Lec 7

Question 1

Shulman et al 2012

• 3 links
• 2 approaches mom used to protect daughters
• 2 types of children

Answer 1

Romantic relationships – Shulman et al 2012

• Can be influenced by parents
• > 70% of adol age 18 have had a romantic relationship in the past 18 mo
• These relationships often last over a yr
• The onset of these relationships occur simultaneously w/ an increase in sexual attraction
• adol also engage in sexual relationships w/ non-romantic partners (~40% of adol lose their virginity w/ non-partners)
• NOTE: this is based on a Western culture that is sexually permissible (IOW: not universal)
  
  • There are differences due to religion/location
• The relationships may be healthy and provide emo support, but are also correlated w/ depressive symptoms (esp among girls)
• NOTE: in most emo studies, they mainly rely on self report
  
  • Males are less likely to self report due to the norm of males have to contain their emotions

Parent-child interactions in romantic relationships

• Adol romance does not affect the teen!
  
  • Onset of romantic relationship in adol can cause stress for parents
    
    • Particularly parents of daughters
    • This may conjure up old feelings in parents related to their own sexual experiences, attractiveness, etc
• Adol romance is not only affected by the teen
  
  • Teen’s attachment to their romantic partners is highly correlated w/ their attachment to their parents
    
    • Teen’s attachment style to romantic partners mirror that w/ their caregiver (securely attached -> securely attached)
  • Parent’s attachment to their children is highly corelated w/ their attachment to their own parents
• Shulman et al 2012 conducted a study to examine thel ink b/w
  
  • 1: Parents own romantic experiences
  • 2: Parents attitude to their adol’s romantic experiences
  • 3: Adol’s romantic experiences
  • Focused on mom-daughter dyads
  • 72 Israeli moms and 17 yo [EL1] daughters
  • Qualitative rs: use interviews of moms and daughters to examine the 3 items abv
    
    • Difficult to quantify these relationships, makes sense to qualitative approach
• Shulman et al identify various patterns b/w the mom’s and daughters’ experiences
  
  • In all cases, the mom’s and daughters’ relationship are closely related to one another
  • And moms attempt to protect the daughters
  • But they use diff strategies to do so
• The author identify what they consider healthy approaches (cohesive/flexible) and less healthy approaches (preoccupied/anxious)
• Flexible/cohesive mom’s experiences of their daughters’ relationships did not lead to anxiety about their own past
  
  • Use past experiences in more productive ways
• Preoccupied mom’s experiences of their daughters’ relationship often brought back difficult memories from their own past
  
  • More restrictive
• Daughters appear to mirror their mom’s attitudes
  
  • Children of Cohesive parents: Informed by past mom but not bound by it
  • Children of Preoccupied parents: more fear around their relationship

[EL1]Note: this is done in sexually permissive society

Question 2

• 5 characteristics of emotion
• 2D emotion plot
• Darwin’s universality h
• discrete emotion theory
• Emotions in bb vs older children → how do they differ?

Answer 2

Review: what is emotion?

• Neural response (NT)
• Subjective feelings (sad, happy)
• Physiological response
• Cognitive response (thoughts)
• Desire to take action
  
  • This is the point of emotion, it drives action
  • awwEx. Fear -> fight or flight
• X
• Alternative view
  
  • +ve or -ve experience in response to a stimulus and associatieod w/ particular pattern of physiological activity
  • 2D (you can plot it)
    
    • Valence (+ve and -ve)
    • Physiological arousal (severity)
  • When we plot emotions, it forms a circle
  • Some the major emotions, it will be placed in a similar place cross culturally
    
    • Exception: surprise

Theories of emotion

• Darwin’s universality h: emotions (and facial expressions) are evolved -> they are universal across species
  
  • Ex. fear cross culturally: widen of eyes, nostrils
• Universality hypotheses evolved into discrete emotion theory
  
  • They are a small # of core basic emotions (ex. surprise, interest, joy, rage, fear, disgust, shame, and anguish)
  • This may be oversimplified as emotions like surprise and shame may differ on the arousal vs valence plot
• Prof’s view: There are some universal emotions, and some emotions that are culturally based
• X
• Most of the discrete emotions dev in infancy and early childhood
  
  • Ex. joy dev early in infancy
• When studying older children and adol, we tend to focus on complex emo
  
  • Ex. dev of empathy, self-conscious emotion (guilt and shame)
  • Empathy: ability to understand and share feelings of another

Question 3

• why is there a lack of rs in moral emo?
• 2 reasons why emo dev happen in adol
• Empathy
• Sympathy
• 2 things required for empathy
• empathy vs sympathy: which is more moral?
  
  • relationship b/w empathy vs sympathy

Answer 3

The development of empathy

• Eilenberg et al 2009 discuss the dev of moral emo in aodl
• Lack of literature on moral emotions in non-clinical pop and adol
  
  • Reason: most rs focus on the -ve emo -> internalizing -> depression/anxiety
• But adol is a time of great change in emo dev
  
  • Reason: increase in gonadal steroids -> adol increased attraction to peers -> increased attention social partners
  • Reason: adol increased PFC fx -> can compute increasingly complex and controlled response to social info
• X
• Empathy: stems from apprehension/understanding others’ emotional state
  
  • And the emotion you are feeling is similar to what the other person is feeling/expected to feel in the given situation
  • Ex. you were in a similar war situation b4 -> others show fear, you also feel fear
• Sympathy: stem from understanding others’ emo state of condition that is not the same as others’ state or condition
  
  • Ex. feeling concern
  • Living in Canada, never really had a situation their house is being bombed
  • You don’t know their feeling (can’t empathize), but can feel concern for them (sympathize)
• What is required for empathy?
  
  • An emotional response
  • Self-other differentiation (“theory of mind” is developed later in dev)
• Is empathy moral? (understanding of good vs bad)
  
  • Eisenberg et al argue it is a precursor to moral emotion
  • Rather, it is sympathy is more moral
    
    • Ex. sadness you experience motivate to help/act for the person
    • Sympathy is a better metric for “moral” than empathy
  • Empathy can be a precursor sympathy

Question 4

• 2 ways bb show empahy/sympathy
  
  • critique (2 points)
• Another indicator of empahy/sympathy
• Warnecken & Tomasello 2011: Trends on
  
  • instrumental helping
  • emotional support for getting hurt vs break a toy
  • material sharing
• elementary sku children (5-9)
  
  • empathy trends
  • b rx vs self report
  • facial rx vs physio
  • when do girl’s empathy increase? boys?
  • boys empathy increases for what?
    
    • reasons (2)

Answer 4

The dev of empathy and sympathy timeline

• How do infants show empathy and sympathy?
  
  • Bb cry in reaction others’ bb’s cry
  • Smiles in rx to others’ smiles
  • NOTE: they don’t have self-other differentiation, so it may not “true” sympathy/empathy; they may just be matching others’ expressions
• What about toddlers?
  
  • Dev of prosocial b (if they engage in prosocial b, like sharing, helping, emo support) can indicate empathy/sympathy

Prosocial behavior in early childhood

• Warnecken & Tomasello 2011
  
  • Top graph: 2,3,4 yo are consistent at instrumental helping across tasks
  • Mid: children at ages make major advances in emo support
    
    • Emo support is higher for broken objects than for physical pain
      
      • dark grey = get hurt
      • light grey = break a toy
    • Reason: kids have more experience w/ broken object (food)
    • They have less experience w/ comforting adults in physical pain
  • Bottom: material sharing is low across all 3 ages and does not appear to rapidly dev
  • • Elementary school children
  • Zahn-Waxler et al 1990
    
    • Study of 5-9 yo, older children showed more empathy than younger children
    • Particularly in behavioral rx and self-report
      
      • They differ in how much they help and say they will help
      • There is less change in kid’s facial rx and physiological responses
• Empathy continues to dev in adol but results are mixed
  
  • Davis & Franzoi 1991: Some studies show increases across 3 times points in HS
  • Eilenberg & Morris 2002: show no increase
  • Others show that there’s sex difference that clouds the result
• Still others show a sex difference
  
  • Girls’ empathy increase b/w early and middle adol; boy’s does not
  • Girls’ empathy increases for all ppl, but boys’ empathy increases only when the “object” of empathy is a girl, and decreases when the object of empathy is a boy
    
    • # 1: Recall increases in gonadal hormones affecting social cog
    • # 2: Eisenberg argues that these sex differences may be due to self-report, not physiological differences
• -> may influenced by demand characteristics as well
• X

Question 5

• what type of emotion are shame and guilt?
• guilt
• shame
• which one is good, what is it related to?
• Which one is bad, what is it related to?
• when do precursor of shame happens
  
  • 20 mo vs 30 mo
• when does true shame appear
  
  • reason
• What r they shameful on?
  
  • 5 yo
  • 10 yo
  • later
• x
• guilt
  
  • when does pre-guilt happen?
    
    • what is pre-guilt?
  • when does true guilt happen?
    
    • what is true guilt?
  • what r they guilty at?
  • 5yo?
  • 7yo?
  • early adol vs late adol?

Answer 5

Shame and guilt

• Shame and guilt: conscious emotions
  
  • Guilt: -ve emotion arising from one’s own wrongdoing
  • Shame: -ve emotion arising from one’s own eval of oneself
    
    • Ex. physical appearance, inability to do smth
• Most psychologists consider guilt tb good social self (-> correct their b later on); shame is a bad (-> depression anxiety)

The dev of shame

• 18-24 mo: (20 mo) begin to interpret parental disapproval as disappointment (precursor to shame)
• 30-36 mo: (30 mo) children form interpretations of self as bad (precursor to shame)
• 42-48 mo: (45 mo) True shame appears
  
  • Due to onset of[EL1] formal schooling (preschool)
  • Comparison
• Shame dev as children dev cog
  
  • Age 6-8 yo: dev shame on physical abilities
  • Age 10-12: physical and mental abilities
  • Late adol: shame b/c of o ther members of the gp

The dev of guilt

• 7-8 mo: bb associated their own actions w/ distress in others (pre-guilt)
• Toddlerhood: true guilt - children learn their own actions cuse distress in others
• 4-5 yo: guilt at not reciprocating a prosocial b
• 6-8 yo: guilt at not fulfilling a promise
• Early adol: guilt od not upholding a moral ideal
• Late adol: guilt at not upholding a moral idea as well as someone else

Question 6

• Piaget theory for morality
• Kohlberg 6 stages of moral dev
  
  • how is it similar to Piaget’s?
  • 6 stages
  • which ones are rules? ethics?
  • Which stage(s) are most adults in?
  • What did Kohlberg argue about moving b/w stages?
• Kohlberg’s study
  
  • methods
  • What was he looking at
  • results?

Answer 6

The dev of moral reasoning

• Review: there are 2 major stage theories of moral reasoning that hv captivated dev psycho for past 80 yrs
  
  • Piaget
    
    • Heteronomous morality (not autonomous; focus on others)
    • Autonomous morality
    • Kids: moved from other focused to self-focused morality
• Kohlberg 6 stages of moral dev
  
  • Like Piaget argued that kids move stage to stage cog, Kohlberg argue kids moves from stage to stage morally
  • 6 stages
    
    • # 1: obedience and punishment orientation (will I get in trouble)
    • # 2: instrumental orientation/ self interest (what is it in for e?)
    • # 3: good boy, nice girl orientation - norm (I should be a good boy)
    • # 4: Law and order orientation (rules are mento to be obeyed)
    • # 5: social contract orientation (Ppl hv different ules and they should all be respected)
    • # 6: universal ethical orientation (good laws are grounded in universal justice)
  • Rules/conventions = #1-4
  • Morals/ethics = #5-6
  • NOTE: not all adults ore in Stage 6
  • Most adults stress the #4 and #5: law and order orientation & social contract orientation
  • Kohlberg’s argue we do not move b/w stages, but we emphasize certain stages at diff ages
  • X
• Kohlberg illustrated his stages using vignettes (Heinz?)
• Done it w/ young boys
  
  • Kid presented w/ scenario wife dying
  • Should husband to break into pharmacy to get the lifesaving drug
• What matters is the reasoning they decided to break in
• Recent rs contradicted Kohlberg
• Even very young children have both conventional and moral judgements
  
  • Moral judgements may actually dev earlier
  • Ex.

Question 7

• domain theory
• 3 domains
• according to domain theory
  
  • moral dev b4 7 yo?
  • 3 aspects
• Nucci & Gingo 2011
  
  • Moral domain
    
    • 4 yo belief in moral
    • older children belief in moral
    • even older children/adults
    • moral development pattern
  • Conventional domain
    
    • stages 1,4,7 (Turiel’s stages)
  • Personal domain
    
    • early vs older children’s understanding on preference
• Domain vs Kohlberg - main difference

Answer 7

The dev of moral dev: domain theory

• Domain theory: argues moral reasoning develops separately in 3 domains
  
  • Moral: issues of ethics, right vs wrong
    
    • Ex. sharing vs not sharing; violence vs not
  • Conventional: obey rules and laws
    
    • Ex. address teacher by sir/ma’am, chew w/ mouth open
  • Personal - decisions that only affect self

Domain theory: the moral domain

• B4 7 yo, children’s dev in the moral domain is restricted to instrumental domain
  
  • Harm to self or others
  • Sharing vs hoarding
  • Difficult to account from multiple perspectives
• Morality dev nuance w/ age
  
  • Nucci & Gingo 2011
    
    • 4 yo believe they should be able to keep more a resource than a peer, as long as they don’t keep it all (ex. only gives 1/10 cookies to friends)
    • Older children thin the resource should b equally distributed (Ex. 5 for me, 5 for others)
  • But the pattern is not always linear
    
    • It has a U-shaped patterns
    • Older children – understand ownership
      
      • Since it’s my cookies, I can keep 7 others have 3

Domain theory: conventional domain

• Domain theorists argue that the conventional domain dev in 7 stages (Turiel 1987)
  
  • Stage 1: young children conceive rules as descriptors of how ppl behave
    
    • Ex. ppl shouldn’t hit eo as no one hits eo
  • Stage 4: young adol see rules as arbitrary
    
    • Rules are nothing but social expectations
  • Stage 7: older adol and young adults see rules as coordinating social b
    
    • Shared rules help the social system work
• x
• Children: personal preferences are universally shared
• Older children: begin to understand that diff ppl have diff preferences

Domain vs Kohlberg

• The debate continues
• 1990s/2000s: domain theory overtakes Kohlberg’s principal moral theory
  
  • Kohlberg supports fought back
• Data is mixed
• Main difference:
  
  • Kohlberg’e theory: morality is one unified framework that dev in stage
  • Domain theory: morality has 3 discrete frameworks that dev in stages