Self-Reported Moral Emotions and Physical and Relational Aggression in Early Childhood: A Social Domain Approach

Multidimensional profiles of Head Start children's social behaviors predict their interpretations of physical aggression

Preschool children's reasoning regarding moral events differs according to adversity and relates to aggression. Understanding morality in young children is paramount for understanding their aggressive behaviors. The study aims to identify patterns of aggression and prosocial behavior using Latent Class Analysis (LCA) and investigate how patterns of aggression and prosocial behavior relate to reasoning about prototypic moral events. One hundred six children (Mage  = 4.40 years old, SD = 0.55 years old, Range: 3.08-5.33 years old, 51% boys) enrolled in Head Start programs and their caregivers participated. In the fall caregivers completed surveys on forms (i.e., the manifestation of behavior) and functions of aggression (i.e., motivation of behavior), and prosocial behavior. The following spring children completed two moral reasoning tasks that measured children's judgment and reasoning of harm, and their attributions of transgressors' reasoning. The LCA revealed a 3-class solution: (1) high levels of relational aggression and moderate levels of prosocial behavior (bistrategic controllers), (2) low levels of both aggression and average prosocial behavior (uninvolved), (3) high levels of all types of aggression and low levels of prosocial behavior (high aggression). Subsequent analyses suggest that uninvolved children prioritize adhering to authority over other concerns, and bistrategic controllers focused on goal-oriented reasoning. Overall, our findings support that recognizing patterns of behavior may be useful in understanding children's moral reasoning.

Some critical considerations in applying the construct of psychopathy to research and classification of childhood disruptive behavior disorders

The recent inclusion of callous-unemotional traits in the diagnostic criteria for serious conduct problems has led to renewed interest in more comprehensive integrations of the construct of psychopathy into research and clinical classification of childhood disruptive behavior disorders. There have been a number of recent reviews of research focusing the many potential benefits for this integration. However, there are also a number of issues that could reduce these benefits and even potentially lead to harmful effects. The current paper focuses on several of these issues, some of which are common when attempting to integrate research findings across areas that have been conducted independently of each other. Other issues are more specific to the construct of psychopathy. Specifically, the current paper focuses on the lack of agreement on the necessary and sufficient dimensions needed to define psychopathy, the need to consider developmental relationships among these dimensions, the implications of the different associations among the dimensions of psychopathy with conduct problems in children and adolescents, the need to consider how these dimensions relate to existing constructs used in the classification of disruptive behavior disorders, and the potential harmful effects of labeling something "a dimension of psychopathy". These issues have several clear implications for using the construct of psychopathy to guide research on and diagnostic classification of childhood disruptive behavior disorders.

Is feeling bad good enough? Ethical guilt and callous-unemotional traits in childhood

Lacking the capacity for guilt is a defining characteristic of callous-unemotional (CU) traits. Although guilt is a multifaceted construct, past CU research has rarely considered the reasons underlying children's negative emotional responses to wrongdoing. The present study investigated how different forms of guilt were associated with CU traits during early and middle childhood in a Canadian community sample. We interviewed 4- and 8-year-olds (N = 300; 50% female) to assess their emotion attributions and reasoning in response to hypothetical acts of aggression. Interview responses were used to calculate variables representing undifferentiated, ethical, and non-ethical guilt ratings. Caregivers rated children's CU tendencies at baseline and again 3 years later. Higher ethical guilt was associated with lower CU scores concurrently and 3 years later. Higher non-ethical guilt was associated with higher CU scores at baseline (for older children) and 3 years later (for all children). Undifferentiated guilt was not associated with CU after controlling for demographic variables.

Kindhearted: Ethical guilt and ethical heart rate reactivity codevelop with aggression across childhood

Largely cross-sectional evidence indicates that ethical guilt is a robust predictor of childhood aggression. However, the underlying mechanisms of ethical guilt-in part assessed as ethical heart rate (HR) reactivity in the present study-are less clear, and longitudinal associations between ethical guilt, its underlying mechanisms, and aggression have not been explored. The present study used a multicohort longitudinal design to assess these constructs across early and middle childhood. At the beginning of the study and 2 years later, cohorts of 4- and 8-year-olds (ns = 150; N = 300) reported their guilt in response to an ethical transgression (i.e., pushing) and a nonethical transgression (i.e., breaking a classroom rule), and their HR was measured while they imagined committing these acts. Caregivers reported their child's aggression at each time point via questionnaire. Latent difference score models indicated that, regardless of cohort, children who increased in their ability to prioritize ethical guilt over 2 years were more likely to decrease in aggression over the same period. Moreover, children whose HR reactivity became more sensitive to ethical transgressions over time showed corresponding declines in aggression over time. Overall, these findings highlight the potential protective roles of children's capacities to react affectively and autonomically to the gravity of ethical transgressions across early and middle childhood.

Are Emotion Regulation Strategies Different among 3-6-Year-Old Aggressive Children? Evidence from China

Background

During the long-time home quarantine due to COVID-19, preschool-age children can be easily stricken by negative emotions, which give rise to aggressive behaviors. Aggressive behaviors are of different types at the preschool stage. We aimed to investigate the differences of emotion regulation strategies among children age 3-6 yr old with different aggression types and explore the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and aggressive behaviors.

Methods

The aggressive behaviors of 1,187 children sampled (event sampling method) from 5 kindergartens in five cities in Henan Province of China were observed on the spot in 2020. Three aggression types (i.e., physical, verbal, and indirect) were selected to conduct a questionnaire survey on emotion regulation strategies and discuss the differences among aggressive children in emotion regulation strategies.

Results

Children of different genders are significantly different in aggressive behaviors and problem solving, as well as children at different age levels in self-comfort, passive reaction, and negative regulation strategies. Significant interaction exists between gender and aggression but not in negative regulation strategy; significant interaction also exists between age and aggression but not in cognitive reconstruction, substitutive activity, and aggressive behavior. Significant differences exist among children of different aggression types in positive and negative regulation strategies. The discrimination accuracy of emotion regulation strategies for aggression types is 66.5%.

Conclusion

Significant differences exist among 3-6-yr-old aggressive children in emotion regulation strategies, and emotion regulation strategies can effectively distinguish aggressive children of different types.