Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

likely than not the car being discussed belongs to the stranger, and the child may imagine Tommy should
hijack the stranger’s car. Regardless, while the report of resistance is indistinct, the child believes that
Tommy should “run away.” This response, with respect to the Psychology student-averaged Stanger
Resistance and Reporting rating scale, receives a rating of 6: a relatively strong score. While this score is
relatively high, before finalizing it, one must explore the participant’s other responses so as to make a wellrounded
analysis.
A strong gap of what the child “knows”—or regurgitated—versus what he actually understands is
very apparent in his next two responses. Being prompted, “What do you think Tommy will do? Why?,” the child
participant responds “Come out to the farm, because the man put him back and then he come out.”
Likewise, when asked “The man told Tommy to look at the picture of the puppy. Should Tommy do what the man
said? Why? Why not?,” the child responds “Yes, because he was running and he has to go to McDonald’s.”
These very creative responses reflect the social cognition of a child in the pre-operational stage of
cognitive development. While the child knows that a social response is required, he does not possess the
logic to accurately answer the question. So, the child creates an imaginative script to provide an answer,
and like the script in a play or movie, the words are saying something, but that something does not reflect
reality. The child’s thoughts are more of a story than a report of fact. These responses are strong evidence
that the four-year-old child participant has very limited social cognition to understand the task being
presented.
Due to this factor, it is very likely that the child’s previously seemingly measurable recognition
(“There is a man,”) and resistance (“Run away in the car. Because there is a man and he doesn’t wanna get in
the car,”) cannot accurately be measured as precise reports of recognition and resistance—with the child’s
other responses in retrospect, it is more probable that these two responses regarding recognition and
resistance are a script the child provides rather than an actual measure of understanding. As demonstrated
213