1. Nikki Luke & Prof Robin Banerjee
Socio-emotional outcomes for maltreated children: The role of empathy and social understanding
Nikki Luke & Prof Robin Banerjee
University of Sussex 1

2. Research background e.g. Anthonysamy & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007;
Haskett & Kistner, 1991; Salzinger, Feldman, & Hammer, 1993
Peer relations
Maltreatment
Self-esteem
Maltreatment here refers to physical abuse or neglect
Studies generally show maltreated children less well-liked and more disliked 2

3. Research background e.g. Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998;
Peer relations
Maltreatment
Self-esteem
Studies also tend to show lower self-esteem and more negative self-descriptions in maltreated children
e.g. Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998;
Hicks & Nixon, 1989; Toth, Cicchetti, Macfie, & Emde, 1997 3

4. Exactly what? Exactly how?
Peer relations …
Most-Liked
Least-Liked
Cooperative
Disruptive
Maltreatment …
Physical abuse
Neglect
Social understanding
and
empathy
Self-perceptions …
Social
Behaviour
Global self-worth
Parenting perceptions - documented child abuse/neglect tells us nothing about this, and individual differences show that not all children interpret their experiences in the same way – also, crucially, there is a continuity in the relevance of parenting for ALL children, not just maltreated children, and so it makes sense to explore the impact of parenting variables in a broader population of non-maltreated children too
Reputation with peers: move beyond most/least like nominations in use of sociograms
Makes sense to break down self-perceptions to look at it beyond simplistic notion of positive or negative self-esteem
What mechanisms might explain the links between parenting experiences and peer relations/self-perceptions?
Research suggests social understanding and empathy – e.g. meta-analysis, foster carer interviews
We took a two-pronged approach… 4

5. School Study 1: Making comparisons
Comparing maltreated vs. non-maltreated children
Targeted primary schools according to LAC population
20 maltreated children aged 7-11 (Years 3-6)
Compared with 120 matched classmates 5

6. Peer status and reputations
Graphs show z-scores (a standardised score): the mean number of nominations is 0, so above 0 mean more than average number of nominations
These were the significant differences – no difference on most liked or shyness 6

7. Self-perceptions
Scored 1-4 – no difference on self-perceived social acceptance 7

8. What are the key links?
We created a structural equation model (SEM) which included only the variables that t-tests showed were associated with maltreatment
This excluded the Test of Emotion Comprehension, other empathy subscales (emotion contagion, personal distress, emotion understanding), most liked, shyness, social self-perceptions 8

9. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
We allowed error terms for reputations to covary due to similar question format
We began with a model where theory of mind and prosocial empathy predicted reputations, rejection and self-perceptions, and reputations predicted rejection and self-perceptions
We trimmed non-significant paths and controlled for receptive language and gender
We restored direct paths to the model to get an accurate estimate of indirect effects – all shown here are significant
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 9

10. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
Shows the importance of behavioural reputations for peer status
First pathway: maltreatment – more disruptive – more ‘least liked’ nominations
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 10

11. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
Also the importance of a particular type of empathic responding for behavioural reputations
Maltreatment – less prosocial – less cooperative
Neither disruptive nor cooperative reputation nor peer rejection were related to self-perceptions…
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 11

12. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
Maltreatment – more fights – lower behavioural self-perceptions
Crucially for our model, the data also supported the role of social understanding and empathy as mediators in relationship between maltreatment and socio-emotional outcomes…
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 12

13. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
Maltreatment – poorer theory of mind– lower behavioural self-perceptions, and a second pathway…
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 13

14. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
Maltreatment – less prosocial empathic responses – poorer behavioural self-perceptions
Also shows paths to general self-worth…
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 14

15. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
First, a direct path…
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 15

16. Behavioural competence Prosocial empathic response
What are the key links?
Disruptive
Least liked
.58***
.28***
Global
self-worth
-.15†
Maltreatment
Theory of mind
.34***
-.14*
.15†
Starts fights
Behavioural competence
.25***
-.34***
-.15†
Also, the links we found to lower behavioural competence went on to predict global self-worth
We also tested a larger cohort of 137 non-maltreated children to identify key parenting dimensions
Key messages from this:
A perceived lack of parental warmth seemed most important – it predicted poorer behavioural self-perceptions directly, but also poorer empathy across all four dimensions
Prosocial empathic responding also played a central role, but in this broader sample its link to behavioural self-perceptions was via reputations for cooperation and starting fights
Prosocial empathic response
.27***
†p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
Cooperative
.21**
χ2(26) = , p = .360, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .023 16

17. Key messages
Maltreated children showed problematic peer relations and self-perceptions
Links mediated by poorer theory of mind and less prosocial empathic responses - BUT children can show strengths in one and not the other
The absence of positives is at least as important as the presence of negatives
Offers some explanation for heterogeneous findings in previous research
Absence of positives – lack of warmth, less prosocial, less cooperative; versus maltreatment, starts fights 17

18. Interviews with children
Interviews with looked after children at home
Show cards from SEAL resource pack 18

19. Interviews with children
Interviews with looked after children at home
Show cards from SEAL resource pack
Questions cover social understanding, empathy and social experiences, e.g.:
What do you think is happening in this photograph?
How would it make you feel to see someone in that situation?
What could you do that would make you feel better?
What could someone else do that would make you feel better?
How would you try to make friends with someone?
What kind of person makes a good friend?
The aim here was to try and get at some of the individual ways of thinking and feeling behind the statistics 19

20. Interviews with children
Social understanding vs. prosocial response
“The girl’s really upset cause she can’t play with the other girls… probably they’re being mean, like saying rude words about her.”
So how could she make things better again?
“If she walked away and told them to stop taking the mick.”
If you saw this girl being upset because the others were being mean to her, how would you feel?
“Very annoyed mainly.”
So what do you think you would do?
“Walk away and be really angry.”
Do you think that there’s anything you could do to help her?
“Er... Don’t think so.” 20

21. Implications
Extend theoretical knowledge on relationship between family factors and adjustment outcomes
More detailed assessment of children’s well-being than currently offered
Aim to inform training of foster carers and practitioners
Possible use in home and school interventions to improve problem areas
My message of hope would be first, that maltreated children were no poorer than their peers at emotion recognition or understanding in middle childhood; they were also just as likely to experience emotion contagion
My previous interviews with foster carers indicated that these children do want to belong in their peer group; so second, our assessment gives us a great starting-point for targeted work that can acknowledge children's strengths in understanding others' emotions and build on these to help promote the more advanced aspects of social understanding and empathic responding that predict more positive peer relations and self-perceptions 21