Seven‐ and 9‐year‐old children were presented with drawings which depicted two ambiguous action‐outcome sequences and asked to make judgements about the intention of an actor towards another, and then to provide an explanation for the judgement. The design incorporated two levels of actor valence (nice, bad) with two types of outcome quality (good, bad). Judgements were influenced by both valence and outcome factors, but no age effect emerged. Content analysis of the explanations did reveal an age difference in reasoning about social judgements which was associated with the bad outcome. Nine‐year‐olds used more inference‐based explanations which reflected a more objective appraisal of the incident. The explanations of the younger children tended to be dominated by the immediacy of the situation. The findings further highlighted the importance of consistency between actor valence and outcome information relative to the direction of the child's judgement. Inconsistency arising in the context of a bad outcome situation elicited more rigorous explanations from th