{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/301516"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/301516","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Pretence and Counterfactual Reasoning: What is the nature of the relationship","abstract":"This study aims to explore the theoretical assertion that pretence and counterfactual reasoning involve the same cognitive mechanisms. However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the nature of the association between pretence and counterfactual reasoning (CFR), and the associations of these constructs with other cognitive abilities. This study investigated shared cognitive skills proposed to link pretence to counterfactual reasoning and explored whether an underlying cognitive capacity might explain the associations shared between the two. This study uses a large-scale observational design to test the relationship between pretence and counterfactual reasoning at a structural level. 189 typically developing children (Mage = 58 mths, SD = 4) completed measures of pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, executive functions (EFs) and receptive language. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess whether pretence and CFR measures each loaded on to latent factors. Hierarchical multiple repression analyses were used to assess predictors of scores on these factors. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to explore whether a second order ability explained common variance in CFR and Pretence latent variables. CFA results confirmed the latent pretence and CFR constructs emerged as predicted. Further these factors were significantly correlated with each other. The hierarchical multiple regression analyses identified inhibition as commonly accounting for unique variance in both latent constructs. SEM supported that a second-order factor, predicted by inhibition, accounted for the unique variance shared between pretence and counterfactual reasoning. The findings are discussed with reference to the theoretical supposition that pretence and counterfactual reasoning share cognitive mechanisms. Based on the results of this first study to model empirically a unifying theory of pretence and counterfactual reasoning, a tentative new theoretical model is proposed which is based on the idea of a general mental state model of an imaginary representational capacity influenced by inhibitory control.","abstract_html":"This study aims to explore the theoretical assertion that pretence and counterfactual reasoning involve the same cognitive mechanisms. However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the nature of the association between pretence and counterfactual reasoning (CFR), and the associations of these constructs with other cognitive abilities. This study investigated shared cognitive skills proposed to link pretence to counterfactual reasoning and explored whether an underlying cognitive capacity might explain the associations shared between the two. This study uses a large-scale observational design to test the relationship between pretence and counterfactual reasoning at a structural level. 189 typically developing children (Mage = 58 mths, SD = 4) completed measures of pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, executive functions (EFs) and receptive language. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess whether pretence and CFR measures each loaded on to latent factors. Hierarchical multiple repression analyses were used to assess predictors of scores on these factors. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to explore whether a second order ability explained common variance in CFR and Pretence latent variables. CFA results confirmed the latent pretence and CFR constructs emerged as predicted. Further these factors were significantly correlated with each other. The hierarchical multiple regression analyses identified inhibition as commonly accounting for unique variance in both latent constructs. SEM supported that a second-order factor, predicted by inhibition, accounted for the unique variance shared between pretence and counterfactual reasoning. The findings are discussed with reference to the theoretical supposition that pretence and counterfactual reasoning share cognitive mechanisms. Based on the results of this first study to model empirically a unifying theory of pretence and counterfactual reasoning, a tentative new theoretical model is proposed which is based on the idea of a general mental state model of an imaginary representational capacity influenced by inhibitory control.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Francis, Gill Althia"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Gibson, Jenny Louise"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2020,"date_issued":"2020-07-18","date_published":"2020-07-18","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:04Z","subjects":["Pretence","Counterfactual Reasoning","Imagination","Hypothetical Thinking","Cognitive Models"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/a15b876b-f65b-4aff-ad03-ba96c2e81f8a/download","https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.48585","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Gibson, Jenny Louise"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["Cambridge Lego Scholarship"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Francis, Gill Althia"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2020-07-18"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/301516"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Pretence","Counterfactual Reasoning","Imagination","Hypothetical Thinking","Cognitive Models"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/a15b876b-f65b-4aff-ad03-ba96c2e81f8a/download","https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["10.17863/CAM.48585"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/682a64d8-d65f-457a-8062-963310556d5c/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This study aims to explore the theoretical assertion that pretence and counterfactual reasoning involve the same cognitive mechanisms. However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the nature of the association between pretence and counterfactual reasoning (CFR), and the associations of these constructs with other cognitive abilities. This study investigated shared cognitive skills proposed to link pretence to counterfactual reasoning and explored whether an underlying cognitive capacity might explain the associations shared between the two. This study uses a large-scale observational design to test the relationship between pretence and counterfactual reasoning at a structural level. 189 typically developing children (Mage = 58 mths, SD = 4) completed measures of pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, executive functions (EFs) and receptive language. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess whether pretence and CFR measures each loaded on to latent factors. Hierarchical multiple repression analyses were used to assess predictors of scores on these factors. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to explore whether a second order ability explained common variance in CFR and Pretence latent variables. CFA results confirmed the latent pretence and CFR constructs emerged as predicted. Further these factors were significantly correlated with each other. The hierarchical multiple regression analyses identified inhibition as commonly accounting for unique variance in both latent constructs. SEM supported that a second-order factor, predicted by inhibition, accounted for the unique variance shared between pretence and counterfactual reasoning. The findings are discussed with reference to the theoretical supposition that pretence and counterfactual reasoning share cognitive mechanisms. Based on the results of this first study to model empirically a unifying theory of pretence and counterfactual reasoning, a tentative new theoretical model is proposed which is based on the idea of a general mental state model of an imaginary representational capacity influenced by inhibitory control."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["c135d0f038c0aceac5fea7ad6d076937","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Pretence and Counterfactual Reasoning: What is the nature of the relationship"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Gibson, Jenny Louise"],"dc:contributor.sponsor":["Cambridge Lego Scholarship"],"dc:creator":["Francis, Gill Althia"],"dc:date.issued":["2020-07-18"],"dc:description.abstract":["This study aims to explore the theoretical assertion that pretence and counterfactual reasoning involve the same cognitive mechanisms. However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the nature of the association between pretence and counterfactual reasoning (CFR), and the associations of these constructs with other cognitive abilities. This study investigated shared cognitive skills proposed to link pretence to counterfactual reasoning and explored whether an underlying cognitive capacity might explain the associations shared between the two. This study uses a large-scale observational design to test the relationship between pretence and counterfactual reasoning at a structural level. 189 typically developing children (Mage = 58 mths, SD = 4) completed measures of pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, executive functions (EFs) and receptive language. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess whether pretence and CFR measures each loaded on to latent factors. Hierarchical multiple repression analyses were used to assess predictors of scores on these factors. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to explore whether a second order ability explained common variance in CFR and Pretence latent variables. CFA results confirmed the latent pretence and CFR constructs emerged as predicted. Further these factors were significantly correlated with each other. The hierarchical multiple regression analyses identified inhibition as commonly accounting for unique variance in both latent constructs. SEM supported that a second-order factor, predicted by inhibition, accounted for the unique variance shared between pretence and counterfactual reasoning. The findings are discussed with reference to the theoretical supposition that pretence and counterfactual reasoning share cognitive mechanisms. Based on the results of this first study to model empirically a unifying theory of pretence and counterfactual reasoning, a tentative new theoretical model is proposed which is based on the idea of a general mental state model of an imaginary representational capacity influenced by inhibitory control."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["c135d0f038c0aceac5fea7ad6d076937","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["10.17863/CAM.48585"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/682a64d8-d65f-457a-8062-963310556d5c/download"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/301516"],"dc:rights":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/a15b876b-f65b-4aff-ad03-ba96c2e81f8a/download","https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/"],"dc:subject":["Pretence","Counterfactual Reasoning","Imagination","Hypothetical Thinking","Cognitive Models"],"dc:title":["Pretence and Counterfactual Reasoning: What is the nature of the relationship"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:04Z"}