Is It Guilty in Here, or is It Just Me? Individual Differences in

Guilt and Its Effect on Cognitive Processing Candace Lassiter, Janet J. Boseovski, Vanessa Alvarado

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Introduction

Emotions have profound effects on cognition in adults, including the facilitation

or impairment of cognitive processes (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999). Less is

known about the impact of emotion on cognition in early childhood. Research

indicates that happiness results in improved performance on the Dimensional

Change Card Sort (DCCS; Qu & Zelazo, 2007), a measure of children’s

cognitive flexibility. Conversely, sadness has no influence on DCCS

performance.

However, emotions vary not in only valence, but in self-regulatory focus (i.e.,

approach vs. avoidance). An approach focus centers on achieving a positive

end-state, whereas an avoidant focus is associated with averting a negative

end-state (Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2010). Like positive emotions, approach

emotions increase top-down processing and thus, increase cognitive flexibility

(Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008).

Guilt is a negative emotion, but those who experience it have an approach

focus centered on making moral amends with a victim (Sheikh & Janoff-

Bulman, 2010). The present research examined whether guilt would increase

3- to 5-year-old's cognitive flexibility as assessed by the DCCS task.

Method

Guilt was induced using a mishap paradigm (Kochanska & Aksan, 2006) in

which children were led to believe that they had broken a valuable possession

of the experimenter (i.e., toy puppy). After the toy broke, the experimenter sat

in silence for 60 seconds. Children's behavioral responses were coded to

obtain a guilt score.

Children in the neutral condition received a wooden block to play with for 60

seconds while the experimenter sat in silence.

All participants completed the DCCS, in which they were required to sort

picture cards by one rule and then sort by a different rule (i.e., color and

shape). Children received a score of 1 for sorting at least 4 post-switch cards

correctly or a score of 0 for sorting fewer than 4 correctly.

Rigged Toy Results

Conclusion

References

•Ashby, F., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529-550.

•De Dreu, C. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 94(5), 739-756.

•Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2006). Children's Conscience and Self-Regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1587-1617.

•Marcovitch, S., Boseovski, J. J., & Knapp, R. J. (2007). Use it or lose it: Examining preschoolers' difficulty in maintaining and executing a goal. Developmental Science, 10(5),

559-564.

•Qu, L., & Zelazo, P. (2007). The facilitative effect of positive stimuli on 3-year-olds' flexible rule use. Cognitive Development, 22(4), 456-473.

•Sheikh, S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010). The “shoulds” and “should nots” of moral emotions: A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

36(2), 213-224.

Guilt facilitated the DCCS performance of 3- and 4-year-olds, but not 5-year-

olds.

These results suggest that the self-regulatory focus of an emotion, rather than

valence alone, affects children’s cognitive flexibility. Guilt may have facilitated

DCCS performance because it encourages top-down processing (De Dreu et

al., 2008).

The differential effects of guilt as compared to sadness on children’s DCCS

performance (see Qu & Zelazo, 2007) suggest that negative emotions should

be studied individually to determine their impact on children’s cognition.

It is possible that guilt did not facilitate the performance of older children

because these children were already highly skilled on the DCCS (i.e., near

ceiling performance). Accordingly, future research will examine whether guilt

improves the performance of 5- and 6-year-olds on a more complex measure

of cognitive flexibility (Goal-neglect DCC; Mar covitch, Boseovski, & Knapp,

2007)

A series of logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the effects of

guilt on DCCS performance.

Age, condition, and their interaction were examined as predictors of DCCS

performance. The overall model was significant, χ2(1, N = 100) = 11.76, p = .01.

There was only a significant effect of age (β = 0.07, Wald = 5.54, p = .02).

None of the other predictors were significant at the p < .05 level.

To assess how individual differences in guilt scores affected children’s

performance, another analysis included only the children in the guilt condition.

Age, guilt scores, and their interaction were used as predictors. The overall

model was significant, χ2(1, N = 55) = 13.15, p < .01. There was a significant

effect of age and guilt scores. These effects were qualified by a significant

interaction (β = -0.12, Wald = 4.07, p = .04).

A final analysis assessed how the performance of children with high guilt

differed from that of children in the neutral group. Age, condition, and their

interaction were used as predictors. The overall model was significant χ2(1, N =

70) = 13.05, p < .01. There was a significant effect of age (β = 0.08, Wald =

4.17, p = .04) and a marginal effect of condition (β = 8.47, Wald = 2.95, p =

.08), but no significant interaction (β = -0.12, Wald = 2.29, p = .13).

0

20

40

60

80

100

3 4 5

% P

as

sin

g D

CC

S

Age

Low Guilt

High Guilt

0

20

40

60

80

100

3 4 5

% P

as

sin

g D

CC

S

Age

Neutral

High Guilt

Figure 1. Percentage of Children Passing

DCCS by Age and Guilt Level

Figure 1. Percentage of Children Passing

DCCS by Age and Condition