Jacqueline WoolleyLili Ma

University of Texas

Children encounter novel entities frequently.

For all such entities, children must make reality status judgments.

For many of these entities, reality status is immediately apparent (e.g., the family dog).

However for many others, it is not; children very often hear about novel entities from other people and do not have the opportunity to interact with these entities.

How do children determine reality status? They use the context in which the novel

entity is encountered.◦ Woolley & Van Reet, 2006◦ Cox & Woolley, 2009

They weigh evidence for and against its existence.◦ Woolley, Boerger, & Markman, 2004◦ Tullos & Woolley, 2009

They ask questions.◦ Baxter & Sabbagh, 2003

What might children pick up from listening to direct statements and/or conversations?

Similarities in how we talk about real and not-real entities

Real entities with sensory affordances:◦ Existence is assumed in conversation.

“Put your book down on the table.” Real entities without sensory affordances:

◦ Existence is also assumed in conversation. “Wash your hands; they’re covered with germs!”

Not-real entities◦ Existence is also assumed in conversation.

“What did Santa Claus bring you this year?”

Not-real entities (or entities for which belief varies): “She still believes in Santa Claus.” “We believe in God.” “Fairies are not in real life.”

Real entities (belief does not vary):We do not say, “I believe in the garbage

man” or “cows are in real life.”

Do children use these cues to figure out reality status?◦ To what extent can children learn about reality

status simply from listening to talk? When do children become aware that we

imply reality status in the way we talk about things?◦ What is the relative effectiveness of explicit

statements of belief (e.g., “civets are real; I believe in civets”) versus simple inclusions in everyday talk (e.g., “I almost ran over a civet today”) in conveying belief?

Explicit belief◦ Do you know about civets? They are real. I believe in

civets.”

Explicit denial◦ Do you know about civets? They’re not real. I don’t

believe in civets.”

Implicit belief: Property statement + knowledge claim◦ Do you know about civets? They can move really fast. I

know a lot about civets.”

Implicit belief: Involvement in event◦ “Do you know what happened? I almost ran over a civet

when I was driving home! I almost hit the civet !”

Goals:◦ To make the situation more naturalistic and to

increase input Children can learn novel words through “overhearing”;

can they also learn about novel entities this way?◦ To include a clear case in which we could

demonstrate that children were willing to say that something was real

◦ To explore decrease between 5 and 7 on explicit belief trials Due to recognition of subjective nature of belief? Due to skepticism regarding experimental procedure?

Known real (control) Implicit belief: Involvement in event Explicit belief Explicit denial

3-year-olds not using talk, except for negative statements.◦ However exploratory follow-up analyses suggest

competence

Development between 5 and 7 in use of both explicit and implicit statements◦ Explore changes between 5 and 7

Are 5’s less competent in picking up conversational cues?

Are they more reluctant to accept testimony generally?

Conclusions and future research (cont.)

No clear evidence that children recognize that explicit expressions of belief imply ambiguity about reality status

Include older age groups (9-year-olds…) Validate intuitions with an adult sample

Percent Real:Age group Santa Claus The garbage

man

3-year-olds 70 78

5-year-olds 83 91

7-year-olds

9-year-olds

63

33

87

95

National Institutes of Health (NICHD) Grant R01 HD 030300

Graduate student extraordinaire: Ansley Tullos

Amazing honors student: Melissa McInnis Superb graphic assistance: Maliki Ghossainy Fabulous undergraduate research assistants:

Jamie Barstein, Sara Dimas, Brittany Kinard, Carol Leung, Kaitlin McLaughlin, Rachel Myerson, Cristina Porras, Oshma Raj