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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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, &
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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,
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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).
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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-
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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).
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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).
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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.
RESPECT AND PROSOCIALITY
"
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”
RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '
'
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%)
RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '
'
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
RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '
'
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%)
RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '
'
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.
RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '
'
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.
RESPECT'AND'PROSOCIALITY' ' '
'
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**