1‘ J 4. '4... ~ 4:117». .w o” \4:_ 1:3! ‘ "Ezrafl 998,5: @7321“ ‘{,4.7... ” . 4..» .-—-—.4- .54. .m‘ r. - 4 7 - 9.- :4 J 3 1 1 I 7 >¢ - . ‘ . I- ‘4‘, £T§1Aznd _ , . ... ..... ..z.4.-‘. . .44. . 4 . “1.4.5.. u...-:.‘:.\.1..‘& "—IAhL-NJ—'J . 4 , -mw . .1 m-fiZAMIE-‘W‘f ”5.14.4..- . - . . n54... ‘ ..f1_1 - 4 ' ‘ .15. . ~. -. s. :4:qu u u.a...‘\....4.r.r.x J : , -2-.- ..1 V " 2.27:. . Huh-‘51.} ‘ J 4. u . ~ 3 . .l . L" 4- : 1 .41..,l’5‘t4,:.“.;‘. .. “L .N 4“ '1 u? 1‘- .‘4 . u. . . I' " L‘- l til; mm?”- i...uu.- .‘ , .1... 4 4‘; A. T“ . ..... .:""‘:.r.. we.» - f- .4” , .f- .. .-. .433: 75‘1“...” w. .x. ' ‘VW-txhx‘g‘mw L......‘. .1433: tn: 1 3". . . 4.19372“ ‘1. . .45).“..- 5311.“); ‘P' w 2' . fly“. 7“,... .44..- . MJ) . ~ .1914" 4.4 ' 4:4 I 114“": - . 1914.4;ng :1; 44'4'44uu4 . . ; -‘ L I .. 4 . . -- v. u . ~. . > ‘ r '4 , l '3 fl... ._4 . rr.§. '5 IG§¢fJ u 30.; 1.2; r.“ I J 4. 44—4- .}.ru ”(1.) $- . ~44. .- .blhfrélJ g '3 ‘ -14‘. n 411m. - 1.. 3. I... 1.213.455... '3 .;.. N123; M." 4 4-5:. ~44 f?! Lub' . 7: ~35 infighuja {”{kg 5L n- d.“ ”:4. m... u .FFI.>': :ul— “My.“ “My "41...: u m 1 \I .. l ”:21? Lymwnuw .1. «ungu- u u... 4,. '1.”- n -“t. 4x5".- “5&1: 2:1: .. w» ~44 11",} . . .. far 5 .1 1.- ‘13:? “‘x ., ...1 . 4 . ‘f"‘“““ .3 ‘f..\.'.“."'. 13:." £517? “.14 u ‘1: ““3111. fix-J" ‘ I. JJ‘EW ‘ 5"‘.~‘ N’s”. 0‘ .. ”Egg. 1., C 2:1}? ifjd; «xv-“.12 -\. Sun-u. )5 w Ar %! ul-§..:‘ 5"“ .‘m . .- *.~. «4?. 5.1.1.1.... “1.1 fiw.unted for 5% of the variance in total empathy scores (E< - 02); 6% of the variance in fantasy empathy scores (Q< ~ 02); 7% of the variance in empathic concern scores (E<- 006); 6% of the variance in personal distress scores (E<.02) ; and 4% of the variance in perspective taking scores (E<.04). However, Pearson product-moment correlations between 68 self-image disparity and trait empathy revealed that, contrary to the first hypothesis, these statistically significant relationships were negative (see Table 1). None of the other subscales of self-image disparity or total self —image disparity accounted for any of the variance in total trait empathy or in any of its subscales. TABLE 1 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations: Self-Reported Trait Empathy and Self-Image Disparity Self-Image Disparity Trait Empathy CC PA PC MA TOTDISP EC -.10 -.29** .06 -.17 -.23* FE -.23* -.27** .06 -.15 -.16 \ PD -.08 -.26** -.1o -.09 -.19* "\ PT -.17 -.22* .03 -.15 -.17* "\ \ Eote: Values are based on a one-tailed test. E<-05 **p<.01 Key CC-cognitive competence PA-peer acceptance PC-physical competence MA-maternal acceptance TOTDISP-total disparity FE”fantasy empathy Ec‘empathic concern PD‘empathic distress TT‘perspective taking OTEMP-total empathy A second regression analysis revealed that the cognitive competence subscale of self-image disparity aceGunted for 7% of the variance in state empathy scores (E<-05) . Pearson product-moment correlations revealed that the cognitive competence subscale of self-image disparity 69 was negatively related to state empathy (n=-.30, p.<.05) . Mas—2 According to the second hypothesis, self-image disparity should be positively related to prosocial behavior. This includes all subscales of the self-image disparity measure and the two measures used to assess Prosocial behavior: the number of cards made for children in the hospital and the total amount of time spent making the Cards. Forward stepwise regression analyses were conducted, With self-image disparity and its subscales serving as the independent variables and the number of cards made serving as the dependent variable. Results revealed that the Ina‘Cernal acceptance subscale of self-image disparity a<3<=ounted for 5% of the variance in number of cards made (E< - O4) . Correlational analyses revealed that the maternal aczcJeptance subscale of self-image disparity was positively related to the number of cards made (n=.24, p<.05) . None of the other subscales revealed significant findings. In considering the relationship between self-image disparity and the amount of time spent making cards, 3|: . . egress10n and correlational analyses revealed no 3 O 1 9n ificant relationships . nypothesis 3 The third hypothesis proposed that older children would display greater self-image disparity than younger children. 70 A multivariate analysis of variance was carried out, with total self-image disparity and its subscales (cognitive competence, peer acceptance, physical competence, maternal acceptance) serving as the dependent variables and age serving as the independent variable. Significant age effects were revealed for the cognitive competence subscale Of self-image disparity [E (2,95)=4.8, p<.02]. Cell means revealed that the youngest group of children, the five- to Six-year olds, had the greatest self-image disparity (M=5 .3) , followed by the nine- to ten-year olds (11:11.0) and then the seven- to eight-year olds (__M_=3.2) . A post-hoc Tukey test (p<.05) revealed that the youngest group, the five- to six-year olds, scored significantly higher than both the seven- to eight-year olds and the nine- to ten- Year olds. No significant age effects were found for any other disparity scores . fiypothesis 4 The premise of the fourth hypothesis was that older children would have higher self-reported trait and state e1“E>athy scores than younger children. Analyses of variance and correlational analyses revealed no significant effects in support of this prediction. Wis—5 According to the fifth hypothesis, it was expected that lcier children would exhibit more prosoc1al behav1or than younger children. Both the number of cards made and the 71 amount of total time spent making them were the dependent variables. Analyses of variance and correlational analyses revealed no age effects for prosocial behavior. flypothesis 6 The sixth hypothesis proposed that the pattern of self-image disparity in older children would be characterized by either a higher ideal self-image and a lower real self-image than younger children, 9;; that older Children would display a higher ideal self-image and a Similar real self-image than the younger children. While analyses of variance revealed significant age effects for the cognitive competence [E (2,95)=3.3, p<.05] and the maternal acceptance subscales [F (2,95)=4.0, p<.03] of ideal self-image, it was not the oldest children who had the highest ideal self-images. A post-hoc Tukey test (E< . 05) revealed that the seven to eight-year olds scored significantly higher on both the cognitive competence and Ina‘ternal acceptance subscales of ideal self-image than the five- and six-year olds and the nine- and ten-year olds. The cell means are displayed in Table 2a. In In 72 TABLE 2a Means for Ideal Self-Image Scores Age Ideal Self-Image of Child *CC PA PC *MA TOTAL 5—6 22.2 22.3 22.8 21.4 87.8 7-8 23.6 22.2 23.5 21.7 90.3 9—10 23.3 21.8 22.8 20.0 88.4 *Sigrnificant age effects were revealed for these scores Note : Higher scores represent a more positive ideal self- image, Analyses of variance on real self-image scores also revealed significant age effects for the subscale of cognitive competence [E (2,95)=6.2, p<.04]. A post-hoc Tukey test (E< - 05) revealed that the seven- to eight-year olds scored Si(Briificantly higher on this subscale than the five- and siDK-year olds and the nine- and ten-year olds. In addition, age effects approached statistical significance for total real self-image. Moreover, as part of the sixth hypothesis, 1t Was proposed that older children would have lower or Siluilar real self-images as compared to the younger cl‘lildren. Cell means for both the cognitive competence subscale of real self-image and for total real self-image Indicated that the nine- to ten-year olds scored lower than t . he seven— to eight-year olds, but higher than the f1ve- to s O lx~year olds (See Table 2b) . 73 TABLE 2b Means for Real Self-Image Scores Age Real Self-Image cxf Chi 1d *CC PA PC MA *TOTAL 5-6 17.9 18.0 19.9 15.9 71.8 ‘7W—8 20.6 18.6 20.9 17.0 77.1 £3-10 19.8 19.1 20.9 16.8 76.7 *Significant age effects were revealed for these scores {IOte : Higher scores represent a more positive real self- image. Key CC-cognitive competence PA-peer acceptance PC-physical competence MA-maternal acceptance 1122931253241 According to the seventh hypothesis, it was expected 1:11Ea1: females would have higher empathy scores and would e”(llibit more prosocial behavior than males. Sex differences in self-image were also investigated. Analyses of variance for total trait empathy and for eaai<211 of its subscales revealed significant sex effects for the perspective taking subscale of empathy [1: (1,96)=6.3, JE1<: -()2], with cell means revealing that females (M=7.6) stzored significantly higher on this subscale than males (§§6.3) . The other subscales failed to reach statistical s ‘ . lgnificance. Analyses of variance revealed no significant sex 74 differences in state empathy, prosocial behavior, or self- image (real, ideal, or disparity). Age by sex effects were investigated for both trait and state empathy. First, a multivariate analysis of variance was carried out, with total trait empathy and its subscale serving as the dependent variables and age and sex serving as the independent variables. While none of the sex by age interactions reached statistical significance, interaction effects for total trait empathy [_F_‘ (2,95)=2.7, p=.07] and PerSpective taking approached statistical significance [E (2' 95)=14.5, p=.064]. Cell means among males for total tra it empathy revealed that the nine- to ten-year olds had the highest score (M=6.9) , followed by the seven- to eight- Year olds (M=5.5) , and then the five- to six—year olds (M=4.8) . For females, cell means revealed that the five- to siX-year olds had the highest (M=6.8) score, followed by the Seven- to eight-year olds (M=6.1) , and then the nine- to ten-year olds (M=5.8; see Figure 1). Cell means for males on the perspective taking subscale I‘e\’ealed that the seven- to eight-year olds and the nine— to teh~year olds had comparable scores (M=7.0) , and the five- to six-year olds (M=5.0) had lower scores. Cell means for jselrlales revealed that the five- to six-year olds had the l-1:.Lgl"nest scores (M=7.9) , followed by the seven- to eight- Year olds (M=7.5) , and then the nine- to ten-year olds (Me'la; see Figure 2). 75 A multivariate analysis of variance for state empathy was also conducted, with state empathy serving as the dependent variable and age and sex serving as the independent variables. Sex by age interactions for state empathy approached statistical significance [_F_‘ (2,25)=2.9, 2=. 07]. Cell means for males revealed that the seven- to eight-year olds scored highest (11:3.7) , followed by the nine— to ten-year olds (M=3.0) and then the five to six- Year olds (M=l.3) . Cell means for females revealed that the five- to six-year olds scored highest (M=3.1) , followed by the seven- to eight-year olds (M=3.0) and then the nine- to ten—year olds (_M_=2.5; see Figure 3). 76 .sm 95 on< 3 >535 eat. .93 F mmaom 04.10 “.0 m0< 07m wnfi mum _ _ _ ...... ®.uoouu III-ml mm_w$_ wmfiEmn— .....mv 1 .............. and ...Q- ....... .mv.m l was m6 m.m 38008 AHlVdWB llVHl WVlOJ. 77 07m xom can ou< >9 ace—a... 02839.3. N mung“. 04.10 “.0 w0< mfi moi—2 wmfiEo... m6 «2 to «2 (D ID 838008 9Nl>IVl BALLOBdSHEd Is "2 rs 78 x8» .2.» cm< 3 >535 3.2m » mmaom 04.10 “.0 m0< Cram wuh mum _ _ _ ..... oi--- Imll . m2»: 83E»... 0 : I z -- - ... - :2 2...»? L oooooooooooooooo Illa ........... 3.». ....... o.. 3.» m; m.N m6 BHOOS AHlVdWB BlVlS 79 Summary of Findings 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Self-image disparity was negatively related to both trait and state empathy. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Self-image disparity was positively related to prosocial behavior. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. The oldest children did not score significantly higher in disparity than the other two groups; there were no significant age differences in disparity scores. Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Older children did not score significantly higher on empathy than younger children; there were no significant age differences in empathy scores. Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Older children did not exhibit more prosocial behavior than the younger Children; there were no significant age differences in prosocial behavior. Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Older children did not have the highest ideal self-image (the seven- and eight-year olds did) nor did they have the lowest real Self-image (the five- and six-year olds did). Hypothesis 7 was partially supported. Females scored higher on perspective taking than males, but there were no sex differences in self-image, state empathy, or Prosocial behavior . 80 Additional Analyses Because many of the hypotheses were not supported, additional analyses were conducted to further investigate any other potential relationships between real and ideal self-image, empathy, and prosocial behavior. The results from these analyses are presented in Appendix I. DISCUSSION It should be noted that this section, in addition to discussion on self-image disparity, includes discussion on real and ideal self-image based on the findings presented in Appendix I . Trait Empathy and Self-Image Disparity. Real Self-Image. and Ideal Self-Image The hypothesis that self-image disparity would be Positively related to both trait and state empathy was not sl-lpported. Rather, it was discovered that where self-image disparity was related to self-reported empathy, the relationship was negative. Children who displayed greater Self-image disparity on the peer acceptance subscale of self-image disparity had lower scores on total self-report trait empathy and on all of its subscales. It would appear that children who perceive a discrepancy between the way their peer relationships currently stand and the way they would like them to be are less likely to report feelings of ell"EDathy toward others than children who report little or no reel-ideal peer acceptance disparity. Apparently, then: one: 8 sense of self-image disparity in the domain of peer a<3<=eptance provides information about one's tendency to resPond empathically toward others--the greater the 81 82 disparity or dissatisfaction with one's peer relationships, the lower the empathy. This is consistent with the data on empathy and real self-image, which revealed that children with high peer acceptance scores are more likely to express empathic concern and personal distress than those with low peer acceptance scores. In explaining this relationship, it is reasonable to suggest that those children who report having satisfying peer relationships are more willing to respond empathically toward peers than children who express a desire for their peer relationships to be different than they currently are. Alternatively, it may be that those children Who are better capable of responding to their peers in an empathic manner are more apt to get along with their peers and are thus more likely to be satisfied with their current Peer relationships. Data generated in the present study WOuld support both of these interpretations, since regression analyses revealed that the peer acceptance s‘llbscale of real self-image predicted trait empathy m trait empathy predicted peer acceptance on real self-image. F11Il'—"‘t:her, these interpretations are consistent with a number of previous studies (Carlson, Lahey, and Napeer, 1984; Dodge, 1983; Ladd and Price, 1987; Reaves and Roberts, 1983) i1"“restigating correlates of peer acceptance, which corIsistently show that peer acceptance is associated with c I O O O O O ooperation, prosoCial behaVior, friendliness, soc1al 83 sensitivity and helpfulness--in short, empathic responding. Future studies should focus on the role of specific kinds of peer relationships in facilitating (or impeding) empathic responding and how peer relations affect self—image. Analyses also revealed that one’s overall sense of real self (i.e, one's self-image) is related to fantasy empathy, perspective taking and overall level of empathy. Therefore, children with a more positive self-image (i.e., those with higher scores on real self-image) are more likely to respond empathically toward others than children with lower scores on real self-image. These findings are consistent with Lickona’s (1976) observation that moral, altruistic, and empathic behavior is inextricably linked to one’s sense of Self. He suggests that individuals with a sense of self that is strong and integrated are more likely to identify with their own actions. That is, they are able to see that their actions and behaviors are not only a direct reflection 0f the self but actually define the self as well. Moreover, he suggests that those with a sense of self that is weak and less integrated take less responsibility for their actions and therefore, are less likely to engage in empathic responding or prosocial behavior; they fail to view their ac‘tlions as a direct reflection of the self. Applied to the present study, perhaps those with a lower real self-image and greater levels of self-image disparity have a weaker, less integrated sense of self and are ‘less motivated to [(n [14 84 respond empathically than those with a stronger, integrated sense of self (i.e., those with a higher real self-image and lower levels of self-image disparity). Future studies should investigate the potential causal relationship between self-image and empathy--does empathic responding lead to a higher real self-image or does a higher real self-image lead one to respond more empathically? One’s sense of ideal self-image provided no information on the tendency to respond empathically. Therefore, one’s current perception of the self (i.e., real self-image) and his/her satisfaction with that perception (i.e., high or low level of disparity) appear to be better predictors of the tendency to respond empathically than is some ideal notion of the self. Therefore, while ideal self-image in and of itSelf does not provide any information about one's tendency to respond empathically, it is important in terms of how it compares with one’s real self-image, for it is this cc>Illparison between real and ideal that leads to the level of disparity, and disparity does provide information about one's tendency to respond empathically. at ath and Self-Ima e Dis arit Real Self-Ima e and W Self-image disparity was the only self-image measure which provided any information on state empathy; the real and ideal measures provided no statistically significant 8S findings. Contrary to the predicted relationship, the cognitive competence subscale of self-image disparity was negatively related to state empathy. This suggests that children who experience a greater discrepancy between their perception of current cognitive abilities (i.e., their real cognitive competence) and the level of cognitive abilities they aspire to have (i.e., their ideal cognitive competence) are less likely to report feelings of sadness in response to an empathy-provoking stimulus (in response to pictures of sick children in the hospital) than are children who experience little or no discrepancy between their real and ideal cognitive competence. It is possible that children reporting such a discrepancy are indeed operating at a lower level of cOgnitive functioning than are children who report little or no discrepancy between real and ideal cognitive competence. while the cognitive competence subscale in the present study aSsesses competence mainly in academic skills, such as I’eading, writing, and spelling, it may also reflect cS'Jlupetence in other cognitive abilities, including those which may be crucial to the ability to empathize. For eMample, children operating at lower cognitive levels may look at the picture of the children in the hospital but, be<=ause they are unable to effectively identify the e1“etional state of the person, put themselves in the place of the sick child, or imagine how that child must feel, they 86 are incapable of experiencing any sadness or distress, or are at least unable to articulate it. There are several studies documenting the role of cognition in prosocial behavior and empathy, particularly the ability to take another’s perspective (Chandler, 1973; Feshbach and Feshbach, 1982; Lee and Prentice, 1988; Perry and Bussey, 1.977) . While this explanation may be plausible, it is unclear why no relationship between perspective taking and the cognitive competence subscale of self-image disparity was found in the present study. It may be that the use of an interview with a closed-ended format was not the most effective manner to assess this particular facet of empathy in young children. It may be that if an interview with a more open-ended format were used, children would have described more instances of perspective taking that were c=1ear to the interviewer, even if the child was not aware tPlat: he/she was speaking of such a skill. Rigsgcial Behavior and Self-Image Disparity, Real Self- Lmage, and Ideal Self-Image The hypothesis that self-image disparity would be pOSitively related to prosocial behavior was supported. The Inaternal acceptance subscale of self-image disparity pJi‘edicted prosocial behavior. Children who reported a 9heater disparity between their current maternal relationship and their ideal maternal relationship were more 87 likely to make cards for sick children in the hospital than children with low disparity on maternal acceptance. It may be that children who report a greater real- ideal maternal acceptance disparity are less satisfied with their maternal relationship, have lower self-esteem, and are thus more likely to engage in socially desirable behaviors in expectation of some maternal reward than children who report little or no real-ideal maternal acceptance disparity. Children who reported real-ideal disparity on this subscale expressed a wish for more maternal interaction and attention. Therefore, it is possible that these children hoped that making cards would lead to a positive response from the mother (presuming that the mother would be made aware that the child had made cards). In effect, then, it may be that children who wish for more positive maternal interaction and attention are more likely to take advantage of situations that may facilitate the opportunity for positive interaction than children who are satisfied with their maternal relationship. Alternatively, it is possible that children who report real-ideal disparity experience a certain degree of negative affect in response to this disparity. To overcome or at least reduce this negative affect, the child may engage in prosocial behavior which is likely to lead to positive affect both on the part of the child and the recipient of the prosocial behavior. As other studies have noted, children who help, comfort, share and ‘3‘ AC 88 cooperate with others see that they have an impact upon their world. The resulting perception of being capable and valuable contributes to a healthy self-image (Coopersmith, 1967; White 1950). Age and Self-Image Disparity In contrast to the third hypothesis, older children did not display greater self-image disparity than younger children. Younger children were more likely to report greater self-image disparity in the domain of cognitive competence than were older children. The other subscales revealed no significant findings. This is inconsistent with earlier studies (Katz and Zigler, 1967; Leahy and Huard, 1976) which show that older children typically have lower real self-images than younger children and higher ideal self-images than younger children and this results in greater self-image disparity. Therefore, one must consider why the youngest children had a significantly greater self- image disparity on the cognitive competence subscale than both the seven- to eight-year olds and the nine- to ten- year olds. In addressing this issue, it may be that the items on the cognitive competence subscale were too elementary for older children. Supporting this, it is important to note that for the cognitive competence subscale, the child is asked to rate him- or herself on such items as reading, 514 ”I 0' 89 writing, spelling, and other basic academic abilities. Perhaps the older children had already mastered the areas of cognitive competence covered in the measure. As a result, their real self-images were as high as their ideal self- images and they experienced little or no disparity. More disparity may have been displayed among the older children if the cognitive competence subscale would have tapped higher and more complex abilities. Further, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the younger children would perceive themselves as being less skillful in these areas than older children who have been in school much longer and have, for the most part, mastered these abilities, and know that they have mastered them. As a result, younger children would be expected to experience a much larger discrepancy between their current abilities and how well they would like to do in these areas as compared to older children. This may explain why the youngest children revealed the greatest disparity scores for this subscale--they were able to recognize that their reading, writing and basic math skills were in need of practice and improvement. Age and Trait Empathy and State Empathy In contrast to the fourth hypothesis, no significant age effects were found for either state or trait empathy. Other studies using self-report measures of empathy (e.g., Lennon and Eisenberg, 1987) generally show empathy to be 90 positively related to age. It should be noted, however, that studies using a variety of measures to assess empathy, such as physiological indices, self-report measures, teacher and peer report measures, or affect matching measures, have generated mixed findings (Bryant, 1982; Cohen, 1974; Epstein, 1973; Fay, 1971; Powell, 1951). This would suggest that the relationship between empathy and age is at least partially a function of the type of measure used to assess empathy. This is indicative of the abstract and problematic nature of dealing with a construct such as empathy, particularly with children. It may be that differences based solely on age were not found because there are factors in addition to age which are involved in the ability to respond empathically. Therefore, it may be that a simple linear relationship between age and empathy is an inaccurate, or at least insufficient, interpretation. Individual differences, such as early social experiences or temperamental/emotional factors may also come into play. Since many of these factors typically increase with age (such as social experiences), it may be that one is mistakenly led to the conclusion that it is age which is the variable crucial to understanding empathic responding. Therefore, it is possible that it is not age per se which is the relevant factor but rather, it is other factors that happen to increase and/or become more identifiable and stable with age. 91 It is just as feasible, however, to suggest that some variables which may affect one’s tendency to respond empathically are relatively unaffected by age. For example, studies have identified certain cultural factors believed to play an important role in the development of empathic and prosocial behavior (e.g., Mussen and Eisenberg, 1977) . Mussen and Eisenberg (1977) have concluded that children are likely to develop high levels of empathic responding and prosocial behavior if they are raised in cultures characterized by 1) stress on consideration of others; 2) simple social organization or a traditional rural setting; 3) assignment of important economic functions to women; 4) members of extended families living together; and 5) early assignment of tasks and responsibilities to young children. While Mussen and Eisenberg (1977) speak of w influences, it is not unreasonable to suggest that these same issues may be operating at the family level as W911- It may be that not only cultures differ in these characteristics but that families do as well. Therefore, it may be that those families marked by the above Characteristics have children who are more empathic and pr93C>cial than families who are not marked by those characteristics. Therefore, it may be that no age differences in empathy were found in the present study because other factors which are relatively unaffected by age alone, such as family environment, were responsible for 0" rf 92 differences in empathy found among the children. Studies investigating the role of family environment, including the role of the factors outlined by Mussen and Eisenberg (1977), and how'they relate to the tendency to respond empathically and prosocially would be a worthwhile undertaking. Age gpd Prosocial thavior The fifth hypothesis was not supported. Age was not related either to the number of cards made nor the amount of time spent making them. This is inconsistent with earlier studies confirming that age is positively related to prosocial behavior (Rushton and Wiener, 1975; Wright, 1942). In explaining this outcome, it is necessary to question the measures used to assess prosocial behavior. First, using the rummber of cards a child makes for children in the hospital may be a problematic measure. It may be that Younger children prefer coloring and card making activities to a €;reater extent than older children but are not necessarily more prosocial than older children. As a resu1.1:, it may be that older children are making a <3"“‘13311‘able number of cards but are doing so for very different reasons. Moreover, because the card making activity was suggeSted to the children by an adult, younger children may have been more compelled to act in response to an authority figure than older children. In other words, while the 93 younger children may have made cards in order to obtain adult approval or to avoid adult disapproval for not doing so, older children may have made the cards out of a sincere desire to make the children in the hospital feel better. The second measure of prosocial behavior was the amount of time spent making cards for sick children in the hospital. Again, this measure may also be problematic in assessing prosocial behavior. The amount of time spent making cards may be as much a function of artistic ability and activity preference as it may be a function of prosocial behavior. Most children who chose to make cards spent most Of their time doing so rather than playing with the other toys. Therefore, the children seemed to view making cards in "all or nothing" terms--if they chose to make cards, it was as if they felt they were committing themselves to doing this the entire time they were in the playroom. As a result, this perception may have discouraged children from engaging in the activity at all. Given these confounding factors, it is not surprising that significant results were not uncovered. Perhaps a more accurate measure would have been one which gave the child the opportunity to donate S“met-hing they had won during their visit to the playroom. This Would have avoided potentially confounding factors such as activity preference or artistic abilities and would have allOWed the children the opportunity to engage in prosocial behaVior while still giving them time to engage in other 94 playtime activities during their visit. Raga-arr! of Self-Image Disparity The sixth hypothesis was not supported. The predicted pattern of self-image disparity for older children, one characterized by either a higher ideal self-image and a lower real self-image, g by a higher ideal self-image and a similar real self-image as compared to younger children, was not revealed. This is inconsistent with earlier studies revealing either one or the other pattern of self-image disparity for older children (Katz and Zigler, 1967; Leahy and Huard, 1976) . In terms of age and real self-image, a curvilinear relationship was revealed for both total real self-image and its subscale of cognitive competence. Real self-image was low among the five- to six-year olds, increased substantially among the seven- to eight-year olds and then slightly declined among the nine- to ten-year olds. The results from the seven- and eight-year olds and the nine-to ten Year olds follows a rather predictable pattern-—that is, a Self:‘--image that is more difficult to attain (and perhaps unrealistically high) at seven- and eight-years of age but be(“Niles less extreme and easier to attain (and perhaps more realistic) with age (i.e. at nine- and ten-years old). H‘3"'e\rer, the fact that the youngest children had the least posi‘lzive self-perceptions (i.e., the lowest real self-image) (1 ,1, SE 95 is inconsistent with numerous other studies showing that younger children’s self judgements tend to be very high and show a poor match with the opinions of others and with objective performance (Eshel and Klein, 1981; Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, and Tidman, 1984; Nicholls, 1979, Ruble, Boggiano, IEldman, and Loebl, 1980; Stipek, 1981). It is not clear why the:youngest children had the lowest real self-image scores, particularly with regard to overall total real self- image. Regarding the cognitive competence subscale, it may be,«as.noted earlier, that young children are indeed aware of their inadequacies in this domain and as a result, have lower real self-images. In terms of age and ideal self-image, seven- to eight- Year colds had the highest ideal self-image on the cognitive competence and maternal acceptance subscales. This is in contrast to earlier studies showing that older children typically have the highest ideal self-image (Katz and Zi‘Jler, 1967; Leahy and Huard, 1976). Katz and Zigler (1957) found that the fifth grade children in their sample had Significantly higher ideal self-images than the second grade children. Similarly, Leahy and Huard (1976) found thatl‘the sixth grade children had higher ideal self-images, follewed by the fourth graders and the second graders. In a“301111 with these studies, however, was the present finding that the youngest group of children had the lowest ideal self~image. (“I 96 In explaining why the middle group scored highest on ideal self-image, it may be that seven- to eight-year olds tend to think in a black or white fashion to a greater extent than do older children. For example, it was noted earlier that younger children are less able to engage in cognitive differentiation (Achenbach and Zigler, 1963; Harter, 1988). As a result, they tend to see issues in an either/or fashion which is characterized by opting for the most extreme alternatives. It is possible that the seven- to eight-year olds had higher ideal self-images than nine- to ten-year olds because of this tendency--they were often choosing the most extreme response alternatives to the statements. For example, the seven- to eight-year olds more often chose response alternative number 4, which read either "I wish it were always like me or I wish I were really good at..." than the nine- to ten-year olds. The older children, on the other hand, were able to adopt a less extreme position on many of the questions and were also able to give reasons why they would not always want to do or have . something--a realization which the seven- to eight-year olds did not seem to consider. For example, one statement read, "this boy's/girl’s mom lets her stay overnight at friends’ houses but this boy’s/girl's mom does not". "Which girl/boy do you wish you were?" At this point, both the seven- to eight-year olds and the nine- to ten-year olds usually chose the boy/girl who was allowed to spend the night at friends' 97 houses. When the child was then probed further by being asked, "Do you wish your mom always let you stay overnight or usually let you stay overnight, the vast majority of seven- to eight-year olds chose always, while the nine- to ten-year olds chose usually. Moreover, after choosing their response alternative, most of the older children justified why they did not choose the most extreme answer by citing disadvantages to doing so. For example, many of the older children noted that they would not always want to spend the night over at their friend's house because they "would miss their mom and dad", or because they "would miss sleeping in their own bed". These types of considerations were rarely mentioned by the seven- to eight-year olds, who usually opted for the most extreme alternative. While this explanation seems plausible, it is unclear why the youngest group, the five- to six year olds did not have the highest ideal self-image, because, presumably, they would be even less capable of engaging in cognitive differentiation than the seven- to eight-year olds. It is possible that the youngest children's ideal self-images were not that different from their real self-images because they found it difficult to effectively distinguish the two from each other. As Achenbach and Zigler (1963) have suggested, the ideal self-image, if conceptualized as distinct from the real self, requires some capacity for abstract hypothetical thinking. Therefore, it may be that the youngest children 98 were unable to do this adequately, and in effect, were confusing their ideal cognitive self-image with their real cognitive self-image, which was lower than the real cognitive self-image found among the older children. As with the cognitive competence subscale, the seven- to eight-year olds also had the highest ideal self-image scores on the maternal acceptance subscale. However, next were the five- to six-year olds followed by the nine-to ten- year olds. While the same argument as that presented above may also apply in this instance, two other factors must also be considered. First, it is necessary to consider why the youngest children did not have the lowest ideal self-image score on this subscale and second, why the nine- to ten- year olds did have the lowest ideal self-image score. In attempting to explain the reason for these findings, it is important to consider the nature of the maternal acceptance subscale. Questions on this scale concern the child’s current and ideal perceptions of their maternal relationships. The measure taps maternal acceptance by addressing such issues as how often the mother and child spend time together, how often the mother cooks the foods the child likes, or how often the mother takes the child to places he/she likes to go. While the sixth hypothesis proposed that the oldest children would score highest on ideal self-image, it may be that the maternal acceptance subscale would not be applicable because the items appear to 99 tap the extent of dependence upon the mother--an issue that would most likely be more salient to younger children than to older children. It is reasonable to suggest that older children scored lower on ideal self-image for this subscale because it is no longer as important to them to have mother’s attention and to spend time with her as it is to the younger children. Rather, the nine- to ten-year olds have probably established a close network of friends and other peers who are becoming increasingly important. As a result, the maternal relationship is no longer such a crucial or salient source of social interaction and emotional attachment. Other considerations may also explain why different results were revealed in the present study as compared to the studies cited above. First, it must be noted that in the present study there were more children in the seven- and eight-year old group than in the other two groups. Therefore, the finding that this group scored highest on ideal self-image may be partially due to the unequal groups being compared to one another. Second, the measure of self- image disparity used in the present study was slightly different than those measures used by the researchers who found the oldest children to have the highest ideal self- image. For example, Katz and Zigler (1967) were able to collect three separate measures on self-image disparity--an adjective checklist to which one responded "yes" or "no"; a 100 six-alternative questionnaire, and a picture instrument similar to the Harter measure used in the present study. It may be that similar findings would have been revealed had the present study utilized a number of disparity measures. Given the age of the youngest children, however, three measures would have demanded too much time and attention on the part of such young children. Finally, and most importantly, the youngest children who participated in the Katz and Zigler (1967) and the Leahy and Huard studies (1976) were eight- to nine-years old. Therefore, the age differences in self-image disparity that were found in these studies applied only to children eight- years of age and older. If these studies had included children of younger ages, they may have found a curvilinear relationship between self-image disparity and age. It is possible that, as the present study revealed, very young children display a relatively high level of self-image disparity which decreases gradually to approximately age seven- or eight-, and thereafter increases with age again, but not to the level that it was at age five or six. Given the ages of the children in the other studies, this curvilinear model would not have been detected. S 0 '1d ra't m ath and State Em ath The hypothesis that females would score higher than males on trait empathy was partially supported--girls scored 101 higher on the perspective taking subscale of trait empathy than males. This is consistent with other studies showing that females score higher on self-report measures of empathy than males (Miller and Eisenberg, 1987). This finding is also consistent with other studies (e.g., Hall, 1978) showing that females perform better at all ages than males when asked to make judgements about others' emotional states using nonverbal cues communicated through facial expression, bodily posture, or tone of voice; abilities that are likely to depend strongly on perspective taking. This finding may be due to different socialization experiences for males and females, indicating that parents encourage girls to be open and expressive and males to be emotionally controlled and distant (e.g., Block, 1983). This difference in socialization may in turn influence the nature of peer relationships among males and females. Past studies have documented a number of differences between male and female peer relationships (Lever, 1976; Maltz and Barker, 1986; Thorne, 1982; Waldrop and Halverson, 1975). These studies have shown that males tend to play in larger groups, engage in rougher play and in interaction centering on some type of activity or game, and to fight more often than females. Females tend to play in small, intimate groups marked by self-disclosure and a sense of emotional closeness. Given this, it is reasonable to suggest that the socialization eXperiences of females, coupled with the nature of their 102 peer interactions, are more akin to fostering certain facets of empathy, such as perspective taking, than are the socialization and peer experiences of males. In addition, sex by age interactions approached statistical significance for the perspective taking scale and for total trait empathy. The pattern of scores for males on both of these scales reveals a relatively low score among the five-to six-year olds, followed by a rather sharp increase in scores among the seven- to eight-year olds and then either little or no increase in scores among the nine- to ten-year olds. Scores among females, on the other hand, remain fairly stable across the three age groups. It may be that females have already attained the ability necessary to respond empathically, and as such, little change is seen in their empathy scores across the three age groups. On the other hand, it may be that boys at first lack the abilities to articulate or express empathy, even though they may be able to experience it. However, with age, particularly beginning around the age of seven, boys show a dramatic increase in this ability. This notion of different rates of developmental maturation in varying abilities between the sexes has been noted in a number of studies on other areas, such as verbal abilities, physical and motor development, and reading acquisition (Dwyer, 1973; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Schachter, Shore, Hodapp, Chalfin, and Bundy, 1978). Given that a large number of studies have noted sex 103 differences in other facets of empathy, such as personal distress or empathic concern (e.g., Blanck, Rosenthal, Snodgrass, DePaulo, and Zuckerman, 1981; Miller and Eisenberg, 1987) , it is important to consider why sex differences were not revealed for the other subscales of empathy in the present study. Other studies noting sex differences have often cited social desirability as the factor responsible for these differences. It has been suggested that males are less likely to report empathic feelings because they have been socialized to associate empathy and the expression of emotions with femininity. In the present study, however, this does not appear to be the case. No sex differences were revealed for those subscales (i.e., the personal distress and empathic concern subscales) where one would expect to find the greatest social desirability effects. For example, the personal distress subscale taps one’s tendency to become emotionally upset and flustered in situations where another person is hurt and in need of help; many of these questions address the issue of being both nervous and frightened. If social desirability effects were operating in this instance, it is likely that males would have scored significantly lower on this subscale than females, especially considering the fact that the interviewer was always a female. This, however, was not the Case. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that males and females, at least at these ages, do not significantly differ In 104 in 1:11eir empathic capabilities (with the exception of perspective taking, where females appear to score higher). Further, it is possible that by early adolescence males score just as high as females on perspective taking as well, soi'that by this age males and females do not significantly differ on any facet of empathic responding. It may be that differences which are detected later are not due to true sex differences in empathic capabilities, but are due to social desirability effects to which younger male children are less susceptible. The present study found no sex effects for the state empathy measure. Other studies using ratings of mood in response to empathy-provoking stimuli have generated mixed results, with some reporting no difference (Frodi and Lamb, 1978) , others reporting higher scores for females (Wispe, Kiecolt, and Long, 1977) and still others reporting higher scxores for males (Frodi, Lamb, Leavitt, and Donovan, 1978). It: would appear that such state-dependent measures are not as consistent or reliable as measures tapping a more stable empathic orientation. Sex by age interaction effects were found for state emFilthy. The pattern was similar to that found for total trait empathy and the perspective taking subscale. Males shOWed a sharp increase in scores from the five- to six- Year old group to the seven- to eight-year old group, and little change from the seven- to eight-year olds to the DC of 0p] 105 nine- to ten-year olds, whereas females revealed a stable pattern of scores across all three ages. As noted earlier, 'this may be due to sex differences in rates of development for different abilities. However, due to the unequal numbers of children in each age group, and the small number of children in the nine- to ten-year old group, these findings must be interpreted with caution. Sex of Child and Prggocial Behavior Part of the seventh hypothesis, predicting that females would display greater prosocial behavior than males, was not supported. While some studies have found that females demonstrate more prosocial behavior than males, others have found no relation and still others have found males to be more prosocial than females (Lennon and Eisenberg, 1987; Miller and Eisenberg, 1987; Rice and Grusec, 1975; Yarrow and Waxler, 1976). The measure used to assess prosocial behavior is of vital importance in explaining these conflicting findings. As noted earlier such factors as artistic ability and activity preference may have confounded using this instrument as an accurate measure of prosocial behavior. As suggested previously, future studies must take this into account and adopt a measure that does not involve potentially confounding factors. A more accurate assessment of prosocial behavior may have been to give the child an opportunity to donate prizes or candy to children in the u S 106 hospital . §ex of Child and Self-Image Disparityl Real Self-Image and dea elf-Ima e Multivariate analyses of variance on self-image and sex were performed but produced no significant findings. This is inconsistent with two other studies, showing that males have greater self-image disparities (Glick and Zigler, 1985; Stoodt and Balla, 1974). These studies revealed that while males and females had similar real self-images, males had a higher ideal self-image which resulted in a greater level of disparity. In the present study, males and females had similar real self-images and similar ideal self-images. This finding is partially consistent with the above study (similar real self-images) and is also consistent with other studies revealing no sex differences in self-image (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). In the present study, therefore, males and females have equally positive self-images, have similar notions of an ideal self, and have similar disparities between their real and ideal selves. What appears to be more salient in considering differences in real, ideal and self-image disparity is age rather than sex. Summary and Conclusions The results of the present study suggest that self- image is related to both self-reported trait and state te ra su. Suc PO; may towi 107 eunpathy. Both self-image disparity and real self-image provide predictive value for self-reported trait empathy. Additionally, self-image disparity provides predictive value for self-reported state empathy and prosocial behavior as well. With respect to self-image disparity, peer acceptance in particular, the relationship is negative: the greater the disparity, the lower the trait empathy score. In characterizing the relationship between empathy and peer acceptance, it is not only possible but probable that the relationship is bi-directional in nature. Therefore, future research should investigate the role of peer relationships and one’s perception of peer acceptance in facilitating or impeding the ability to respond empathically and it should consider how the ability to respond empathically may facilitate the formation of satisfying peer relationships. For example, it may be worthwhile to investigate the ;personality correlates, including the tendency to respond empathically toward others, of children who are rated by teachers and peers as being popular versus those who are rated as unpopular. Further, it would be interesting in EHJCh an analysis to investigate home environment variables, such as those suggested by Mussen and Eisenberg (1977) , of popular and unpopular children to better understand how this jnaJV impact upon both their tendency to respond empathically toward others and on their level of satisfaction with peer As; SUE hav havl del: 108 relations. Finally, it would be advantageous to ixnvestigate the impact of empathy training on peer relationships. Such an investigation may provide insight about children who are rejected or neglected by their peers and whether or not empathy training would facilitate the formation of more satisfying peer relationships among these children. A number of studies have shown that children who are rated as popular by their peers more often engage in interactions characterized by the expression of empathy, cooperation, help, and acceptance than are children who are rated as unpopular (e.g., Stocking, Arezzo, and Leavitt, 1980). Therefore, it would be worthwhile to investigate the impact of teaching children skills that are essential to these characteristics. For example, one may facilitate empathy in neglected or rejected children by teaching them how to effectively identify the emotional states of others, or by allowing them the opportunity to role play through skits or other dramatic play. This may provide them with 'the necessary social skills that would lead to more positive, stable peer relationships, which, in turn, may Llead to less disparity and a more positive real self-image. Aside from children who are rejected or neglected by peers, such information may be extremely valuable to children who have been labelled as anti-social or delinquent. Studies have shown that children labelled as anti-social or delinquent are often ineffective in empathic skills, 31. de De 109 particularly perspective taking (Chandler, 1973; MacQuiddy Maise , and Hamilton, 1987) . If an effective means of empathy training could be established perhaps this population of children would not reach the point of being labelled by society as anti-social or delinquent. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate the self -image of these children to determine how this too may affect their tendency to engage in anti-social or delinquent behaviors. For example, it would be interesting to examine whether or not children who are delinquent display lower self -image disparity than children who are regarded as non- delinquent. Self-image disparity also provided predictive iNfOrmation on one's tendency to report state empathy. As with trait empathy, the relationship was negative: the greater the disparity, particularly on the cognitive competence subscale, the lower the state empathy score. Future studies should investigate the role of cognitive capabilities in the ability to be emotionally affected by an empathy provoking stimulus. For instance, it may be interesting to consider the relationship between one's level 0f empathic arousal in response to an empathy provoking Stimulus and one’s level of responding on Piagetian tasks, Such as the three mountain task which requires the child to describe a three-dimensional scene from another person's PerSpective, or a conservation of quantity task, in which Re th an be) rec SUC res bet- 110 the child is tested for his/her understanding that a certain amourrt: of liquid will remain the same, regardless of the shape of the container that holds it. finne finding that self-image disparity is pggatiygly related to both trait and state empathy may lend support to Roger”'s and Dymond’s (1954) earlier formulation which proposed that self-image disparity was indicative of maladjustment. While the term "maladjustment" may be too extreme, it may be that self-image disparity is a part of normal. and growth and development only to a certain extent. Moreover, it may be that while disparity up to a certain Point; is normal, it may not necessarily be positive. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate whether there; is a "healthy" level of disparity and whether there is a 1eVel of disparity that may be considered maladaptive. Finally, with regard to self-image disparity and PrOSocial behavior, a positive relationship was revealed. The maternal acceptance subscale of self-image disparity was negatively related to the number of cards made. It may be that self-image disparity leads to some degree of negative arOusal which motivates that child to engage in some bel”lavior that will lead to positive affect and thereby reduce the negative arousal. Prosocial behavior may be one suchbehavior children engage in to encourage others to reSpond more positively toward them and make them feel better about themselves. It would be interesting to EXa Cry Per: 111 investigate the level of disparity in children who engage in spontaneous prosocial behavior versus those who do not to determine whether or not disparity is one of a number of forces motivating children to engage in prosocial behavior. Viith respect to real self-image, its relationship to traitLIempathy is positive: the higher the real self-image, the higher the trait empathy score. This is most salient for overall real self-image and the peer acceptance subscale of real self-image. Future studies should address the direction of this relationship: does a more positive self- image: lead to greater empathy or does greater empathy lead to a Inore positive self-image? One might gain further insight into this relationship by interviewing individuals on their reasons for responding or not responding empathically. A measure similar in format to that used by Secord and Peevers (1974) may be useful in attempting to secure such information. Such an interview would implement a mere open-ended method rather than a formal interview. Using such an approach, it would be interesting to note how many people who chose to respond empathically would provide reasons that reflected the way they defined themselves. For example an answer such as "I would feel sad if I saw someone crTYing because I consider myself a caring, sensitive person," would appear to suggest that people who engage in empathic behavior see their behavior as an extension of who they are and how they define themselves--a reflection of In Drc imp imai impc 112 their real self-image. This would be in accord with the observations of Lickona (1976) as noted earlier, who asserts that when the sense of self is strong and integrated, one identifies with and defines oneself in terms of one’s actions. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to investigate people’s reasons for engaging in empathic behavior to determine the extent to which those reasons reflect one's sense of self. Additionally, research studies should address such questions as how does one instill a positive real self- image in children, and how does one teach children to respond in an empathic manner toward others. It has been suggested that adults play a crucial role in children’s self perceptions. Such factors as parental guidance, nurturance, and verbal communication have been consistently cited as significant factors in the child’s formulation of self (Coopersmith, 1967; Gecas, 1971; Rosenberg, 1965). Therefore, in addition to the final score the child receives on the self-image measure, it is important to consider the ppocess by which the child makes self-evaluative judgements which ultimately lead to that final score. Only after that process is better understood can effective interventions be implemented to foster the development of a positive self- image in children who lack it. Self-image disparity and real self-image appear to be important factors in understanding childrens’ tendency to III (I) e) 113 reSl>ond empathically. However, greater understanding of WhaJ: self-image disparity actually signifies to the child is needed. Because it is significantly related to empathy and prosocial behavior, further studies aimed at better understanding this construct are needed. For example, the following questions need to be addressed, "Is self-image disparity indicative of low self-esteem?" "Does it necessarily involve negative affect?" "Does self-image disparity serve any constructive purpose?" It may be that for some children disparity provokes low self-esteem, while for others it acts as a healthy and important source of motivation toward personal goals and aspirations. In attempting to answer these questions concerning disparity and self—esteem, a model is proposed. It is suggested that the manner in which the child uses the disparity information, and the importance of the content area in which the disparity is experienced are key components to determining whether or not disparity affects the child’s self-esteem. Specifically, it is proposed that the importance of the content area to the child and the child’s sense of control in reducing disparity are crucial variables impacting upon the child’s self-esteem. The child’s sense of control may be explained in terms of locus of control, external or internal. Children who have an internal locus Of control have a positive sense of influencing the major events in their lives; they believe that their own ur di to en in' est Wit Stu rel est. 114 inc}. inations and actions determine what happens to them, and therefore feel responsible for their own success or failure. These children, upon experiencing disparity in a content area that is important to them, actively seek to change their behavior and/or environment in order to improve their situation and decrease disparity. For these children, disparity does not deliver a blow to self-esteem because they know they possess the power and ability to improve a situation with which they are currently dissatisfied. However, children with an external locus of control feel essentially powerless over the course of events in their lives; they believe that life’s important outcomes are in the hands of fate, or at least other people. Upon experiencing disparity, these children are unable to understand that their own actions can improve a currently dissatisfying situation. As a result, they feel powerless to decrease this sense of disparity, and low self-esteem ensues. This model is supported by studies showing that an internal locus of control is associated with high self- esteem, whereas an external locus of control is associated with low self-esteem (e.g., Rosenberg, 1979). Therefore, a study to test this proposed model which suggests a relationship between disparity, locus of control, and self- esteem would appear to be a worthwhile undertaking. Finally, if self—image disparity is to be compared among children of different ages and developmental levels, 115 it is important to construct a measure that will be sensitive to the ages of all children in the study; it should be one which addresses issues in each of the content areas that are characteristic of and salient to each age group. At the same time, the items must remain similar enough so that differences found among the groups can be interpreted in terms of developmental differences rather than differences in the instrument used to measure the disparity. This, no doubt, presents a formidable challenge for those interested in self-image research among children. APPENDIX A Parent Letter APPENDIX A Parent Letter Dear Parent(s): Parents, teachers, and other professionals all know how important friendships are for children. The ability to develop positive relationships with other children enhances a child’s self-esteem and encourages social growth. Our goal is to learn more about how children work and play with their friends. The purpose of this letter is to describe our project and to invite you and your child to participate in this important research. We would like for you and your child to choose a friend (with the permission of the friend and the friend’s parent) who is your child’s same sex and age (within one year). You and the two children will visit our playroom on the MSU campus. The children will have the opportunity to play with a variety of toys and craft materials. We will also talk with you and the children about social relationships. The entire visit lasts a little over an hour and will be scheduled at your convenience (usually in the late afternoon or early evening). The parents and children who have been involved tell us that they have had a good time. Parents seem to find the experience particularly informative, and we are happy to answer questions about the project and about child development in general. To participate in the study, please sign the attached form. We hope that you will take this opportunity to become involved in our project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about this work (355-2162; 355-9561). Sincerely, Marianne McGrath, Ph.D. 116 117 Please sign this form and return it to your child's school at your earliest convenience. Name of Child: Child's Birthdate: Child's Sex: Male Female Parent or legal Guardian: Telephone Number: Yes, my child and I will participate No, we will not participate APPENDIX B Consent Form APPENDIX B Consent Form I agree to allow my son or daughter to participate in a study examining social relationships in children. This study is being conducted in a laboratory/observation area (room 120 of the Psychology Research Building) in the psychology department of Michigan State University. I understand that this will imvolve approximately one hour. My child will be with another child of his or her same age and sex, where they may play with toys or work on other activitives both alone and/or together for about thirty minutes. I further understand that videotaped records will be made of this session. After thirty minutes, my child will be interviewed by another research assistant from Michigan State University concerning social relationships. I also understand that during the time my child is in the observation area and being interviewed that I will be interviewed by another research assistant concerning my feelings and attitudes about parenting, and other issues in social development. I understand that my child’s teacher may also complete a questionnaire on issues in social development, and that by signing this concent form, I am giving my child's teacher permission to do so. I also understand that my child, his or her teacher, and I am free to chooose not to answer any questions without penalty. I have been informed that both.my personal and my child’s identity will remain confidential, and that the interview and other measures will be coded so as to protect our privacy. I understand that the videotapes will be viewed only by Marianne McGrath, Ph.D., the project director, and her research assistants who are affiliated with Michigan State University, and will be erased at the completion of this project. I understand that although my child will probably enjoy particpating in this project, that it is not a specific treatment or educational program, and no beneficial effects are guaranteed. Finally, I understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue my child’s participation at any time, and that my child will be free to withdraw from the study for any reason. I agree to inform my child beforehand that he or she has the opprotunity to be involved in a project where people from Michigan State University are interested in children’s activities at different ages, studying the things children like to do by themselves and things they like to do with other Children their own age. I also agree to tell my child that 118 119 he or she will be with another child his or her own age in an observation area for about a half an hour, and that afterwards he or she will answer some questions in an interview given by an adult who works at MSU. I further agree to obtain my child's spoken agreement to be in this study before I sign and return this consent form to my child’s school. I understand that when the study is completed, I may request a written report that fully describes its purposes, procedures, and results. If I have any questions or problems that arise in connection with our participation in this study, I am welcome to contact Marianne McGrath, Ph.D., the project director, at 355-2162, or I may leave a message at 355-9561. Please complete the attached page and keep this page for your records. Thank You! Date Signature of Parent(s) Child's Name (please print) Phone Number Child's Birthday Classroom and Teacher's Name APPENDIX C State Empathy Measure APPENDIX C State Empathy Measure 358. 06m 04m 04m do fihfiflfl Namdfl wand: flmfl> ”QBBHQ d finfldflm Roz NABBHQ d N¢H> 120 APPENDIX D Sample of the Harter Scale APPENDIX D Sample Harter Scale 9 G =5..x.> ?. 3.3-5.3. _ > > IE... :3 tee. .6 tom ..occ 3...... .—&¢§- a. . S .Q can»... ’-.Q$¢ ...—C) ..< .... ...-:8 ...: .32 . > 6:: ...< :32). >3 3585): .c .5... 2.6... S .... v3— .:oa€.. >£ 8.385.: .c 1::- >...> ....x ...: x... i, ,5}... £33.15... iii... .3332; less. 3:51.32! 551:, 222...? 121 O o o O . ...-o. 3.03. toga-o‘cd: —. Eb- 8. .02 E .0 .8“ g. >a-Ubo. 9%: .- 36) ..< - ...... < . r .- > ...... : .... 1.: 5.2.8:: ... .568 to: ...... ...: x..— 2....:.:: .0 ..c. . 122 123 Q .... 3 >1... ... 2.3.. x =9... a—X..:.-— .3 on; ...-315 < .33. .5» .1. :3 >.. .. ... a 5.... .. ...: a... .... 3... .. . _ . . _ . _ e. o O 3... < $5.8... >.... 3.5... ”83:. 33> 3.. .....s 2.... ... 4:5... >5...— >.o> 92... 9.3.1... .... r... 124 Q Q ....5 z... :9. .... 2...... 3.5... «0.5.9.3 3.0.33 .25 .2. 3.; .... «3.82 3.5:. 5:» 95A. ...:3: ...... a. ...... > a . ...-«...... a .....a... ... .95.... .oo 3.. .9. . ..30-... 3.1.3: :5... a ...: .2. 4 .1033... «...—...... .0 .93.... .1» ft. «.0. :13: 8.0:. ...; .... p’l . ...-Ill..-- . .I.” .,._ .,‘.._ ...-.u- _ .— -_ _._ _-_ -_ _ _ _.._ FBIHhHhII. . . q Ill-.. -. - .. .1 “Hal. s”— _l. .mtn..-!l.nqs:.. ‘ .....n...:.:. 41-..--. _ _ .— APPENDIX E Real Self-Image Scoring Sheet APPENDIX F Ideal Self-Image Scoring Sheet Item Cognitive Peer Physical Maternal 1.Good at numbers 1 2.Friends to play with 2 3.Good at swinging 3 4.Eats at friends 4 5.Knows alot in school 5 6.0thers share 6 7.Good at climbing 7 8.Mom takes you places 8 9.Can read alone 9 10.Friends to play games with 10 11.Good at bouncing ball 11 12.Mom cooks favorite foods 12 13.Good at writing 13 words 14.Has friends on playground 14 15.Good at skipping 15 16.Mom reads to you 16 17.Good at spelling 17 18.Gets asked to play by others 18 19.Good at running 19 20.Stays overnight at friends 20 21.Good at adding 21 22.0thers sit next to you 22 23.Good at jumping rope 23 24.Mom talks to you 24 Column Total: Column Mean: (Total Divided by 6) Comments: 126 APPENDIX G Child and Parental Trait Empathy Questionnaires APPENDIX G Child and Parent Trait Empathy Measures Parent Questionnaire This questionnaire asks you to think about hoW'your child relates to other people and deals with different kinds of situations. Some questions will be more difficult than others, because some ask you to judge your child on personality traits that you might not be able to directly observe. Also, remember that there are no right or wrong answers. As we know, children are capable of different feelings, behaviors, etc. at different ages, and one of the purposes of this questionnaire is to examine these age differences. Thank you for your time and thoughtfulness in completing this questionnaire! 1. He has tender, concerned feelings for other children or adults less fortunate than himself (the poor, etc.). Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 2. He sometimes finds it difficult to see things from someone else’s point of view. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 3. He seems to daydream and fantasize with some regularity about things that might happen. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 127 128 4. In emergency situations, he feels apprehensive and ill at ease. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 l 2 3 4 5. Sometimes he doesn't appear to feel sorry for people less fortunate than himself. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 6. He really gets involved with the characters in a story. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 7. He tries to look at everybody's side of an argument before he decides who’s ‘right'. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 8. He sometimes feels very helpless when he is in the middle of a very emotional situation. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 9. When he sees another person being teased or treated poorly in some way, he feels protective towards that person. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 129 10. He is usually objective when watching a movie or a play, and he doesn’t often get completely caught up in it. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 11. He sometimes tries to understand his friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 l 2 3 4 12. When he sees someone get hurt, he tends to remain calm. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 13. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb him a great deal. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 14. Becoming extremely involved in a good book or movie is somewhat rare for him. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 15. If he is sure that he is right about something, he doesn’t.waste:much time listening to other people’s arguments. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 130 16. Being in a tense emotional situation scares him. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 17. When he sees someone being treated unfairly, he doesn’t feel very much pity for that person. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 18. After seeing a play or movie, he has felt as though he was one of the characters. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 19. He is usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 20. He believes that there are two sides to every question and tries to look at them both. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 21. He is often quite touched or affected by things happening around him. 'Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 131 22. When he watches a good movie, he can very easily put himself in the place of the leading character. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 23. He tends to lose control during emergencies. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 24. When he is upset at someone, he tries to ‘put himself in that person’s shoes’ for awhile. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 25. I would describe him as a pretty ‘softhearted’ person. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 26. When he is reading an interesting story, he imagines how he would feel if the events in the story were happening to him. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 27. When he sees someone who badly need help in an emergency, he goes to pieces. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 md Wt.]0tyat s St 132 28. Before criticizing somebody, he tries to imagine how pg would feel if he were in that person's place. Does not Describe Describes Him Him Well Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 Child Questionnaire Subyxxfi Empathy Scale to be used with graduated wooden scale I'm going to ask you some questions, and I want you to tell me how much each of these questions tells me about you, and describes what kind of person (Child’s Name) is. We’re going to use this wooden block with different sized tubes on it. On this one end, there isn't even a tube, it's just a flat circle. But then next to it is a small tube (what other word could we use?!) and they keep getting bigger until the one on this end has the biggest tube on it. When I ask you a question, I want you to point to the tube that tells me about you the best, and if something’s not like you at all, then you can point to the flat circle above ‘0’. Sample Questions: Some children like chocolate. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Let's try another one. Some children like spinach. How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Here’s one more for practice. Some children like books. How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Okay, here are some more questions, and answer them just like you’ ve been doing. If a questions seems too hard or you don' t understand it, just let me know. 133 1. Some kids like to daydream about what it would be like when they’re grownups. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2. Some kids feel (very) sorry for their classmates who get in trouble from the teacher. Do you feel sorry for those kinds of kids? How much do you feel sorry for them? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. Some kids get scared when they see another child in trouble who needs help fast (or who’s hurt and really needs help). Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4. Some kids think the people on TV are real and they can understand how those people on TV feel. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5. Some kids get scared when they see pictures of children in the hospital. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6. Some kids treat their dolls or stuffed animals as if they had real feelings. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7. When some kids see somebody else get hurt, it makes them sad. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8. Some kids would be scared a lot if their friend was hurt badly and it was up to them to get help. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9. Some kids cry or feel upset during sad movies or books. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 134 10. When some kids see other people laughing and having fun together, it makes them happy. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Some kids get afraid if they see someone get hurt. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. When parents or teachers tell some kids stories, those kids like to pretend that they are the person or character in that story. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13. When some kids see a person crying, it makes them feel like crying, too. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14. When some kids watch a movie, they pretend that they're the star of the movie. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15. Some kids feel sad or worried that other children are sick. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16. When someone is being teased, instead of joining in the teasing, some kids will try to imagine how they would feel if they were the person being teased. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17. When some kids see somebody get hurt, they get all worried and nervous. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18. Some kids would like to switch.places with the characters in their favorite movie/book for a day. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 135 19. Some kids try to be nice to other children who get picked on a lot at school. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20. When some kids have a fight with their friend, they try to understand why their friend is acting the way he/she is. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21. Some kids wouldn't like to be a doctor because it would be scary to see and have to try to make sick people feel better. Is this like you? How much is this like you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 APPENDIX H Individual Items for Empathy Subscales and their Reliabilities 1. APPENDIX H Individual Items for the Empathy Subscales and their Reliabilities Fantasy Empathy (Items 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 18) Reliability: .74 (1) (4) (6) (9) (12) (14) (13) "Some kids like to daydream about what it would be like when they’re grownups". "Some kids think the people on TV are real and they can understand how those people on TV feel". "Some kids treat their dolls or stuffed animals as if they had real feelings". "Some kids cry or feel upset during sad movies or books". "When parents or teacher tell some kids stories, those kids like to pretend that they are the person or character in that story". "When some kids watch a movie, they like to pretend that they're the star of the movie". "Some kids would like to switch places with the characters in their favorite movie or book for a day". Empathic Concern (Items 2, 7, 13, 15, and 19) Reliability: .70 (2) (7) (13) (15) "Some kids feel very sorry for their classmates who get in trouble from the teacher". "When some kids see someone else get hurt, it makes them sad". "When some kids see a person crying, it makes them feel like crying too". "Some kids feel sad or worried that other children are sick". 136 (19) 137 "Some kids try to be nice to other children who get picked on alot at school". 3. Personal Distress (Items 3, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 21) Reliability: .76 (3) (5) (8) (11) (17) (21) "Some kids get scared when they see another child in trouble who needs help fast". "Some kids get scared when they see pictures of children in the hospital". "Some kids would be scared alot if their friend was hurt badly and it was up to them to get help". "Some kids get afraid if they see someone:get.hurt". "When some kids see somebody get hurt, they get all worried and nervous". "Some kids wouldn’t like to be a doctor because it would be scary to see and have to try to make sick people feel better". 4. Perspective Taking (Items 10, 16, and 20) Reliability: .72 (10) (15) (20) "When some kids see other people laughing and.having fun together, it makes them happy too". "When someone is being teased, instead of joining in the teasing, some kids will try to imagine how they would feel if they were the one being teased". "When some kids have a fight with their friend, they try to understand why their friend is acting the way he/she is". APPENDIX I Additional Analyses APPENDIX I Additional Analyses Empathy and Real Self-Image Forward stepwise regression analyses were conducted, with real self-image and its subscales serving as the independent variables and self—report trait empathy and its subscales serving as the dependent variables. Results revealed that total real self-image accounted for 9% of the variance in total empathy scores (p<.002); 10% of the variance in fantasy empathy scores (p<.002); and 6% of the variance in perspective taking scores (p<.02). In addition, the peer acceptance subscale of real self-image accounted for 4% of the variance in empathic concern scores (p<.04) and 4% of the variance in personal distress scores (p<.05) (See Table 3 for correlations among these variables). Regression analyses were also conducted using trait empathy and its subscales as the independent variables and real self-image and its subscales as the dependent variables. Results revealed that total trait empathy accounted for 4% of the variance in the peer acceptance subscale of real self- image (p<.04) and 5% of the variance in the physical competence subscale of real self-image (p<.03) . Additionally, the perspective taking subscale of empathy accounted for 6% 138 139 of the variance in both total real self-image (p<.02) and in the cognitive competence subscale of real self-image (p<.02) (See Table 3 for correlations among these variables). TABLE 3 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations: Self-Reported Trait Empathy and Real Self-Image Real Self-Image Trait Empathy cc PA PC MA TOTREAL EC .06 .23* .10 .22* .22* FE .16 .24* .21* .28* .33** PD .08 .22* .19* .11 .21* PT .11 .23* .20* .19* .26** TOTEMP .17 .27** .23* .23* .32** Note: Values are based on a one-tailed test. *p<.05 **p<.01 Key FE-fantasy empathy CC-cognitive competence EC-empathic concern PA-peer acceptance ED-empathic distress PC-physical competence PT-perspective taking MA-maternal acceptance TOTEMP-total empathy TOTREAL-total real s-i Age andggeal Self-Imagg Age differences in real self-image alone were investigated. A multivariate analysis of variance was carried out, with real self-image and its subscales serving as the dependent variables and age serving as the independent variable. Significant age effects were revealed for the cognitive competence subscale of real self-image [E 140 (2,95)=4.8, p<.02]. Age effects for total real self-image approached statistical significance [E (2,95)=2.7, p=.073]. As noted earlier, a post-hoc Tukey test (p<.05) revealed that the seven- and eight-year olds scored significantly higher than the other two age groups. Cell means are shown in Table 2b. The other subscales failed to reach statistical significance. Age and Ideal Self-Image Age differences in ideal self-image alone were also investigated. A, multivariate analysis of variance was conducted, with ideal self-image and its subscales serving as the dependent variable and age serving as the independent variable. Significant age effects were revealed for the cognitive competence subscale of ideal self-image [E (2,95)=4.0, p<.03] and for the maternal acceptance subscale of ideal self-image [E (2,95)=4.0, p<.03]. As presented earlier, a a post-hoc Tukey test (p<.05) revealed that the. seven- to eight-year olds scored significantly higher on these subscales than the other two age groups. Cell means are shown in Table 2a. The other subscales and total ideal self-image failed to reach statistical significance. LI ST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Achenbach, T., & zigler, E. (1963). Social competence and self-image disparity in psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, p1, 197-205. Barnett, M. and Thompson, S. (1985). The role ofperspective taking and empathy on children's machiavellianism, prosocial behavior, and motive for helping. The Journal of Genetig psychology, 1, 295-305. Blanck, P.D., Rosenthal, R., Snodgrass, S.E., DePaulo, B.M., and Zuckerman, M. (1981). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues: Developmental changes. u nal of e sona it and Socia Ps holo , Al, 391- 396. Block, J.H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, p4, 1335-1354. Bryant, B (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Qpild Development, fig, 413-425. Buckley, N., Siegel, L.S., and Nees, S. (1979). Egocentrism, empathy, and altruistic behavior. Developmental Psychology, lg, 329-330. Burns, R.B., (1979). The history and theory of self-concept. In R. B. Burns (Ed.), Self-concep . New York: Longman. Carlson, C.L., Lahey B.B., and Napeer R. (1984). Peer assessment of the social behavior of accepted, rejected, and neglected children. Journal of Abnormal Child Ps cholo , lg, 189-198. Chandler, M. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of social perspective taking skills. Qevelopmental Psychology, 2, 326-332. Cohen, E. C. (1974). Empathy, awareness of interpersonal responsibility and consideration for others in young children. pissertation Abstracts International, 14, 61928. 141 142 Cooley, C.H. (1902). Humap pature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antgcedents of sglf-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Curtis, J., Billingslea, R. and Wilson, J.P. (1988). Personality correlates of moral reasoning and attitudes toward authority. psycholpglcal Reports, p;, 947-954. Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Cata o f Selected Documen 5 ln Psychology, gg, 752-756. Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personalit and Social Ps cholo , 44, 113-126. Deutsch, F. and Madle, R. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations, measurements, and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Human Development, 18, 267-287. Dodge, K.A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, fig, 1386-1399. Dwyer, C.A. (1973). Sex differences in reading: An evaluation and a critique of current theories. Review of Educational Research, 4;, 455-467. Dymond, R.F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting Psychglogy, l3, 127-133. Eastberg, M., Johnson, B., Woo, R., and Lucy, J. (1988). The real-ideal self-concept discrepancy and its relationship to guilt. Psychological Reports, p;, 997-998. Eisenberg, N. and Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. psychological pglletip, 23, 100-131. Eisenberg, N., Cameron, E., Pasternack, J. and Tryon, K. (1987). Behavioral and socicognitive correlates of ratings of prosocial behavior and sociometric status. The Journal of Qenteic Psychology, 149, 5-15. 143 Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., Pasternack, J., Lennon, R., Beller, B. and Mathy, R. (1987). Prosocial development in middle childhood: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psyghglpgy, 2;, 712-718. Eisenberg, N., McCreath, H., and Ahn, R. (1988). Vicarious emotional responsiveness and prosocial behavior: Their interrelations in young children. Personality and Social Psychology pulletin, ii, 298-311. Eisenberg-Berg, N. and Mussen, P. (1978). Empathy and moral development in adolescence. Child Development, lg, 185-186. Eisenberg-Berg N., & Lennon, R. (1980). Altruism and assessment of empathy in the preschool years. Child Development, pl, 552-557. ' Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited or a theory of self. Amepican psychologist, pp, 405-416. Eshel, Y., and Klein, Z. (1981). Development of academic self-concept of lower-class and middle-class primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1;, 287-293. Fay, B. (1971). The relationship of cognitive moral judgement, generosity, and empathic behavior in six and eight year-old children. Dissertation Abstracts International, pl, 3951A. Feshbach, N.D. (1976). Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. Counseling Psychologist, 2, 25-30. Feshbach, N.D., and Feshbach, S. (1982). Empathy training and the regulation of aggression: Potentialities and limitations. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 1, 399- 413. Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. In The Standard Edition, lg. London: Hogarth Press. Frodi, A.M., Lamb, M.E., Leavitt, L.A., Bonovan, W.L., Neff, C., and Sherry, D. (1978). Fathers’ and mothers’ responses to the faces and cries of normal and premature infants. Developmental Psychology, ii, 490- 498. 144 Gordon, C. (1969). Self conceptions: Configurations of content. In C. Gordon & K.G. Gergen (Eds.), The selfi in social intepactign. New York: Wiley Press. Hales, S.A. (1979). A developmental theorv of splf-esteem pnsed on competence ang nopal behavior. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, CA. Hall, J.A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological pulletin, pp, 845-857. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. ghild Development, 5;, 87-97. Harter, S. (1983). The development of the self system. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social and personality development, (Vol. 4). New York: Wiley. Harter, S. (1985). Processes in formation, maintenance, and enhancement of the self-concept. In J. Suls and A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self, Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Harter, S. (1986). Cognitive-Developmental processes in the integration of concepts about emotions and the self. Social Cpgnition, 4, 119-151. Harter, S. (1988). Issues in the assessment of the self-concept of children and adolescents. In A. LaGreca (Ed.), Childhood assessment: Through the eyes of a chilg. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Harter, S. and Pike, R.(1984). The pictorial perceived competence scale for young children. Ch' d Development, pp, 1969-1982. Hoffman, M.L. (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Developmental Psychology, l, 607-622. Hoffman, M.L. (1976). Empathy, role-taking, guilt, and development of altruistic motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), floral development and behavior: Theoryl pesearch and social issues. New York: Holt, Rheinhart, and Winston. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Personality and social development. Annual Reviey of Ps cholo , 28, 295-321.88 145 Howard, J. A. and Barnett, M. A. (1981). Arousal of empathy and subsequent generosity in young children. Journal oi Genetic Psychology, l3§, 307-308. Ianotti, R. (1978). Effect of role-taking experience on role-taking, empathy, altruism, and aggression. ngelopmental Psycnglggy, lg, 119-124. James, W. (1890). principles of psychology. New York: Holt. James, W. (1963). psychology. New York: Fawcett. Katz, P.A., & Zigler, E. (1967). Self-image disparity: A cognitive-developmental approach. Journal pf personality and Social Psychology, p, 186-195. Katz, P.A., Zigler, E. and Zalk, S. (1975). Children’s self-image disparity: The effects of age, maladjustment, and action-thought orientation. Developmental psychology, ll, 546-550. Kerr, W.A. and Speroff, 8.6. (1954). Validation and evaluation of the empathy test. Journal of General psychology, DD, 369- 376. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive- developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York: Rand McNally. Krebs, D. and Sturrup, B. (1974). Role-taking ability and altruistic behavior in elementary school children. Personality and Socigl Psychology, l, 407-409. Ladd, G.W., and Price, J.M. (1987). Predicting childrens’ social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, pp, 1168-1189. Leahy, R.L. (1981). Parental practices and the development of moral judgement and self-image disparity during adolescence. Developnental psychology, l1, 580-594. Leahy, R.L & Huard, C. (1976). Role-taking and self-image disparity in children. Deyelopmental Psychology, lg, 501-508. Lee M., and Prentice, N.M. (1988). Interrelations of empathy, cognition, and moral reasoning with dimensions of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child psychology, lg, 127-139. 146 Lennon, R. and Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its Development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social prgplens, ll, 479-487. Lewis, M. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (1981). §ocial gognition and phe acguigition o; sglf. New York: Plenum. L’Ecuyer, R. (1981). The development of self-concept through the life span. In M.D. Lynch, A.A. Norem-Hebeisen, & K. Gergen (Eds.), Selg-congept: Agygnges in theory and pesearch. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Lickona, T. (1976). Critical issues in moral development and behavior. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Light, C.S., Zax, M., & Gardener, D.H. (1965). Relationships of age, sex, and intelligence to extreme response style. Journal of Personality and Social Ps cholo , p, 907-909. Maccoby, E. E. and Jacklin, C. N. (1974). he Ps c o of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. MacQuiddy, S., Maise, 8., Hamilton, S. (1987). Empathy and affective perspective taking skills in parent- identified conduct-disordered boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, lg, 260-268. Maltz, M.E., Barker, R.A. (1986). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.A. Gumperz (Ed.), Communication, language, and social ineguality. New York: Plenum. Marcus, R.F., Roke, E.J., Bruner, C. (1985). Verbal and nonverbal empathy and prediction of social behavior in young children. Peggeptual and Motor Skills, pg, 299- 309. Marsh, H.W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, pg, 17-39. 147 Marsh, H.W., Barnes, J., Cairns, L., and Tidman, M. (1984). Self-description questionnaire: Age and sex effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent children. Jgnrnal gf Educational psychology, 1g, 940-956. Mead, G. (1934). 'nd se f and soc'et . Chicago: University Press. Mehrabian, A. and Epstein, N.A. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. ggnznnl of Personality, 40, 523-543. Mosher, D.L. (1968). Psychopathology and guilt in heterosexual and subgroups of homosexual reformatory inmates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1;, 323-329. Mosher, D.L. (1988). Revised Mosher guilt inventory. In C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, R. and S.L. Davis (Eds.), Sexually related measures: A compendium. IA: Graphic Press. Mullener, N., & Laird, J.D. (1971). Some developmental changes in the organization of self-evaluations. Developmental Psychology, p, 233-236. Murphy, L.B. (1937). gogial pghavigr nng phild personality. New York: Columbia University Press. Mussen, P. and Eisenberg-Berg (Eds.). (1977). Cognition, moral judgement, role-taking and empathy. Boots of caringl sharing, and hglping. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company. Nicholls, J.G. (1979). Development of perceptions of own attainment and causal attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, ll, 94-99. Perry, D.G., and Bussey, K. (1977). Self-reinforcement in high- and low-aggressive boys following acts of aggression. Child Development, lg, 653-657. Phillips, D. and Zigler, E. (1980). Children’s self-image disparity: Effects of age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. Journal of Personality and §ocial Psychology, pp, 689-700. Piaget, J. (1951). Principle factors in determining evolution from childhood to adult life. In D. Rappaport (Ed.), Or anizatio atho o of thou ht. New York: Columbia University Press. 148 Piaget, J. (1960). The psycnologv of intelligence. Patterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Piers, E. & Harris, D. (1969). The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale. pesearch Monographs No. 1. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Raimy, V.C. (1948). Self-reference in counseling interviews. Journal of Consulting psychology, lg, 153-163. Reaves, J.Y., and Roberts, A. (1983). The effect of type of information on children’s attraction to peers. Child Developmenp, an, 1024-1031. Rest, J. (1974). Davelopment in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979. Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered tnerapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ‘ Rogers, C.R. & Dymond, R.F. (Eds.). (1954). psychotherapy and personality change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ruble, D.N., Boggiano, A.K., Feldman, N.S., and Loebl, J.H. (1980). Developmental analysis of the role of social comparison in self evaluation. Developmental psychology, lg, 105-115. Rushton, J.P. and Wiener, J. (1975). Altruism and cognitive development in children. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, lg, 341-349. Scott, W. (1958). Research definitions of mental health and mental illness. Psychological Bulletin, gg, 1-45. Schachter, F.F., Shore, E., Hodapp, R., Chalfin, S. and Bundy, C. (1978). Do girls talk earlier? Mean legnth utterance in toddlers. Davalgpmental psychology, lg, 388-392. Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J., and Stanton, G. (1976). Self- concept: Validation of construct interpretations. peview pf Egncational pesearch, gg, 407-441. Sheerer, E.T. (1949). An analysis of the relationship between acceptance of and respect for others in ten counseling cases. gggpnal pf ansnlping Psychology, lg, 169-175. Smith, A. (1759). Theopy of moral sentiments. London: A. Miller. 149 Solomon, J. (1985). The relationship between affective empathy and prosocial behavior in elementary school children. cnild Devalopnent, gg, 197-203. Spencer, H. (1870). Ina ppingiplas pf psychology. New York: Academic Press. Stipek, D.J. (1981). Children’s perceptions of their own and their classmates’ ability. Journal of Educational PS cholo , 1;, 404-410. Stock, D. (1949). An investigation into the interrelations between the self-concept and feelings directed towards other persons and groups. 0 na 0 Co sultin Psychology, lg, 176-180. Stoodt, J. and Balla, D. (1974). Deve o menta and anperiential determinants of the self-concept of younger children. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Strayer, J. (1985). Children’s affect and empathy in response to T.V. dramas. Child Development, l1, 649-654. Strayer, J. and Schroeder, M. (1989). Children’s helping strategies: Influences of emotion, empathy and age. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Empathy and pelated emotional responses. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Thompson, R. and Hoffman, M.L. (1980). Empathy and the arousal of guilt in children. Developmental psycholoqv, lg, 155-156. Thorne, B. (1982). Girls and boys together...but mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary schools. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of:nental development. New York: Follet. Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In D.B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wright, B. (1942). Altruism in children and the perceived conduct of others. Journal of Abnormal and Social psychology, 51, 463-474. 150 Wylie, R. (1974). The selfi-concept: A review of methodological cgnsidepations and measuring 'nstruments, Vol. 1. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: Thaorv. and research on selected topics, Vol. 2. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Yarrow, M.R. and Waxler, C.Z. (1976). Dimensions and correlates of prosocial behavior in young children. cnild Development, g1, 118-125. Zigler, E. and Watson, N. (1972). Developmental and experiential determinants of self-image disparity in institutionalized and non-institutionalized retarded and normal children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pg, 81-87. "‘1111mm