Children’s Use of Evaluative Devices in Response to the Global TALES Protocol

Abstract

Introduction: It has been well established that the function of sharing personal narratives is to inform the listener about what the event meant to the narrator, for example, by using a range of evaluative devices. The use of these evaluative devices may reflect a person’s understanding of the differences between one’s own mind and others, by expressing their beliefs, emotions, thoughts, and desires. This paper investigates children’s use of evaluative devices when producing personal narratives in response to the six emotion-based prompts contained in the Global TALES protocol (excited, worried, annoyed, proud, problem situation, something important). It addresses three research questions: (1) What types and proportions of evaluative devices do 10-year-old English-speaking children use in response to the six prompts contained in the Global TALES protocol and are there differences in performance between boys and girls? (2) What are the correlations between the different types of evaluative devices? (3) Does children’s use of evaluative devices differ depending on the type of prompt used? Methods: Eighty-two native English-speaking ten-year-old children from three English-speaking countries (Australia, New Zealand, and the USA) participated. None of the children had been identified with language and/or learning difficulties. Children’s personal narratives were transcribed and analysed for the use of 12 evaluative devices: compulsion, internal emotional states, evaluative words, intensifiers, mental states, causal explanations, hypotheses, objective judgements, subjective judgements, intent, negatives, and repetition. Results: Results showed that children use a high number of evaluative devices, with “intensifiers” and “evaluative words” used most frequently. There were few effects for sex, apart from girls using a wider range of evaluative devices than boys. We found moderate to large correlations between most devices, with factor analysis revealing three factors we labelled “causality,” “hypothesis,” and “judgement.” Although there were significant overall effects for prompt type on the use of evaluative devices, there was no clear pattern when inspecting responses to individual prompts. Conclusion: The results from this study shed light on children’s use of evaluative devices to convey the meaning of their personal narratives in response to six different prompts tapping into different emotions. Moving beyond appraising children’s structural language skills when narrating their personal experiences may enhance the understanding of interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of theory of mind, which may inform clinical practices, such as individualized goal setting and intervention choices.