Attentional Control Moderates the Relation between Sympathy and Ethical Guilt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to ethical transgressions, some children respond with ethical guilt (e.g., remorse), while others do not. The affective and cognitive precursors of ethical guilt have been widely studied on their own, however, few studies have looked at the interaction of affective (e.g., sympathy) and cognitive (e.g., attention) precursors on ethical guilt. This study examined the effects of children’s sympathy, attentional control, and their interaction on 4 and 6-year-old children’s ethical guilt. A sample of 118 children (50% girls, 4-year-olds: Mage = 4.58, SD = .24, n = 57; 6-year-old: Mage = 6.52, SD = .33, n = 61) completed an attentional control task and provided self-reports of dispositional sympathy and ethical guilt in response to hypothetical ethical violations. Sympathy and attentional control were not directly associated with ethical guilt. Attentional control, however, moderated the relation between sympathy and ethical guilt, such that sympathy was more strongly related to ethical guilt at increasing levels of attentional control. This interaction did not differ between 4- and 6-year-olds or boys and girls. These findings illustrate an interaction between emotion and cognitive processes and suggest that promoting children’s ethical development may require a focus on both attentional control and sympathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".