Running head: RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY · 2015. 11. 18. · RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY "" ii Abstract...

RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY

Running head: RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY

The Development of Children’s Respect and Relations to Prosocial Behaviour

by

Na Young Bae

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Graduate Department of Psychology

University of Toronto

Advisor: Professor Tina Malti

Subsidiary Advisor: Professor Joan E. Grusec

© Copyright by Na Young Bae (2014)

Author Note

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada (SSHRC). Sincerest thanks to Dr. Tina Malti for her unwavering support and

encouragement, to Dr. Joan E. Grusec for her valuable insights, to the members at the

Laboratory for Social-Emotional Development and Intervention for their outstanding

contribution to data collection and coding, and to the families who dedicated their time to

participate in this research.


"

ii"

Abstract

This study examined cognitive and affective respect and relations to prosocial behaviour in a

sample of 5-, 7-, and 11-year-old children (N = 221). We investigated children’s cognitive

conceptions of respect, their affect evaluations (i.e., feelings) of respect toward hypothetical

characters (not) performing prosocial acts (e.g., [not] sharing), and reasoning behind their

affect evaluations. Children’s prosocial behaviour was measured via primary caregiver-

reports. The results indicated children most often referred to prosociality and fairness when

describing and justifying respect, with 11-year-olds referring to fairness significantly more

than 5-year-olds. Eleven-year-olds also reported higher affect evaluations toward prosocial

characters than 5-year-olds. Children’s conceptions of respect in terms of prosociality

predicted primary caregiver-reported prosocial behaviour. Additionally, 5-year-olds’ positive

affect evaluations toward prosocial characters predicted primary caregiver-reported prosocial

behaviour. Findings are discussed in relation to developmental theories on children’s respect,

and integrative developmental approaches to the study of moral cognition, moral emotions,

and prosocial behaviour.

Keywords: Respect, prosocial behaviour, moral cognition, moral emotions, childhood


"

iii"

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………… ii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………… iii

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 1

The Development of Respect……………………………………………………………….. 2

Respect and Relation to Prosocial Behaviour………………………………………………. 5

The Current Study…………………………………………………………………………… 6

Method……………………………………………………………………………………… 9

Results……………………………………………………………………………………… 14

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………. 20

References…………………………………………………………………………………. 28

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………… 37

RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY 1"

The Development of Children’s Respect and Relation to Prosocial Behaviour

Respect has been characterized as a positively valenced, moral emotion both by

philosophers (e.g., Kant, 1788/1966) and developmental psychologists (e.g., Piaget,

1932/1965). In addition to facilitating social interactions (Li, 2006), respect has been

positively associated with social competence (e.g., Cohen, Hsueh, Zhou, Hancock, & Floyd,

2006), and is considered one of the features forming the basis of morality (see Shwalb &

Shwalb, 2006). Respect is an affective reaction felt toward (a) individuals who perform

moral acts (i.e., whose behaviours are meritorious and should be praised; Darwall, 1977), and

toward (b) individuals as such (i.e., who deserve to be respected simply because they are

human beings; Drummond, 2006; Kant, 1788/1966). In other words, respect is given in two

different ways: when one admires another based on seeing his/her desirable, often moral,

qualities or characteristics (Li & Fischer, 2007), and when one regards another as deserving

acceptance as an equal (Renger & Simon, 2011), regardless of their behaviour or individual

differences (e.g., ethnic diversity; Jones, 2002; see also Miller & Pedro, 2006). While respect

for meritorious persons is similar to positive regard and valorization of another (Piaget,

1932/1965), respect for persons as such is more an obligatory attitude felt toward everyone

(i.e., an entitlement by all persons; Fraser & Honneth, 2003).

According to the psychological literature, respect is a complex emotion and, like other

moral emotions, consists of a cognitive and an affective component (Frijda, 1986; Li, 2006;

Malti & Latzko, 2012). The cognitive component relates to the conception of and reasoning

about respect, while the affective component of respect involves the actual feeling of respect

(Darwall, 1977). While a few developmental studies have investigated children’s conception

of respect (i.e., cognitive respect; Cohen et al., 2006; Hsueh, Zhou, Cohen, Hundley, &


"

2"

Deptula, 2005; Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006), no studies, to the best of our knowledge, have

examined both affective and cognitive respect and its development.

Furthermore, much literature has shown moral emotions to be related to children’s

prosocial behaviour (i.e., voluntary acts intended for the benefit of another; Eisenberg,

Spinrad, & Knafo, 2013; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). For example, there is

substantial empirical support for a positive relation between empathy (sympathy) and

prosocial behaviour (for a review, see Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Morris, 2014). However, this

research has almost entirely been limited to negatively valenced moral emotions (e.g., guilt;

Malti & Krettenauer, 2013). The role of positively valenced moral emotions, such as respect,

pride, and gratitude, in children’s prosocial behaviour has yet to be explored in depth (for an

exception, see Ongley & Malti, 2014). This study aimed to address this research gap, in part.

We investigated the development of both cognitive and affective components of respect in 5-,

7-, and 11-year-old children, as well as links to prosocial behaviour. These age groups,

ranging from early childhood to early adolescence, were chosen because previous literature

has documented these periods to show important development in cognitive moral processes

(Lahat, Helwig, & Zelazo, 2012), moral emotions (Malti & Ongley, 2014), and morally

relevant, prosocial behaviour (Eisenberg et al., 2013).

The Development of Respect

The development of respect has been described from early on in developmental theory.

For example, Piaget (1932/1965) elaborated upon how children conceptualize respect in early

and middle childhood. In his model, there is a distinction between unilateral and mutual

respect: The former emerges in early childhood, and the latter in middle childhood.

Unilateral respect occurs in unequal, hierarchical social relationships (e.g., between a parent


"

3"

and a child) in which the child respects the other because of his or her higher social status,

wisdom, and/or authority, which may elicit fear (i.e., of punishment; Lightfoot, 2000). Thus

unilateral respect is described in terms of admiration and compliance (see Shwalb & Shwalb,

2006). In middle childhood, children enter elementary school and increasingly engage in peer

relationships that are more horizontal and equal in terms of status (Rubin, Bukowski, &

Laursen, 2009) and mutual respect develops (Lightfoot, 2000). Here respect is

conceptualized as reciprocity and the Golden Rule (i.e., treating others as one would want to

be treated; Piaget, 1932/1965). Specifically, when children enter school, they undergo

additional socialization experiences with peers and teachers (e.g., Berry & O’Connor, 2010;

Rubin et al., 2009). Increasingly sophisticated social-cognitive skills and related increases in

empathy/sympathy from early to middle childhood (see Malti & Ongley, 2014) are assumed

to help children to become less egocentric (Piaget, 1932/1965) and develop other-regarding

preferences. These preferences become stronger as children reach early adolescence

(Gummerum, Keller, Takezawa, & Mata, 2008). Peer relationships then, with their increasing

importance in the social lives of children entering elementary school (Rubin et al., 2009),

become a place to practice other-oriented societal norms such as fairness and care (Fehr &

Fischbacher, 2003; Watson, 2003). In sum, from middle childhood and onward, children's

other-oriented interactions manifest in mutual respect and prosocial behaviour (e.g.,

cooperation; Piaget, 1932/1965).

Subsequently, Darwall (1977), a contemporary philosopher in ethics and morality,

distinguished between appraisal and recognition respect. Appraisal respect is merited by

those who express moral qualities that one admires and desires to have (Li, 2006). After one

experiences appraisal respect, one then recognizes everyone has the capacity to exhibit such


"

4"

moral qualities (Drummond, 2006). This capacity, or the ability to follow the moral law,

manifests in all human beings as dignity (Kant, 1788/1966), and the acknowledgement of this

capacity results in the emergence of recognition respect. In sum, recognition respect is a

feeling of acknowledgement of all human beings as having dignity (see McCarthy & Walker,

2006), and thus has no degree, whereas one may feel a degree of (i.e., more or less) appraisal

respect. This model is similar to Piaget’s (1932/1965) theory in that appraisal respect is

expressed in the form of admiration (like unilateral respect), while recognition respect,

similar to mutual respect, is shown to all persons because they are all equal (i.e., do not differ

in status).

With these theories, a few studies have examined how children conceptualize respect.

For example, Shwalb and Shwalb (2006) found kindergarten children often referred to

global, positive characteristics (e.g., being “nice”) in describing respect, while first and

second grade children described respect in terms of other-oriented moral principles, such as

prosociality (e.g., sharing) and fairness (e.g., equality, abstaining from harm). These findings

support Piaget’s (1932/1965) developmental model of respect in that children in early

childhood, in which they most often encounter hierarchical social status relationships (i.e.,

power imbalance between a parent and a child; see Audley-Piotrowski, 2012), conceptualize

respect in terms of admiration and broad, positive features, but with age they increasingly

interact with individuals of equal, mutual social positions from whom they learn to accept

different but equally valid viewpoints (see Damon, 1975), and consequently conceptualize

respect more in terms of equality and mutuality. These findings also reflect the increasing

emphasis on justice principles (e.g., reciprocity, welfare of others) emerging in middle

childhood (e.g., Damon, 1975, 1994). In sum, because only a handful of studies have


"

5"

empirically examined the cognitive component of respect and its development, this study

aimed to contribute to the scarce literature by further investigating children’s descriptions of

respect and developmental differences in their conceptions.

Respect and Relation to Prosocial Behaviour

Prevailing conceptions of respect describe it as a moral emotion (e.g., Li & Fischer,

2007; Malti & Latzko, 2012). Moral emotions are defined as other-oriented or self-conscious

emotions elicited in the context of moral norms, such as norms of caring and norms of

fairness (Malti & Ongley, 2014; Tangney et al., 2007). Moral emotions include negatively

valenced emotions (e.g., guilt, empathy/sympathy), as well as positively valenced emotions

(e.g., pride, gratitude; Malti & Latzko, 2012). Prosocial behaviour is defined as a voluntary

act intended to benefit another (Eisenberg et al., 2013). Developmental scientists have

emphasized moral emotions as important motives for other-oriented, prosocial behaviour

(Eisenberg, 2000; Malti & Ongley, 2014). Despite this importance, the affective component

of respect and links to prosocial behaviour remain largely unexplored.

Conceptually, respect is similar to other moral emotions such as empathy and sympathy

in its other-oriented nature. In fact, empathy, the apprehension and feeling of another’s

emotional state (Eisenberg et al., 2014), is a part of respect: The empathic structure of respect

enables one to recognize another as a conscious agent worthy of moral attention, like oneself

(see Drummond, 2006). This moral attention then elicits other-oriented concern, similar to

how empathy elicits sympathy (i.e., a feeling of concern for another; Eisenberg et al., 2014).

This other-oriented concern then evokes a motivation to act in a manner that would benefit

others (Drummond, 2006), similar to how sympathy results in a propensity to respond

prosocially (e.g., helping; Eisenberg, 2000; Malti & Ongley, 2014). Sympathy has been


"

6"

consistently shown to motivate morally relevant, prosocial behaviour (e.g., sharing)

throughout development (for a review, see Eisenberg et al., 2014). Although respect is

positively valenced and empathy/sympathy is negatively valenced, both are genuinely other-

oriented, and based on this conceptual similarity, it is reasonable to assume a positive relation

between respect and prosocial behaviour. Additionally, respect is also similar to gratitude

(Hsueh et al., 2005), yet another other-oriented and positively valenced moral emotion,

which has also been shown to relate to prosocial behaviour (McCullough, Kilpatrick,

Emmons, & Larson, 2001).

The Current Study

In sum, this study examined children’s conception of and reasoning about respect, their

affective evaluations of respect (i.e., affect evaluations), and relations to prosocial behaviour.

In addition, developmental differences in children’s respect and links to prosocial behaviour

were examined.

We adopted a novel, semi-structured interview approach to study the cognitive and

affective components of respect. Specifically, in the first part of the study, we explored

children’s conceptions of respect by asking them to describe the term “respect,” and to

narrate a time they respected someone else and a time they were respected by someone else

to understand what behaviours children describe as showing respect. In line with previous

research showing children’s narratives of their own social and moral experiences provide a

window into interpretations of their own emotions, thoughts, and actions (e.g., Gutzwiller-

Helfenfinger, Malti, & Gasser, 2010; Tappan, 1991; Wainryb, Brehl, Matwin, Sokol, &

Hammond, 2005), this approach was well suited to explore how children conceptualize

respect in daily life.


"

7"

In the second part of the study, we explored children’s affective respect (i.e., how much

respect they feel for certain behaviours; Darwall, 1977). Children were read vignettes of

characters engaging in behaviours either in the prosocial domain (e.g., sharing) or the

prosocial omission domain (i.e., neglecting a prosocial duty; e.g., not helping). These

vignettes were developed based on previous related studies on moral emotions (e.g., Malti,

Gummerum, Keller, & Buchmann, 2009; Ongley & Malti, 2014). Children were then asked

to evaluate the amount of respect they felt toward the protagonist and to justify their reasons

for feeling low or high respect, providing a window into their affect evaluations and

reasoning about their felt respect (e.g., Malti et al., 2009).

The following research questions were addressed: First, how do children conceptualize

respect? Based on existing literature (e.g., Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006), we expected to find

descriptions related to prosociality, fairness, and unelaborated moral features (i.e., global

evaluations, such as being “nice”). We expected similar findings in children’s reasoning

about respect because research has shown positive relations between children’s conception of

moral norms and moral reasoning (e.g., Brehl & Wainryb, 2005). Second, for what

behaviours do children feel more or less respect? Based on Darwall’s (1977) theory that

positive appraisal is felt toward moral qualities, and based on studies that found children like

prosocial others (e.g., Layous, Nelson, Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Lyubomirsky, 2012) and

studies that found respect is similar to liking (see Cohen et al., 2006; Li & Fischer, 2007), we

expected children to report more respect toward prosocial characters compared to prosocial

omission characters. Third, is respect positively related to children’s prosocial behaviour?

Because research shows both cognitive (see Eisenberg et al., 2013) and affective (Malti &

Latzko, 2012) components of morality motivate prosocial acts, we expected prosocial


"

8"

behaviour would positively relate to (a) children’s descriptions of respect in terms of

prosociality and fairness, and to (b) positive affect evaluations toward prosocial characters.

As prosocial behaviour has been associated with gender (e.g., Croson & Gneezy, 2009) and

with socioeconomic status (SES; see Lichter, Shanahan, & Gardner, 2002), these variables

were utilized as control variables in multivariate analyses.

Lastly, we investigated developmental differences for the above research questions.

Based on previous studies (e.g., Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006), we expected the youngest (i.e., 5-

year-old) children to conceptualize respect in terms of unelaborated, global moral

characteristics (e.g., being “nice”) and admirable moral behaviour (i.e., prosociality). With

the emergence of mutual respect in middle childhood, we expected 7-year-olds to refer to

both prosociality and fairness, and 11-year-olds predominantly to notions of fairness in their

descriptions.

Previous research indicates the capacity and tendency to experience empathic or

sympathetic reactions increase with age (i.e., from childhood to adolescence; Eisenberg et al.,

2014). This may be due to more exposure to interpersonal experiences that evoke such

emotions, and due to increasingly sophisticated social-cognitive skills (e.g., perspective

taking) that facilitate children to recognize the situations for which they should feel empathy

(see Eisenberg et al., 2014). Hence we expected older children would also more readily

experience the emotion of respect and recognize the situations for which they should feel

respect (i.e., the positive appraisal of those who are worthy of respect), and hypothesized 7-

and 11-year-olds would report more respect (i.e., higher levels of affect evaluation) toward

prosocial characters than 5-year-olds. Finally, we expected no significant developmental

differences in the positive relation between children’s descriptions of respect and their


"

9"

prosocial behaviour. This was because we assumed describing respect in terms of

prosociality and fairness would signal a tendency to be other-oriented, and this would

motivate prosocial behaviour in all age groups. Meanwhile, because extant literature has

shown moral emotions (e.g., empathy) to predict prosocial behaviour more strongly with age

(see Eisenberg et al., 2014), we hypothesized that affect evaluations toward prosocial

characters would more strongly relate to prosocial behaviour in older age groups (i.e., 7- and

11-year-olds).

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from a suburban community of a major Canadian city. A

total of 221 children and their primary caregivers participated. The children in our sample

included 67 5-year-olds (Mage = 5.41 years, SD = 0.44; 34 girls [51%]); 84 7-year-olds (Mage

= 7.63 years, SD = 0.36; 44 girls [52%]); and 70 11-year-olds (Mage = 11.54 years, SD = 0.41;

30 girls [43%]).

The primary caregivers reported their highest level of education as a measure of SES

(Hoff, Laursen, & Bridges, 2012). Most primary caregivers were university graduates (48%),

while the remainder reported completing a graduate degree (21%), college degree (21%), or

high school diploma (5%). Five percent of caregivers did not report their education level. The

ethnic composition of the sample included European (35%); Asian (24%); Caribbean and

American (11%); African (1%); Aboriginal (1%); and other/multiple origins (18%). A small

portion of caregivers did not report their ethnicity (9%). The education level and ethnic

composition were representative of the suburban city from which we drew our sample


"

10"

(Statistics Canada, 2012). Participating children and caregivers were fluent in both spoken

and written English.

Procedure

Children and their primary caregivers visited the research laboratory once. At the onset

of the session, caregivers gave written informed consent to participate and children gave oral

consent. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board.

Each child was interviewed independently in a separate room while his or her caregiver

filled out a questionnaire on family demographic information and the child’s social

behaviour. Each child interview lasted approximately 35 minutes and was filmed for

transcription and data analysis purposes. The interviewers were undergraduate psychology

students who were extensively trained in relevant interview techniques and procedures. After

the interview, children and their caregivers were debriefed and children were given an age-

appropriate book as a token of appreciation.

Measures

Respect. A pilot study (N = 21) was conducted to develop the interview protocol and to

ensure ideal, age-appropriate interview techniques and questions. All questions were

developed based on previous related literature on the development of moral emotions and

moral reasoning (e.g., Malti et al., 2009; Malti & Ongley, 2014). The final interview

contained two parts: (a) Children’s conceptions of respect, and (b) their affect evaluations

and reasoning about respect in hypothetical social interactions.

Conception of respect. The first part of the interview investigated children’s

conception of respect with five open-ended questions. The questions were developed based


"

11"

on previous studies assessing children’s moral emotions in their narratives (Gutzwiller-

Helfenfinger et al., 2010; Wainryb et al., 2005).

The first question asked children to describe the term respect (i.e., “What does it mean

to feel respect for someone?” “What does respect mean to you?”). In the very rare cases (<

4%) where the youngest children in our sample (i.e., 5-year-olds) were unfamiliar with the

term, interviewers read them short stories of two age- and gender-matched characters

performing or not performing acts of prosociality or fairness (e.g., one character helping a

child clean up the classroom and another character not helping the child; one character taking

turns on the playground and another not taking turns). They then asked the child “Which

character do you think is being respectful?” If children answered incorrectly, interviewers

told them “Some children think [the prosocial or fair character] is being respectful” and read

them another story, until the child answered correctly. Afterwards, children were again asked

to describe the term respect. These stories were chosen because previous studies (e.g.,

Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006) and our pilot study showed that children describe respect

predominantly in terms of prosociality and fairness.

The next series of questions asked children to describe expressions of respect in

everyday social interactions. Specifically, children were asked to (a) describe a time they had

shown respect to someone else (i.e., “Tell me about a time you respected someone else”), and

provide justifications for the respect-showing behaviour (i.e., “Why did you respect that

person in this particular situation?”), and (b) describe a time they were respected by someone

else (i.e., “Tell me about a time someone else respected you”), and provide justifications for

the perceived respect (i.e., “Why do you think that person respected you in this particular


"

12"

situation?”). Interviewers were trained to prompt once when children gave broad, unspecific

answers (e.g., “It’s nice” “It’s mean”).

Affective evaluations of respect. In the second part of the interview, children were

read six short stories depicting age- and gender-matched characters performing (a) prosocial

behaviours: Sharing fairly (e.g., “When Justin is sharing his snack with his classmates, he

gives them exactly the same amount”), including (e.g., “When Cathy chooses a new game to

play, she lets everybody join in”), and helping (e.g., “David has to clean up his room, and

Lenny decides to help”), and (b) omission of prosocial behaviours: Not sharing fairly (e.g.,

“When Jaclyn brings candy to school, she gives some to others but keeps more for herself”),

not including (e.g., “When Freddy chooses a new game to play, he only lets some people

play”), and not helping (e.g., “Emma has to clean up her room, and Jasmine decides not to

help Emma”). We chose to focus on these stories because previous studies (e.g., Shwalb &

Shwalb, 2006) and our pilot study revealed that children conceptualize respect predominantly

in terms of prosociality and fairness, and because of our interest in the development of

respect in everyday situations involving morally relevant, prosocial behaviours. Moreover,

studies have shown moral emotions (e.g., guilt) strongly relate to behaviour in prosocial

omission contexts (see Ongley & Malti, 2014).

We then asked children to evaluate how much respect they felt toward the protagonist

(i.e., “How much respect do you feel towards [the protagonist]?”) using a 4-point Likert scale

(“Do not respect” = 0, “Do not respect that much” = 1, “Sort of respect” = 2, “Respect” = 3).

Preliminary analyses revealed the affect evaluations reported for the three prosocial stories

were predominantly positively correlated with each other (i.e., sharing and including, r = .10,

p = n.s.; sharing and helping, r = .49, p < .001; including and helping, r = .45, p < .001), as


"

13"

were the affect evaluations reported for the three prosocial omission stories (i.e., not sharing

and not including, r = .07, p = n.s.; not sharing and not helping, r = .30, p < .001; not

including and not helping, r = .21, p < .01). Therefore it was justified to aggregate the

evaluations within domains (i.e., prosocial stories were aggregated into “prosocial domain,”

and prosocial omission stories into “prosocial omission domain”). The resulting two

averaged evaluation scores (i.e., affect evaluation in the prosocial domain, affect evaluation

in the prosocial omission domain) were used in subsequent analyses.

Justifications for Affective Evaluations of Respect. We also elicited children’s

reasoning about their affect evaluations by asking them to provide justifications for their

affect evaluations (i.e., “Why do you feel this much respect?”). Interviewers were trained to

prompt once when children gave broad, unelaborated answers (e.g., “It’s nice” “It’s mean”).

Prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour was assessed by primary caregiver reports.

Primary caregivers reported their child’s prosocial behaviour on five items (e.g., “My child is

helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill”) from the prosocial behaviour subscale of the

Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997), using a 6-point Likert scale

(“Not at all true” = 1, “Often not true” = 2, “Somewhat not true” = 3, “Somewhat true” = 4,

“Often true” = 5, “Always true” = 6). The subscale of the SDQ is a widely used, validated

measure of children’s prosocial behaviour (e.g., Becker, Woerner, Hasselhorn,

Banaschewski, & Rothenberger, 2004). Cronbach’s α for the 5-item measure was .75. Mean

scores were calculated, and higher scores indicated higher levels of prosocial behaviour.

Coding. We coded children’s respect descriptions and their justifications for affect

evaluations using a coding system with 8 categories (see Table 1 for descriptions and

prototypical examples of the categories). This coding system was based on those used in


"

14"

previous related research on children’s moral reasoning (Malti et al., 2009). If children gave

unelaborated answers after prompting (i.e., being “nice”), it was coded as global evaluation.

Preliminary analyses indicated that children provided similar rationales for both describing

respect and for justifying their affect evaluations, and therefore the same coding system was

used for both types of responses.

Two independent coders were trained to code children’s responses. To establish

interrater reliability, coders randomly selected and coded 30% of the data independently (i.e.,

67 interview transcriptions). Cohen’s κ for each category in children’s descriptions and

justifications are as follows: Prosociality, .95; fairness, .81; conventional, .89; merit, .87;

rationalizing, .97; personal freedom, .93; authority, .96; global evaluations, .92. The average

κ across categories was .89. The raters discussed disagreements until a consensus was

reached. Preliminary analyses revealed the authority category to be very low in frequency

(i.e., < 4% in descriptions and < 2% in justifications), and thus the category was dropped

from further analyses.

Results

Developmental Differences in Respect Descriptions

Table 2 displays the frequencies of respect description categories by age group. As

expected, children most frequently referred to prosociality (32%) and fairness (26%) when

describing respect. We conducted between-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to

examine age differences in the frequency of six respect description categories (i.e.,

prosociality, fairness, conventional, merit, personal freedom, and global evaluations). We

binary coded each response to the five open-ended questions (e.g., reference to prosociality =

1, reference to other categories = 0), and calculated the frequency of reference to a respective


"

15"

category. We used the frequency scores of the respective description categories as dependent

variables and age as the independent variable.

Results revealed main effects of age for prosociality descriptions of respect, F(2, 201)

= 4.37, p < .05. For follow-up analyses of developmental differences we employed the Least

Significant Difference (LSD) procedure, which has been shown to be the most appropriate

for multiple comparison tests involving three means (Howell, 2012). Post-hoc tests revealed

both 5- and 7-year-olds gave more prosociality descriptions than 11-year-olds (ps < .05).

Main effects of age were also found for fairness descriptions of respect, F(2, 201) =

3.86, p < .05. As expected, post-hoc tests showed both 7- and 11-year-olds gave more

fairness descriptions than 5-year-olds (ps < .05).

While no main effects of age were found for the frequency of conventional

descriptions, we found significant developmental differences for merit and personal freedom-

related descriptions of respect, F(2, 201) = 15.92, and 6.60, respectively, ps < .01. Post-hoc

tests indicated that 11-year-olds referred more to concepts of merit and personal freedom

than both 5- and 7-year-olds (ps < .01) when describing respect. In line with our hypothesis,

5-year-olds gave significantly more global descriptions of respect (i.e., being “nice”)

compared to 11-year-olds, F(2, 201) = 15.02, p < .001 (p < .05).

Developmental Differences in Affect Evaluations of Respect

Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations for affect evaluations by age group.

In line with our hypothesis, paired samples t-tests revealed children in all three age groups

reported higher affect evaluations for the prosocial domain compared to the prosocial

omission domain (ps < .001). To test our hypotheses on developmental differences in affect

evaluations of respect for prosocial and prosocial omission domains, we ran one mixed


"

16"

ANOVA with age as the between subject variable, the two domains as within subject

variables, and the affect evaluations as dependent variables.

We found age effects for affect evaluations of respect in the prosocial domain, F(2,

214) = 6.53, p < .01. As expected, post-hoc tests revealed both 7- and 11-year-olds reported

higher mean affect evaluations compared to 5-year-olds (Cohen’s d = .43, and .24,

respectively, ps < .05). No significant age effects were found for affect evaluations in the

prosocial omission domain.

Developmental Differences in Justifications for Affect Evaluations of Respect

Table 4 displays the frequencies of justifications given for affect evaluations in the

prosocial and prosocial omission domain by age group. As expected, in both domains,

children most frequently referred to prosociality (24% and 30%, respectively) and fairness

(43% and 25%, respectively) to justify their affect evaluations of respect. We conducted

seven between-subjects ANOVAs to examine age differences in the justification categories

for affect evaluations. Each justification category was binary coded (i.e., reference to

prosociality = 1, reference to other categories = 0), and the frequency scores of the respective

justification categories in prosocial and prosocial omission domains were used as dependent

variables, and age as the independent variable.

No main effects of age were found for prosociality justifications in either domain.

However, significant main effects of age were found for fairness justifications in both the

prosocial domain, F(2, 208) = 17.47, p < .001, and the prosocial omission domain, F(2, 210)

= 7.15, p < .01. In line with our hypothesis, post-hoc tests revealed both 7- and 11-year-olds

provided more fairness justifications than 5-year-olds in the prosocial (Cohen’s d = .82, and

1.03, respectively, ps < .001) and prosocial omission (Cohen’s d = .58, and .57, respectively,


"

17"

ps < .01) domains. Furthermore, significant age differences were found in global

(unelaborated) justifications given in both domains, F(2, 208) = 17.83 for prosocial, F(2,

210) = 11.70 for prosocial omission; ps < .001: In both domains global justifications (i.e.,

“Because that’s nice”) significantly decreased in frequency for 11-year-olds compared to 5-

and 7-year-olds, ps < .01.

In the prosocial domain, results revealed main effects of age in the frequency of merit-

based justifications, F(2, 208) = 6.31, p < .01: 11-year-olds referred more to merit in

justifying their felt respect compared to both 5- and 7-year-olds (ps < .05). In the prosocial

omission domain, we found developmental differences in the frequency of conventional,

rationalizing, and personal freedom-related justifications, F(2, 210) = 5.15, 3.56, and 3.64,

respectively, ps < .05: 11-year-olds gave more conventional justifications than both 5- and 7-

year-olds (ps < .01), more rationalizing justifications than 5-year-olds (p < .01), and more

personal freedom-related justifications than 7-year-olds (p < .05).

Predicting Prosocial Behaviour from Respect Description Categories and Affect

Evaluations

Preliminary analyses tested developmental differences in primary caregiver-reported

prosocial behaviour. The mean level of prosocial behaviour across all ages was 5.12 (on a

scale from 1 to 6; SD = 0.59); 5-year-olds’ mean level of prosocial behaviour was 4.95 (SD =

0.57), 7-year-olds’ mean level of prosocial behaviour was 5.10 (SD = 0.59), and 11-year-

olds’ mean level of prosocial behaviour was 5.29 (SD = 0.59). We conducted between-

subjects ANOVAs to examine age differences in caregiver-reported prosocial behaviour and

found a significant age effect, F(2, 213) = 5.64, p < .01. Post-hoc tests revealed prosocial


"

18"

behaviour increased with age: 11-year-olds were reported to be more prosocial than both 5-

and 7-year-olds (ps < .05).

Table 5 displays the correlations between study variables and control variables (i.e.,

child gender and primary caregiver’s SES). Prosocial behaviour was positively associated

with child age and affect evaluations of respect in the prosocial domain. Prosociality

descriptions were negatively related to child age and fairness descriptions of respect.

Prosociality justifications in both domains were positively correlated with each other, as were

fairness justifications in both domains. Prosociality and fairness justifications were

negatively correlated with each other in both domains. Child age was positively associated

with affect evaluations in the prosocial domain, and fairness justifications in both domains.

SES was not significantly related to any of the study variables.

To test the predictive effects of respect description categories and affect evaluations of

respect on prosocial behaviour, we conducted two separate hierarchical stepwise regression

analyses, with prosocial behaviour as the dependent variable in each. Child gender and

primary caregiver’s SES were entered as control variables in Step 1 of each regression

model. All predictor variables were centred at the mean prior to analyses and entered in Step

2 of each regression model. To test our hypotheses on developmental differences in the

relation between respect and prosocial behaviour, we tested all possible interactions between

age and the predictor variables (i.e., respect description categories and affect evaluations of

respect in both domains) in preliminary analyses. Only significant interactions from our

preliminary analyses were entered in Step 3 of our final models. Interaction terms were

created by calculating the products of the predictor variables (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008).


"

19"

To test our hypotheses regarding the predictive influence of prosociality and fairness

descriptions on prosocial behaviour, only these two respect description categories were

included in our final regression model. In Model 1, we entered child age, prosociality

descriptions, and fairness descriptions as predictor variables. Because preliminary analyses

revealed no significant interaction between age and respect description categories, no

interaction terms were included in the final model. In Model 2, we entered child age and

affect evaluations of respect in the prosocial and prosocial omission domain. Preliminary

analyses indicated the interaction term between age and affect evaluation in the prosocial

domain significantly predicted prosocial behaviour; therefore this interaction term was

entered in Step 3 of the final model.

Table 6 displays the results of the final regression analyses. In line with our

hypotheses, results from Model 1 indicated that prosocial behaviour was predicted by age

and prosociality descriptions of respect, R2 = .15, F(5, 175) = 6.04, p < .001. Cohen’s ƒ2 was

.18, indicating a small effect size (Cohen, 1988). In contrast, fairness respect descriptions did

not significantly predict prosocial behaviour.

The results of Model 2 showed that prosocial behaviour was predicted by age and by

the interaction of age x affect evaluations of respect in the prosocial domain, R2 = .19, F(6,

200) = 7.76, p < .001. Cohen’s ƒ2 was .23, indicating a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). To

probe the interaction effect between age and affect evaluations in the prosocial domain, we

employed the Johnson-Neyman (1936) procedure, with affect evaluation as the focal

predictor variable and age as the moderator variable. We used a worksheet created by

Dawson (n.d.) to plot the interaction effect. For each age group, simple slopes were

calculated at low (i.e., one standard deviation lower than the mean) and high (i.e., one


"

20"

standard deviation higher than the mean) levels of affect evaluation. The simple slopes (b)

for 5-, 7-, and 11-year-olds were .46, .04, and -.77, p < .001, n.s., and n.s., respectively.

Although the absolute value of b for 11-year-olds was the largest, its standard error (SEb) was

also the largest (i.e., .50 compared to .13 for 5-year-olds, and .19 for 7-year-olds), and thus

was not significant. As shown in Figure 1, 5-year-olds’ level of prosocial behaviour was

positively related to the level of their affect evaluations of respect, whereas 7- and 11-year-

olds’ levels of prosocial behaviour did not depend on the level of their affect evaluations.

Discussion

This study investigated the development of respect and its relation to prosocial

behaviour in a sample of 5-, 7-, and 11-year-old children. We employed a novel interview

measure to investigate the cognitive and affective components of children’s respect.

The Development of Children’s Respect

In line with our hypothesis, we found that children describe respect predominantly in

terms of prosociality and fairness. Contrary to early theories (e.g., Piaget, 1932/1965),

children rarely referred to concepts of authority in describing and justifying respect (see also

Helwig & McNeil, 2011). Thus, our findings lend support to studies that show children in

early to middle childhood conceptualize respect in terms of positive, admirable, prosocial

qualities (e.g., Li, 2006; Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006). As expected, 5- and 7-year-olds referred

to prosociality descriptions more frequently than 11-year-olds. This provided support for

Piaget’s theory of unilateral respect, in that younger children focused on admirable or

desirable prosocial qualities in their conceptualizing of respect. On the other hand, in line

with previous related literature (e.g., Cohen et al., 2006; Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006), 7- and 11-

year-olds more often referred to fairness notions when describing respect compared to 5-


"

21"

year-olds. This finding was in line with extant literature documenting age-related cognitive

development and increased ability to describe concepts in more abstract, moral terms.

Specifically, the finding that 7-year-olds referred to both prosociality and fairness when

describing respect suggested middle childhood may be an important transition period in

which children increasingly emphasize other-oriented preferences (Gummerum et al., 2008)

in both concrete behaviour (e.g., cooperation with peers) and in abstract principles (e.g.,

abstaining from harm; Nucci & Turiel, 2009; Piaget, 1932/1965).

Our findings also revealed 11-year-olds gave more conventional descriptions than the

younger age groups. This is in line with literature documenting improved cognitive abilities

to take into account conventional social norms with age (e.g., Smetana, Jambon, & Ball,

2014). Specifically, research has shown children mature as social beings in an environment

in which they acquire knowledge of society’s rules and standards, and their conceptions thus

reflect their recognition of the appropriateness and respect-worthiness of acting in

accordance to agreed group norms (Smetana, 2011).

More merit-based descriptions given by 11-year-olds mirrored previous literature

documenting children’s increasing consideration of merit in making judgments of distributive

justice (Damon, 1975), and was also in line with the observed increase in fairness

descriptions. Moreover, the finding that 11-year-olds referred more to personal freedom in

describing respect was consistent with previous literature (e.g., Helwig, 2006) that has shown

as children reach early adolescence they begin to form an idea of autonomy and personal

agency: With age, children better realize others are moral agents whose personal freedom

(e.g., autonomy and choice) should be valued (see Helwig & McNeil, 2011; Nucci, 2001).


"

22"

Similar to their conceptions, 7- and 11-year-olds more often referred to fairness notions

in their justifications for felt respect toward both prosocial and prosocial omission characters.

On the other hand, no significant age differences were found in the frequency of

justifications referring to prosociality. This finding suggested that, while all children

recognized prosocial (omission) behaviour as (not) being respect-worthy because of its other-

oriented, morally relevant nature, older children may have additionally considered prosocial

behaviour as being in line with morally appropriate, justice-related principles (e.g., “I respect

him because it’s the right thing to help someone”).

In addition, 11-year-olds referred more frequently to conventional, merit-based, and

personal freedom-related justifications. Of note, children referred more to social conventions

and personal freedom in the prosocial omission domain, and more to merit in the prosocial

domain. References to social conventions were used to justify low respect, for example,

toward characters not engaging in prosocial behaviour and thus “not being polite.” This

finding suggested respect indeed would promote socially appropriate behaviour and positive

social interactions (Li, 2006). On the other hand, the reference to personal freedom when

justifying, for example, more respect toward a non-prosocial character (e.g., “I still respect

him because he does not have to help.”) depicted children’s enhanced cognitive abilities to

realize behaving prosocially is a choice and not necessarily an obligation (see Davidov,

Grusec, & Wolfe, 2012; Kahn, 1992). Therefore, their merit-based justifications

accompanying more appraisal respect toward prosocial characters suggested that children

recognized the praiseworthiness of characters who, despite behaving prosocially is not an

obligation, still behaved in such a way (Kant, 1788/1966).


"

23"

Interestingly, 11-year-olds more often rationalized their affect evaluations. For example,

one 11-year-old girl reported a high affect evaluation toward a protagonist who did not help a

friend clean up her toys, and justified the evaluation by saying the friend might not have

wanted the protagonist to help her clean up because the protagonist, not knowing where the

toys belong, may create an even “bigger mess.” Despite the relatively low overall frequency

of rationalizing justifications (i.e., 8%), the substantial increase in its frequency from 4% (i.e.,

of the 5-year-olds) to 13% (i.e., of the 11-year-olds) reflects studies that have shown children

understand that prosocial behaviour is not always appropriate, and omission of prosocial

behaviour can be well-intentioned (e.g., Jambon & Smetana, 2013). Similarly, it has also

been shown in the adult literature that individuals understand that even non-prosocial (e.g.,

aggressive) actions can result from prosocial intentions (e.g., Rule, Dyck, McAra, & Nesdale,

1975). In sum, children exhibited highly sophisticated cognitive processes (e.g.,

understanding of intentions) in their reasoning about respect (Wainryb et al., 2005).

Regarding affect evaluations, our findings revealed that children reported higher affect

evaluations (i.e., felt more respect) toward characters engaging in prosocial behaviour

compared to those engaging in prosocial omission behaviour. This was in line with related

studies that found children expressed more liking toward prosocial individuals (e.g., Deković

& Janssens, 1992), and may have suggested that respect overlapped with peer liking (see

Cohen et al., 2006; Frei & Shaver, 2002).

As depicted in their conception and reasoning about respect, children, with age, began

to realize behaving prosocially is not an obligation but a choice (Davidov et al., 2012; Kahn,

1992). The finding that 7- and 11-year-olds expressed more respect toward prosocial

characters may have therefore reflected this greater emphasis on the praiseworthiness of


"

24"

prosocial behaviour. In other words, children understood one does not have to be prosocial,

and so when they encountered an individual who chose to be prosocial, they deemed that

individual to be meritorious (i.e., expressing a moral quality; Kant, 1788/1966) and deserving

of praise (i.e., appraisal respect; Darwall, 1977).

The Role of Respect in Children’s Prosocial Behaviour

Our hypothesis regarding the role of prosociality and fairness descriptions of respect on

children’s prosocial behaviour was partially supported: While children who described respect

in terms of prosociality were reported by their caregivers to be more prosocial, this tendency

was not evident for children who described respect in terms of fairness. In addition, we did

not find developmental differences in the relation between children’s prosociality

descriptions of respect and their prosocial behaviour, which suggested that children who

described respect in terms of prosocial notions were more likely to be perceived as being

prosocial, regardless of age.

An explanation of this finding could be that, because we had coded children’s very first

reference to a description category, in children whose respect descriptions were coded as

prosociality, prosocial notions may have more quickly come to mind in describing respect

compared to other notions (e.g., fairness). Thus in such children, prosocial notions may have

been more internalized and more self-important (Krettenauer & Johnston, 2011). In addition,

if children’s descriptions of respect entailed prosociality, this may have suggested their moral

identities consisted of prosocial principles (Erikson, 1968) that motivated identity-congruent,

morally appropriate behaviour (i.e., prosocial behaviour; see Keller, 2004).

It is also important to note that prosocial behaviour was measured by caregivers’

perceptions of whether and how much their children were prosocial. As moral standards


"

25"

comprising one’s identity are highly socialized (e.g., by parents; Kochanska, 2002), it may

have been that parents who socialized prosocial values in their children paid closer attention

to their children’s prosocial behaviour and thus reported higher levels of prosociality.

Caregivers may have also positively reinforced their children’s prosocial behaviour and, in so

doing, encouraged their children to develop a self-view of being a good, moral individual

(Grusec & Redler, 1980) which manifested in their behaving in moral or prosocial manner. In

addition, caregivers’ emphasis on prosocial values could have facilitated such prosocial

values to be internalized and in turn could have become reflected in their children’s

conceptions and motivated moral behaviour (Kochanska, Aksan, & Joy, 2007; Kochanska,

Koenig, Barry, Sanghang, & Yoon, 2010).

The positive relation between affect evaluations toward prosocial characters and

prosocial behaviour was limited to the youngest age group (i.e., the 5-year-olds). One

explanation for this finding could be that increases in children’s prosociality from middle

childhood to early adolescence were due to numerous factors other than the emotion of

respect, such as increased socialization of moral values (Grusec, 2002), adherence to social

conventions (Smetana et al., 2014), and more diverse, high-quality peer relationships (Rubin

et al., 2009) that require more prosocial skills (e.g., comforting; Berndt, 2002). Another

explanation for this finding could be that, as seen in their justifications, the kinds of

behaviour for which children experienced appraisal respect (i.e., felt more respect) shifted

from being prosociality-related to being fairness-related. When justifying affect evaluations,

5-year-olds mostly referred to global evaluations (i.e., being “nice”), and studies have shown

the term “nice” is often associated with positive, prosocial characteristics (e.g., caring,

sharing) in early childhood (e.g., Crowder, 2012). Therefore, the high frequency of reference


"

26"

to global evaluations by 5-year-olds may have actually reflected a rudimentary conception of

prosociality, which they may have been unable to articulate due to their limited verbal

abilities (for a review, see Vygotsky, 1934/1962). Hence, while the youngest children (i.e., 5-

year-olds) reported they admired (respected) the characters predominantly because they were

being prosocial, children in the older age groups increasingly reported admiring characters

because they were being fair. As appraisal respect elicits the desire to emulate the admirable

character (Li, 2006), the youngest children’s appraisal respect toward prosociality may have

motivated prosocial behaviour, while older children’s appraisal respect toward fairness

principles, such as reciprocity and equal treatment of all people, may instead have motivated

fair behaviour.

The increased reference to fairness notions in descriptions and justifications given by

7- and 11-year-olds supported extant theories suggesting recognition respect emerges in

middle childhood. In addition, children in all age groups reported positive evaluations for

prosocial characters, indicating appraisal respect (i.e., admiration) remained through

childhood. Thus, our findings suggested appraisal and recognition respect coexist throughout

childhood (Li, 2006). In addition, feeling recognition respect toward another places moral

constraints on one’s behaviour (Darwall, 1977): In other words, by recognizing another as a

person, one realizes an obligation to adhere to moral principles (e.g., abstaining from

harming others) and thus behaves in a morally appropriate manner. Hence, the emerging

recognition respect in 7- and 11-year-olds may perhaps be associated with, for example,

reducing aggressive behaviour. As our findings also showed appraisal respect motivated

prosocial behaviour in 5-year-olds, this study spoke to the importance of both types of

respect on children’s positive social behaviour.


"

27"

Limitations and Future Directions

While the present study extended our knowledge of the development of respect and its

relation to children’s prosocial behaviour, it was not without limitations. First, it relied solely

on cross-sectional data, which does not allow for the investigation of intra-individual changes

related to respect and prosocial behaviour over time. Future longitudinal studies on the intra-

individual development of respect and prosociality are warranted. Second, our outcome

measure of prosocial behaviour was solely caregiver-reported; using more informants such as

peer nominations (see Cohen et al., 2006) and observational measures will extend the

generalizability of the findings. Finally, our findings suggested respect might have

overlapped with peer liking, but studies have shown respect is not the same as peer liking:

For example, Renger and Simon (2011) found perceived respect motivated group-benefitting

behaviour even while controlling for perceived liking, suggesting respect promotes social

competence above and beyond liking. Future studies should seek to distinguish between the

effects of respect and liking on children’s social and emotional development by instilling

measures to disentangle the two constructs.

Despite these limitations, this study was among the first to examine the development of

respect, as well as its relation to prosocial behaviour. As such, the present study provided

useful insight into the cognitive and affective components of children’s respect, and how

children’s conceptions and affect evaluations relate to their prosocial behaviour.


"

28"

References

Audley-Piotrowski, S. R. (2012). The relation among respect descriptions, being respected, and

peer social competence in middle childhood (Unpublished dissertation). University of

Memphis, Tennessee.

Becker, A., Woerner, W., Hasselhorn, M., Banaschewski, T., & Rothenberger, A. (2004).

Validation of the parent and teacher SDQ in a clinical sample. European Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 13(2), ii11-ii16. doi:10.1007/s00787-004-2003-5

Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 11(1), 7-10. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00157

Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher-child relationships, and social skill

development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1-14.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.001

Brehl, B., & Wainryb, C. (2005). Children's explanations of harmful behavior: Naïve realism

and interpretation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Cohen, R., Hsueh, Y., Zhou, Z., Hancock, M. H., & Floyd, R. (2006). Respect, liking, and peer

social competence in China and the United States. New Directions for Child and

Adolescent Development, 2006(114), 53-66. doi:10.1002/cd.175

Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic

Literature, 47(2), 448-474. doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448


"

29"

Crowder, K. (2012). Good monkey see, good monkey do: Imitative prosocial behavior in

children. Journal of Psychological Inquiry, 17(2), 7-16.

Damon, W. (1975). Early conceptions of positive justice as related to the development of logical

operations. Child Development, 46(2), 301-312. doi:10.2307/1128122

Damon, W. (1994). Fair distribution and sharing: The development of positive justice. In B.

Puka (Ed.), Fundamental research in moral development (pp. 189-254). New York, NY:

Garland Publishing.

Darwall, S. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88(1), 36-49. doi:10.1086/292054

Davidov, M., Grusec, J. E., & Wolfe, J. L. (2012). Mother’s knowledge of their children’s

evaluations of discipline: The role of type of discipline and misdeed, and parenting

practices. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(3), 314-340. doi:10.1353/mpq.2012.0018

Dawson, J. (n.d.). Interpreting interaction effects. Retrieved from

http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm

Deković, M., & Janssens, J. M. (1992). Parents' child-rearing style and child's sociometric status.

Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 925-932. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.925

Drummond, J. J. (2006). Respect as a moral emotion: A phenomenological approach. Husserl

Studies, 22(1), 1-27. doi:10.1007/s10743-006-9001-z

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 51, 665-697. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665

Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., Pasternack, J., Lennon, R., Beller, R., & Mathy, R. M. (1987). Prosocial

development in middle childhood: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 23(5),

712-718. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.712


"

30"

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo, A. (2013). Prosocial development. Manuscript submitted

for publication.

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Morris, A. (2014). Empathy-related responding in children. In

M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 184-207).

New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791.

doi:10.1038/nature02043

Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical

exchange. London: Verso. doi:10.3366/per.2005.1.2.215

Frei, J. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self-

report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 121-139.

doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00008

Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586. doi:10.1111/j.1469-

7610.1997.tb01545.x

Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parenting socialization and children’s acquisition of values. In M. H.

Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting (pp. 143-

167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grusec, J. E., & Redler, E. (1980). Attribution, reinforcement, and altruism: A developmental

analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 525-534. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.16.5.525


"

31"

Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Takezawa, M., & Mata, J. (2008). To give or not to give: Children’s

and adolescents’ sharing and moral negotiations in economic decision situations. Child

Development, 79(3), 562-576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01143.x

Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E., Gasser, L., & Malti, T. (2010). Moral emotions and moral

judgments in children’s narratives: Comparing real-life and hypothetical transgressions.

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2010(129), 11-31.

doi:10.1002/cd.273

Helwig, C. C. (2006). The development of personal autonomy throughout cultures. Cognitive

Development, 21(4), 458-473. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.009

Helwig, C. C., & McNeil, J. (2011). The development of conceptions of personal autonomy,

rights, and democracy and their relation to psychological well-being. In V. Chirkov, R.

Ryan, & K. Sheldon (Eds.), Personal autonomy in cultural contexts: Global perspectives

on the psychology of agency, freedom, and people’s well-being (pp. 241-256). New York,

NY: Springer.

Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Bridges, K. (2012). Measurement and model building in studying the

influence of socioeconomic status on child development. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development (pp. 590-606).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Howell, D. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology. Cengage Learning.

Hsueh, Y., Zhou, Z., Cohen, R., Hundley, R. J., & Deptula, D. P. (2005). Knowing and showing

respect: Chinese and US children’s understanding of respect and its association to their

friendships. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 6(2), 89-120.


"

32"

Jambon, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2013). Moral complexity in middle childhood: Children’s

evaluations of necessary harm. Developmental Psychology. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1037/a0032992

Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to

some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57-93.

Jones, H. M. (2002). Respecting respect: Exploring a great deal. Educational Studies, 28(4), 341-

352. doi:10.1080/0305569022000042381

Kahn, P. H. (1992). Children's obligatory and discretionary moral judgments. Child

Development, 63(2), 416-430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01637.x

Kant, I. (1788). Critique of moral reasons. In M. J. Gregor (Trans. and Ed. 1966) Practical

philosophy (5: 74, 80). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Keller, M. (2004). Self in relationship. In D. K. Lapsley, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Morality, self, and

identity (pp. 269-300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kochanska, G. (2002). Committed compliance, moral self, and internalization: A mediational

model. Developmental Psychology, 38(3), 339-351. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.3.339

Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Joy, M. E. (2007). Children’s fearfulness as a moderator of

parenting in early socialization: Two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology,

43(1), 222-237. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.222

Kochanska, G., Koenig, J. L., Barry, R. A., Sanghang, K., & Yoon, J. E. (2010). Children’s

conscience during toddler and preschool years, moral self, and a competent, adaptive

developmental trajectory. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1320-1332.

doi:10.1037/a0020381


"

33"

Krettenauer, T., & Johnston, M. (2011). Positively versus negatively charged moral emotion

expectancies in adolescence: The role of situational context and the developing moral self.

British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 475-488.

doi:10.1348/026151010X508083

Lagattuta, K. H., Sayfan, L., & Blattman, A. J. (2010). Forgetting common ground: Six- to

seven-year-olds have an overinterpretive theory of mind. Developmental Psychology,

46(6), 1417-1432. doi:10.1037/a0021062

Lahat, A., Helwig, C. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2012). Age-related changes in cognitive processing of

moral and social conventional violations. Cognitive Development, 27(2), 181-194.

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.02.002

Lalonde, C. E., & Chandler, M. J. (2002). Children’s understanding of interpretation. New Ideas

in Psychology, 20(2-3), 163-198. doi:10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00007-7

Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Kindness

counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-

being. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051380

Li, J. (2006). Respect in children across cultures. New Directions for Child and Adolescent

Development, 2006(114), 81-90. doi:10.1002/cd.177

Li, J., & Fischer, K. W. (2007). Respect as a positive self-conscious emotion in European

Americans and Chinese. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-

conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 224-244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lichter, D. T., Shanahan, M. J., & Gardner, E. L. (2002). Helping others? The effects of

childhood poverty and family instability on prosocial behavior. Youth & Society, 34(1), 89-

119. doi:10.1177/0044118X02034001004


"

34"

Lightfoot, C. (2000). On respect. New Ideas in Psychology, 18(2), 177-185. doi:10.1016/S0732-

118X(00)00007-6

Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Keller, M., & Buchmann, M. (2009). Children’s moral motivation,

sympathy, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 80(2), 442-460.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01271.x

Malti, T., & Krettenauer, T. (2013). The relation of moral emotion attributions to prosocial and

antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 84(2), 397-412.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01851.x

Malti, T., & Latzko, B. (2012). Moral emotions. In V. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

human behavior, (2nd ed., pp. 644-649). Maryland Heights, MO: Elsevier.

doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00099-9.

Malti, T., & Ongley, S. F. (2014). The development of moral emotions and moral reasoning. In

M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 163-183).

New York, NY: Psychology Press.

McCarthy, P., & Walker, J. (2006). R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me: The

connection between respect and youth crime. Crime Prevention and Community Safety,

8(1), 17-29. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8150007

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. (2001). Is gratitude a moral

affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249-266. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249

Miller, R., & Pedro, J. (2006). Creating respectful classroom environments. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 33(5), 293-299. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0091-1

Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


"

35"

Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (2009). Capturing the complexity of moral development and education.

Mind, brain, and education, 3(3), 151-159. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01065.x

Ongley, S. F., & Malti, T. (2014). The role of moral emotions in the development of children’s

sharing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1148-1159. doi:10.1037/a0035191

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work

published 1932)

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,

40(3). 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Renger, D., & Simon, B. (2011). Social recognition as an equal: The role of equality-based

respect in group life. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 501-507.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.814

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Laursen, B. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of peer interactions,

relationships, and groups. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Rule, B. G., Dyck, R., McAra, M, & Nesdale, A. G. (1975). Judgements of aggression serving

personal versus prosocial purposes. Social Behaviour and Personality, 3(1), 55-63.

doi:10.2224/sbp.1975.3.1.55

Shwalb, B. J., & Shwalb, D. W. (2006). Concept development of respect and disrespect in

American kindergarten and first- and second-grade children. New Directions for Child and

Adolescent Development, 2006(114), 67-80. doi:10.1002/cd.176

Smetana, J. G. (2011). Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct their

worlds. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.


"

36"

Smetana, J., Jambon, M., & Ball, C. (2014). The social domain approach to children's moral and

social judgments. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd

ed., pp. 23-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Statistics Canada. (2012). Mississauga, Ontario (Code 3521005) and Ontario (Code 35) (table).

Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa.

Released October 24, 2012. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual

review of psychology, 58, 345-372. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

Tappan, M. B. (1991). Narrative, authorship, and the development of moral authority. New

Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1991(54), 5-25.

doi:10.1002/cd.23219915403

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann, G. Vakar, & N. Minnick, Trans.

and Eds.) Cambridge, MA: MIT press. (Original work published 1934)

Wainryb, C., Brehl, B. A., Matwin, S., Sokol, B. W., & Hammond, S. (2005). Being hurt and

hurting others: Children's narrative accounts and moral judgments of their own

interpersonal conflicts. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,

70(3), i-122.

Watson, M. (2003). Learning to trust: Transforming difficult elementary classrooms through

developmental discipline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '

'

37'

Table 1

Descriptions and Examples of Coding Categories for Respect description and Justification

Category Description Prototypical Example

Prosociality Reference to other-oriented behaviour “He helped him”

Fairness Reference to principles of justice “Everyone deserves the same amount”

Conventional Reference to social conventions “He’s being polite”

Merit Reference to effort or admiring achievements “She tried her best”

Rationalizing Reference to minimizing negative consequences “Maybe (he didn’t share because) he thought she didn’t like it”

Personal freedom Reference to rights or choices “It’s his choice to help or not”

Authority Reference to obedience to higher social status “He’ll get in trouble (if he doesn’t share)”

Global evaluation Reference to broad, unelaborated characteristics “She’s being nice”


'

38'

Table 2

Frequencies of Respect Description Categories (%) by Age Group

Category Total (%) 5-year-olds 7-year-olds 11-year-olds

Prosociality 290 (32%) 73 (36%) 140 (37%) 77 (24%)

Fairness 236 (26%) 39 (19%) 103 (28%) 94 (28%)

Conventional 165 (18%) 37 (18%) 67 (18%) 61 (19%)

Merit 55 (6%) 1 (1%) 8 (2%) 46 (14%)

Rationalizing 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Personal freedom 42 (5%) 3 (2%) 10 (3%) 29 (9%)

Global evaluation 87 (10%) 39 (19%) 37 (10%) 11 (3%)


'

39'

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Affect Evaluations by Age Group

Story Domain

Overall (N = 221) 5-year-olds

(n = 67) 7-year-olds

(n = 84) 11-year-olds

(n = 70)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Prosocial 3.86 0.36 3.75 0.53 3.87 0.31 3.96 0.13

Prosocial Omission 1.79 0.59 1.68 0.66 1.78 0.60 1.91 0.50


'

40'

Table 4 Frequencies of Justification Categories by Age Group and Story Domain

Prosocial Omission of Prosocial Behaviour Prosocial Omission

Category Total (%) 5 7 11 Total (%) 5 7 11

Prosociality 148 (24%) 45 (28%) 56 (23%) 47 (23%) 184 (30%) 58 (35%) 74 (30%) 52 (25%)

Fairness 263 (43%) 37 (23%) 115 (48%) 111 (53%) 155 (25%) 26 (16%) 72 (45%) 57 (27%)

Conventional 33 (5%) 9 (6%) 12 (5%) 12 (6%) 65 (11%) 13 (8%) 18 (8%) 34 (16%)

Merit 22 (4%) 4 (3%) 2 (1%) 16 (8%) 6 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (0%) 4 (2%)

Rationalizing 8 (1%) 3 (2%) 4 (2%) 1 (1%) 51 (8%) 7 (4%) 18 (8%) 26 (13%)

Personal freedom 10 (2%) 3 (2%) 1 (0%) 6 (3%) 42 (7%) 13 (8%) 7 (3%) 22 (11%)

Global evaluation 124 (20%) 60 (37%) 49 (20%) 15 (7%) 99 (16%) 43 (26%) 45 (19%) 11 (5%)


'

41'

Table 5 Correlation Matrix of Study and Control Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Prosocial behaviour —

2. Prosocial domain affect evaluation .23** —

3. Omission domain affect evaluation .05 -.02 —

4. Prosociality descriptions .14 .04 -.08 —

5. Fairness descriptions .05 .08 .10 -.33*** —

6. Prosocial justifications prosocial domain .03 .10 -.13 .07 .06 —

7. Fairness justifications prosocial domain .00 .20** .12 -.08 .07 -.36*** —

8. Prosocial justifications omission domain .08 .04 -.26*** .17* -.10 .17* .04 —

9. Fairness justifications omission domain .02 .17* .00 .08 .04 -.05 .29*** -.18** —

10. Child age .20** .23*** .11 -.21** .10 -.04 .33*** -.09 .14* —

11. Child gender -.25** -.06 .05 -.13 .11 .05 .02 -.07 -.01 .09 —

12. Caregiver education level (SES) .03 .09 .01 -.02 .06 -.01 .00 .06 .01 .01 -.04 —

Note. Child gender was dummy-coded (girls = 0; boys = 1). Child age was divided into three age groups: 5-year-olds (M = 4.92; SD = 0.27), 7-year-olds (M = 7.14; SD = 0.35), and 11-year-olds (M = 11.15; SD = 0.36). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


'

42'

Table 6 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Prosocial Behaviour from Respect Descriptions (Model 1) and Affect Evaluations (Model 2)

Predictor

Model 1 Model 2

ΔR2/ΔF2 β ΔR2/ΔF2 Β

Step 1 .07/6.29** .08/8.64***

Child gender -.26** -.28***

Caregiver education level (SES) .00 -.01

Step 2 .08/5.55** .08/6.33***

Child gender -.26*** -.28***

Caregiver education level (SES) .00 -.01

Child age .23** .19**

Prosociality descriptions .19*

Fairness descriptions .15

Prosocial domain affect evaluation .17*

Omission domain affect evaluation -.01

Step 3 .03/7.67**

Child gender -.29***

Caregiver education level (SES) -.02

Child age .24**

Prosocial domain affect evaluation -.03

Omission domain affect evaluation .02

Age x prosocial domain affect evaluation

-.27**

Total R2 .15** .19**

N 180 206

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


'

43'

Figure 1. Interaction of age and affect evaluation in the prosocial domain predicting prosocial behaviour. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

b = -.77

b = .04

b = .46**

Running head: RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY · 2015. 11. 18. · RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY "" ii Abstract...

Documents

Transcript of Running head: RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY · 2015. 11. 18. · RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY "" ii Abstract...