Healthy and chronically‐ill children's generalisation of illness to biological and non‐biological categories

Abstract

Using children's naïve theory of biology as a framework, this study investigated children's developing understanding of illness by examining their generalisation of illness to biological and non-biological categories. In addition to differences associated with age, the children's health status was investigated for any possible links with their understanding. Healthy and chronically-ill children, aged 4-11 years, were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, according to which exemplar (child, dog or duck) was described as suffering from an imaginary illness. Using a card-sorting technique, the children assessed whether each entity out of 30 entities (five representatives in each of six categories: humans, mammals, non-mammals, birds, plants and artifacts) could be afflicted by that illness. The children's generalisations indicated a grasp of the distinctiveness of the various categories, although they seemed less certain about the biological status of plants. Furthermore, the type of exemplar on which the children had been taught influenced their responses. However, the children's reasoning appeared unaffected by their health status and largely unaffected by age or gender.

What do children learn about biology from factual information? A comparison of interventions to improve understanding of contagious illnesses

“…Rubovits & Siegel, 1994), other studies have revealed no such cognitive advantages in understanding (e.g. Buchanan‐Barrow, Bati, & Barrett, 2004; Eiser, Town, & Tripp, 1998; Shagena, Sandler, & Perrin, 1988).…”

Mapping children's and adolescents' judgment rules for assessing the risk of disease transmission from sick friends

“…The second expected judgment rule can be called “Contagion depends on type of physical contact.” Previous researchers found also that at least some children “regard actual physical contact as necessary for infection to take place” (Buchanan‐Barrow et al, , p. 436; Springer & Belk, ). Using such a rule, these children would judge the risk of illness transmission as non‐existent or extremely low when no contact with the friend had taken place, as moderately high in the case of limited contact, and as very high in the case of prolonged and repeated close physical contact, irrespective of type of illness (see Figure , second panel).…”

“…The first expected judgment rule can be called “Contagion can never be ruled out.” Previous researchers found that at least some young children “hold contagion and contamination to be the most likely causes of physical problems, regardless of the nature of illness/injury involved” and that they “believe that contagion and contamination occur, without any evident contact, through proximity or magic” (Buchanan‐Barrow, Barrett, & Bati, , p. 436). Using such a rule, they would judge the risk of illness transmission as possible in all cases.…”

A storybook method for exploring young children's views of illness causality in relation to the familial context

“…Much of the literature regarding the illness causality conceptualisations of young children is based on developmental models and features cognitive frameworks such as pre-operational thought (Bibace & Walsh, 1980;Brewster, 1982), domain knowledge (Markman & Gentner, 2001;Ross, Medin, Coley, & Atran, 2003) and vitalistic thinking (Inagaki & Hatano, 2002;Slaughter & Lyons, 2003). In many cases categories have been predetermined and data collection methods selected so that such categories of responses could be recorded and quantified (Buchanan-Burrow, Barrett, & Bati, 2004;Williams & Binnie, 2002). Socio-constructivist perspectives of children's learning and development attend to children's knowledge acquisition via active participation in socio-cultural contexts (Rogoff, 2003).…”