Introduction
Our development as social beings begin within the family when we are infants and then continues in ever-widening arenas as we move through childhood and adolescence into adulthood (Selman, 2003). Recently, the number of neurobiological studies of behavioral changes occurring in adolescence has sharply increased. These findings are used to imply that adolescents have poor self-control (that is, they lack the ability to keep inappropriate emotions, desires, and behaviors in check). However, in neutral settings, adolescents show good self-control, equaling or even exceeding that shown by some adults, whereas in emotional situations, their ability to keep impulses under control is heavily overloaded compared with that of adults and children (Casey and Caudle, 2013).
Casey (2015) argues that research findings about changes specific to adolescents in terms of self-control and underlying brain organization further our understanding of the motivations behind adolescents occasionally displaying criminal behaviors. When under emotional pressure or facing potential threats or challenges from peers, emotional centers in the adolescent brain may take control of more immature prefrontal circuits, which may lead to rash behaviors. Concerning delinquent behaviors, Nagafusa et al. (2012) investigated the association between the range of groups or persons whom an adolescent cares about when acting in public situations and juvenile delinquency in children in reformatory institutions. A total of 1,248 children (aged 12–19) in reformatory institutions completed the scale for the frame of reference in behaviors in public situations (Sugawara et al., 2006). This scale has five factors: egocentrism (Ego), peer evaluation, neighborhood evaluation (Nei), concern about others (Oth), and public values (Pub). These factors reflect that the range of groups or persons whom an individual cares about when acting in public situations is gradually widening. Nagafusa et al. (2012) suggest that juvenile delinquents in reformatory institutions show a narrow range of referent frames in behaviors in public situations. That study also indicated that older juvenile delinquents showed a wider range of groups or persons whom they care about when acting in public situations compared with younger juvenile delinquents.
Given the developmental change in width in the frame of reference in behaviors shown by Nagafusa et al. (2012), this could assist self-control in adolescence. However, there have been no studies on how this expansion occurs in adolescence or how other adolescent mental functions are related to this phenomenon.
Temperament has been defined as a constitutionally based set of individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation in the domains of emotions, activity, and attention (Rothbart and Bates, 2006). An increasing number of studies of neural systems show that individual differences in temperament provide the foundation for the drive to learn, competence, and expertise (Posner and Rothbart, 2007). Factor-analytic work using parent- or self-reported behavioral questionnaires yielded broad factors of temperament, with surgency (Sur)–extraversion being positively related to mastery motivation. Affiliativeness (Afil), which is related to behaviors involving a desire for closeness with others, is assumed to be independent of measures of shyness and extraversion (Putnam et al., 2001). This is based on the biology of behaviors that could support social motivation. Another factor, called effortful control (EfC), is linked to individual differences in self-regulation and reactivity control. EfC consists of the capacity to suppress dominant reactions in preference for performing subdominant reactions, spot errors, or taking part in planning. It can be also seen as the capacity for keeping one’s behaviors, emotions, and attention under control (Rothbart, 2011). EfC is associated with the development of the prefrontal cortex (e.g., Gulley et al., 2016). It is reported that EfC—being able to regulate one’s own emotions and behaviors—in early adolescence may positively influence one’s prosocial behavior and negatively affect the self-centered tendencies observed in adolescence (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2013).
In addition to temperament, we measure metacognitive ability, which increases with age during adolescence (Weil et al., 2013). Metacognition comprises the processes through which individuals monitor and control their cognitive processes. However, it can also apply to others, a process known as “mentalizing” (Frith, 2012). When acting in a public situation, metacognitive ability is necessary to care about one’s own mind (egocentricism) and other people. Following Duckworth et al. (2014), we define metacognition as the ability to deploy a range of self-control strategies. In other words, metacognition consists of knowing what facilitates self-control instead of making it more difficult. This can be acquired directly, modeled for observation, and even practiced by schoolchildren. Duckworth et al. thus suggest that children be taught that self-control emerges most effectively through selectively avoiding—as opposed to directly controlling—inappropriate impulses, even if age-related increases in the ability to engage in metacognition play a part in the age-related maturing of self-control.
Therefore, we investigate the relations between temperament, metacognition, and frames of reference in behaviors in public situations from a developmental perspective. The aim of this study is to explore how temperaments and metacognition relate to frames of reference in behaviors in public situations in early and middle adolescence.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relations between temperament, metacognition, and frames of reference in behaviors in public situations from a developmental perspective in early and middle adolescence (aged 10–15 years old). To allow for a cross-sectional analysis, the adolescents were divided into two groups by age (early adolescence: 10–12 years old; middle adolescence: 13–15 years old). We demonstrated, in both groups, the higher the EfC, the lower the tendency to Ego, and the higher the Sur, the lower the tendency to care about Nei. On the other hand, as for differences depending on age, metacognition in the early group had positive effects on Ego and care about Nei. While in the middle group, Afil had a positive effect, and NgA had a negative effect on Pub.
Egocentrism in frames of reference in behaviors in public situations is the tendency to follow one’s own desire without respecting others. It is thought that consideration of others is based on theory of mind, that is, understanding of their own and other individuals’ mental states. EfC refers to the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to perform a subdominant response (Rothbart, 2011). Many studies indicate that EfC (or self-regulation) was significantly related to theory of mind in toddler and preschool children (Carlson and Moses, 2001; Carlson et al., 2004; Sabbagh et al., 2006; Hughes and Ensor, 2007; Korucu et al., 2017), and middle childhood (aged 7–12 years old) (Bock et al., 2015). In this study, we confirmed a similar trend in early and middle adolescence.
Furthermore, Ego can be regarded as antisocial trend. Nagafusa et al. (2012) suggested that juvenile delinquents in reformatory institutions had higher scores of Ego, compared with juvenile non-delinquents. Kochanska et al. (1997) show strong links between IC and multiple, diverse measures of children’s conscience at early school age, including observations of moral conduct, moral cognition, and moral self in toddler and early school age. The present result that EfC seems to suppress Ego is consistent with the result of Luengo Kanacri et al. (2013).
Surgency consists of individual differences in the need to seek new sensations in early- and mid-adolescence (Capaldi and Rothbart, 1992). Sensation-seeking relates to the strength of a person’s desire for new experiences and need for sensory triggering (Arnett, 1992; Zuckerman, 1994). It is also linked with a predilection for high-risk activities, such as reckless driving, varied sexual experiences, stimulant use, low-level criminal acts (Arnett, 1992), and antisocial behavior (Mann et al., 2017). Adolescents are frequently considered more extreme in their sensation-seeking compared with children or adults, a view backed by empirical studies (Arnett, 1992). On the other hand, Nei represents an extent to behave in term of managing the evaluation from one’s neighborhood. In other words, the fact that Nei is low means that the person does not mind the evaluation from his neighborhood. In our result, higher the characteristics of Sur, lower are the Nei. In other words, when Sur is high, it means one acts against one’s neighborhood’s evaluation. As mentioned above, sensation-seeking has high relevance to antisocial behavior, so the results of this study also support it.
Metacognition in the early adolescence had positive effects on Ego and Nei. On the other hand, in middle adolescence, metacognition had a positive effect on Pub. Considering the frames of reference in behaviors in public situations from the viewpoint of development of social cognition, it can be regarded as corresponding to each stage of Selman’s social perspective taking (Selman, 2003). Based on his theory, children from 3 to 5 years old are at Level 0: to understand my own perspective [first-person (egocentric) and physicalistic level]. From 6 to 7 years old, children are at Level 1: to understand your perspective, distinct from mine (first-person and subjective level). From about 8–11 years old, children are at Level 2: to understand your view of my (subjective) perspective (second-person and reciprocal level). From about 11–14 years old, children are at Level 3: to understand her or his view of us (our perspective) (third-person and mutual level). The final stage is Level 4: to understand my own perspective in the context of multiple perspectives (third-person and generalized other level) (ages 15–18). In this stage, the adolescent now considers others’ perspectives with reference to the social environment and culture that the other person comes from, assuming that the other person will believe and act in accord with their society’s norms and values. It can be thought that Level 0 and 1 in this theory corresponds to Ego in the frames of reference in behaviors in public situations, Level 2 to Peer and Nei, Level 3 to Oth, and Level 4 corresponds to Pub.
Monitoring others’ perceptions by applying metacognition to others is called “mentalizing” (Frith, 2012). Metalizing, in other words, is taking another person’s perspective. In early adolescence, the participants were considered to be at Level 2. In this stage, since metacognition is used for perspective taking familiar others, metacognition is thought to have had a positive effect on Nei. Also, since it is also possible to re-capture one’s sense of self from the viewpoint of a third party, it is thought that the focus on myself has increased, and the effect of metacognition on Ego has also increased. In middle adolescence, the effect of metacognition on Pub was moderate. This result may mean that people with advanced metacognition can acquire a more abstract perspective of others and thereby have a public perspective.
In middle adolescence, Afil had a positive effect on Pub. Afil covers a spectrum of behaviors promoting emotional links with other humans, including emotion-based communication, closeness, and responsiveness in human interactions (Ellis, 2002). From the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology, it is thought that sociality has developed to maintain and develop the group and help individuals behave well in the group. From the viewpoint of indirect reciprocity (Nowak and Sigmund, 1998), Afil is not only cooperation with the surrounding people, but may be related to the orientation of the altruistic behavior of the entire population.
In middle adolescence, occurring neuroendocrine changes might be particularly associated with aggressive risk-taking behaviors in boys or the tendency to affiliate with deviant peers in girls (Vermeersch et al., 2008). These might reflect the present negative effects, made up of scales measuring Ag, Fr, and DM. One of the reasons for the negative relations between NgA and Pub might be the adolescence risk-taking tendency.
In contrast, in early adolescence, neither the relation between Afil and Pub nor the relation between NgA and Pub was statistically significant. As they are taught by teachers or parents to think about the Pub, the relations were not confirmed between temperament or metacognition and Pub.
Finally, we show the limitations of this research. Tasks or evaluations by familiar adults (parents or teachers) were often used to evaluate EfC or self-regulation skills. We use self-report questionnaires to assess temperament and metacognition. In particular, in order to evaluate metacognition by sense of self, it is necessary to develop meta-Mon, which is part of metacognition. Therefore, it is unclear exactly how metacognition have been evaluated in adolescence during which metacognition is developing. Moreover, the questionnaire to assess metacognition was based on the adult version. Even if we changed the expression of the questionnaire for adolescence, there is a possibility that metacognition of adolescent was not measured correctly. And we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The data were collected at one time point, so we cannot draw inferences about causality. A further longitudinal examination is required.