Meltem Yucel | Duke University (original) (raw)
Uploads
Symposium presentation by Meltem Yucel
Chapter by Meltem Yucel
The Moral Psychology of Boredom
We all experience boredom, from being stuck in airport security lines to reading poorly written b... more We all experience boredom, from being stuck in airport security lines to reading poorly written book chapters. But what is boredom, why do we experience it, and what happens when we do? We suggest a new take on this everyday emotional experience, as an important and potentially useful cue that we’re not cognitively engaged in meaningful experiences. According to the Meaning and Attentional Components (MAC) model of boredom, people feel bored when they can’t successfully engage their attention in meaningful activities. Boredom can be painful, but it gives us important feedback about our lives, by signaling a lack of meaningful attentional engagement. In short, boredom tells us whether we want to and are able to focus on what we are doing or thinking, and steers us towards behaviors that ensure that we do. Across a broad range of situations, attention and meaning independently predict boredom, are not highly correlated, and do not interact. But more importantly, attention and meaning deficits result in different types of boredom with different downstream consequences for how people behave. For instance, being bored because what you’re doing lacks meaning feels different and has different consequences than being bored because you can’t pay attention, in part because they signal different problems. Likewise, boredom can result when something is too easy or too hard, because both make it hard to pay attention. All of these different causes of boredom matter, we argue, because they result in different types of boredom with different downstream consequences. Why we are bored shapes what we want to do next, and helps explain why bored people make often puzzling decisions, such as choosing to self-administer painful electric shocks or turning to political extremism. In short, like pain, boredom may be unpleasant but it plays an important role in alerting us when we either don’t want to (or are unable to) pay attention to what we’re doing, and motivating us to change our behavior to restore attention and meaning to our lives, for good or for ill.
Selcuk (Yağmurlu), B. & Yucel, N. M. (2017). The role of institutionalization in theory of mind. ... more Selcuk (Yağmurlu), B. & Yucel, N. M. (2017). The role of institutionalization in theory of mind. In V. Slaughter & M. de Rosnay (Eds.), Theory of mind development in context. Pp. 89-105. London: Routledge.
Papers by Meltem Yucel
How do environmental morality and sustainable behavior emerge in childhood? We examined individua... more How do environmental morality and sustainable behavior emerge in childhood? We examined individuals’ moral judgments of environmental actions and their observed sustainable behavior in an environmental trade-off task in a sample of N = 555 young adults (Study 1) and N = 45 children ages 3–10 (Study 2). We show that both children and adults viewed pro-environmental behavior positively and environmental harm negatively—even if the action was sanctioned by an authority figure; however, both children’s and adults’ judgments of actions impacting other people were stronger than judgments of actions impacting the environment. Among children, negative judgments of environmental harm strengthened with age, as did their preference to befriend a pro-environmental character. Sustainable behavior was associated with judgments of environmental harm among adults, but with judgments of pro-environmental actions among children. These findings point to both developmental continuity and change in envi...
When we commit transgressions, we need to be forgiven to restore our friendships and social stand... more When we commit transgressions, we need to be forgiven to restore our friendships and social standing. Two main ways we can elicit forgiveness is through asking for forgiveness after committing a transgression (i.e., retrospective elicitors) or before committing a transgression (i.e., prospective elicitors). Research on retrospective elicitors with adults and children indicates that apologizing or showing remorse elicits forgiveness from both victims and bystanders, and sheds light on the nuances of such elicitors and their functions. Far less is known about how adults and children respond to prospective elicitors of forgiveness, such as disclaimers (statements that prepare the listener for a transgression or a failure of character or performance, e.g., “I don’t mean to be rude but…”), and how the functions and effectiveness of prospective elicitors compare to those of retrospective elicitors. Furthermore, much less is known about the additive effects of using both retrospective and ...
Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 2020
Frontiers in Psychology, 2020
From a young age, children understand and enforce moral norms, which are aimed at preserving the ... more From a young age, children understand and enforce moral norms, which are aimed at preserving the rights and welfare of others. Children also distinguish moral norms from other types of norms such as conventional norms, which serve to ensure coordination within social groups or institutions. However, far less is known about the mechanisms driving this differentiation. This article investigates the role of internal arousal in distinguishing moral from conventional norms. In a between-subjects design, 3-year-olds (n = 32), 4-year-olds (n = 34), and undergraduate students (n = 64) watched a video of either a moral norm violation (e.g., destroying another person’s artwork) or a conventional norm violation (e.g., playing a game wrong). Participants of all age groups showed differential physiological arousal (pupil dilation) to moral and conventional norm violations. Participants of all age groups also attended significantly more to the victim of the moral transgression than the bystander in the conventional transgression. Further, this differential attention to the victim/bystander positively correlated with the change in participants’ phasic pupil dilation to the norm violation. This is the first evidence that differences in internal arousal co-occur with (and possibly contribute to) the distinction that even young children draw between moral and conventional norms.
By 3 years of age, children tattle about rule violations they observe, even as unaffected bystand... more By 3 years of age, children tattle about rule violations they observe,
even as unaffected bystanders. It is argued that tattling is one way in
which children enforce norms and that in the long term, it helps sustain
co-operation (e.g., Vaish, Missana, & Tomasello, 2011). However,
an alternative explanation could be that children are worried that the
victim might blame them and so feel the need to inform the victim
about who caused the harm. The present study aimed to tease these
possibilities apart. Children observed a puppet either causing harm to
another puppet (e.g., destroying their artwork) or no harm (e.g.,
destroying a different object). Importantly, the situation was constructed
such that children knew they could not be blamed for the
transgressions. Nonetheless, 3-year-old children tattled on the transgressor
more when the transgressor had caused harm than no harm.
Thus, young children’s tattling about third-party moral transgressions
seems to be aimed at enforcing norms. An additional, exploratory goal
of this study was to examine the relation between children’s temperament
and norm enforcement. Temperamental shyness negatively
correlated with children’s protesting and tattling behavior, though
more research is needed to better understand the role of temperament
in early norm enforcement.
The Moral Psychology of Boredom
We all experience boredom, from being stuck in airport security lines to reading poorly written b... more We all experience boredom, from being stuck in airport security lines to reading poorly written book chapters. But what is boredom, why do we experience it, and what happens when we do? We suggest a new take on this everyday emotional experience, as an important and potentially useful cue that we’re not cognitively engaged in meaningful experiences. According to the Meaning and Attentional Components (MAC) model of boredom, people feel bored when they can’t successfully engage their attention in meaningful activities. Boredom can be painful, but it gives us important feedback about our lives, by signaling a lack of meaningful attentional engagement. In short, boredom tells us whether we want to and are able to focus on what we are doing or thinking, and steers us towards behaviors that ensure that we do. Across a broad range of situations, attention and meaning independently predict boredom, are not highly correlated, and do not interact. But more importantly, attention and meaning deficits result in different types of boredom with different downstream consequences for how people behave. For instance, being bored because what you’re doing lacks meaning feels different and has different consequences than being bored because you can’t pay attention, in part because they signal different problems. Likewise, boredom can result when something is too easy or too hard, because both make it hard to pay attention. All of these different causes of boredom matter, we argue, because they result in different types of boredom with different downstream consequences. Why we are bored shapes what we want to do next, and helps explain why bored people make often puzzling decisions, such as choosing to self-administer painful electric shocks or turning to political extremism. In short, like pain, boredom may be unpleasant but it plays an important role in alerting us when we either don’t want to (or are unable to) pay attention to what we’re doing, and motivating us to change our behavior to restore attention and meaning to our lives, for good or for ill.
Selcuk (Yağmurlu), B. & Yucel, N. M. (2017). The role of institutionalization in theory of mind. ... more Selcuk (Yağmurlu), B. & Yucel, N. M. (2017). The role of institutionalization in theory of mind. In V. Slaughter & M. de Rosnay (Eds.), Theory of mind development in context. Pp. 89-105. London: Routledge.
How do environmental morality and sustainable behavior emerge in childhood? We examined individua... more How do environmental morality and sustainable behavior emerge in childhood? We examined individuals’ moral judgments of environmental actions and their observed sustainable behavior in an environmental trade-off task in a sample of N = 555 young adults (Study 1) and N = 45 children ages 3–10 (Study 2). We show that both children and adults viewed pro-environmental behavior positively and environmental harm negatively—even if the action was sanctioned by an authority figure; however, both children’s and adults’ judgments of actions impacting other people were stronger than judgments of actions impacting the environment. Among children, negative judgments of environmental harm strengthened with age, as did their preference to befriend a pro-environmental character. Sustainable behavior was associated with judgments of environmental harm among adults, but with judgments of pro-environmental actions among children. These findings point to both developmental continuity and change in envi...
When we commit transgressions, we need to be forgiven to restore our friendships and social stand... more When we commit transgressions, we need to be forgiven to restore our friendships and social standing. Two main ways we can elicit forgiveness is through asking for forgiveness after committing a transgression (i.e., retrospective elicitors) or before committing a transgression (i.e., prospective elicitors). Research on retrospective elicitors with adults and children indicates that apologizing or showing remorse elicits forgiveness from both victims and bystanders, and sheds light on the nuances of such elicitors and their functions. Far less is known about how adults and children respond to prospective elicitors of forgiveness, such as disclaimers (statements that prepare the listener for a transgression or a failure of character or performance, e.g., “I don’t mean to be rude but…”), and how the functions and effectiveness of prospective elicitors compare to those of retrospective elicitors. Furthermore, much less is known about the additive effects of using both retrospective and ...
Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 2020
Frontiers in Psychology, 2020
From a young age, children understand and enforce moral norms, which are aimed at preserving the ... more From a young age, children understand and enforce moral norms, which are aimed at preserving the rights and welfare of others. Children also distinguish moral norms from other types of norms such as conventional norms, which serve to ensure coordination within social groups or institutions. However, far less is known about the mechanisms driving this differentiation. This article investigates the role of internal arousal in distinguishing moral from conventional norms. In a between-subjects design, 3-year-olds (n = 32), 4-year-olds (n = 34), and undergraduate students (n = 64) watched a video of either a moral norm violation (e.g., destroying another person’s artwork) or a conventional norm violation (e.g., playing a game wrong). Participants of all age groups showed differential physiological arousal (pupil dilation) to moral and conventional norm violations. Participants of all age groups also attended significantly more to the victim of the moral transgression than the bystander in the conventional transgression. Further, this differential attention to the victim/bystander positively correlated with the change in participants’ phasic pupil dilation to the norm violation. This is the first evidence that differences in internal arousal co-occur with (and possibly contribute to) the distinction that even young children draw between moral and conventional norms.
By 3 years of age, children tattle about rule violations they observe, even as unaffected bystand... more By 3 years of age, children tattle about rule violations they observe,
even as unaffected bystanders. It is argued that tattling is one way in
which children enforce norms and that in the long term, it helps sustain
co-operation (e.g., Vaish, Missana, & Tomasello, 2011). However,
an alternative explanation could be that children are worried that the
victim might blame them and so feel the need to inform the victim
about who caused the harm. The present study aimed to tease these
possibilities apart. Children observed a puppet either causing harm to
another puppet (e.g., destroying their artwork) or no harm (e.g.,
destroying a different object). Importantly, the situation was constructed
such that children knew they could not be blamed for the
transgressions. Nonetheless, 3-year-old children tattled on the transgressor
more when the transgressor had caused harm than no harm.
Thus, young children’s tattling about third-party moral transgressions
seems to be aimed at enforcing norms. An additional, exploratory goal
of this study was to examine the relation between children’s temperament
and norm enforcement. Temperamental shyness negatively
correlated with children’s protesting and tattling behavior, though
more research is needed to better understand the role of temperament
in early norm enforcement.