Leena Mäkinen, Katja Dindar, Ilaria Gabbatore, Aija Kotila, Maria Frick, Hanna Ebeling, Soile Loukusa
{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.
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.