Kripke lightning

So, we have our doubts about the metaphysical implications of Kripke's argument. And much philosophical ink has been spilled arguing about conceivability and possibility. With that in mind, I came across a recent Susan Carey article entitled "Improbable or Impossible: How children reason about the possibility of extraordinary events". According to the abstract, children and adult were asked whether a bunch of weird events could or could not occur in real life. For example, just to give you an idea of some of the events they're talking about, 100% of the 4-year olds said that drinking onion juice was improbable but not impossible (yes, one has to read the method section closely to see how they could interpret the results in this manner), whereas only 8% of the 4-year olds thought that growing money on a tree, or turning applesauce back into an apple, was likewise improbable but not impossible.
Also, thinking about the lightning example from Place, here are some cool stats from the 4 year olds: 58% think that getting struck by lightning is improbable but not impossible, and 42% think that eating lightning for dinner [yes, a picture is included] is improbable but still possible.
Oh, the conclusion in the article (well, the abstract, haven't read the article) is that children generally are stricter with impossibility attributions than adults are. "Children intitially mistake their inability to imagine circumstances that would allow an event to occur for evidence that no such circumstances exist."
I'm guessing that this will ultimately have more philosophical significance for concepts, and conceptual development, than stuff pertaining to Kripke's modal intuitions, but who knows. Susan Carey is really at the top of the game in terms of philosophically-relevant psychology.
I'm also guessing that they didn't ask the subjects to imagine pain without the sensation of pain, but probably some experimental philosophers have jumped all over that one.