Appraisal of intentionality of action and understanding of effects of negative emotion expressions in children

The present study, following the approach used by Jenkins and Ball (2000), examined, with reference to age changes, children’s understanding of different effects of sadness, fear and anger expressions on social interaction, testing whether the appraisal of un/intentionality (Zammuner, 1993) of an agent, in causing a negative event that elicits sadness or anger or fear from a partner (the expresser), contributes to determine different emotional and behavioural reactions in the agent (the recipient) in relation to the nature of potentially elicited emotions. METHOD Subjects. The study tested 2 age groups: 6-7 and 9-11 year-olds; N total: 96. Material and Procedure. Children judged each of 6 vignettes that varied for (i) interpersonal Event (Rejection, Damage, Physical Harm), (ii) agent’s Un/Intentionality (e.g., agent damages an expresser’s object intentionally, vs agent damages object by accident), (iii) expressed Emotion (Sadness, Fear, Anger; N total vignettes 18). For each vignette, children answered open questions about (a) recipient’s reactions in terms of Felt emotions, and Action readiness and Behaviour (the recipient was also the un/intentional agent), (b) expresser’s intention in terms of Power feeling in the relationship, and of Goals. RESULTS The analyses of children’s answers about recipient’s reactions confirmed the relevance of the appraisal of Intentionality. In other words, children’s answers took into account whether the agent had provoked the aversive event intentionally or not, and which were the goals of the agent. When the agent’s behaviour was Intentional rather than Unintentional, expresser’s negative emotion elicited more ‘positive’ emotions from the recipient (e.g., the recipient - the agent who provoked the damage - feels happy to achieve his/her own goal), and recipient’s Felt emotions varied as a function of Event’s condition and type of expressed Emotion (e.g., Sadness expression elicited more frequently ‘positive’ emotions from the recipient in the Damage story, but not in the Rejection and Harm stories that elicited ‘sadness’; Anger expression elicited more anger in all Events than Sadness and Fear expressions). In contrast, results indicated that the expression of Fear and Sadness elicited frequently such behaviours as comfort, apology, and, in part, problem solving from the recipient. In response to Anger, the recipient more likely reacted by attacking the expresser, but only in the Intentionally condition; the likelihood of aggressive behaviours was influenced by type of Event (e.g., in intentional Harm story, Anger expression was associated to recipient’s action of apology). Finally, for all stories, Anger expression was associated with a power position, whereas Sadness and Fear with lack of power. CONCLUSION In sum the results showed that (i) children understand that the expression of sadness, anger and fear have different consequences for social interaction, (ii) children take into account the appraisal of the interpersonal components (agent’s un/intentionality in provoking negative events) to differentiate recipient’s emotional and behavioural reactions to expresser’s emotion, (iii) children’s knowledge varies across age levels. The results also suggest that (iv) children are cognizant of potential discrepancies between emotional internal experiences and socially acceptable behaviours.