Logical Concepts of (Im)possibility Guide Young Children's Decision-Making

IF 3.1 1区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Nicolò Cesana-Arlotti, Sofia Jáuregui, Peter Mazalik, Shaun Nichols, Justin Halberda
{"title":"Logical Concepts of (Im)possibility Guide Young Children's Decision-Making","authors":"Nicolò Cesana-Arlotti,&nbsp;Sofia Jáuregui,&nbsp;Peter Mazalik,&nbsp;Shaun Nichols,&nbsp;Justin Halberda","doi":"10.1111/desc.70044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>The human capacity for rational decisions hinges on modal judgment: the discernment of what could, has to, or cannot happen. This ability was proposed to be a late outcome of human cognitive development, contingent on the mastery of linguistic structures. Here, we show that preschool-age children are capable of sophisticated forms of modal judgment. In two experiments, 96 children (aged 34–65 months) helped an agent attain a benefit or avoid harm. Consistent with logical distinctions, we found that children perform best when faced with choices that cross the logical categories of necessity, possibility, and impossibility, while they struggle with choices only differing in probability. Our results reveal that preschoolers spontaneously recruit logical concepts required for modal judgment, which likely predates modal language.</p>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Summary</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Rational plans and decisions under uncertainty hinge on modal judgment: the discernment between goals that are attainable, unattainable, or guaranteed.</li>\n \n <li>It has been proposed that modal concepts are not available prior to the age of 4 years and the acquisition of modal words like “can” and “have to.”</li>\n \n <li>In a novel paradigm, we found that preschoolers successfully make one-shot decisions between options that cross logical categories (i.e., necessity vs. possibility, possibility vs. impossibility).</li>\n \n <li>In contrast, 3-year-olds struggled when asked to compare probabilities within the same category (i.e., highly probable possibility vs. improbable possibility).</li>\n \n <li>Our findings reveal that young children have a logical understanding of modal categories that emerges spontaneously to guide their decisions and predates the mastery of modal language.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48392,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Science","volume":"28 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.70044","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The human capacity for rational decisions hinges on modal judgment: the discernment of what could, has to, or cannot happen. This ability was proposed to be a late outcome of human cognitive development, contingent on the mastery of linguistic structures. Here, we show that preschool-age children are capable of sophisticated forms of modal judgment. In two experiments, 96 children (aged 34–65 months) helped an agent attain a benefit or avoid harm. Consistent with logical distinctions, we found that children perform best when faced with choices that cross the logical categories of necessity, possibility, and impossibility, while they struggle with choices only differing in probability. Our results reveal that preschoolers spontaneously recruit logical concepts required for modal judgment, which likely predates modal language.

Summary

  • Rational plans and decisions under uncertainty hinge on modal judgment: the discernment between goals that are attainable, unattainable, or guaranteed.
  • It has been proposed that modal concepts are not available prior to the age of 4 years and the acquisition of modal words like “can” and “have to.”
  • In a novel paradigm, we found that preschoolers successfully make one-shot decisions between options that cross logical categories (i.e., necessity vs. possibility, possibility vs. impossibility).
  • In contrast, 3-year-olds struggled when asked to compare probabilities within the same category (i.e., highly probable possibility vs. improbable possibility).
  • Our findings reveal that young children have a logical understanding of modal categories that emerges spontaneously to guide their decisions and predates the mastery of modal language.
可能性的逻辑概念指导幼儿的决策
人类做出理性决定的能力取决于模态判断:对可能发生、必须发生或不能发生的事情的辨别。这种能力被认为是人类认知发展的晚期产物,取决于对语言结构的掌握。在这里,我们表明学龄前儿童有能力进行复杂形式的模态判断。在两项实验中,96名儿童(年龄34-65个月)帮助代理人获得利益或避免伤害。与逻辑上的区别一致,我们发现孩子们在面对跨越必要性、可能性和不可能性的逻辑类别的选择时表现最好,而他们在面对概率不同的选择时表现最好。我们的研究结果表明,学龄前儿童自发地吸收了模态判断所需的逻辑概念,这可能早于模态语言。在不确定的情况下,理性的计划和决策取决于模态判断:对可达到的、不可达到的或有保证的目标的区分。有人提出,在4岁之前无法获得情态概念,也无法获得情态词汇,如“can”和“have to”。在一个新的范例中,我们发现学龄前儿童成功地在跨逻辑类别的选项(即必要性与可能性,可能性与不可能性)之间做出一次决定。相比之下,3岁的孩子在被要求比较同一类别的可能性时(即非常可能的可能性与不太可能的可能性)会感到困惑。我们的研究结果表明,幼儿在掌握情态语言之前就自发地对情态类别有了逻辑理解,以指导他们的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
8.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: Developmental Science publishes cutting-edge theory and up-to-the-minute research on scientific developmental psychology from leading thinkers in the field. It is currently the only journal that specifically focuses on human developmental cognitive neuroscience. Coverage includes: - Clinical, computational and comparative approaches to development - Key advances in cognitive and social development - Developmental cognitive neuroscience - Functional neuroimaging of the developing brain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信