The Role of Moral Emotions in Adolescents’ Moral Actions

1. The Role of Moral Emotions in Adolescents’ Moral Actions Megan Johnston Tobias Krettenauer Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, ON, Canada AME Conference, Utrecht July, 2009 1

2. Overview • What factors influence adolescents’ decisions regarding whether or not to act morally? • Moral emotion expectancies • Self-importance of moral characteristics • Contribute independently or depend on each other? 2

3. Moral Emotion Expectancies and Moral Action • Important part of response evaluation process involves expectation of the emotional consequences (Dodge & Price, 1994) • Awareness of moral emotions has been shown to relate to measures of moral behavior • E.g. children who are better able to anticipate emotional outcomes of moral transgressions more likely to resist a temptation to cheat (Lake, Lane & Harris, 1995) 3

4. Moral Emotion Expectancies and Moral Action • Studies comparing aggressive/violent youth to non-aggressive youth • aggressive youth more likely to indicate they would feel happy in social situations which typically evoke negative emotions (Lochman & Dodge, 1994) • Arsenio, Gold, & Adams (2004) • Higher levels of aggression-related happiness predicted likelihood of initiation of aggression • Minimal attention given to association between moral emotion expectancies and prosocial behavior 4

5. Moral Self and Moral Action • Moral self (internalized values) as regulator of moral conduct • Arnold (1993) – in adolescence, moral self-relevance correlates positively with teacher reports of ethical behavior • Hart et al. (1995) – adolescents demonstrating admirable commitments to care for others more likely to describe themselves in terms of moral personality traits and moral goals (compared to matched peers) • Aquino & Reed (2002) – self-importance of moral traits related to volunteerism, food donations • Barriga et al. (2001) - Females have greater moral self-relevance, lower levels of antisocial behavior than males 5

6. Moral Emotions and the Moral Self • Tracy & Robins (2004) • Events are appraised for their relevance to identity goals • Self-evaluative emotions inform individuals of compatibility of behavior with identity goals and self-concept – use to regulate future behavior • Krettenauer & Johnston (2009) • negatively and positively charged emotion expectancies following moral transgressions found to correlate with moral self scores 6

7. Goals of Present Research • Replicate previous relationships documented using selected samples between moral emotion expectancies, moral self, and moral action in a non-selected sample • Investigate relationships between moral emotion expectancies, moral self, and moral action neglected in previous research • Examine moral emotion expectancies and moral self as simultaneous predictors of moral action 7

8. Method • 205 participants • grade 7 (n = 48; 10 males) • grade 9 (n = 53; 19 males) • grade 11 (n = 54; 18 males) • first-year university (n = 50; 14 males) • Interview • 18 scenarios involving everyday moral situations • Moral norm disregarded in half, regarded in half • Written questionnaire 8

9. Interview Examples scenarios: • Somebody in your neighborhood collects money for the needy. One day she knocks at your door. You think that this charity campaign really makes a difference. Therefore, you give her some money even though you already made plans how to spend it … • While you are strolling through a thrift store, you see a tiny thing you really would like to have. However, you cannot afford it. In a moment, when nobody is observing you, you take the object, put it in your bag and leave the store without paying … 9

10. Emotion Poster 10

11. Overall Rating Scale • How would you feel overall in this situation? 11

12. Questionnaire • Self-reported prosocial and antisocial behavior • 50 items in total • In the last year, number of times activity was engaged in • 0 – never • 1 – once or twice • 2 – a few times • 3 – several times 12

13. Questionnaire • Antisocial Behavior • range from minor delinquent acts, such as skipping school, to more violent offenses, such as assault • compiled from a variety of antisocial behavior scales (e.g. Raaijmakers, Engels, & Van Hoof, 2005) • Ex. “Intentionally damaged or destroyed people’s private property” • Prosocial Behavior • Youth Inventory of Involvement scale (Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger, & Alisat, 2007) • “Helping” subscale - items related to helping/ volunteering/donating • Ex. “Visited or helped out people who were sick” 13

14. Questionnaire • The Good-Self Assessment (Barriga et al., 2001) • Assesses centrality of moral characteristics to one’s self-understanding • 8 moral traits (e.g. honest, considerate, generous) • 8 non-moral traits (e.g. creative, sociable, athletic) • How important is it to you that you are ……? • Extremely important to me • Very important to me • Important to me • Sort of important to me • Not important to me 14

15. Questionnaire • Social Desirability • 17 items, true or false (Blake, Valdiserri, Neuendorf, & Nemeth, 2006) • Scale had been validated for adolescent participants • Examples: • “I occasionally speak badly of others behind their backs” • “Sometimes I only help because I expect something in return” 15

16. Results: Correlations Correlations Among Moral Behavior, Moral Self, and Emotion Variables BehaviorOverall EmotionsMoral Self Prosocial Antisocial Regarded Disregarded Trait Self-Importance Behavior Prosocial 1 Antisocial -.005 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emotions Regarded .157* -.022 1 Disregarded -.117 .335** -.261** 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moral Self Trait Self- .235* -.215** .301** -.460** 1 Importance 16

17. Results: Regressions • Predicting Prosocial Behavior Predictor Standardized Beta t Sig. emotion ratings (regarded) .075 1.009 .314 emotion ratings (disregarded) -.002 -.020 .984 moral self score .209 2.561 .011 17

18. Predicting Prosocial Behavior t (201) = 3.44, p = .001 Moral Self Prosocial Behavior β = .235 t (193) = 2.89, p = .004 β = .210 Prosocial Behavior Moral Self Emotions t (195) = 4.41, p < .001 t (196) = 2.23, p = .027 β = .301 β = .157 18

19. Results: Regressions • Predicting Antisocial Behavior Predictor Standardized Beta t Sig. emotion ratings (regarded) .105 1.451 .148 emotion ratings (disregarded) .314 4.029 .000 moral self score -.101 -1.285 .200 19

20. Predicting Antisocial Behavior t (200) = -3.12, p = .002 Moral Self Antisocial Behavior β = -.215 t (193) = -1.121, p = .264 β = -.085 Antisocial Behavior Moral Self Emotions t (196) = -7.28, p < .001 t (196) = 4.99, p < .001 β = -.460 β = .335 20

21. Discussion • Goal I: replicate previously documented relationships in non-selected sample • Confirmed • Moral self associated with prosocial action – better predictor than emotion expectancies • Moral emotion expectancies associated with antisocial action – better predictor than moral self 21

22. Discussion • Goal II: Investigate relationships neglected in previous research • Partially confirmed • Association between antisocial behavior and moral self confirmed (mediated by emotions) • Association between prosocial behavior and moral emotion expectancies not confirmed 22

23. Discussion • Goal III: Examine moral emotion expectancies and moral self as simultaneous predictors • Mediation confirmed for antisocial behavior • No mediation confirmed when predicting prosocial action • Narrower range of emotions examined • Other-oriented emotions (e.g. empathy) not included 23