Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Oct 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Cogn Dev. 2004 Aug;5(3):359–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327647jcd0503_4

TABLE 2.

Proportion of Children in Study 2 Giving Each Type of Response for All Measures, as a Function of Category Information Given

Younger Characters
Older Characters
Puppy Girl Boy Dog Girl Boy
Valence
 Negative .024 .220 .341 .098 .415 .585
 Positive/neutral .976 .780 .659 .902 .585 .415
Reference to intent
 General intent language .098 .146 .049 .049 .049 .073
  Reference to deliberate intent .000 .024 .024 .000 .000 .049
  Reference to tangential intent .098 .122 .024 .049 .049 .024
 No intent language .902 .854 .951 .951 .951 .927
Evaluative trait words
 Yes .000 .024 .146 .049 .049 .341
 No 1.000 .976 .854 .951 .951 .659
Severity
 Very bad .098 .171 .317 .146 .195 .732
 A little bad .341 .488 .659 .610 .707 .244
 Not bad at all .561 .341 .024 .244 .098 .024
Mental state inference
 Yes .122 .293 .683 .171 .415 .829
 No .878 .707 .317 .829 .585 .171
Stability inference
 Yes .390 .439 .659 .537 .659 .854
 No .610 .561 .341 .463 .341 .146