[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# Children's use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning

## Details

**Authors** Harris et al.

**Year** 1996

**Publisher** Cognition

**Discipline** Human Development

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00715-9) 
10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00715-9

## In authors' words

### What they set out to do (purpose)

To research children's causal thinking.

### What they found (results)

The children were able to identify the protagonist's failure to choose a different course of action as the cause of the mistake. In the experimental stories, the kids chose to focus on the rejection of the alternative option.

## Commentary

### In short

Overall, this research demonstrates that young children have the ability to recognize and articulate the action and reactions within Relationships.

### In more detail

There is a widespread tendency to think of relationships as one thing leading to another, or cause and effect. Harris et al 1996 wrote that, “research on children's causal thinking has emphasized the perception of temporal and spatial contiguity between cause and effect.” Three experiments were designed to test a child’s ability and capacity for counterfactual thinking. Counterfactual thinking refers to the human tendency to create possible alternatives to events that have already occurred that are contrary to what actually happened. This is manifested in statements like "What if?" and "If I had only...". It is our desire to entertain how things could have been different, literally, counter to the facts of how things happened in reality.

In the first experiment, “children aged 3-5 years observed a sequence such as A causing B.” The children were able to accurately reply to a question relating to a counterfactual sequence (for example: "What if A had not occurred, then B or not B?"). For the second experiment, the children were asked about “two counterfactual antecedents”, one that would not have caused B, and one that would have also caused B. The children were able to differentiate between both types of antecedent. In the third experiment, children were told stories where the protagonist chose a course of action that either, “led to a minor mishap (e.g., drawing with a black pen and getting inky fingers), having rejected an option that would have prevented it in experimental stories (e.g., using a pencil) or an option that would have led to an equivalent outcome in control stories (e.g., using a blue pen).” The children were able to identify the protagonist's failure to choose a different course of action as the cause of the mistake. In the experimental stories, the kids chose to focus on the rejection of the alternative option. Overall, this research demonstrates that young children have the ability to recognize and articulate the action and reactions within Relationships.

**Patterns it shows** R

**How to cite this** Harris et al. (1996). Children's use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition.