Episodic Future Thinking in 4-Year-Olds, Poster Symposium: The who, what, where and when of episodic foresight development

The ability to project oneself into the future to pre-experience an event is referred to as episodic future thinking (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Only a relatively small number of studies have attempted to measure this ability in pre-school aged children (Atance & Meltzoff, 2005; Busby & Suddendorf, 2005ab, 2010; Russell, Alexis, & Clayton, 2010).Perhaps the most successful method is that used by Russell et al (2010). In this task, 3- to 5-year-olds played a game of blow football on one end of a table. After this children were asked to select tools that would enable them to play the same game tomorrow from the opposite, unreachable, side of the table. Results indicated that only 5-year-olds were capable of selecting the right objects for future use more often than would be expected by chance. Above-chance performance was observed in this older group even though most children failed the task because there was a low probability of selecting the correct 2 objects from a choice of 6 by chance.This study aimed to identify the age at which children begin to consistently pass this type of task. Three different tasks were designed in which children played a game on one side of a table, and then were asked to choose a tool to play a similar game on the other side of the table the next day. For example, children used a toy fishing rod to catch magnetic fish on one side of the table; playing the same game from the other side of the table required a different type of fishing rod. At test, children chose between just 2 objects: the tool they had already used, which would not work on the other side, and a different tool that they had not used before but which was suitable for the other side of the table. Experiment 1: Forty-eight 4-year-olds (M = 53.6 months, SD = 2.9) took part. These children were assigned to one of two conditions: a control condition (present-self) where the key test questions were asked in the present tense and an experimental condition (future-self) where the questions were in the future tense. Surprisingly, the results showed that both groups of 4-year-olds selected the correct tool at above chance levels (Table 1 shows the mean number of correct answers out of three). However, the children could see the apparatus when they answered the test questions and so perhaps answered them correctly without imagining the future. Experiment 2: Twenty-four 4-year-olds (M = 53.7, SD = 3.1) participated. Pre-schoolers in this study experienced one condition: future-self looking-away. In this condition children were asked to turn their backs to the games when answering the test questions, which were in the future tense. Children again performed above chance levels on all three games.Contrary to the findings of Russell et al. (2010), our results suggest that episodic future thinking skills could be present in 4-year-olds, assuming that this is what is measured by the tasks. Table 1. Mean number of correct answers across the three games in Experiments 1 and 2Experimental Conditions (N=24 in each condition)Mean CorrectStandardDeviationStatistical SignificanceExp. 1 (present-self, look) – 2 items2.750.68p < 0.001Exp. 1 (future-self, look) – 2 items 2.790.42p < 0.001Exp. 2 (future-self, away) – 2 items 2.330.64p < 0.001Exp. 3 (future-self away) – 3 items1.210.98p = 0.157

Emergence of episodic future though in pre-school aged children

Three experiments examined the development of episodic future thinking: the ability to think ahead about novel future situations (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Each experiment used three novel tasks, similar to the Blow Football task used by Russell, Alexis, and Clayton (2010). In each, there was a different table top with two sides. Children played a game on one side of a table, and then were asked to choose a tool to play with a similar game on the other side of the table the next day. For example, children used a toy fishing rod to catch magnetic fish on one side of the table; playing the same game from the other side of the table required a different type of fishing rod. At test, children chose between 2 or 3 tools: a) the tool they used today, b) the tool suitable for the other side (correct) and c) a distractor tool which was not suitable for either side. In Experiment 1, 24 four-year-olds selected 1 out of 2 tools for tomorrow. Children selected the correct item above chance level in all tasks (p < 0.001). In Experiment 2, in which children were not allowed to look at the apparatus when choosing, 21 three-year olds selected 1 out of 2 tools for tomorrow. This group also selected the right tool above chance level in all tasks (p < 0.001).The results of Experiments 1 and 2 imply that 3- and 4-year olds might indeed show episodic future foresight. However, they could have also selected the right tool by default. To control for this, a third tool distractor was introduced in Experiment 3. This time, 3-4 year olds did not perform above chance levels, suggesting that there is an alternative explanation as to why they performed so well in the previous two experiments.