Prosociality & Morality
Daniel Messinger, Ph.D.
1
Prosocial Development
6/30/2016
Messinger
2
Through interaction, infants
come to understand themselves
as social beings who affect and
are affected by others
psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/
Proposed mechanism
Young infants who act with the
developing expectation of eliciting
positive affect in the parent develop
to be young children who regulate
themselves to please their parents.
4
Morality is implicitly interactive
Acting with respect to the
expectations of a generalized
other—norms—expecting one’s
actions to affect others.
5
Early mother-infant synchrony 
2 year self-control

Maternal synchronization at 3 months
–

Faster is better
Mutual synchronization at 9 months
–
More important for difficult temperament kids
•

Feldman et al 1999
Mother-infant synchrony  dialogical
empathy at 6/13 years

Feldman, 2007
7
“Participating in a
synchronous exchange
may sensitize infants to
the emotional
resonance and empathy
underlying human
relationships across the
life span.”
Feldman, 2007
9
Empathic Responding

Add video here
Cooperation

Add video here
Empathy  Autism Symptoms
Effortful control,

“Essentially, a child's ability to inhibit a
readily available, prepotent response or to
stop an ongoing response to perform instead
a more appropriately modulated response is
implicated in multiple developmental
processes and considered a hallmark in
socialization.”
–
Typically viewed as a temperamental characteristic
–
Murray & Kochanska, 2002
16
By 45 months, effortful control
stable longitudinally & across tasks
Less intense proneness to anger and joy, &
more inhibited to unfamiliar in 2nd year
developed higher effortful control.
 Higher effortful control at 22–45 months 
stronger conscience at 56 months & fewer
externalizing problems at 73 months.

–
Effortful control mediated the oft-reported relations
between maternal power assertion and impaired
conscience development in children, even when child
management difficulty was controlled.
Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a
personality characteristic of young children: antecedents,
17
correlates, and consequences. J Pers, 71(6), 1087-1112.
Prosocial integrative model
Rises with age
 Stronger in girls
 Influenced by sociability, social
competence, regulation of emotion
 “Some consistency” in prosocial behavior
 Strong situational influences

–
6/30/2016
Diverse measures
Messinger
(p. 743)
Cross-cultural

Cultures in which children are more prosocial tend to involve extended families,
strong female role, less division of labor
–
6/30/2016
Reciprocal prosocial obligations valued as/more
highly than individual obligation
Messinger
24
Family

Good parenting  good empathy
–
–
Kochanska
Empathy springs from brain-based caregiving
systems associated with mothering/parenting
 De
–
6/30/2016
Waal; Panksepp (706)
Siblings caring for younger sibs
Messinger
25
Discipline



Inductive parenting– ‘How do you think David
feels?’ linked to pro-social behavior/sympathy
Power assertive techniques do not work as a
modal technique, but can be important in a more
reciprocal context
Authoritative parenting – warmth and control
–
–
–
Regulation of negative emotion
Plus role modeling for optimal prosociality
And providing early pro-social opportunities

6/30/2016
Foot-in-the-door technique
Messinger
26
Peer Acceptance and
Social Cognition

Social
information
processing

Differences
based on
sociometric
classifications?
RUBIN ET AL., 2011
Prosocial behavior

Voluntary behavior intended to benefit another
–
Empathy –

–
Understanding-based feeling of what other is feeling
Sympathy –

Sorrow/concern for other
–

Different from personal distress –
–
Self-focused aversive negative emotional reaction to
other


6/30/2016
Linked to helping, HR down
Linked to getting out of there, HR up
So regulating negative emotion is important
Messinger
28

Precursors to morality in development as a
complex interplay between neural,
socioenvironmental, and behavioral facets

Jason M. Cowell and Jean Decety

The Child Neurosuite, Department of Psychology,
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

PNAS | October 13, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 41 | 12657–12662
Billingsley
29
Background
Preferential-looking tasks and other studies
of attention suggest that children < 2 yr
prefer prosocial actors
 Selective attention: preferential attention
extends to as young as 3-months-old
 Selective approach: by 6 months
 Interpretation of early social preferences
unclear

Billingsley
30
Goal & Methods




Goal: Investigate the neural bases of third-party social
evaluations in infants and toddlers, and their link to
parental values
73 children between 12 & 24 months
Parents complete questionnaire:
Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire VSF
Sensitivity to Justice Scale
Interpersonal Reactivity Index
Infant EEG & Eye-tracking
Billingsley
31
Methods
Social Evaluation Task: observe prosocial
(helper) vs. antisocial agents (hinder)
 Preferential Reaching Paradigm
 4-minute resting state
 Chicago Moral Sensitivity Task: two
characters interact in a variety of prosocial
or antisocial ways
 Sharing Game

Billingsley
32
Results
No evidence of preferential reaching for
prosocial character
 Equal numbers of children shared vs. did
not share at least one toy
 Sharing associated with effortful control,
but not positive or negative affect
 Sharing associated with parent’s
perspective-taking and (negatively) with
parent’s personal distress

Billingsley
33
Results During SET
Greater cortical activation in helping vs.
hindering condition
 Greater left frontal asymmetry when
viewing hindering vs. helping

–

Consistent with activation of avoidance response
Greater fixation on agent of helping vs.
receiver of help
–
But no greater fixation on prosocial vs. antisocial action
Billingsley
34
Results From CMST

Greater amplitude for prosocial vs. antisocial scenes
(parietal region; 300-500ms)
–



More computation required to process the prosocial, or the
prosocial is more novel
No differences found 200-300ms, or 600-1000ms
Prosocial reaching preferences predicted by individual
differences in activation when perceiving helpful vs.
harmful behavior (200-500ms & 600-1000ms)
Those individual differences in turn were predicted by
parental sensitivity to injustice (300-500ms only)
Billingsley
35
Results From CMST

Greater amplitude for prosocial vs. antisocial scenes
(parietal region; 300-500ms)
–



More computation required to process the prosocial, or the
prosocial is more novel
No differences found 200-300ms, or 600-1000ms
Prosocial reaching preferences predicted by individual
differences in activation when perceiving helpful vs.
harmful behavior (200-500ms & 600-1000ms)
Those individual differences in turn were predicted by
parental sensitivity to injustice (300-500ms only)
Billingsley
36
Social preferences associated with
neural activation during CMST
Billingsley
37
Conclusion
Infants and toddlers distinguish between
prosocial & antisocial acts: EEG and eyetracking evidence
 The distinctions appear rooted in basic
processes of approach/withdrawal and
attention

Billingsley
38
Social Exclusion: Hypothetical Stories
vs. Observed in Lab

•
Hypothetical stories depicting social exclusion
“What would you do?”
•
Responses coded as:
• Assertive
• Indirect
• Withdrawal
• Redirect

Real life exclusion – Ball Toss Game

What does child do?
• Responses coded as:
•
•
•
•
•
Assertive
Indirect
Withdrawal
Redirect
Video examples
Family environment

Patterns seen across maltreatment types
–
–
–
–
–
Family environment of coercion and abuse of power
Lower levels of prosocial behavior and verbal
communication
Undervaluing of children
Deviant affective displays
Maternal intrusiveness and non-responsiveness
Acosta
Social development and abuse

Abuse negatively impacts peer relationships
and self-concept
–
–
particularly if its frequent and of long duration
though a strong friendship may attenuate this
relationship
 Investigated
with 107 children experiencing various
types of abuse and 107 comparison children
between 2nd and 7th grade
•
6/30/2016
Bolger et al 1998
Messinger
42
Social and emotional adjustments
Maltreated children often suffer from low
self-esteem, self-blame, and negative affect
toward the self
 Greater risk for peer rejection

–
The longer maltreatment occurs, the greater the
likelihood of rejection, perhaps because of
tendency to engage in coercive, aggressive
interactions with peers as result of abuse
Timing and type of maltreatment
influence consequences


Chronic maltreatment - less popular
Earlier emotional maltreatment
–

Chronic physical abuse
–

Low & decreasing reciprocated playmates
Sexual abuse and frequent physical abuse
–
6/30/2016
decreasing friendship quality
Chronic and frequent maltreatment
–

less likely to have a reciprocated best friend
lower self-esteem
Messinger
46
Good friendships protect

High friendship quality and reciprocated
friendships associated with resistance to
negative impact of chronic maltreatment
and physical abuse on self-esteem
•
6/30/2016
Figs 5 - 7
Messinger
47
Chronically maltreated kids
likely to be rejected by peers

Maltreatment chronicity  higher levels of
children's aggressive behavior
–

reported by peers, teachers, and children
Aggressive behavior accounted for association of
maltreatment and rejection.
–
Socially withdrawn behavior associated with peer
rejection


but did not account for the association between chronic
maltreatment and peer rejection.
Results hold for both girls and boys
–
Bolger & Patterson, 2001
Maltreatment chronicity 
peer rejection
Maltreatment  Aggression
Maltreatment, aggression, &
rejection
Specificity of abuse effects

Sexual abuse predicted low self-esteem
–

Emotional maltreatment was related to difficulties
in peer relationships
–

but not peer relationship problems.
but not to low self-esteem.
For some groups of maltreated children, having a
good friend was associated with improvement over
time in self-esteem.
•
Bolger et al., 1998
Does abuse predict malfunction?



Many children and adolescents who suffer
maltreatment become well-functioning adults
Maltreatment can result in significant negative
consequences that continue into adulthood
Although many survivors function well in
adulthood, others suffer serious psychological
distress and disturbance
Why?
Maltreating parents may fail to produce
opportunities for positive social interaction
for their children
 Children who experienced a lack of parental
supervision were less likely to be accepted
by peers

–
Tendency to engage in unskilled or aggressive
behavior
Possible buffers

Maltreating parents may fail to produce
opportunities for positive social interaction
for their children
–

Opportunities found elsewhere (i.e., other
family members, friends, teachers, etc.)
Maltreated children with best friends are
more likely to experience increased selfesteem and self-concept than other
maltreated children
Cognitive adaptations

Maltreated children create defensive structure in
reaction to trauma
–


Cognitive distortions, dissociation, vigilance
Hypervigilance: constant scanning of environment
and development of ability to detect subtle
variations in it
Dissociation: alter level of self-awareness in an
effort to escape an upsetting event or feeling
–
Psychological escape
Acosta
Emotion regulation
Involves ability to modify, redirect, and
control emotions
 Maltreated children engage in efforts to
avoid, control or suppress emotion
 Modulation difficulties: extreme depressive
reactions and intense angry outbursts
 Internalizing behavior problems

Anger recognition
& physical abuse

Physically abused children displayed a
response bias for angry facial expressions.
–
abused 8-11-year-olds demonstrated increased
attentional benefits on valid angry trials
•
•
demonstrated delayed disengagement when angry
faces served as invalid cues.
Pollak & Tolley-Schell. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. 112(3), Aug 2003, 323-338.
Abused see more anger
Messinger
At expense of sadness
Recognizing emotion in faces




Controls viewed discrete emotions discretely
Neglected children saw fewer distinctions
Neglected children had more difficulty
discriminating emotional expressions than control
or physically abused children.
Physically abused children showed the most
variance across emotions.
–
Pollak, Cicchetti, Hornung, Reed, Developmental Psychology.
36(5), Sep 2000, 679-688.
Neglected children don’t distinguish
emotion expression pairs
Mean similarity ratings by emotion pair for control (C; solid line), neglected (N; dotted
line) and physically abused (PA; dashed line) children. A = angry, N = neutral, S = sad, F
= fearful, D = disgusted, H = happy
Heart rate change scores (bpm)

Active anger: Large initial
deceleration for both abused
and non-abused children
–


Reflects attentional orienting
response
Unresolved anger: Eventual
recovery from initial
deceleration
Resolution: Greater recovery
for non-abused than abused
children
Pollak, Vardi, Bechner, & Curtin
(2005). Physically Abused
Impact on emotion recognition
Influence of early adverse experience on
children's selective attention to threatrelated signals is a mechanism in the
development of psychopathology.
 As children's experience varies, so will their
interpretation of emotion expressions.

•
Pollak & Tolley-Schell. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. 112(3), Aug 2003, 323-338.
Overlap with risky behaviors



Increased likelihood to engage in a greater array of
risky behaviors
Certain types of maltreatment associated with a
greater number of sexual partners and heavier
alcohol consumption
Adult survivors likely to engage in substance
abuse, criminal and antisocial behavior, and eating
disorders