Jacqueline Woolley Lili 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 groupSanta ClausThe garbage man 3-year-olds year-olds year-olds 9-year-olds

 National Institutes of Health (NICHD) Grant R01 HD  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