Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- sensitivity (2) (remove)
Institute
This study examines the discourse basis for referent accessibility and its relation to the choice of referring expressions by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and typically developing children. The aim is to delineate how the linguistic and extra-linguistic context affects referent accessibility to the speaker. The study also examines the degree to which accessibility effects are modulated by cognitive factors such as working memory capacity. In the study, the contrast levels between the referent and a competitor (one contrast/two contrasts) and the syntactic prominence of the referent (subject/object position in the preceding question) were manipulated in an elicited production task. The results provide evidence that the referring expressions of children with ASD correlate with the discourse status of referents to a similar extent as in typically developing controls. All children were more likely to refer with lexical NPs to referents that contrasted on two levels with a highly prominent competitor, compared to referents that contrasted on one level. They were also more likely to produce pronouns for referents previously mentioned in the subject than the object position. The effect of both discourse factors was modulated by the age and working memory capacity of the children with and without ASD. Accordingly, the study suggests that children with ASD do not generally differ from children with typical development in their referential choices when the discourse status of a referent allows them to model the referent's accessibility from their own discourse perspective in a way that is modulated by working memory capacity.
Objective:
Rejection sensitivity and justice sensitivity are personality traits that are characterized by frequent perceptions and intense adverse responses to negative social cues. Whereas there is good evidence for associations between rejection sensitivity, justice sensitivity, and internalizing problems, no longitudinal studies have investigated their association with eating disorder (ED) pathology so far. Thus, the present study examined longitudinal relations between rejection sensitivity, justice sensitivity, and ED pathology.
Method:
Participants (N = 769) reported on their rejection sensitivity, justice sensitivity, and ED pathology at 9-19 (T1), 11-21 (T2), and 14-22 years of age (T3).
Results:
Latent cross-lagged models showed longitudinal associations between ED pathology and anxious rejection sensitivity, observer and victim justice sensitivity. T1 and T2 ED pathology predicted higher T2 and T3 anxious rejection sensitivity, respectively. In turn, T2 anxious rejection sensitivity predicted more T3 ED pathology. T1 observer justice sensitivity predicted more T2 ED pathology, which predicted higher T3 observer justice sensitivity. Furthermore, T1 ED pathology predicted higher T2 victim justice sensitivity.
Discussion:
Rejection sensitivity-particularly anxious rejection sensitivity-and justice sensitivity may be involved in the maintenance or worsening of ED pathology and should be considered by future research and in prevention and treatment of ED pathology. Also, mental health problems may increase rejection sensitivity and justice sensitivity traits in the long term.