Guilt And Conduct ‘Not Reĺated'

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31322, 18 March 1967, Page 2

Guilt And Conduct ‘Not Reĺated'

Feelings of guilt or remorse in children did not occur in proportion to their acts of aggression; a child could be made to feel guilty but this did not necessarily change his behaviour, Dr. G. A. Nuthall, lecturer in education at the University of Canterbury, told the Christchurch Parents’ Centre at it annual meeting.

The children who felt the most remorse were usually those who kept most closely to “what they should be doing”. Those who consistently misbehaved felt the least remorse.

“This is when strife can occur, for when the adults’ standards don’t look right to the adolescent he decides to follow his own.”

Research showed there was little relationship between guilt and behaviour.

Moral understanding came from the model parents provided. However, this was not straight-forward copying.

Dr Nuthall who recently returned to Christchurch after three years’ study in the United States, emphasised that parents should equip their children to make their own decisions.

to a little girl than cutting a small hole. The understanding that it was not the outcome, but the intention, behind the action that mattered most came about seven or eight years of age. With adolescence came the awareness of personal standards. “The fear of being caught is removed from the situation,” he said. “The child comes to understand that he can follow a moral course of action because it is one he has set for himself.

“Children think about things the way their parents think, rather than do things the way their parents do them,” he said. The parent a child considered worthwhile imitating was a stable, convinced person, who had considered other points of view but remained firm in his convictions. “Children follow the person they consider to be the most powerful—the one who appears to be most in control and most effective,” Dr. Nuthall said.

“‘We cannot predict the problems they will face in the future, so parents must help their children to think for themselves, clearly and efficiently,” he said. The child’s morality or character involved three areas which were often not as closely tied as might be desired. These were: Knowing what to consider right, and what to consider wrong. Learning to behave in ways judged to be right or wrong. Feelings of guilt or righteousness. Changing the child’s behaviour was one of the most difficult aspects of child-rear-ing. Behaviour differed greatly, depending on the circumstances in which children found themselves. “Try as social psychologists have tried to define honesty in children they cannot find it,” he said. “A child who is honest and does not look up answers in a book when the teacher leaves the room can act quite differently when confronted with a display of marbles In a store.

“Parents who use psychological threats, such as withdrawal of affection, produce feelings of guilt in the child. “Physical punishment produces fear, but not guilt” The way in which a child acted depended primarily on the model he got from his parents, and secondly on his ability to understand, Dr. Nuthall said.

Moral knowledge developed in stages. From five to six years the child was most Impressed with the physical appearance of an action. Thus cutting a big hole in a dress would seem much naughtier