Do Provocateurs’ Emotion Displays Influence Children’s Social Goals and Problem Solving?

Abstract

The social goals and social problem-solving of children who varied in social adjustment were examined in the context of hypothetical ambiguous provocation situations in which provocateurs' emotion displays were systematically manipulated. Children rated the importance of six different social goals and explained how they would solve the problems. Social adjustment was measured with rating and nomination sociometric procedures. Rejected-aggressive, rejected-nonaggressive, average-nonaggressive, and popular-nonaggressive children showed both commonalities and differences in rating the six social goals, the relative importance of the six social goals, and social problem-solving depending on the provocateur's emotion display. When provocateurs were happy, there were few group differences, but when provocateurs were angry or sad, rejected-aggressive children: a) rated hostile/instrumental goals more positively; b) rated prosocial goals less positively; and c) made problem-solving responses that were less friendly than those of other children. Results are discussed in relation to Lemerise and Arsenio's (2000) model of emotion and social information processing.

The Effect of Induced Mood on Children’s Social Information Processing: Goal Clarification and Response Decision

“…However, a study of naturally occurring conflicts showed that 7-to 11-year-old's self reports of anger during conflict were associated with less friendly goals, and anger intensity was negatively correlated with constructive behavior during the course of the conflict (Murphy and Eisenberg 2002). These results are consistent with findings on SIP in the context of hypothetical video-taped ambiguous provocations in which the emotional displays (happy, angry, sad) of provocateurs were systematically manipulated, and the SIP of rejected-aggressive, rejected-nonaggressive, averagenonaggressive, and popular-nonaggressive first, third and fifth graders was compared (Lemerise et al 2006). When provocateurs were happy, there were few differences in importance ratings of social goals or friendliness of social problem-solving responses.…”

“…In adolescents, endorsement of revenge and dominance goals is associated with a variety of problems ranging from depression, aggression, and low sociability to crimes against persons and substance abuse (Lochman et al 1993). Moreover, rejected-aggressive children not only favor more self-focussed and instrumental goals, they also show less evidence of being able to coordinate and integrate multiple social goals in both conflict and cooperative situations (Lemerise et al 2006;Rabiner and Gordon 1992).…”

“…However, as Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) point out, individual differences in emotionality and emotion regulation skills will also influence the goals children choose. For example, depending on how well children can regulate strong emotions, feelings of anger may make some children feel overwhelmed to the point that they choose an avoidant goal to modulate this strong feeling, whereas in aggressive children, anger may prime revenge or dominance goals (Lemerise et al 2006;Pettit and Mize 2007). Children with better emotion regulation skills may find it easier to maintain prosocial goals in the face of such a challenge (Lemerise et al 2006).…”

“…For example, depending on how well children can regulate strong emotions, feelings of anger may make some children feel overwhelmed to the point that they choose an avoidant goal to modulate this strong feeling, whereas in aggressive children, anger may prime revenge or dominance goals (Lemerise et al 2006;Pettit and Mize 2007). Children with better emotion regulation skills may find it easier to maintain prosocial goals in the face of such a challenge (Lemerise et al 2006). There is some evidence (under relaxed testing conditions) that children's predominant goal orientations are better predictors of their behavior than are attributions of intent (Erdley and Asher 1996).…”

“…For nonaggressive participants, hostile cues were facilitative in the sad mood induction condition only. Thus, the effect of induced moods on children's SIP may depend on the nature of the mood as well as the social adjustment of the child, so groups that vary in social adjustment will be compared (e.g., Dodge and Somberg 1987;Lemerise et al 2006) Another possibility is that angry mood will prime or elicit instrumental goals and/or aggressogenic RED (Fontaine 2008;Pettit and Mize 2007). Thus, we expect that more instrumental goals will be chosen when angry moods are induced.…”