Times are displayed in (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Change
About this paper symposium
| Panel information |
|---|
| Panel 13. Moral Development |
| Paper #1 | |
|---|---|
| Cognitive Control Moderates Links Between Temperament and Prosocial Behavior in Preschool | |
| Author information | Role |
| Rebecca J. Brooker, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, United States | Presenting author |
| Sejal Misty-Patel, Texas A&M University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jeffrey R. Gagne, Texas A&M University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Tristin Nyman-Mallis, Texas A&M University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jessica M. Dollar, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Temperament-based individual differences in reactivity and regulation predict both prosociality and aggressive behaviors, which in turn are critical predictors of children’s long-term adaptive (Caprara et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2015) and maladaptive (Brennan et al., 2012; Campbell et al., 2006; Loeber et al., 2013) social and academic outcomes. Little research has tested discrete domains of temperament as interactive, rather than independent, predictors of development even though regulatory components are theorized to shape associations between temperament and socioemotional outcomes (Henderson, 2010). To address these gaps in the literature, we used two samples of three-year-old children (N = 177; 91.3% White; 57.5% female) to test whether an early form of self-control, inhibitory control (Rothbart et al., 1994), moderated associations between multiple discrete forms of temperamental reactivity (anger, fear, sadness, low-intensity pleasure, high-intensity pleasure, and shyness) and children’s prosociality and aggression. Because negative emotions typically necessitate greater self-regulation for adaptive function, we hypothesized that cognitive control would moderate associations between negative emotions and children’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Specifically, we anticipated that the link between negative emotions and negative outcomes (low prosociality, high aggression) would be mitigated when cognitive control was high. Cognitive control was operationalized using the N2, an event-related potential elicited during a standard go/no-go task. N2 was quantified as the residual EEG amplitude, during a time window identified using Principal Components Analysis (320-520 ms), for no-go trials after accounting for go-trial amplitudes. More negative amplitudes of N2 generally reflect higher levels of cognitive control. Temperament characteristics (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006; Rothbart et al., 2001) and prosocial and aggressive behaviors (Armstrong & Goldstein, 2003; Crick et al., 2006) were reported by parents. Consistent with previous research, numerous domains of temperament showed direct associations with children’s outcomes. However, cognitive control also interacted with fear and sadness to predict aggression such that less fear was associated with more aggression at low (β = -.47, SE (β) = .14, p = .00), but not high (β = .02, SE (β) = .16, p = .81) cognitive control. Additionally, sadness was unrelated to aggression at low cognitive control (β = .19, SE (β) = .15, p = .20) but positively predicted aggression at high cognitive control (β = .58, SE (β) = .11, p < .001). Further, cognitive control interacted with anger to predict prosociality. At low levels of cognitive control, greater anger was associated with less prosociality (β = -.43, SE (β) = .16, p = .00). However, at high cognitive control, greater anger was associated with more prosociality (β = .50, SE (β = .19, p = .01). Consistent with expectations, results demonstrate the importance of considering interactive effects for complex, multidetermined outcomes like prosociality and aggression. Moreover, results largely support cognitive control as beneficial for childhood outcomes, though add to the growing understanding that nuance is required when considering discrete components of emotion. |
|
| Paper #2 | |
|---|---|
| The Effect of Emotion Regulation on Adolescents’ Autonomic Functioning and Prosocial Responding | |
| Author information | Role |
| Ryan Hodge, Ph.D., University of Southern California, United States | Presenting author |
| Paul D. Hastings, University of California, Davis, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Emotion regulation plays a key role in promoting prosocial responding, with certain strategies (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) being particularly effective at regulating arousal and fostering greater prosociality (Hodge et al., 2023). However, less is known about how these associations manifest at the state-level during adolescents’ emotional experiences. Psychophysiological functioning, such as autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, may provide deeper insight into these complex relations (Porges, 2011). To better understand the direct effects of emotion regulation on adolescents’ psychophysiological functioning and prosocial responding, we examined how engaging in cognitive reappraisal or rumination influenced ANS activity while watching a film depicting sadness and loss, as well as adolescents’ responses of affective empathy, sympathy, prosocial helping, and donation behaviors. Youths engaging in a more effective emotion regulation strategy (cognitive reappraisal) were anticipated to respond most prosocially, whereas youths engaging in a less effective strategy (rumination) would respond least prosocially. These two emotion regulation strategies were also expected to influence ANS activity during the emotion induction. Specifically, we predicted that youths using cognitive reappraisal would display greater PNS and less SNS activity during the sad film, while those ruminating would display less PNS and greater SNS activity. A priori hypotheses were not put forward for the effects of the emotion regulation strategy on the associations among ANS activity and youths’ prosocial responding, as this is the first study we are aware of to explore these associations. 120 adolescents (Mage = 13.17 years, SD = 1.44, 61 females, 64% White) were randomly assigned to engage in cognitive reappraisal, rumination, or no instructed regulation (control) while viewing an emotionally evocative film clip. Several measures of ANS activity (e.g., respiratory sinus arrhythmia, pre-ejection period, skin conductance response) were recorded during a resting baseline and the emotion induction. Following the emotion induction, participants then reported their experiences of affective empathy (α = .86) and sympathy (α = .65). Participants’ behaviors were then recorded during a resource sharing game and an anonymous donation task to assess prosocial helping and donation behaviors, respectively. Contrary to our hypotheses, the experimental manipulation did not significantly alter youths’ prosocial responding, Wilk’s Λ = .90, F (2, 119) = 1.59, p =.128, or measures of ANS activity (Table 1). Multiple group comparisons were conducted to examine the extent that the strategies differentially impacted how youths’ patterns of ANS regulation were associated with their prosocial responding. As seen in Table 2, for participants engaging in cognitive reappraisal, lower RSA and more SCR during the emotion film were associated with more affective empathy; longer PEP, more SCR, and lower RSA were associated with more sympathy; and shorter PEP was associated with more altruistic helping and larger altruistic donations. For youths in the rumination group, longer PEP during the emotion film was associated with more affective empathy, whereas more SCR was associated with more sympathy. These findings challenge prevailing research suggesting certain emotion regulation strategies inherently promotes or diminishes prosocial responding. Rather, distinct patterns of physiological arousal may support youths’ prosocial responding depending on their used regulatory strategy. |
|
| Paper #3 | |
|---|---|
| Longitudinal Relations between Parenting and Adolescent’s Prosocial Tendencies: Self-Regulation as a Mediating Mechanism | |
| Author information | Role |
| Zili Zhong, Northern Arizona University, United States | Presenting author |
| Sonta Xinyue Xiao, Northern Arizona University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Eric Cerino, Northern Arizona University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jeffrey Liew, Texas A&M University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
There are positive social, emotional, and health outcomes that prosociality offers to individuals (e.g., Tashjian et al., 2021). Furthermore, different types of prosocial behaviors exhibit during adolescence due to complexity of social challenges. For children and adolescents, studies have identified parenting and self-regulation as influential factors in prosocial behaviors (e.g., Carlo & Randall, 2003; Eisenberg & Zhou, 2016; Kochanska et al., 2000; Wong et al., 2021), but longitudinal evidence for differentiated prosocial behaviors and their association with parenting practices and self-regulation is comparatively scant. To address this gap, this study examined the longitudinal association between parenting (i.e., warmth, control) and six types of prosocial behaviors commonly identified during adolescence (i.e., altruistic, anonymous, compliant, dire, emotional, public; Carlo et al., 2003). Furthermore, we tested adolescent self-regulation as a mediator because high level of self-regulation facilitates other-oriented thinking which promotes prosocial behaviors (Moilanen, Shaw, & Fitzpatrick, 2010). Participants, who completed surveys twice (once per year across two years), were 145 parents of early adolescents aged between 8 to 17 (Mage = 12.64, SDage = 1.26). There are 51.7% biological mothers, 0.7% stepmothers, 46.2% biological fathers, identified as male (49%), female (49.7%), transgender (0.7%) individuals. Ethnically, 11.7% parents are Asian, 18.6% Black, 4.8% Latinx, and 63.4% non-Hispanic White. Parents rated their own parenting practices (Robinson et al., 2001), adolescents’ self-regulation (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001), and adolescents’ six types of prosocial behaviors (Carlo et al., 2003). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Multiple regression analyses regressed T2 prosocial behaviors on T1 parental warmth and control, with T2 adolescent self-regulation included as a mediator and statistical adjustment for parents’ race, adolescents’ race, and T1 prosocial behavior covariates. Results showed some support for our hypotheses: T1 parental warmth positively predicted T2 altruistic prosocial behavior (β = .45, p < .001) and T1 parental control negatively predicted T2 public prosocial behavior (β = -.33, p < .001). In contrast to expectations, T1 parental warmth negatively predicted T2 public prosocial behavior (β = -.33, p < .001). Bootstrapping analyses with 10,000 resampling indicated T2 self-regulation was a significant mediator between T1 warmth and five of the six types of prosocial behaviors (i.e., T2 altruistic (95% CI [.005, .206], anonymous (95% CI [.03, .265]), compliant (95% CI [.021, .249]), dire (95% CI [.045, .3]), and emotional (95% CI [.022, .211] prosocial behavior). For parental control, no mediation effects were found because parental control was only correlated with T1 self-regulation (i.e., path a of the mediation model was not significant). These findings represent a significant initial step in understanding self-regulation as a mechanism underlying longitudinal links between parenting and different types of prosocial behaviors. The findings partially support our longitudinal hypotheses between parenting practices and altruistic prosocial behavior and significant indirect effects of self-regulation between parental warmth and five types of prosocial behaviors (i.e., altruistic, anonymous, compliant, dire, and emotional). This study advances the science on how parenting and self-regulation shape specific type of prosocial behaviors in adolescence, highlighting psychological adjustments in this distinguishing development phase. |
|
| Paper #4 | |
|---|---|
| Discrimination Links to Prosocial Behaviors via Self-Regulation and Empathy in U.S. Latine Youth | |
| Author information | Role |
| Sahitya Maiya, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, United States | Presenting author |
| Gustavo Carlo, University of California, Irvine, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Sarah Killoren, University of Missouri, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
| Due to their ethnic/racial minoritized status, US Latine youth are at heightened risk for experiencing discrimination (Padilla et al., 2013). Discrimination may be detrimental for US Latine youths’ prosocial and moral development (Carlo, 2014). On the one hand, perceived discrimination is negatively associated with empathy (Davis & Clark, 2022). On the other hand, discrimination is tied to lower levels of altruistic (or selflessly motivated) but higher levels of public (or selfishly motivated) prosocial behaviors (Davis et al., 2016). However, self-regulation (ability to adapt one’s behavior, emotions, and cognitions; Bandura, 1991) and empathy (matching another’s affective state through understanding their situation; Hoffman, 2000) may protect against the general detrimental consequences of discrimination. Indeed, moral developmental scholars (Maiya et al., 2023; Zaki, 2020) suggest that short-term self-regulation is beneficial for youths’ empathy and prosocial behavior (voluntary behaviors intended to benefit others; see Carlo, 2014). However, there is limited research on intervening mechanisms that could help explain the dynamic links between discrimination and prosociality. Further, the role of self-regulation (especially short-term regulation; Moilanen, 2007) in the links between discrimination and empathy and multiple forms of prosocial behaviors (helping under distinct circumstances and for different motives) is yet to be understood. Thus, the primary goal of this study is to examine the intervening roles of short-term self-regulation and empathy in associations between discrimination and multiple forms of prosocial behaviors. Participants were 249 (62% women; Mage = 20 years, SD = 1.9) young adults, who self-identified as Latine (86% U.S.-born; 49.8%) of Mexican descent) in a cross-sectional study on college students’ health and adjustment. Using online surveys, participants self-reported on their experiences of global discrimination (Whitbeck et al., 2001; α = .81), short-term self-regulation (Moilanen, 2007; α = .87), empathy (Davis, 1983; α = .91), and types (motive-based public and altruistic helping, helping in emotional, compliant, and dire situations, anonymous helping) of prosocial behaviors (Carlo et al., 2003; α range = .70 - .91). Table 1 depicts descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. We conducted path analyses utilizing the maximum likelihood robust estimation in Mplus, version 8.1. In terms of direct effects (see Figure 1), discrimination was negatively associated with short-term self-regulation and altruistic prosocial behavior but positively associated with public prosocial behavior. Short-term self-regulation was positively related to empathy and emotional, compliant, and dire prosocial behaviors. Empathy was positively linked with altruistic, emotional, compliant, dire, and anonymous prosocial behaviors and negatively linked with public prosocial behavior. Importantly, we found significant indirect effects from discrimination to all types of prosocial behaviors via both short-term self-regulation and empathy. Discussion will focus on the effects of discrimination on short-term self-regulation and prosociality in U.S. Latine youth. These findings extend theories of prosocial development in U.S. Latines (Carlo et al., 2022) through a multicultural and multidimensional lens (Carlo & Padilla-Walker, 2020) and provide insights to help design more effective prosocial interventions for U.S. Latine youth. | |
⇦ Back to session
Emotion Regulation and Prosociality: Mechanisms and Developmental Pathways from Early Childhood to Emerging Adulthood
Submission Type
Paper Symposium
Description
| Session Title | Emotion Regulation and Prosociality: Mechanisms and Developmental Pathways from Early Childhood to Emerging Adulthood |