自闭症儿童和对照组儿童在回答错误信念问题时使用相似的策略

IF 1.8 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Intercultural Pragmatics Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1515/ip-2024-0003
Leena Mäkinen, Katja Dindar, Ilaria Gabbatore, Aija Kotila, Maria Frick, Hanna Ebeling, Soile Loukusa
{"title":"自闭症儿童和对照组儿童在回答错误信念问题时使用相似的策略","authors":"Leena Mäkinen, Katja Dindar, Ilaria Gabbatore, Aija Kotila, Maria Frick, Hanna Ebeling, Soile Loukusa","doi":"10.1515/ip-2024-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Difficulties in false belief reasoning are associated with autism spectrum. False belief tasks tend to be easy to administer and code, and thus are often used for testing purposes. However, the amount of information that can be gleaned from this type of assessment task goes beyond correct/wrong score attribution. Instead, fine-grained information may be derive from a detailed qualitative analysis of the content of the answers, as well as the strategies used to produce them. Moreover, the testing situation contains other interesting aspects, such as a child’s orientation to the task. Therefore, we examined both qualitatively and quantitatively the various ways children (15 autistic and 15 control children; mean age 7;5 years) responded to a false belief question. The false belief question was more difficult for the autistic than for the control children, but there was no statistically significant difference among the answering strategies between the groups. The answering strategies were mostly similar between the groups. Autistic children preferred to use nouns or locative pro-adverbs while answering, whereas control children used more versatile ways of answering, even though the length of the answers did not differ between the groups. When considering the orientation to the ongoing task, the autistic children had longer reaction times than the control children did. Some autistic children needed the researcher’s support to focus on the task, but in general, expressions of uncertainty or commenting during the task were not frequent among the children. The results of this study can be utilized in deepening our understanding of the abilities of autistic individuals and to develop sensitive ways to assess and support autistic children.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autistic children and control children use similar strategies when answering false belief questions\",\"authors\":\"Leena Mäkinen, Katja Dindar, Ilaria Gabbatore, Aija Kotila, Maria Frick, Hanna Ebeling, Soile Loukusa\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ip-2024-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Difficulties in false belief reasoning are associated with autism spectrum. False belief tasks tend to be easy to administer and code, and thus are often used for testing purposes. However, the amount of information that can be gleaned from this type of assessment task goes beyond correct/wrong score attribution. Instead, fine-grained information may be derive from a detailed qualitative analysis of the content of the answers, as well as the strategies used to produce them. Moreover, the testing situation contains other interesting aspects, such as a child’s orientation to the task. Therefore, we examined both qualitatively and quantitatively the various ways children (15 autistic and 15 control children; mean age 7;5 years) responded to a false belief question. The false belief question was more difficult for the autistic than for the control children, but there was no statistically significant difference among the answering strategies between the groups. The answering strategies were mostly similar between the groups. Autistic children preferred to use nouns or locative pro-adverbs while answering, whereas control children used more versatile ways of answering, even though the length of the answers did not differ between the groups. When considering the orientation to the ongoing task, the autistic children had longer reaction times than the control children did. Some autistic children needed the researcher’s support to focus on the task, but in general, expressions of uncertainty or commenting during the task were not frequent among the children. The results of this study can be utilized in deepening our understanding of the abilities of autistic individuals and to develop sensitive ways to assess and support autistic children.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intercultural Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intercultural Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-0003\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intercultural Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-0003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虚假信念推理困难与自闭症谱系有关。假想任务往往易于实施和编码,因此经常被用于测试目的。然而,从这类评估任务中可以收集到的信息量远不止正确/错误分数的归因。相反,从对答案内容的详细定性分析以及产生答案所使用的策略中,可以获得精细的信息。此外,测试情境还包含其他有趣的方面,如儿童对任务的定位。因此,我们对儿童(15 名自闭症儿童和 15 名对照组儿童,平均年龄 7.5 岁)回答错误信念问题的各种方式进行了定性和定量研究。自闭症儿童比对照组儿童更难回答虚假信念问题,但两组儿童的回答策略在统计学上没有显著差异。各组儿童的回答策略大多相似。自闭症儿童在回答时更喜欢使用名词或定位助词,而对照组儿童则使用更多的回答方式,尽管两组儿童的回答长度并无差异。在考虑对正在进行的任务的定向时,自闭症儿童的反应时间比对照组儿童长。有些自闭症儿童需要研究人员的帮助才能专注于任务,但总的来说,儿童在任务中不确定或发表评论的情况并不常见。本研究的结果可用于加深我们对自闭症儿童能力的了解,以及开发评估和支持自闭症儿童的敏感方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Autistic children and control children use similar strategies when answering false belief questions
Difficulties in false belief reasoning are associated with autism spectrum. False belief tasks tend to be easy to administer and code, and thus are often used for testing purposes. However, the amount of information that can be gleaned from this type of assessment task goes beyond correct/wrong score attribution. Instead, fine-grained information may be derive from a detailed qualitative analysis of the content of the answers, as well as the strategies used to produce them. Moreover, the testing situation contains other interesting aspects, such as a child’s orientation to the task. Therefore, we examined both qualitatively and quantitatively the various ways children (15 autistic and 15 control children; mean age 7;5 years) responded to a false belief question. The false belief question was more difficult for the autistic than for the control children, but there was no statistically significant difference among the answering strategies between the groups. The answering strategies were mostly similar between the groups. Autistic children preferred to use nouns or locative pro-adverbs while answering, whereas control children used more versatile ways of answering, even though the length of the answers did not differ between the groups. When considering the orientation to the ongoing task, the autistic children had longer reaction times than the control children did. Some autistic children needed the researcher’s support to focus on the task, but in general, expressions of uncertainty or commenting during the task were not frequent among the children. The results of this study can be utilized in deepening our understanding of the abilities of autistic individuals and to develop sensitive ways to assess and support autistic children.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
36.40%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Intercultural Pragmatics is a fully peer-reviewed forum for theoretical and applied pragmatics research. The goal of the journal is to promote the development and understanding of pragmatic theory and intercultural competence by publishing research that focuses on general theoretical issues, more than one language and culture, or varieties of one language. Intercultural Pragmatics encourages ‘interculturality’ both within the discipline and in pragmatic research. It supports interaction and scholarly debate between researchers representing different subfields of pragmatics including the linguistic, cognitive, social, and interlanguage paradigms. The intercultural perspective is relevant not only to each line of research within pragmatics but also extends to several other disciplines such as anthropology, theoretical and applied linguistics, psychology, communication, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and bi- and multilingualism. Intercultural Pragmatics makes a special effort to cross disciplinary boundaries. What we primarily look for is innovative approaches and ideas that do not always fit into existing paradigms, and lead to new ways of thinking about language. Intercultural Pragmatics has always encouraged the publication of theoretical papers including linguistic and philosophical pragmatics that are very important for research in intercultural pragmatics.
期刊最新文献
“You’re such an idiot, but I’m only joking”: The perception of mock impoliteness by British and Italian men and women Self-translations in multilingual workplace interaction Facing differences in conceptualizing “Face” in everyday interacting Interculturality and decision making: Pursuing jointness in online teams Autistic children and control children use similar strategies when answering false belief questions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1