![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/parents-reading-with-daughter-750x375.jpg)
A new study suggests that the way young adults process moral emotions is shaped by a combination of their own personality traits and their memories of how they were raised. The research indicates that mothers and fathers may influence a child’s moral development in distinct ways, but these effects depend heavily on the child’s individual temperament. These findings regarding the roots of shame, guilt, and moral identity were published in the journal Psychological Reports.
To understand these findings, it is necessary to first distinguish between two powerful emotions: guilt and shame. While these feelings are often grouped together, psychologists view them as having different functions and outcomes. Guilt is generally considered a helpful moral emotion. It focuses on a specific behavior, such as realizing one has made a mistake or hurt someone.
Because guilt focuses on an action, it often motivates people to apologize or repair the damage. In contrast, shame is viewed as a negative evaluation of the self. Instead of feeling that they did something bad, a person experiencing shame feels that they are bad. This emotion often leads to withdrawal, avoidance, or hiding from others rather than fixing the problem.
Researchers have previously established that family environments play a major role in which of these emotions a person tends to feel. Warm parenting, characterized by affection and structure, generally helps children internalize morality and develop healthy guilt. Conversely, cold parenting, marked by hostility or rejection, is often linked to higher levels of shame.
However, parents are not the only factor in this equation. A theory known as the bidirectional model suggests that children also influence their parents and their own development through their innate personalities. Lead author CaSandra L. Swearingen-Stanbrough and her colleagues at Missouri State University sought to examine this two-way street. They investigated whether a child’s specific personality traits might change the way parenting styles affect their moral identity.
The researchers recruited ninety-nine undergraduate students from a university in the Midwest. The participants provided demographic information and completed a series of standardized psychological questionnaires. Most participants were white and female, with an average age of roughly 20 years.
The first step for the researchers was to assess the participants’ personalities using the “Big Five” model. This model evaluates traits such as agreeableness, which involves kindness and cooperation, and conscientiousness, which involves organization and reliability. It also measures neuroticism, a trait associated with emotional instability and a tendency toward anxiety.
Next, the students reflected on their upbringing. They completed surveys regarding the parenting styles of their mother and father figures. They rated statements to determine if their parents were perceived as “warm,” meaning supportive and affectionate, or “cold,” meaning harsh or chaotic.
Finally, the researchers measured the participants’ moral tendencies. They used the Moral Identity Questionnaire to assess how central morality was to the students’ self-image. They also used the Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale. This tool presents hypothetical scenarios, such as making a mistake at work, and asks how likely the person is to feel bad about the act (guilt) or feel like a bad person (shame).
The results revealed that mothers and fathers appear to influence different aspects of moral development. The study showed that perceiving a mother as warm was strongly linked to a tendency to feel guilt rather than shame. This connection suggests that affectionate maternal figures help children focus on their behavior rather than internalizing failures as character flaws.
However, this effect was not uniform for everyone. The researchers found that the participant’s personality acted as a moderator. The link between a warm mother and the tendency to feel healthy guilt was strongest in participants who scored high on agreeableness. This means that an agreeable child might be more receptive to a warm mother’s influence in developing reparative moral emotions.
The study also examined “shame withdrawal,” which is the urge to hide or pull away from others when one has done something wrong. Generally, having a warm mother reduced this unhealthy reaction. Yet, this relationship was moderated by neuroticism. For individuals with different levels of emotional stability, the protective effect of a warm mother against shame withdrawal manifested differently.
The findings regarding father figures presented a different pattern. The researchers found that fathers had a stronger statistical connection to “moral integrity” than to the emotional processing of guilt or shame. In this specific study, moral integrity referred to behavioral consistency, such as doing the right thing even when no one is watching.
The data indicated that perceiving a father as cold—characterized by rejection or coercion—was actually associated with higher reported moral integrity. This counter-intuitive finding suggests that strict or harsh paternal environments might sometimes prompt young adults to strictly adhere to rules. However, this relationship was also dependent on personality.
Conscientiousness moderated the link between a cold father and moral integrity. While the general trend showed a link between cold fathers and higher reported integrity, this dynamic changed based on how conscientious the student was. The results imply that highly conscientious individuals process harsh parenting differently than those who are less organized or self-disciplined.
The authors note that these distinct roles align with previous theories about family dynamics. Mothers are often viewed as the primary source of emotional warmth and acceptance. Consequently, their parenting style has a greater impact on emotional responses like guilt and shame. Fathers, who may exhibit more variable interactions or rougher play, appear to influence the behavioral enforcement of moral rules.
There are limitations to this research that affect how the results should be interpreted. The study relied entirely on self-reported data from the students. This means the results represent the participants’ perceptions of their parents, which may not match what actually occurred during their childhood.
Additionally, the sample size was relatively small and lacked diversity. The participants were primarily white, female college students. This specific demographic does not represent the broader population. Cultural differences in parenting styles and moral values could lead to different results in other groups.
The study is also correlational, meaning it cannot prove that the parenting styles caused the moral outcomes. It is possible that other unmeasured factors influenced the results. Future research would benefit from observing actual moral behavior rather than relying on hypothetical survey questions.
The researchers suggest that future studies should include the parents’ perspectives as well. Comparing what parents believe they did with what children perceived could offer a more complete picture of the family dynamic. Despite these caveats, the study highlights that moral development is not a one-size-fits-all process.
The authors conclude that children are active participants in their own upbringing. A child’s personality filters the parenting they receive. This helps explain why siblings raised in the same household can grow up to have very different emotional and moral responses to the world.
The study, “Mom, Dad, and Me: Personality Moderates the Relationships Between Parenting Traits, Shame, and Morality,” was authored by CaSandra L. Swearingen-Stanbrough, Lauren Smith, and Olive Baron.
