New w/ @drbarner.bsky.social! We argue that children's struggle to represent the past and future in common tests of knowledge may stem from difficulties in hypothetical reasoning about imaginary timelines, rather than a lack of knowledge about time. 1/n
academic.oup.com/chidev/advan...
This contrasts with what is found for other pragmatic inferences, which are typically more effortful.
These findings may also help explain why kids often treat "if" like "if and only if", since the perfected meaning may simply be easier to access than the literal one.
Two studies using RT and cognitive load show that conditional perfection comes fast and first.
Even biscuit conditionals like “If you’re hungry, there’s pizza in the fridge,” which don’t imply a dependency, were often interpreted as perfected under load, and their literal meanings took longer.
Now out in Open Mind!
@drbarner.bsky.social and I find that when people hear a conditional statement like “If you mow the lawn, you’ll get $5,” they often interpret it as “only if you mow the lawn”, a pragmatic, perfected meaning.
doi.org/10.1162/opmi...
This new project by the 🎉fantastic🎉 @ebruevcen.bsky.social shows in 4 studies that people’s first understanding of conditionals is pragmatic - using RT data, then with a cognitive load task. This is contrary to what’s found for other pragmatic inferences w/ interesting implications for acquisition.
New preprint w @drbarner.bsky.social! When you hear, "If you mow the lawn, you’ll get $5," do you immediately think, "No $5 if I don't?" Turns out, that's no coincidence - we show that people start with pragmatic interpretations of conditionals, considering literal ones when necessary.
osf.io/mv3y8
