Combining forces for causal reasoning: Predictions and explanations

Reasoning and talking about causal relations are prevalent in our everyday lives and are essential functions of early cognitive development. Across two studies, the present thesis investigated 4- to 6-year-olds' intuitive reasoning behind predicting the outcome of physical causal interactions, and their explanations about why the outcomes of such interactions happened. The force dynamics model (FDM) of causal language and cognition provided a framework in which the experimental tasks were designed upon. In this framework, configurations depicting the relations of Cause, Enable, Prevent, and Despite were investigated. In Study 1 (N = 58), we examined 4-year-olds' predictions about the endpoint of a ball's motion under the FDM configurations of Cause, Enable, Prevent-180°, and Prevent-90°. Cause was the easiest due to having one force, and Prevent-90° was the most difficult to predict due to the forces being placed on two dimensions. Furthermore, predictions were more accurate when participants estimated the motion's Direction, while estimating Distance aggravated reasoning. In Study 2 (N = 36), we examined 4- to 6-year-olds' predictions using Study 1's task with the addition of Despite configurations. Critically, we introduced a novel explanation task that elicited children to explain the FDM relations. We also included a causal verb production task. Results of the prediction task replicated those of the Study 1. Moreover, all configurations were accurately explained, but the most basic (Cause) and complex (Prevent-90°) trials were explained in least detail. However, there were no associations between children's causal verb production, explanation scores, and prediction accuracy. In general, we showed that 4- to 6-year-olds can reason about complex physical interactions in terms of both nonverbal predictions and verbal explanations. Older children performed better than younger children with both tasks. In particular, predictions got gradually less accurate as trials got more complex, while explanations were better with trials with intermediate complexity. Predictions and explanations shared similar patterns, but children's performances in those tasks were not associated. In conclusion, these findings suggest that 4- to 6-year-olds can reason and talk about complex causal relations by combining forces. Nevertheless, predicting and explaining these may not be fully related at this age.