“如果……,这个游戏对我来说会更好”:儿童对自己在游戏中的表现的反事实思考

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Marta Stragà, Angela Faiella, Ingrid Santini, Donatella Ferrante
{"title":"“如果……,这个游戏对我来说会更好”:儿童对自己在游戏中的表现的反事实思考","authors":"Marta Stragà, Angela Faiella, Ingrid Santini, Donatella Ferrante","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2022.2130428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In two studies, we investigated for the first time the content of children’s counterfactual thoughts about their own experiences. Results showed that the majority of children aged 8-13 were able to produce valid counterfactuals regarding an event that happened to them, despite not achieving an adult-level ability. Comparing counterfactual and prefactual thinking, in Study 1 we found that children showed the same temporal asymmetry previously found in adults: They focused on the controllable features of their experience more in prefactual than counterfactual thinking. However, in Study 2, comparing counterfactuals produced by children and adults after a task in which making errors became salient, children produced more controllable counterfactuals (modifying their own errors) than adults, who still focused on uncontrollable features (as in Study 1). These results suggest that the ability to reason counterfactually in complex and real-life situations is not yet fully developed at age 8-13 years, affecting counterfactual content.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“The game would have been better for me if…”: children’s counterfactual thinking about their own performance in a game\",\"authors\":\"Marta Stragà, Angela Faiella, Ingrid Santini, Donatella Ferrante\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2022.2130428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In two studies, we investigated for the first time the content of children’s counterfactual thoughts about their own experiences. Results showed that the majority of children aged 8-13 were able to produce valid counterfactuals regarding an event that happened to them, despite not achieving an adult-level ability. Comparing counterfactual and prefactual thinking, in Study 1 we found that children showed the same temporal asymmetry previously found in adults: They focused on the controllable features of their experience more in prefactual than counterfactual thinking. However, in Study 2, comparing counterfactuals produced by children and adults after a task in which making errors became salient, children produced more controllable counterfactuals (modifying their own errors) than adults, who still focused on uncontrollable features (as in Study 1). These results suggest that the ability to reason counterfactually in complex and real-life situations is not yet fully developed at age 8-13 years, affecting counterfactual content.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2130428\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2130428","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要在两项研究中,我们首次调查了儿童关于自身经历的反事实思维的内容。结果表明,大多数8-13岁的儿童能够对发生在他们身上的事件产生有效的反事实,尽管没有达到成人水平的能力。对比反事实思维和前事实思维,在研究1中,我们发现儿童表现出与成人相同的时间不对称性:他们在前事实思维中比在反事实思维中更关注经验的可控特征。然而,在研究2中,比较了儿童和成人在完成一个错误变得突出的任务后产生的反事实,儿童产生了更多的可控反事实(修改自己的错误),而成人仍然专注于不可控的特征(如研究1)。这些结果表明,8-13岁的儿童在复杂和现实生活中进行反事实推理的能力尚未完全发展,这影响了反事实内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“The game would have been better for me if…”: children’s counterfactual thinking about their own performance in a game
Abstract In two studies, we investigated for the first time the content of children’s counterfactual thoughts about their own experiences. Results showed that the majority of children aged 8-13 were able to produce valid counterfactuals regarding an event that happened to them, despite not achieving an adult-level ability. Comparing counterfactual and prefactual thinking, in Study 1 we found that children showed the same temporal asymmetry previously found in adults: They focused on the controllable features of their experience more in prefactual than counterfactual thinking. However, in Study 2, comparing counterfactuals produced by children and adults after a task in which making errors became salient, children produced more controllable counterfactuals (modifying their own errors) than adults, who still focused on uncontrollable features (as in Study 1). These results suggest that the ability to reason counterfactually in complex and real-life situations is not yet fully developed at age 8-13 years, affecting counterfactual content.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信