Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-gctlb Total loading time: 0.276 Render date: 2022-07-04T07:03:08.011Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Children's understanding of adverbs denoting degree of likelihood*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Cynthia Hoffner*
Affiliation:
Illinois State University
Joanne Cantor
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin – Madison
Diane M. Badzinski
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
*
Department of Communication, Illinois State University, Stevenson Hall, Normal, IL 61761, USA.

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine children's understanding of three terms that denote different degrees of likelihood: possibly, probably and definitely. In Study 1, children in preschool, and first, third and fourth grade completed a comparison task involving pairs of likelihood terms. Twelve stories were created that described the likelihood that each of two children would participate in an activity, and subjects judged which of the two children actually participated. In Study 2, children in preschool, and first, third and fifth grade evaluated separate statements describing three different children, each of whom was said to have a different estimate of the likelihood that a scary event depicted in a movie would actually occur. Subjects rated how scared each of the three children felt. The results of the two studies revealed that preschoolers showed very little comprehension of the meaning of any of the three words, but by fourth grade the majority of children distinguished among all three terms. Children understood the distinction between definitely and both of the other terms (possibly, probably) better than they understood the distinction between possibly and probably. This finding is consistent with research on the development of children's understanding of probability concepts. Unexpectedly, the distinction between probably and definitely seems to emerge at a younger age than the distinction between possibly and definitely. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for communicating verbal messages to children.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors would like to thank Robert M. Ogles for recording and editing the audiotapes used in Study i, and Quana Jew for reading the stories. The authors also acknowledge their appreciation to the Madison Metropolitan School District, and the staff and students of the participating schools: Orchard Ridge Elementary School and University Avenue Day Care, both in Madison, Wisconsin.

References

Beyth-Marom, R. (1982). How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting 1. 257–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budescu, D. V. & Wallsten, T. S. (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36. 391405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, J. (in press). Fright responses to mass media productions. In Bryant, J. & Zillmann, D. (eds), Responding to the screen: reception and reaction processes. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cantor, J. & Hoffner, C. (1987). Children's fear reactions to a televised film as a function of perceived immediacy of depicted threat. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, April.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: an introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1988). The acquisition of the meanings of modality in children aged eight and twelve. Journal of Child Language 15. 425–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. & Hansel, C. E. M. (1956). Risk and gambling. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dorr, A. (1983). No shortcuts to judging reality. In Bryant, J. & Anderson, D. R. (eds), Children's understanding of television. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. I. & Willis, M. R. (1981). Human nature and predictability. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Heath, L. (1984). Impact of newspaper crime reports on fear of crime: multimethodological investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47. 263–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhelder, B. (1977). The development of the concepts of chance and probability in children. In Overton, W. F. & McCarthy, J. (eds), Knowledge and development: advances in research and theory. Vol. 1. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Jones, L. V. & Wepman, J. M. (1966). A spoken word count. Chicago: Language Research Associates.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. (1975). On the acquisition of a semantic system. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 340–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. (1982). Acquisition of word meaning in the context of the development of the semantic system. In Brainerd, C. J. & Pressley, M. (eds), Verbal processes in children: progress in cognitive development research. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. & Newman, J. R. (1967). Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science 9. 563–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 1. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Marascuilo, L. A. & Levin, J. R. (1983). Multivariate statistics in the social sciences. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Morison, P., Kelly, H. & Gardner, H. (1981). Reasoning about the realities on television: a developmental study. Journal of Broadcasting 25. 229–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Reyna, V. F. (1981). The language of possibility and probability: effects of negation on meaning. Memory and Cognition 9. 642–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In Cacioppo, J. & Petty, R. (eds), Social psychophysiology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Scholz, R. W. & Waller, M. (1983). Conceptual and theoretical issues in developmental research on the acquisition of the probability concept. In Scholz, R. W. (ed.), Decision making under uncertainty. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Scott, C. M. (1984). Adverbial connectivity in conversations of children 6 to 12. Journal of Child Language 11. 423–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, C. E. (1986). Conversations with children. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition, New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Sparks, G. G. & Cantor, J. (1986). Developmental differences in fright responses to a television program depicting a character transformation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 30. 309–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephany, U. (1986). Modality. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J. (1974). Children's comprehension of comparative forms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 18. 293303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlek, C. & Stallen, P. J. (1980). Rational and personal aspects of risk. Acta Psychologica 45. 273300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R. & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115. 348–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S., Fillenbaum, S. & Cox, J. A. (1986). Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, A. C. (1984). A model for the interpretation of verbal predictions. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 20. 121–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Children's understanding of adverbs denoting degree of likelihood*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Children's understanding of adverbs denoting degree of likelihood*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Children's understanding of adverbs denoting degree of likelihood*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *