Children’s solutions of logical versus empirical problems: What’s missing and what develops?

This research examined the development of the ability to differentiate logical from empirical problems and the different ways in which children solve these problems. Thirty-two 4- and 5-year-olds, thirty-four 8- and 9-year-olds, and thirty-five 11- and 12-year-olds were given five questions regarding an imaginary character’s predictions as to where a ball would land after being dropped through a ‘tautology machine’. The questions examined encoding and recall of problems, children’s understanding of when evidence was necessary, and children’s evaluation of form and evidence. Data were analyzed in two ways: (1) by comparing differences across participants on component questions and (2) an individual analysis examining the consistency of responses to component questions across the problem set. Overall, the results indicated that: (1) sixth graders tended to differentiate logical from empirical problems while preschool and third grade children rarely did; (2) young children tend to ignore both the logical connective and the second half of problems-termed a ‘cut;’ (3) these cuts are less frequent when a problem is compatible with one empirical possibility; (4) cuts do not stem from encoding or recall errors, but seem to be the product of incomplete problem processing and (5) from third to sixth grade, children’s understanding of logical form increased as the rate of cuts decreased.     

A Discriminant Function Procedure for Identifying Abusing Parents

ABSTRACT: From 60 abusive parents was selected a sample of 15 males and 18 females, each identified as the primary abusive parent in the home. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory of each was subjected to a series of discriminant function analyses. Recognizing that sex is an important determinant in understanding and predicting child abuse, separate scales were derived for males, females, and sexes combined. A graph is included that allows for estimating the probability of an individual's being an abusive parent. Using these scales in conjunction with clinical interviews and medical history, there is thus an increased probability of identifying parents “at risk.” Content analyses of the scale items reflect specific conflict areas for males and females that make for increased understanding of the psychology of child abuse.