CHILDREN'S EXPERIENCE OF THREE TYPES OF CARTOON AT TWO AGE LEVELS*

Three cartoons were shown to 87 children at two age levels: 5–6 years, and 9 years. The children's experience was assessed in interviews. The younger children experienced the cartoons in a fragmentary manner and not as a continuous story, understood less of the cartoons, and tended to base their moral judgements of a character's behaviour on whether or not they identified with that character. Six months later, the younger children remembered best those scenes that had made them the most anxious earlier. A subgroup of children with abundant aggressive fantasies had a lower level of moral reasoning than the other children, preferred violent scenes, became less anxious while watching them and tended to give illogical explanations for the behaviour of the cartoon characters. The degree of anxiety provoked by a cartoon depended not on the amount of explicit violence shown but on the way the violence was presented. One cartoon, which contained no explicit violence, was considered the most frightening one due to its sound effects.     

Aggression and Sociometric Status among Peers: Do Gender and Type of Aggression Matter?

The connections between the use of different types of aggression (direct physical, direct verbal, and indirect) and sociometric status among same-sex and opposite-sex peers were studied. The subjects were 209 ninth-grade adolescents. Although an adolescent's aggression in general was related to being rejected by peers, a different picture emerged when the shared variance between types of aggression was controlled: The partial correlations showed that when the level of direct (physical and verbal) aggression was kept constant, increases in indirect aggression did not explain variance in peer rejection scores. On the contrary, the use of indirect aggression contributed (especially among boys) to social acceptance by peers. The direct (physical and verbal) forms of aggression were unrelated to adolescents' social acceptance scores. No clear differences were detected between girls' and boys' acceptance or rejection of their aggressive peers, despite the finding that boys seemed to tolerate indirect aggression better than girls did.     

How do the victims respond to bullying?

Reactions to harassment of victims of bullying were studied. One issue was, what kind of behavior on the part of the victim is likely to a) make the others start or continue bullying or b) diminish bullying or put an end to it. Altogether 573 pupils (286 girls, 287 boys) from 11 Finnish schools served as subjects: 67 of them (33 girls, 34 boys) were identified as victims of bullying. Both peer- and self-evaluations were used as methods of the study. Three subscales, describing counteraggressive, helpless, and nonchalant behavioral responses to bullying were established on the basis of peer-evaluations of the victims' behavior. Three different subtypes of victims (the Counteraggressive, the Helpless, and the Nonchalant) were identified. Helplessness and nonchalance were found to be typical responses of the girl victims, while boy victims tended to react to bullying with counteraggression or nonchalance. The victims' self-evaluations of their behavior supported these views. Helplessness and counteraggression in the case of girl victims and counteraggression in the case of boy victims were perceived as making the bullying start or continue. The absence of helplessness in the case of girl victims, and nonchalance as well as the absence of counteraggression in the case of boy victims were perceived as making the bullying diminish or stop. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Language‐Games and Relativism: On Cora Diamond's Reading of Peter Winch

We will look critically at three essays by Cora Diamond concerning Peter Winch's views on the possibility of communication and criticism between language‐games. We briefly present our understanding of Winch's approach to philosophy. Then, we argue that Diamond misidentifies Winch's views, taking them to imply language‐game relativism or linguistic idealism. When she does raise valid criticisms against language‐game relativism, her critical points mainly coincide with things that Winch has already stressed in his own work. That leaves us with the question what their real disagreement amounts to. Finally, we suggest that at the bottom of Diamond's objections lies her failure to appreciate Winch's insights about the place of logic in human intercourse.