Exploring the Link Between Moral Emotion Label Knowledge

Exploring the Link Between Moral Emotion Label Knowledge and Moral Judgment in Preschool-Aged Children Meredith A. Henry and Pamela Blewitt Villanova University Introduction q. Moral development researchers acknowledge multiple, complexly inter-related sources of individual differences in children’s moral development (e. g. , Kochanska et al. , 2009). q. Parental warmth and responsiveness is one of the many interacting sources of individual differences in children’s conscience development, making internalization of parental rules more likely (Kochanska, 1993). q. Parental warmth and responsiveness also fosters communication about emotions (Kochanska, 1993), and affective communication with parents also appears to promote children’s conscience development (e. g. , Dunn et al. , 1995). q. Affective communication should also help children acquire vocabulary for describing emotions. Therefore, children who can talk about emotions should be more advanced in moral development. This idea is supported by findings that preschoolers’ knowledge of basic emotion labels (e. g. , happy, sad, angry, scared) is correlated with their performance on moral judgment tasks (Denham, 1986). q. Perhaps learning to label emotions, including emotions specifically related to morality (e. g. , guilt, shame), also plays a causal role in children’s moral development. q. This study is a first step toward testing this view by establishing that when preschoolers know emotion labels, including specific labels for moral emotions, their moral development is more advanced, and that knowledge of emotion labels is a predictor of moral judgment regardless of children’s overall verbal skill. Research Goals 1. To replicate Denham’s (1986) finding that preschoolers who know basic emotion labels (e. g. , scared) are more advanced in moral judgment. 2. To determine whether better performance on moral judgment tasks is specifically associated with children’s emotion label knowledge per se and not just with general verbal skill. 3. To determine whether preschoolers have any knowledge of more specific, moral emotion labels (e. g. , guilt), and, if so, whether such knowledge contributes unique variance to the prediction of children’s moral judgment. Special thanks to Michael Shelfer for providing original transgression story illustrations. meredith. henry@villanova. edu or pamela. blewitt@villanova. edu Method Participants: 40 middle-class, mostly white 4 -year-olds (31 males; mean age = 58 months) Procedure: • Pre-test session: PPVT-IV administered to assess basic verbal IQ. • Test session: 1. Affective Labeling Test assessing basic emotion labels (from Denham, 1986) Results and Discussion Data were entered into a series of two-step hierarchical regression analyses, with children’s verbal IQ scores (PPVT-4) and their total basic emotion label knowledge scores (Denham’s Affective Labeling Test) entered at the first step and their scores on the various parts of the Moral Emotion Label Interview entered in the second step. 1. Basic emotion label knowledge did predict moral judgment scores, replicating Denham (1986). 2. General verbal IQ did not significantly predict moral judgment scores, replicating Kochanska (1991) and in contrast with Dunn et al. (1995). It therefore appears that Ø Expressive task: “How does (point to face) he/she feel? (2 points for correct label, 1 point for correct valence, total possible = 8 points) Ø Receptive task: “Will you point to the happy/scared/sad/angry face? (2 points for correct face, 1 point for face with correct valence, total possible = 8 points) 2. Moral Judgment Interview (from Kochanska, 1996): ØChildren heard three vignettes accompanied by original illustrations. In each story, a child the same age and gender as the participant commits some transgression. For example, “Sharon is playing with a brand new toy, a puppet. It was a gift from Grandma the day before. Now, another girl, Janet, begins to watch her. Janet says: “I want to play with the puppet now. Give it to me. Sharon tells her that she wants to play with her puppet some more. But Janet just takes the puppet away from her. ” ØChildren take the role of the transgressor and answer questions such as “How would you feel (happy, bad)? ” “What happens next? ” ØScoring: Affective moral orientation – from 1 point for hedonistic (I would feel good) to 6 points for internalized (I would feel sad thinking about it later). Story completion (reparation) – from 1 point for no proposed resolution to 4 points for proposing to make a reparation. Discomfort intensity – based on children’s selection of pictured faces depicting a range of positive and negative emotional intensity. 3. Moral Emotions Label Interview assessing moral emotion label knowledge (for guilt & shame): “WALL-E heard a little girl (boy) say that she (he) was feeling guilty (ashamed). Can you tell him…” • What might have just happened? (Antecedents) 3. Moral label knowledge added significant variance to children’s moral judgment scores when children’s knowledge of the antecedents of the words guilt and shame was used as the measure of moral label knowledge. Taken together these findings support the view that specific types of vocabulary knowledge play an important role in children’s conscience development. That is, it is not simply verbal skill, such as having a good vocabulary, that is critical. Rather, the type of vocabulary, specifically recognition and understanding of labels for basic and moral emotions, are key factors linked with better conscience development. Knowledge of emotion labels may arise as a result of meaningful communication about emotions experienced in the home. Dunn et al. (1995) found that if mothers spent time explaining why certain emotions might be felt when they were helping their 2 - to 3 -year-olds resolve conflicts, their children performed better on conscience measures in kindergarten and first grade than other children. In this study, children who showed more knowledge of moral emotion labels made more sophisticated moral judgments. For example, when they explained why they would feel a certain way after a transgression, they couched their responses in relationshiporiented or empathetic terms, rather than expressing hedonistic or authority-oriented concerns. This study offers an important first step in exploring the role of a new factor—moral label knowledge—in young children’s moral development. • If she/he would feel better if Mommy or Daddy were there? (Role of audience) • Are there things you thing about when you feel guilty/ashamed? (Characteristic thoughts) • Are there things you feel like doing? (Action tendencies) • Is there anything you can do to make yourself feel better when you feel guilty (ashamed)? Why does that make you feel better? (Emotion regulation) (Children received 1 point for each type of appropriate response to each type of question. ) References Berti, A. E. , Garattoni, C. , & Venturini, B. (2000). The understanding of sadness, guilt, and shame in Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 293 -318. 5 -, 7 -, and 9 -year-old children. Genetic, Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development, 57, 194 -201. Dunn, J. , Brown, J. R. , & Maguire, M. (1995). The development of children’s moral sensibility: Individual differences and emotion understanding. Developmental Psychology, 31, 649 -659. Kochanska, G. (1991). Socialization and temperament in the development of guilt and conscience. Child Development, 62, 1379 -1392. Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325 -347. Kochanksa, G. , Padavich, D. L, & Koenig, A. L. (1996). Children's narratives about hypothetical moral dilemmas and objective measures of their conscience: Mutual relations and socialization antecedents. Child Development, 67, 1420 -1436. Kochanska, G. , Barry, R. A. , Jimenez, N. B. , Hollatz, A. L. , & Woodard, J. (2009). Guild and effortful control: Two mechanisms that prevent disruptive developmental trajectories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 322 -333.