The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Multiple Developments in Counterfactual Thinking
Open accessAbstract
Mapping the development of children’s counterfactual thinking should allow insight in to this process in adults and its relation with causal understanding. We argue that there is not one critical development that should be thought of as marking children’s ability to engage in counterfactual thought. Rather there is a sequence of (at least) four developments that takes place from early to middle childhood. Three-year-olds can generate alternative future worlds, but it is not until children are around 4 that they can speculate about known to be false counterfactuals. Later developments involve representing these counterfactuals as possibilities that could have occurred and relating the counterfactual and real worlds. We consider whether domain general developments in executive function might underpin these developments.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“we suggest that the result of the CFA supports Beck, Riggs, and Burns (2011) view that CFR is not one critical development but comprises progressive developmental milestones.”
From A plausible role of imagination in pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, and executive functions (2023) · cites this paper as Beck, Riggs, and Burns (2011)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A plausible role of imagination in pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, and executive functions
Francis, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (2023) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12650 · Cited by 13
“…precise definitions focus on mentally travelling back in time to observe something that actually happened and imagining a change to what actually happened by simulating how this alternatively would have turned out differently (Beck, Riggs, & Burns, 2011; Gerstenberg, 2022; Rafetseder et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Beck, S. R., Riggs, K. J., & Burns, P.
- Venue
- Understanding Counterfactuals, Understanding CausationIssues in Philosophy and Psychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2011-10-01
- Pages
- 110-122
- OpenAlex
- W2506251294
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 5.46
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/F034903/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- counterfactual reasoning, child cognitive development, causal knowledge, executive function, early childhood, middle childhood, developmental sequence
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
