Is awesome really awesome? How the inclusion of informal terms on an AAC device influences children's attitudes toward peers who use AAC.

Giallo et al. (2006) asked if putting slang words like “awesome” on an AAC device makes peers like the user more. They ran a quasi-experiment in a school. Kids saw two versions of the same device: one with plain words and one with added informal terms. Then they answered questions about how much they liked the user.

Adding slang did not create a clear win. The main result was that grade level and gender shaped attitudes more than the vocabulary itself. No overall boost in liking appeared when “cool” words were present.

Morrison et al. (2017) extends this work by moving from attitudes to real interaction. They showed that peer-support arrangements tripled peer talk for students with CCN even though AAC use barely rose. The 2006 study warns that slang alone may not help; the 2017 study shows that structured peer roles do.

O’Brien et al. (2024) and Urrea et al. (2024) look at device features too, but focus on high- vs low-tech and vocabulary learning. Their reviews find mixed results, matching the null main effect seen here. Together they tell us that hardware and word choice matter less than how the tool is used and who is trained.

Bathelt et al. (2019) narrative review also stresses matching device features to user skills. Their takeaway aligns with R et al.: vocabulary content is only one piece; social context and partner training carry the real weight.

Before you add trendy words to a client’s device, run a quick social validity check with their actual classmates. Focus on teaching peers how to be good communication partners. Slang might be fun, but structured peer support gives you the bigger payoff in real conversation.