group, with 4-year-olds outperforming 3-year-olds (consistent with previous research; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016;Turan-Küçük & Kibbe, 2024), but with no main effect of condition, suggesting that children used similar strategies regardless of whether they were assigned to the Future condition or the Present condition.”
From Children’s reasoning about possible outcomes of events in the present and the future (2025) · cites this paper as Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016
The only retrievable passage from our copy is the title and DOI, with no results text. Searches for Experiment 1, the age groups, hands, and exits found no passage that could establish the comparison. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe tasks have previously been used successfully to measure future possibility reasoning in 3- and 4-year-olds.
“We chose these tasks because they have previously been used successfully to measure future possibility reasoning in 3-and 4-year-olds.”
From Children’s reasoning about possible outcomes of events in the present and the future (2025) · cites this paper as Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016
No passage from our indexed copy addresses whether the tasks were used to measure future possibility reasoning in 3- and 4-year-olds. Searches for the ages, preparatory responses, and future possibilities returned no relevant passage; the only returned text was the paper title and links, so the decisive content is unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Friston, K. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2787 · Cited by 8,120 · see citing works
Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science
Clark, A. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000477 · Cited by 5,924 · see citing works
Delay of gratification in children.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2658056 · Cited by 3,397 · see citing works
Learning the value of information in an uncertain world
Behrens, T. E. J., Woolrich, M. W., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1954 · Cited by 2,053 · see citing works
Can animals recall the past and plan for the future?
Clayton, N. S., Bussey, T. J., & Dickinson, A. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1180 · Cited by 658 · see citing works
Apes Save Tools for Future Use
Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1125456 · Cited by 578 · see citing works
Knowing how much you don't know: a neural organization of uncertainty estimates
Bach, D. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3289 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
To have and to hold: episodic memory in 3- and 4-year-old children
Scarf, D., Gross, J., Colombo, M., & Hayne, H. (2013) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.21004 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Osvath, M., & Martin-Ordas, G. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0486 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions
Schacter, D. L., Benoit, R. G., & Szpunar, K. K. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.06.002 · Cited by 771 · see citing works
The Border Between Seeing and Thinking
Block, N. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197622223.001.0001 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Quilty-Dunn, J., Porot, N., & Mandelbaum, E. (2023) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x22002849 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
The Acquisition of Modal Concepts
Leahy, B., & Carey, S. E. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.004 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
The development of human causal learning and reasoning
Goddu, M. K., & Alison Gopnik, C. (2024) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00300-5 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“Children’s early competence stands in puzzling contrast to research that suggests that they struggle to understand and reason about possibilities in other domains and tasks 268–273 (Fig.”
BackgroundHopper, L. M. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.04.006 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Thinking in and about time: A dual systems perspective on temporal cognition
Hoerl, C., & McCormack, T. (2018) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x18002157 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Baumeister, R. F., Maranges, H. M., & Sjåstad, H. (2018) · Psychology of Consciousness Theory Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/cns0000154 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016) provided dramatic evidence that human children far surpass adult nonhuman apes on this.”
BackgroundTemporal Junctures in the Mind
Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.10.009 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citationProspection and natural selection
Suddendorf, T., Bulley, A., & Miloyan, B. H. (2018) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.019 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Emergence of Episodic Foresight and Its Consequences
Suddendorf, T. (2017) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/cdep.12233 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationDevelopment of Children's Use of External Reminders for Hard-to-Remember Intentions.
Redshaw, J., Vandersee, J., Bulley, A., & Gilbert, S. (2018) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13040 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“…some metacognitive awareness of their cognitive limitations during the preschool and early school years (Neldner, Collier-Baker, & Nielsen, 2015; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Schneider, 2008), we expected that even the youngest children in our sample would recognize the relative dif fi culty of…”
BackgroundSelf-citationRedshaw, J., Taylor, A. H., & Suddendorf, T. (2017) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.001 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Methodological criticisms [1,6] have been leveled at the positive findings they cite [7,8], and other studies have failed to find evidence of even elementary components of planning in great apes, such as preparation for two alternative event outcomes [9] or for two sequential and causally linked events [10].”
Self-citationSuddendorf, T., Crimston, J., & Redshaw, J. (2017) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0170 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Functions of Prospection – Variations in Health and Disease
Bulley, A., & Irish, M. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02328 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Don't you see the possibilities? Young preschoolers may lack possibility concepts
Leahy, B. (2023) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13400 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Logical reasoning by a Grey parrot? A case study of the disjunctive syllogism
Pepperberg, I., Gray, S. L., Mody, S., Cornero, F. M., & Carey, S. (2019) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003528 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
A taxonomy of mental time travel and counterfactual thought: Insights from cognitive development.
Gautam, S., Suddendorf, T., Henry, J., & Redshaw, J. (2019) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112108 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationRedshaw, J., Suddendorf, T., Neldner, K., Wilks, M., Tomaselli, K. G., Mushin, I., & Nielsen, M. (2018) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13084 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Future-Directed Functions of the Imagination: From Prediction to Metaforesight
Bulley, A., Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108580298.026 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationCould It Be So? The Cognitive Science of Possibility.
Carey, S., Leahy, B., Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.007 · Cited by 27
“Both approaches take as a starting point evidence that young children and animals fail tasks that require simultaneously considering mutually exclusive possibilities [6,7].”
BackgroundSelf-citationChimpanzees consider alternative possibilities
Engelmann, J. M., Völter, C. J., O’Madagain, C., Proft, M., Haun, D. B. M., Hannes Rakoczy, B., & Herrmann, E. (2021) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.09.012 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Cesana-Arlotti, N., Varga, B., & Téglás, E. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0343 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“If infants can track incompatible possibilities in basic scenarios, why do three-year-olds fail in other tasks, like the forked tube [17], that require the production of goal-directed actions? While future research is needed to address this question fully, we propose two tentative answers.”
BackgroundResultToddlers learn and flexibly apply multiple possibilities.
Goddu, M. K., Sullivan, J. N., & Walker, C. M. (2021) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13668 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Dealing with uncertain situations
Alquist, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2023) · Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2023.2282781 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016) dropped a treat into a tube with two openings at the bottom.”
Do chimpanzees reason logically?
Engelmann, J. M., Haux, L. M., Völter, C. J., Schleihauf, H., Call, J., Hannes Rakoczy, B., & Herrmann, E. (2022) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13861 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“…to account for the performance of 2- and 3- year- old children in the cup tasks and other related tasks, the Y- shaped tube task (Beck et al., 2006; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Robinson et al., 2006) and partial ignorance tasks (Kim et al., 2016; Kloo et al., 2017; Rohwer et al., 2012),…”
MethodWhat You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: Uncertainty Impairs Executive Function
Alquist, J., Baumeister, R., Tice, D., & Core, T. J. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.576001 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Episodic memory in nonhuman animals?
Crystal, J. D., & Suddendorf, T. (2019) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.045 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationYoung children's capacity to imagine and prepare for certain and uncertain future outcomes
Redshaw, J., Leamy, T., Pincus, P., & Suddendorf, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202606 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationSensory horizons and the functions of conscious vision
Turner, W., Hogendoorn, H., & Gwilliams, L. (2025) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x25000068 · Cited by 21
Children's future-oriented cognition
McCormack, T., & Hoerl, C. (2020) · Advances in child development and behavior · doi:10.1016/bs.acdb.2020.01.008 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
The development of asymmetries in past and future thinking.
Burns, P., McCormack, T., Graham, A. J., Fitzpatrick, Á., McGourty, J., & Caruso, E. M. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000464 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Comparing chimpanzees' preparatory responses to known and unknown future outcomes
Lambert, M. L., & Osvath, M. (2018) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0499 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Turan-Küçük, E. N., & Kibbe, M. M. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105712 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“The side the marble emerged from was pseudorandomized across trials, following Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016) (right, left, left, right, left, right).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialChimpanzees prepare for alternative possible outcomes
Engelmann, J., Völter, C., Goddu, M., Call, J., Rakoczy, H., & Herrmann, E. (2023) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2023.0179 · Cited by 16
“When an experimenter drops a reward into an inverted y-shaped tube, chimpanzees cover only one exit [24]; likewise, when an experimenter releases a reward into one of two vertical tubes, chimpanzees again cover only one of the tubes [25].”
BackgroundResultPreparation for certain and uncertain future outcomes in young children and three species of monkey.
Suddendorf, T., Watson, K., Bogaart, M., & Redshaw, J. (2020) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.21898 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationRevisiting the epistemic gap: It’s not the thought that counts
Cournane, A. (2021) · Language Acquisition · doi:10.1080/10489223.2020.1860054 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“For example, children fail to reliably and proactively cover both possible exits for a dropped ball in behavioral tasks until age 4 (Redshaw & Suddendorf 2016).”
Suddendorf, T., & Redshaw, J. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1082-1 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationComparing the non-linguistic hallmarks of episodic memory systems in corvids and children
Jelbert, S. A., & Clayton, N. S. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.011 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Young children share imagined possibilities: evidence for an early-emerging human competence
Harris, P. L. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0022 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Arguably, in the course of human evolution, the emergence of the capacity to think through such forks or junctures was a major advance, enabling forms of decision-making and contingency planning not found among great apes [2,3].”
BackgroundIt's in the bag: mobile containers in human evolution and child development
Suddendorf, T., Kirkland, K., Bulley, A., Redshaw, J., & Langley, M. C. (2020) · Evolutionary Human Sciences · doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.47 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“Age effects of such sizes have been previously observed in studies of children ’ s abilities to consider their future (cognitive) limitations (e.g. Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Redshaw et al., 2018a).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThinking about possibilities: mechanisms, ontogeny, functions and phylogeny
Redshaw, J., & Ganea, P. A. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0333 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Interpretations remain contentious [19,24,104,105], but the available evidence suggests that animals (including nonhuman primates) tend to perform better on ‘epistemic uncertainty’ tasks requiring them to consider two possible locations of a previously hidden reward [106–109] than on ‘physical uncertainty’ tasks requi…”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationPragmatic prospection, the matrix of maybe, uncertainty, and human agency
Baumeister, R. (2023) · Possibility Studies & Society · doi:10.1177/27538699231178180 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“Recent experiments suggest this ability to think about multiple alternative possibilities is limited to humankind (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016).”
BackgroundInnovative problem solving in great apes: the role of visual feedback in the floating peanut task
Ebel, S. J., Schmelz, M., Herrmann, E., & Call, J. (2019) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-019-01275-0 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Many preschoolers do not distinguish the possible from the impossible in a marble-catching task.
Leahy, B. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105794 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
The pragmatic structure of indeterminacy: Mapping possibilities as context for action
Baumeister, R., & Alquist, J. (2023) · Possibility Studies & Society · doi:10.1177/27538699221150777 · Cited by 11
“An experiment by Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016) presented subjects with the possibility of catching a treat that by random assignment fell out either on the left or the right.”
MethodMight and might not: Children's conceptual development and the acquisition of modal verbs
Leahy, B., & Zalnieriunas, E. (2022) · Semantics and Linguistic Theory · doi:10.3765/salt.v31i0.5082 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Young children’s capacity to seek information in preparation for a future event
Brinums, M., Redshaw, J., Nielsen, M., Suddendorf, T., & Imuta, K. (2021) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101015 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationMartín-Ordás, G. (2020) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1530 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“In the task, a reward could fall from one of two possible openings in either an inverted Y-shaped tube (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016) or two parallel tubes (Suddendorf, Crimston & Redshaw, 2017).”
BackgroundThe development of optimistic expectations in young children
Hennefield, L., & Markson, L. (2022) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101201 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Future Thinking: Children But Not Apes Consider Multiple Possibilities
Seed, A. M., & Mayes, K. D. (2016) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.022 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“Redshaw and Suddendorf [11] suggest that the skill that makes the difference could be metarepresentation: the ability to reflect on representations themselves; for example, to reflect that one’s prediction might be wrong [13].”
BackgroundInfluentialToward the quantification of cognition
Granger, R. (2020) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.05580 · Cited by 8
Evidence for representation of pretend objects by Kanzi, a language-trained bonobo
Bastos, A. P. M., & Krupenye, C. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adz0743 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Disagreement drives metacognitive development
Langenhoff, A. F., Thompson, B., Srinivasan, M., & Engelmann, J. M. (2025) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.014 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Why psychological scientists should disdain determinism
Baumeister, R. F., & Lau, S. (2024) · Possibility Studies & Society · doi:10.1177/27538699241258002 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016) set up a situation in which obtaining rewards required participants to prepare for two alternative possible outcomes (by using both hands to cover the two reward outlets).”
The scope and role of deduction in infant cognition.
Bohus, K. A., Cesana-Arlotti, N., Martín-Salguero, A., & Bonatti, L. (2023) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2023.08.028 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Three- and four-year-old children represent mutually exclusive possible identities.
Turan-Küçük, E. N., & Kibbe, M. M. (2025) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106078 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Children’s limited tooling ability in a novel concurrent tool use task supports the innovation gap
Colbourne, J., Auersperg, A., & Beck, S. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71686-8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Baumeister, R. F. (2024) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197693520.001.0001 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2024) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2023.0409 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“As we explicitly acknowledged in our original report, we are open to ‘leaner accounts of the older children’s performance’ [6].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationYoung children's conceptualization of empirical disagreement.
Yang, Q., Sleight, S., Ronfard, S., & Harris, P. L. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105627 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Pragmatic prospection is linked with positive life and workplace outcomes
Eubanks, A., Reece, A., Liebscher, A., Ruscio, A. M., Baumeister, R., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2023) · Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2023.2230479 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Humans’ ability to conceptualize alternate possibilities in the imminent future is much more advanced than even humankind’s closest ape relatives (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016).”
BackgroundCournane, A., Hirzel, M., & Hacquard, V. (2023) · Language Acquisition · doi:10.1080/10489223.2023.2173074 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…behave in non-adult ways on non-linguistic possibility reasoning tasks, notably not preparing for two equally viable outcomes in act-out tasks (Redshaw & Suddendorf 2016, i.a.) or appearing to randomly omit open possibilities in various others kinds of tasks (Acredolo & Horobin 1987, i.a.).”
BackgroundThe importance of thinking about the future in culture and cumulative cultural evolution
Vale, G. L., Coughlin, C. A., & Brosnan, S. F. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0349 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Interaction between comparative psychology and cognitive development
Beck, S. R. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.002 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Redshaw J, Suddendorf T: Children’s and apes’ preparatory responses to two mutually exclusive possibilities.”
BackgroundThe recursive grammar of mental time travel
Redshaw, J. (2024) · Philosophical Transactions B · doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0412 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“This will not be an easy challenge, as foreshadowed by related ongoing debates about whether very young children [17,59,123–126] and non-human primates [11,59,127–131] can represent mutually exclusive futures in the integrated form of {present{futures}}.”
Self-citationThe Best-Case Heuristic: Relative Optimism in Relationships, Politics, and a Global Health Pandemic
Sjåstad, H., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672231191360 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“However, people can also think about the future in terms of multiple possibilities and alternative scenarios (Baumeister et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2019; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016), not just as a straight path or a single point estimate.”
Tillman, K. A., & Walker, C. M. (2021) · Child Development · doi:10.31234/osf.io/tweqx · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Do Asian elephants plan for mutually-exclusive outcomes?
Hope, S. F., Dittakul, S., Yindee, M., Angkawanish, T., & Plotnik, J. M. (2025) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-025-02009-1 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Here, we investigated whether Asian elephants can plan for mutually-exclusive future outcomes individually and/or collectively using a simple forked tube paradigm, similar to that of Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016).”
InfluentialUnderstanding future thinking among school-age children : A review of studies
Loose, T., & Vásquez‐Echeverría, A. (2021) · European Journal of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17405629.2021.1932457 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“2 to 3-year olds do not prepare for multiple future possibilities, whereas most 4-year-olds do (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016).”
BackgroundWarren, E., Pilgrim, C., Aellen, M., Morford, J., Herrmann, E., Mann, R. P., Biro, D., & Krupenye, C. (2026) · Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2024.0444 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Perspectives on Time and Personality: Philip G. Zimbardo (1934–2024) in Memoriam
Stolarski, M., Suddendorf, T., Wittmann, M., Oyserman, D., Joireman, J. A., Victor, K., Trope, Y., & Matthews, G. (2026) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.70052 · Cited by 3
“Consider the following simple experiment where we drop a target into a vertical tube with two exits at the bottom, like an upside-down Y, and ask participants to catch it (Redshaw and Suddendorf 2016).”
Self-citationSomewhere, Somehow: Young Children Imagine Possibilities and Ask About Them
Harris, P. L. (2024) · Annual Review of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-103059 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Invited Reply: Modal reasoning in non-human animals: possible ways forward
Engelmann, J., Völter, C., Goddu, M., Call, J., Herrmann, E., & Rakoczy, H. (2024) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2024.0080 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“In experiments that use different versions of the ‘forked-tube task’, it is typically not until around 4–5 years of age that children demonstrate competent modal reasoning [2,3].”
MethodLarge language models in the labyrinth: Possibility spaces and moral constraints
Poulsen, V. M., & DeDeo, S. (2023) · Possibility Studies & Society · doi:10.1177/27538699231206210 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“We are often called upon to hold multiple, incompatible possibilities in mind at once and to prepare for them in action, an ability that appears early in childhood and may well be unique to our species (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016).”
BackgroundGautam, S., Suddendorf, T., & Redshaw, J. (2021) · Psychology Science · doi:10.1177/09567976211024641 · Cited by 3
“This interpretation is consistent with other recent data (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Suddendorf et al., 2020) and aligns with theory (Leahy & Carey, 2020; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2020) suggesting that young children and nonhuman primates—unlike older children—may not represent mutually exclusive…”
ResultSelf-citationEpisodic future thinking in 35-, 47-, and 55-month-old children
Svane, R. P., Jensen, T. S., Hjuler, T. F., Sonne, T., Kingo, O., & Krøjgaard, P. (2021) · Nordic Psychology · doi:10.1080/19012276.2021.1873829 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“The above mentioned results from Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016), in which 4-year-olds outperformed 3-, and 3.5-year-olds in a behavioral task concerning foresight, may point to one such factor.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMatsuura, S., Suzuki, S., Motoki, K., Yamazaki, S., Kawashima, R., & Sugiura, M. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex Communications · doi:10.1093/texcom/tgab018 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Unlike other animals, humans are assumed to make sophisticated decisions with future consequences (Seed and Dickerson 2016; Redshaw and Suddendorf 2016).”
BackgroundDo Theory of Mind and Mental Time Travel abilities build on joint cognitive foundations?
Schidelko, L., Baumann, L., Proft, M., & Rakoczy, H. (2025) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.241960 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Reasoning with epistemic adverbs in child Romanian: Insights from the Shadow Play Paradigm
Bleotu, A. C., Benz, A., & Gotzner, N. (2025) · Language Acquisition · doi:10.1080/10489223.2025.2470770 · Cited by 2
“…closure in infants and younger children (e.g., 12-month infants in Téglás & Bonatti 2016, 3-to 4-year-olds in Kim et al. 2016, 2-year-olds in Redshaw & Suddendorf 2016, 3-to 6-year-olds in Redshaw & Suddendorf 2020, as well as 4-year-olds in Leahy & Žalnieriūnas 2021, 3-to 4-year-olds in…”
What animals can tell us about attentional prerequisites of language acquisition
Leavens, D. A., Elsherif, M., & Clark, H. (2023) · Language & Communication · doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2023.06.004 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Halkjelsvik, T., & Jørgensen, M. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74953-2_2 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Children’s reasoning about possible outcomes of events in the present and the future
Küçük, E. N., & Kibbe, M. M. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vudfm · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Successful modal reasoning depends on WHAT went WHERE.
Mazalik, P., & Halberda, J. (2026) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2026.106751 · Cited by 1
Understanding possibility through action: Young children's modal reasoning in agentive contexts.
Baumann, L., Schidelko, L., Proft, M., Behne, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2026.106594 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Turan-Küçük, E. N., & Kibbe, M. M. (2026) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi.a.364 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…of an object hidden inside one of several containers or dropped into a branching tube or slide (Gautam et al., 2021; Grigoroglou et al., 2019; Leahy, 2023; McCormack et al., 2018; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Redshaw et al., 2018, 2019; Suddendorf et al., 2017; Turan-Küçük & Kibbe, 2024, 2026).”
The role of foresight in the emergence of innovation
Ockerby, Z., Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106398
Self-citationExistential positive psychology offers fresh perspective on free will
Baumeister, R. F. (2025) · Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2025.2498133 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“The human mind is powerfully capable of understanding the future as containing multiple alternative possibilities, indeed much more effectively than the other great apes (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016).”
Baumeister, R. F., & Lim, K. (2021) · The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_138-1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Is the Marshmallow Test a Good Measure of the Capacity to Delay Gratification?
Anderson, N. L., Henry, J. D., Suddendorf, T., & Redshaw, J. (2026) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2026.2738189
Self-citationObject identity in preschoolers: constraints in avoiding misidentification.
Hildebrandt, F., Fenger, L., Glauer, R., & Lonnemann, J. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2026.106661
Chernyak, N. (2026) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2026.2704479
“…their current preferences are more enduring than they actually are (B � elanger et al., 2014), and fail to consider multiple future possibilities (Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Leahy et al., 2022; though see also Alderete & Xu, 2023; Turan-K € uc¸ € uk & Kibbe, 2026), all of which may be critical…”
Advancing Research on the Origins of Judgment and Decision-Making
Santhanagopalan, R., Echelbarger, M., Risen, J. L., & Kinzler, K. D. (2026) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2026.2724090
“…possibility space initially excluding options that violate normative or statistical regularities, and expand it through culturally scaffolded experience (Goulding & Friedman, 2023; Leahy et al., 2022; Nissel et al., 2024; Pabla et al., 2025; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Shtulman & Phillips, 2018).”
Esparza, O. A. D. L. (2026) · Revista Multidisciplinar Epistemología de las Ciencias · doi:10.71112/8t8nqc90
“…la evolución del viaje mental en el tiempo sugieren que esta capacidad es una especialización del linaje humano vinculada a la conciencia autonoética y la preparación para posibilidades futuras (Osvath & Johansson, 2024; Redshaw & Suddendorf, 2016; Kwan et al., 2012; Oostenbroek et al., 2023).”
Kaufmann, A. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009647892
Otters, but not apes, prepare for mutually exclusive possibilitiesPreprint
Ortiz, S. T., Fjorside, K., Raigal, P. F., Canales, R., & Wahlberg, M. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.02.03.703448
“…research indicates that this ability emerges relatively late in children, typically between 3 and 4 years of age, and is not reliably demonstrated in non-human apes [3,4] even though such problems are common in nature: an opening that allows prey to escape cannot simultaneously remain blocked.”
InfluentialAnlı, G., & Yalçın, M. A. (2026) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.70130
No Credences in Active Reasoning: The Argument From Alternative Neglect
Ballarini, C. (2026) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.70037
Children's understanding of conditional probabilities.
Crimston, J., Suddendorf, T., & Redshaw, J. (2025) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2025.106370
Self-citationKispál, A., Kovács, Á., & Téglás, E. (2024) · Magyar Tudomány · doi:10.1556/2065.185.2024.11.5
- Authors
- Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Redshaw, Jonathan
- Venue
- Current Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1758-1762
- ISSN
- 0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2475307512
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 24.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- future uncertainty, child cognitive development, chimpanzees, orangutans, great apes, trial-and-error learning, developmental trajectories, evolutionary origins of cognition, preschool children
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Child, Preschool, Pan troglodytes, Cognition, Female, Humans, Learning, Problem Solving, Pongo abelii
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
