Children's Counterfactual Reasoning About Causally Overdetermined Events

In two experiments, one hundred and sixty-two 6- to 8-year-olds were asked to reason counterfactually about events with different causal structures. All events involved overdetermined outcomes in which two different causal events led to the same outcome. In Experiment 1, children heard stories with either an ambiguous causal relation between events or causally unrelated events. Children in the causally unrelated version performed better than chance and better than those in the ambiguous condition. In Experiment 2, children heard stories in which antecedent events were causally connected or causally disconnected. Eight-year-olds performed above chance in both conditions, whereas 6-year-olds performed above chance only in the connected condition. This work provides the first evidence that children can reason counterfactually in causally overdetermined contexts by age 8.     

Demystifying the magic of language: Critical linguistic case analysis of legitimation of authority

This study is an analysis two pieces of discourse which were embedded within a larger conflict in a religious organization over leadership and authority. Faced with a direct challenge to their authority, the elders of the church sought to legitimize their leadership through linguistic performances. Principles from linguistic criticism were used to analyze the nature of the challenge to authority and the resulting legitimation attempt. Specifically the discourse was analyzed in terms of transitivity, modality, grammatical transformations, classifications, speech acts, and implicatures.

The study found that syntactic and semantic structures that challenged authority were ironic, filled with internal contradictions, inviting multiple readings. The most potent linguistic strategy employed was implicature which created double binds for the elders of the church and for members. The elders were disadvantaged in being forced to make any kind of statement regarding their authority. They walked a fine line in trying to place responsibility on the other side for the conflict without appearing to be victims.     

An evaluation of the “FRIENDS for Life” programme among children presenting with autism spectrum disorder

“FRIENDS for Life” is a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme which aims to reduce anxiety and promote resilience among children. This study evaluated the “FRIENDS for Life” (FRIENDS) programme used as an intervention for seven children between the ages of 10 and 11 presenting with high functioning autism spectrum disorder (HFA) who attend mainstream schooling. The study adopts a mixed methodology, explanatory research design, which included pre- and post-quantitative anxiety scales, parental interviews completed post-intervention, narrative observation of FRIENDS sessions and a post-intervention children’s evaluation questionnaire. Quantitative findings from this study suggest that participation in the “FRIENDS” programme does not reduce anxiety levels to promote resilience. Such results are discussed with regard to the utility of using standardised self-report measures among children with HFA. Despite this, qualitative information indicates that “FRIENDS” can be made accessible for children with HFA. Recommendations and implications for future research and FRIENDS implementations are outlined.