Minimal representations of possibility at age 3

Abstract

Young children do not always consider alternative possibilities when planning. Suppose a prize is hidden in a single occluded container and another prize is hidden in an occluded pair. If given a chance to choose one container and receive its contents, choosing the singleton maximizes expected reward because each member of the pair might be empty. Yet, 3-y-olds choose a member of the pair almost half the time. Why don't they maximize expected reward? Three studies provide evidence that 3-y-olds do not deploy possibility concepts like MIGHT, which would let them represent that each container in the pair might and might not contain a prize. Rather, they build an overly specific model of the situation that correctly specifies that the singleton holds a prize while inappropriately specifying which member of the pair holds a prize and which is empty. So, when asked to choose a container, they see two equally good options. This predicts approximately 50% choice of the singleton, observed in studies 1 and 3. But when asked to throw away a container so that they can receive the remaining contents (study 2), they mostly throw away a member of the pair. The full pattern of data is expected if children construct overly specific models. We discuss whether 3-year-olds lack possibility concepts or whether performance demands prevent deployment of them in our tasks.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.