Two representational abilities, expressive and receptive language and symbolic play, were assessed in multiple formats in hearing and deaf 2-year-old children of hearing and deaf mothers. Based on maternal report, hearing children of hearing and deaf mothers produced more words than deaf children of hearing mothers, hearing children of hearing mothers more words than deaf children of deaf mothers, and deaf children of deaf mothers more words than deaf children of hearing mothers. Based on experimenter assessments, hearing children in both groups produced and comprehended more words than deaf children in both groups. By contrast, no differences emerged among these groups in child solitary symbolic play or in child-initiated or mother-initiated child collaborative symbolic play; all groups also increased equivalently in symbolic play between solitary and collaborative play. Representational language and symbolic play were unrelated in hearing children of hearing mothers and in deaf children of deaf mothers, but the 2 abilities were associated in children in the 2 child/mother mismatched hearing status groups. These findings are placed in the context of a proposed developing modularity of verbal and nonverbal symbol systems, and the implications of hearing status in communicative exchanges between children and their mothers in diverse hearing and deaf dyads are explored.

IFS was supported as a framework for identifying nature scenes that people will generally prefer to view and that hold potential for restoration from emotional distress; however, greater therapeutic potential may be expected when people can choose which of the scenes they would prefer to view. Evidence for the effectiveness of the IFSS was produced.

No abstract

Background: Evidence supports the use of images of nature scenes in healthcare settings to reduce stress and improve emotional well-being. However, the literature is diverse and provides no integrated system to identify nature scenes that provide most therapeutic benefit. Objective: The current study aimed to validate and extend results of a correlational study that found the Importance for Survival Scale (IFSS) useful for selecting generally preferred nature scenes with therapeutic potential. Methods: The correlational study that tested the usefulness of the IFSS and the current qualitative study were components of a larger mixed-methods study. For the current study, general community participants ( N = 20 males, 20 females; mean age = 48 years) provided verbal responses to questions about thoughts and feelings associated with a selection of photographs of nature scenes. Data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Results: Themes and detailed descriptors associated with preference for, and emotional response to, most- and least-liked nature scenes were produced. A proportion of those themes is directly related to the construct of Importance for Survival (IFS), whereas other themes are better explained by alternative theoretical perspectives. Conclusions: Results uphold the IFSS as an effective tool for identifying generally preferred nature scenes with restorative potential, and provide information about the relative importance of IFSS subscales that may be used to further develop and refine the IFSS, as well as guide selection of restorative nature scenes. Results also provide fine-scaled descriptive information about preference for and emotional response to nature scenes.