On the ability to provide evaluative comments: Further explorations of children\u27s narrative competencies

This study investigated the changing functions of evaluative devices in children\u27s narratives. The evaluative devices included (a) references to ‘frames of mind’, particularly to emotions, (b) character speech, (c) ‘hedges’, (d) negative qualifiers, and (e) causal connectors. Narratives were elicited from a 24-picture story book. The subjects were three groups of native English-speaking Americans (12 per group): five- and nine-year-old children and college undergraduate students. A quantitative comparison revealed that (i) adults used evaluative devices three times as often as five-year-olds, and two-and-a-half times as often as the nine-year-old children; (ii) adults used significantly more references to ‘frames of mind’ and ‘hedges’ than the children; and (iii) whereas five-year-olds used each evaluative type equally often, nine-year-olds and adults used references to ‘frames of mind’ significantly more than the other four evaluation types. A second analysis, focusing specifically on the discourse functions of references to ‘frames of mind’ revealed that, early on, this particular device is used to express a local evaluative perspective on particular events, while with increasing age it is used to signal the hierarchial organization of the story events. These findings are discussed with regard to two non-linguistic developmental achievements, the formation of event schemas and the formation of a theory of mind. © 1991, Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved

Interaction of psychosocial and physical risk factors in the causation of mammary cancer, and its prevention through psychological methods of treatment

Some 8059 healthy women (mean age 58 years) were studied in 1973 with the aim of establishing the presence or absence of a variety of physical and psychological risk factors for mammary cancer. Mortality was established in 1988, 15 years later. Both physical and psychological risk-factor predictors were highly significant. Physical risk factors were more predictive than psychological ones, but both interacted synergistically to predict mortality. Alone, psychological (stress) factors had little effect, while-physical factors did. However, psychological factors seemed to potentiate the effect of physical factors, particularly in the middle range. The causal relevance of psychological factors was established in a special intervention study using autonomy training as a method of prophylactic therapy and comparing outcome with the effects of no therapy (control)