The Cognitive Basis of Future‐oriented Prosocial Behavior

Moore, Chris; Barresi, John; Thompson, Carol E.

doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00062

Cited by 151 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We know that 2-and 3-year-olds talk about the future (e.g., Atance & O'Neill, 2005;Nelson, 1989), and that by about 4 years of age, children can begin to make decisions that benefit a future, but not a present, self (e.g., Moore et al, 1998). What the current study adds is information concerning children's reasoning about everyday events that will affect their future states.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Children are told that they can have the smaller reward immediately, or that they can wait to obtain the larger reward. In general, the ability to delay gratification in this context, as well as similar ones, increases with age (Mischel et al, 1989;Moore, Barresi, & Thompson, 1998;Thompson, Barresi, & Moore, 1997). For instance, Moore and his colleagues found that 4-and 5-year-olds delay choosing one sticker immediately, in favor of two stickers later, significantly more often than 3-yearolds.…”

Section: Delay Of Gratificationmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

My future self: Young children's ability to anticipate and explain future states

Atance

Meltzoff

2005

Cognitive Development

221

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examine preschool-aged children's ability to anticipate physiological states of the self. One hundred and eight 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds were presented with stories and pictorial scenes designed to evoke thought about future states such as thirst, cold, and hunger. They were asked to imagine themselves in these scenarios and to choose one item from a set of three that they would need. Only one of the items could be used to address the future state. In both experiments, developmental differences were obtained for correct item choices and types of verbal explanations. In Experiment 2, the performance of the 3-and 4-year-olds was negatively affected by introducing items that were semantically associated with the scenarios but did not address the future state, whereas the 5-year-olds' performance was not. Results are discussed with respect to children's understanding of the future, theory of mind, and inhibitory control skills. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Thinking about the future is an integral aspect of human cognition. Much of our behavior is future-oriented. For instance, in choosing a career path, we may anticipate how the various options will contribute to our future happiness and success. We then modify our present actions to bring about these future goals. In this example, we are predicting the emotional consequences, or states, that our particular career choice will engender. However, there are other states, in addition to emotional ones, that are important for us to anticipate. For example, we may anticipate how our behavior will affect our own, or another's, mental state * Corresponding author. Present address:

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Delay Of Gratificationmentioning

confidence: 94%

My future self: Young children's ability to anticipate and explain future states

Atance

Meltzoff

2005

Cognitive Development

221

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, by observing a coherent pattern of self-evaluative responses that are linked to both empathy and prosocial behavior, we demonstrate that when viewed 'online' young children's experience of self-evaluative emotion appears mature. For this reason, the lag in predicting complex emotion (and associated delays in sharing/altruistic behavior) might be explained not by deficits in self-evaluation, but by choices being compromised by young children's established difficulties in inhibition and forward thinking (Moore, Barresi & Thompson, 1998). Alternatively, the link between self-evaluation and prosociality may initially function on an implicit level, before later being made explicit in children's moral reasoning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to the positive results for selfcontrol, early work often failed to find the predicted association between prosociality and perspective taking ability in children younger than 4 years (Denham, 1986; Iannoti, 1985;Underwood & Moore, 1982). Although several recent studies report a positive association between cognitive perspective taking and prosociality for 4-to 6-year-olds (Farrant, Devine, Maybery & Fletcher, 2012;Takagishi, Kameshima, Schug, Koizumi, & Yamagishi, 2010;Moore, Barresi, & Thompson, 1998;Wu & Su, 2014), null and even negative results continue to be observed (Imuta et al, 2016). The most recent meta-analysis concludes that cognitive perspective taking has a significant but small association with prosociality (Imuta et al, 2016).…”

Section: Research Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 98%

You and me: Investigating the role of self-evaluative emotion in preschool prosociality

Ross

2017

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation for published version (APA): Ross, J. (2017). You and me: investigating the role of self-evaluative emotion in preschool prosociality. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 155, 67-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Discovery Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Discovery Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain.• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 13. May. 2018Self-evaluative emotion and preschool prosociality AbstractSelf-evaluative emotions depend on internalized social standards and motivate social action. However, there is a lack of empirical research documenting the impact of self-evaluative emotion on 3-and 4-year-olds' prosociality. Extant research relates children's experiences of guilt to empathetic concern and making amends. However, the relationship between guilt and both concern and making amends is potentially reductive. Empathetic concern involves similar bodily expressions to guilt, and amend making is used to distinguish guilt from shame in children. This is the first study to relate the development of both positive and negative selfevaluative emotions to empathetic concern and prosocial choice (making amends, spontaneous help). Results confirm that the broad capacity for self-evaluative emotion is established in the preschool years, and relates to empathetic concern. Moreover, these social emotions can be used to predict prosocial choice. Making amends was best predicted by empathetic concern and by children's responses to achievement (pride following success, lack of shame following failure). Alongside moral pride, pride in response to achievement and resilience to shame was also the best predictor of spontaneous help. The data support the idea that young children's prosocial choices may be partially driven by the affective drive to maintain an 'ideal' self. Psychologists have emphasised that in order to be adaptive, selfevaluative emotion should be guilt rather than shame orientated. However, the adaptive role of pride has been neglected. We call on future research to redress the focus on negative selfevaluation in moral development and further explore the prosocial potential of pride. Research Highlights1. Self-evaluative emotions depend on internalized standards and motivate social action.2. Extant developmental research associates guilt with empathetic concern and reparation.3. The current paper shows th...

show abstract

“…As a general marker of unfavorable intrauterine conditions, low birth weight has been linked to various later-life outcomes ranging from cardiovascular disease (Barker, 1990) to lower income (Black et al, 2007) and reduced cognitive abilities (Hack et al, 2005), which in turn reduce the taste for cooperation (Moore et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 2015).…”

Section: Exogenous Shocks and Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of environmental shocks in shaping prosocial behavior

Duchoslav¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cognitive Basis of Future‐oriented Prosocial Behavior

Abstract: Two experiments examined the development of future-oriented prosocial

Cited by 151 publications

References 30 publications

My future self: Young children's ability to anticipate and explain future states

My future self: Young children's ability to anticipate and explain future states

You and me: Investigating the role of self-evaluative emotion in preschool prosociality

The role of environmental shocks in shaping prosocial behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About