Deontic and epistemic reasoning in children

被引:17
|
作者
Dack, Lisa Ain [1 ]
Astington, Janet Wilde [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Ontario Inst Studies Educ, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Inst Child Study, Toronto, ON M5R 2X2, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Deontic reasoning; Deontic advantage; Prescriptive conditional rules; Epistemic reasoning; Social understanding; Preschool children; WASON SELECTION TASK; SOCIAL-EXCHANGE; RULES; REPRESENTATIONS; CONDITIONALS; EMOTIONS; CONTEXT; SCHEMAS; ROLES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.003
中图分类号
B844 [发展心理学(人类心理学)];
学科分类号
040202 ;
摘要
It is widely accepted that adults show an advantage for deontic over epistemic reasoning. Two published studies (Cummins, 199613; Harris and Nunez, 1996, Experiment 4) found evidence of this "deontic advantage" in preschool-aged children and are frequently cited as evidence that preschoolers show the same deontic advantage as adults. However, neither study has been replicated, and it is not clear from either study that preschoolers were showing the deontic advantage under the same conditions as adults. The current research investigated these issues. Experiment 1 attempted to replicate both Cummins's and Harris and Nunez's studies with 3- and 4-year-olds (N = 56), replicating the former with 4-year-olds and the latter with both 3- and 4-year-olds. Experiment 2 modified Cummins's task to remove the contextual differences between conditions, making it more similar to adult tasks, finding that 4-year-olds (n = 16) show no evidence of the deontic advantage when no authority figure is present in the deontic condition, whereas both 7-year-olds (n = 16) and adults (n = 28) do. Experiment 3 removed the authority figure from the deontic condition in Harris and Nunez's task, again finding that 3- and 4-year-olds (N = 28) show no evidence of the deontic advantage under these conditions. These results suggest that for preschoolers, the deontic advantage is reliant on particular contextual cues such as the presence of an authority figure, in the deontic condition. By 7 years of age, however, children are reasoning like adults and show evidence of the advantage when no such contextual cues are present. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:94 / 114
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] DEONTIC REASONING IN BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEMS
    LEE, RM
    BOSE, R
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST, ANNUAL HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES, VOLS 1-4: ARCHITECTURE TRACK, SOFTWARE TRACK, DECISION SUPPORT AND KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS TRACK, APPLICATIONS TRACK, 1988, : 477 - 485
  • [12] Could, would, should: Theory of mind and deontic reasoning in Tongan children
    Taumoepeau, Mele
    Kata, Ungatea Fonua
    Veikune, Ana Heti
    Lotulelei, Susana
    Vea, Peseti Tupou'ila
    Fonua, Ilaisaane
    [J]. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 2022, : 1511 - 1526
  • [13] ACQUISITION OF EPISTEMIC AND DEONTIC MEANING OF MODALS
    HIRST, W
    WEIL, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHILD LANGUAGE, 1982, 9 (03) : 659 - 666
  • [14] Culpability for Epistemic Injustice: Deontic or Aretetic?
    Riggs, Wayne
    [J]. SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY, 2012, 26 (02) : 149 - 162
  • [15] Reasoning with deontic and counterfactual conditionals
    Quelhas, AC
    Byrne, RMJ
    [J]. THINKING & REASONING, 2003, 9 (01) : 43 - 65
  • [16] Development of Preschoolers' Deontic Reasoning
    Liu, Guo-Xiong
    [J]. 2014 IEEE 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED INFOCOMM TECHNOLOGY (ICAIT), 2014, : 234 - 239
  • [17] An update semantics for deontic reasoning
    van der Torre, LWN
    Tan, YH
    [J]. NORMS, LOGICS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS: NEW STUDIES IN DEONTIC LOGIC AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, 1999, 49 : 73 - 90
  • [18] A Deontic Logic Reasoning Infrastructure
    Benzmueller, Christoph
    Parent, Xavier
    van der Torre, Leendert
    [J]. SAILING ROUTES IN THE WORLD OF COMPUTATION, 2018, 10936 : 60 - 69
  • [19] Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning
    Cummins, DD
    [J]. MIND & LANGUAGE, 1996, 11 (02) : 160 - 190
  • [20] DEONTIC REASONING WITH INCOMPLETE TRUST
    Bentzen, Martin Mose
    [J]. LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE, 2011, (215) : 327 - 342