How does causality affect children's perception of time?

Lorimer, S. (2017). How does causality affect children's perception of time?. Poster session presented at Societyfor Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Austin, United States.

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.

Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:01. May. 2022

1. BackgroundIn adults, it is well-established that two events are perceived as occurring closer to one another in time when they are causally related, a phenomenon known as Causal Binding (Moore & Obhi, 2012). This phenomenon suggests that causal representations can influence our experience of time, leading to causal binding being proposed as an implicit measure of causal beliefs and agency (Moore & Obhi, 2012). Unfortunately, little is known about the developmental origins of causal binding as only one study has tried, unsuccessfully, to elicit binding in children (Cavazzana, Begliomini & Bisiachhi, 2014). These researchers claimed that binding requires cognitive processes beyond those possessed by children. However, the task used was highly demanding for children which may be why binding was not found.

2.Aims & HypothesisThe aim of the current study is to use a child-friendly task in the hopes of successfully eliciting binding in children and adults. The task will involve participants categorizing the delays between two events as one of four durations to which they had previously been exposed, and trained to distinguish between.It is hypothesized that binding will be observed in both adults and children using this novel, simplified methodology.

3. MethodParticipants: Thirty-six adults (mean age 277.91 months), thirty-three 9-10 year-olds (mean age 125.12 months), twenty-six 7-8 year-olds (mean age 100.38 months), and thirty 6-7 year-olds (mean age 81.90 months) participated. Procedure: Participants underwent a period of temporal training which enabled them to distinguish between four target durations; 200ms, 400ms, 600ms and 800ms. Each of the four durations were represented by a circle segment on a response box. After this participants completed a block of 24 trials for the causal condition and 24 trials for the non-causal condition.

1. Temporal Training“The circle fills in as time passes, the longer the star stays on the screen for, the more of the circle will get filled-in

[¼ circle = 200 ms, ½ circle = 400 ms, ¾ circle = 600 ms and circle completed filled = 800 ms].”

“How much of the circle could have filled in while the star was on the screen?”

1. Causal Condition“When you press the launch button the rocket gets ready to launch. Press this button to launch the rocket. How

much of the circle do you think would have filled in while the rocket was getting ready to launch?”

2. Non-Causal Condition“The circle in the middle of the rocket flashes and gives off a beep to tell you it’s getting ready to launch. How

much of the circle do you think would have filled in while the rocket was getting ready to launch?”

4. ResultsThe average response given to each of the three delays was calculated. A three-way mixed factor ANOVA with age, condition and delay as factors was conducted. A significant main effect of delay was found, F(1.46 , 174.17) = 264.23, p < .01, ƞ2=0.69, indicating participants accurately distinguished between the target delays. There was also a significant main effect of condition, F(1. , 119) = 47.26, p < .01, ƞ2=0.28, with temporal estimates being lower in the causal condition, suggesting the presence of causal binding.

Additionally, there was a significant interaction between age-group and delay F(4.39, 119) = 22.61, p < .01, ƞ2=0.36, suggesting a developmental change in the ability to accurately distinguish between the target durations. Age did not interact with condition (F < 1), indicating no developmental change in the magnitude of the binding effect.

5. Conclusions• These findings are the first to show causal binding in children.• These results run contrary to those presented by Cavazzana et al. (2014) and contradict their conclusion that

binding requires processes that are beyond the cognitive limitations of children.• The findings indicate that the temporal perception of children as young as 6 years-old is influenced by their

representations of the causal relations between events, just as it is in adults.• The methodology employed within this study may provide a blueprint that will enable future research to

probe children’s implicit causal beliefs, as has been done with adults. • These findings provide a starting point for exploration into the validity of causal binding as an implicit

measure of causal beliefs; a question which is currently debated within adult research literature (Saito et al., 2015).

6. ReferencesCavazzana, A., Begliomini, C., & Bisiacchi, P. S. (2014). Intentional binding effect in children: insights from a new paradigm. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.Moore, J. W., & Obhi, S. S. (2012). Intentional binding and the sense of agency: a review. Consciousness and cognition, 21(1), 546-561.Saito, N., Takahata, K., Murai, T., & Takahashi, H. (2015). Discrepancy between explicit judgement of agency and implicit feeling of agency: implications for sense of agency and its disorders. Consciousness and cognition, 37, 1-7.

How Does Causality Affect Children’s Time Perception?Sara Lorimer, Teresa McCormack, Marc Buehner, Emma Blakey, David Lagnado, and Christoph Hoerl

DELAY 300MS,

500MS OR 700MS

DELAY 300MS,

500MS OR 700MS

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

300ms 500ms 700ms 300ms 500ms 700ms 300ms 500ms 700ms 300ms 500ms 700ms

6-7 year-olds 7-8 year-olds 9-10 year olds Undergraduates

Pe

rce

ive

d D

ela

y (m

s)

Age Group

Average Estimate of Delay by Condition and Age

Causal

Non-Causal