The attribution of hostile intent in mothers, fathers and their children

Child externalising symptoms are associated with a bias towards attributing hostile intent to others. We examined the role of parental attributions in the development of this hostile attribution bias in children. The parents of 134 children aged 5-7 years responded to hypothetical social scenarios examining a) their general tendency to attribute hostile intent to the ambiguous behaviour of others, and b) hostile attributions made specifically to their child. Children's own attributions of hostile intent and levels of externalising symptomatology were assessed. The results indicated that child externalising symptoms were positively associated with both a generalised tendency towards the attribution of hostile intent and child-specific hostile attributions in parents. Child externalising symptoms were themselves associated with hostile attributions made by the child. However, no direct associations were observed between parental and child attributions of hostile intent. Thus, although the results suggest a role for parental social information processing biases in the development of child externalising symptoms, a direct transmission of such biases from parent to child was not supported.

Parliamentary sovereignty, popular sovereignty, and Henry Parker's adjudicative standpoint

Discussions of popular sovereignty in early modern England have usually been premised upon a sharp distinction between ‘legal/constitutional’ forms of discourse (which merely interpret the law) and ‘political’ ones (which focus upon the right to make it). In such readings of the period, Henry Parker has a pivotal position as a writer who abandoned merely legalistic thinking. This chapter takes a different view. It argues that Parker’s major intellectual achievement was not so much to abandon legal/constitutional discourse as to offer a theorisation of its most distinctive features: he offered an account of a new kind of politics in which concern for ‘interests’ in property and in self-preservation replaced humanist concern with promotion of virtue. Parker drew upon ideas about representation best expressed by Sir Thomas Smith and ideas about law best expressed by Oliver St John. The theory he developed was not intended as a justification of legislative sovereignty, but of adjudicative supremacy. His picture of the two Houses as supreme adjudicators was meant to block the path to direct democracy. But the adjudicative standpoint they came to occupy presupposed that freeborn adults had ‘interests’ in life, liberty, and possessions. This had democratising implications.