Poster #126 - Links Between Children’s Guilt and Their Understanding of Salience of Psychological Harm

• In Event: 3-053 - Poster Session 10
  In Poster Session: PS 10 Section - Moral Development

Integrative Statement

Previous research has shown that children are able to judge psychological harm as wrong from age 3 on (Helwig et al., 2001), but their understanding is less advanced than that of physical harm (Ball et al., 2017), as psychological harm is more abstract, and the consequences are less straightforward. However, little research has examined how young children evaluate different features of psychological harm. Furthermore, guilt is thought to facilitate moral development (Tangney et al., 2007), but little research has investigated these links. Therefore, this study examined associations between children’s guilt and their judgments of psychological harm that varies in the salience of harm and the vulnerability of the victims.
We studied 105 U.S. 5- and 6-year-old children (mean age = 5.85 years; 48 girls), who were interviewed on an I-Pad. Children were presented with stories that varied in the salience of psychological harm (highly salient, less salient, no harm) and the vulnerability of victims (typical victim, vulnerable victim). Children were asked to evaluate and justify the acceptability of the acts, rate transgressors’ deserved punishment and authority independence (e.g., whether the act is wrong independent of authority), and attribute emotions to victims. Children (n = 99; 47 girls) also reported on their guilt using a scenario-based measure modified from SCEMAS (Ferguson & Stegge, 1998). Parents (n = 87, mean age = 36.95 years) reported on their child’s guilt by using items from Kochanska et al. (1994).
Separate 2 (Child Gender) X 2 (Victims’ Vulnerability) X 3 (Harm Salience) mixed model ANCOVAs with children’s guilt as a covariate were conducted. Only participants who had parent and child reports of guilt were included in analyses. Children judged highly salient harm stories as more wrong, more deserving of punishment, and more independent of authority, and attributed more negative emotions to victims than less salient harm, and in turn, no harm stories. There was a significant Emotion Attributions X Guilt (child report) interaction, F (2, 182) = 3.65, p < .05. Higher guilt was associated with attributions of more negative emotions to victims for highly salient harm and less salient harm stories (Figure 1). There were significant Gender X Guilt (child report) interactions for acceptability, F (1, 91) = 7.57, p < .01, and emotion attributions, F (1, 91) = 5.12, p < .05. Child-reported guilt was associated with greater wrongness and with attributions of more negative emotions to victims, but only for girls. Parental report of guilt was associated with authority independence, F (1, 79) = 4.38, p < .05; children higher in guilt judged transgressions as more acceptable when not prohibited by authority. Children’s justifications will be coded and discussed.
Taken together, the results show that 5- and 6-year-olds’ understanding of psychological harm varies according to the salience of harm done to victims. Moreover, associations between children’s guilt and judgments of the wrongness and emotional consequences of psychological harm suggest that guilt may help children understand the consequences of transgression.

Authors

• Ha Na Yoo, University of Rochester
  Presenting Author

• Judith Smetana, University of Rochester
  Non-Presenting Author