2...: 1" u .1 .. q t. .v . . Lp1.?:._r!< J; r: (a .2. ...... . . . I. {.49 Mt... .i-Eli .1. 3?... a Aim}: .. 91...... . .5371: ..yfl._...t.oz,- 3L1! txrliisf .l 11:... {1 ‘ .q . by . 2v. . - 134...“...va 2.... .1.» . 7 1 a ‘ a... . 732.... 1...» i 3.? :1- Ek. .. ‘1‘ z. :71»? V. a v3 . .1: x... ‘13:,“va I. L: .1. is ’45.... \ 1.3:. r1 .3 a»... 2.. k .M,n.m..fi..z. at 5. ‘23... k5,. . L . 13‘ ~ 7 Winn-Vin...‘ . $3,"... 9 «5333:. Han. x . 7 I a .. .< : .. rvrifinrbnfk f? 2:, , .uunk u .. .i 1511 1w»? ... 7.23 I . 1 ulkllezté . 3.11 .55 . » . .Z. v?..x‘9ovy..§3. 1;: a; .31.. 1.3 2., .315 I}. 33.2)?“ .1 . z z..- 1-! .l: 3.1.3:.‘3 a... .5. Z 3313 3.1151160 v 71.... :1.» 7271.323: 131...: . ...1.Z.1..1u . i .3 3.2.... 3.. a . .1 .. vrb.._.$n..,..n.y. if...» .1: 1.1%."... ~ L .1. )lf‘... VHF-v.31 . aIPQHHvrQn . :5. .3. . L... 7)?!&.’Iv 5 d}. )..II11~ a...» ‘17. . .l7m11:71... I172... .. V - .319! .V’c’a..tlr ‘>v‘iO . $433 4.2.)? ...2 rr .‘bl .9v...$!1.v:w .. 19:..sz 1. v 1.5-0.3 2.231.»... 1~1re3¢1¥113 fi. 1 ...!...t....u\.:5tl\.. 1.5.1.9!- .9!.§..372 33)? kl~v$>7 ) .33.. )nvvs‘v:1ta.fv§: 2.1.5.}! I 8‘ .;.I... v..1$...v:§o.. .. ‘ yu}:u7yv..=2«~:. 52.71.55... :21;1>131.71 . .21.}. E. 15.11.35: v1 7. 71:71 vu a ‘3- ‘77.: E I‘.‘ 933le q .. ...\)13.. 11.1). .: 3‘13... . 1. 3:»...“ ,3 . . 3; v1-1.3. 7‘2511322 :. l a. ‘13.; . In!v...:: 7.5.1): o 7: .3; its}; .VLEI: . 7 3127‘. x‘. .4...:::: 1.1L. », 1:31.151): “ v1 2'39! 11! zufi! . .A .. 71.2.2.1 :. .91 . . 1..»Iy5rwlih .1! a" $72,. . rtw. Y .31 . IV)“?. 1 ..1..:.\\v§ 4."... :Ir‘i...!l2.. 2.. 11.2: 35...»: 9...... .33... . 31".4Q! 7.}:911 . z .3. :7 5 1 x \ v.51. l .. 7:1. . Q :. .x a :31. «It: yoa‘ci 9...; a . 1“,. 14 xrttr , .11.... 2, 13.3.9...» 4 1 .ava..v1!7:&yv:1 5 wt:!.:..1111.1. «11171.1:13 .. 133:3. :v1.v,..\1:.r::vu\y.. . ... 172‘: . 1". r. . i: 73.3. 1.1 . 3:771. 331.2,}.2. '.v)tl.\lil¢.z , , .\.v..\ T). . 1...?! u! 11"). 2'31; 1.5.x. {ivy . 1.: . 1 , .hxiuttyos :- 2.73.! .3 . 1 \V‘b\\ 2 W1». . I I’ll): avar‘lu. :. . .3 ,i 1x? 1:111:12“ 3...... 3... ., . 7.3.3.15: .1 ’92:”... 33.1.3.5 2 2;; . . . 1.313. yd...” 3 £5.11 rim... y .JJHbY n771)‘\3\-!-W3 , . 1:33.511 .3 :lll‘ilugfiLiEI , 7 . . . ELL .. . . 3:. ‘ llv? A a, , . .t .: , :Lxhé? 3r v3.»~..1..5..1.\v:3 3: 6 :2 . . 13:43..» 2 )1... .. :79 I ii. ~ L1..It3.\rrl.~v . :1!1..t.b. .13.. ¢ 3.5.4.! :13}: ~3“, . .. 1‘: \r‘... i; .6. ..\7. >29). . r 1 . ... .119 3. . 11:».Irr. » .v:)..72.€.1 ¥,.II...,..I :1... .11»?! . .3) x . ”2i.“ .. .L . .VMHVY . .. ~Tl. a . 41.15; .1 $534.99 x51 51.71.. ’13.}. ..\VI. . . v i. «vivaar . 15.1.5.3. A e 3. . 7 . 3121‘... Q J: v 33:; is: 3.23.? fvlfi\.7. . . . 3 ‘ $1... t1...l\ 9 _. . .1 . » 1‘ .7. t :1... 1.. 5....» $3.... ...,\.......1.«....,:..... 31‘ Tntvnvnrtl‘fl « .0 garlic Erato; n 9;...53'11 , 53.55.53: SE: :0 rtytnunhrfufl. .2 :21? S y I Z .1; 31.";2—32—‘Van— 1’ 1......1 y...:trt.vVN‘ch’—.€v¢(s.=a ls: iie- .. e. is .555 ésummfihxk I. Q. 7:. w.y..u7.‘1.. ..\I 195190....7uv .1..I‘S..v,..)r‘islr~i.. in... ‘1‘ I!" .1 15:5}: IL; . E til £1... . . 3.2;...123 1.1.11.7‘ kSA'iL..9 . All?) . r. . C; «23.: .C. . z .3: .0! 4.1 .ou Ax ‘ ‘u. 7.2.11.1 1 . ‘32.}..1. . .Mvu.)ssu , 1.. 13.. n.- a... .. .22; $9 1:1:11: .Ke a A {.53. also). : 1 :i...:.:.;.!.?. :11... 2.3.1.33... 1.. . :1. . l.r.xl.(‘£ 7.. 2.. 1.2.»; .111].- Jlt‘ll4u I 11“....)v‘134501. >31,:r\1‘ , 1:135 sixv...l$y. . 53"... u... fillil. 113.1 3~-9\))|:va~10| .1 .31.)... 31“: .9):).x.a (1‘33? . .7013...) .1: fix??? 1. J|~h. v .. Q‘i ‘ Il.~\0. . v. «I , Sling; A .. a? that" .3; TH .... ll Ll! WI! lfllflljflfll fill (Ill! 1!! fl fill Ill! Mill [ll ll 1 .. Liifiitsi R3” Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of Moral Orientation in Relation To the Piagetian Concept of Egocentfiism presented by Carole Dilling has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __P_h_._D_.degree in 485416-149 1 O gy i 2? ,/ {2/ka 0‘1 l ' lLKL q Wm Major professorl Dme December 13é 1966 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF MORAL ORIENTATION IN RELATION TO THE PIAGETIAN CONCEPT OF EGOCENTRISM by Carole Dilling This study is concerned with the investigation of two variants of internalized conscience-—the humanistic moral orientation and the conventional moral orientation. It is the author's contention that the inconclusive findings in previous research in the area of moral develop- ment is due in part to the failure of the research to distinguish between these two variants. The main objective of the present study is to distinguish these two variants and to investigate their possible relationship to the ego ability to shift perspectives. We predict that humanistic orientation is positively related to the ability to shift both perceptual perspectives and social perspectives. Conversely, we expect conventional orientation to be negatively related to this ego ability. In addition, we explore the role that peer group participation and peer acceptance plays in the development of these two variants of moral orientation. We predict that peer acceptance is positively related to humanistic orientation and negatively related to conventional orientation. Carole Dilling The subjects were 108 fifth and sixth grade children who were attending a three-week summer session at a camp sponsored by the Battle Creek School System, Battle Creek, Michigan. Three tasks were administered individually to each child. As a measure of moral orientation, the sub— jects were read stories describing norm violations committed under different conditions. They were then asked to make moral Judgments about these violations and to give their reasons for their judgments. The responses were scored in terms of humanistic orientation, conventional orientation, and external orientation. As a measure of the ability to shift perceptual perspective, we used a task which con— sisted of a mountain scene and a series of views of this scene. The subjects' task was to identify views other than the one he was looking at. As a measure of the ability to shift social perspectives, a projective role—taking task was used. Here the subjects' task was to assume the role of various characters in a story. In addition, a socio- metric measure was group-administered near the close of the camp session. This measure was used to assess peer group participation and acceptance. The data obtained from these tasks were analyzed separately for the boys and for the girls. Using product moment correlations, the following results were obtained: 1. For both the boys and the girls there was a low positive relationship between humanistic moral orientation and the ability to assume various perceptual perSpectives. Carole Dilling However, the product moment correlations obtained here did not reach statistical significance. On the other hand, the conventional moral orientation had a significant nega— tive correlation with this ability to assume various perceptual perspectives for the boys, but not for the girls. 2. For the boys there was a fairly strong positive relationship between humanistic orientation and the ability to shift social perspectives. This relationship was highly significant statistically. Conversely, there was a signifi— cant negative correlation between conventional moral orien- tation and the ability to shift social perspectives. On the other hand,the girls'ability to shift social perspectives had almost no correlation with either variant of internalized conscience. 3. There was a low positive relationship between peer acceptance and humanistic orientation for both boys and girls, but this relationship was not statistically significant in either case. Moreover, there was a similarly low positive relationship between peer acceptance and con— ventional orientation for both boys and girls. An interest— ing finding, which had not been predicted, was the signifi— cant negative correlation between peer acceptance and external orientation (a non—internalized moral orientation) for the girls and the near—significant negative correlation between these two variables for the boys. A STUDY OF MORAL ORIENTATION IN RELATION TO THE PIAGETIAN CONCEPT OF EGOCENTRISM By Carole Dilling A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1967 To My Husband ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her thanks to Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson, the committee chairman, for her guidance \ and encouragement during the course of this investigation. Special thanks are also extended to the other members of the committee, Professors Charles Hanley, John Hurley, and Albert Rabin, for their interest in the study and their helpful suggestions. The author is extremely grateful to Mr. Jack Wykoff, the director of the Clear Lake Camp, for his cooperation in obtaining the subjects for this study. Also the assist— ance of Mr. Jonas Chenault,the Staff Psychologist at the camp, was greatly appreciated. The author also wishes to express her gratitude to Mr. Ernie Brunie, Mrs. Charlene Carter, Miss Marilyn Mac— Kenzie, Mrs. Joyce Moore, and Mrs. Roberta Vogel. Their assistance in the rating of the data was of extreme importance in the completion of the study. Finally, the author is deeply grateful to her husband, Roger, for his inspiration and encouragement during her graduate program. Without his support, this study could not have been undertaken. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. < TABLES. FIGURES APPENDICES INTRODUCTION. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Moral Conduct . . . . Guilt . Moral Judgment . . Summary and Conclusions . . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. METHOD. Subjects Procedure. The Egocentrism I Measure The Egocentrism II Measure The Moral Orientation Measure Sociometric Measure Statistical Analysis RESULTS Relationship Between Egocentrism I and Moral Orientation . . . . . . . Relationship Between Egocentrism II and Moral Orientation . . . . . . . Relationship Between Egocentrism and Moral Orientation with the Effect of Age and Intelligence Eliminated Relationship Between Sociometric Measure and Moral Orientation. . . . . . Additional Findings . . . . iv Page ii 36 38 40 Al AA Chapter Page VI. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . u8 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . 5A BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table 10 . ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Means, Ranges and Standard Deviations for Egocentrism I Score, Egocentrism II Score and Moral Orientation Scores. Intercorrelations of Moral Orientation Scores, Egocentrism I Score, Age and Intelligence Intercorrelations of Moral Orientation Scores, Egocentrism II Score, Age and Intelligence Correlations between the Sociometric Measure and Moral Orientation Scores, Age and Intelligence . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Humanism Scores for the Seven Moral Orientation Items Means and Standard Deviations of the Conven- tional Scores for the Seven Moral Orientation Items . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of External Scores for the Seven Moral Orientation Items . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between Humanistic Scores for Moral Orientation Items and the Two Egocentrism Measures . . . . Correlations between Conventional Scores for Moral Orientation Items and the Two Ego— centrism Measures . . . . Correlations between External Scores for Moral Orientation Items and the Two Egocentrism Measures . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations of Humanistic Scorings Of the Moral Orientation Items . . . . Intercorrelations of Conventional Scorings for the Moral Orientation Items . . . Correlations of External Scorings for the Moral Orientation Items . . . . . . vi Page 26 37 39 42 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 10“. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. The mountains used in the Egocentrism I task . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. The nine photographs shown to the children in the Egocentrism I task . . . . . . . 2A vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Data Collection Booklet B. Sample Scorings for Egocentrism II Task. C. Sample Scorings for Moral Orientation Task . . . . . . . . . . D. Data Tables viii Page 62 81 87 95 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is generally assumed that the central values and prohibitions of society, which are at first external and coercive to the individual, lose this coercive quality and are internalized by the individual. These values and prohibitions are said to be internalized if they are con- formed to in the absence of situational incentives or sanctions, that is, if conformity is intrinsically motivated. The end-product of this process is most generally referred to as conscience. While the theories and research in this area generally agree with the notion of internalized rules, there are dif— ferences of emphasis in researchers' conceptions of morality. Some investigators have stressed a behavioral criterion. This criterion is defined as intrinsically motivated con— formity or resistance to temptation. In this tradition, Hartshorne and May (1928—1930) investigated a set of culturally defined virtues by observing the child's ability to resist temptation to break a rule when it seemed unlikely that he could be detected or punished. A second criterion Of the existence of internalized standards is the emotion Of guilt, that is of self—punitive, self—critical reactions of remorse and anxiety after transgression of cultural standards. Both psychoanalytic theory and learning theory have focused upon guilt as the basic motive of morality. In addition to behavioral conformity to a standard and emotional reactions of remorse after transgression, the internalization of a standard implies a capacity to make judgments in terms of that standard and to justify main— taining the standard to oneself and to others. This judg— mental side of moral development has been the focus of the work of Piaget and other developmental theorists. Several interesting findings have been obtained in the research which has focused on each of these criteria. We will briefly discuss the prevalent findings and will suggest some of the difficulties arising from the research. We will not present a complete review of the research in the area of moral development since two excellent reviews by Kohlberg (1963a,l964) already exist in the literature. After looking at the main findings and some of the apparent difficulties, we will present our ideas about some alterna- tive approaches to research in this area and will state the problem that we investigated in the present study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Moral Conduct Hartshorne and May (1928), concentrating only on actual conduct in their Studies in_Deceit, concluded that honesty seemed to be a collection of specialized acts, closely tied up with situations and not very dependent on a general trait. The first finding leading to this con— clusion is that of the low predictability of cheating in one situation for cheating in another situation. A second related finding is that children are not divisible into two groups, cheaters and honest children. Instead their scores were distributed in a bell—curve fashion. If honesty were a unified trait, a child would be honest or dishonest in all situations, that is intercorrelations between test situations would be positive and high and the distribution would be U-shaped or bimodal. A third finding indicates that the tendency to cheat depends on the degree of risk of detection and the effort required to cheat. Sears, Rau, and Alpert (1965), working with five—year- Olds, obtained similarly low correlations between four moral-obedience situations. These two studies suggest that moral conduct is in large part the result of an individual decision in a specific moral conflict situation. 3 The notion of the importance of situational decision— making capacities rather than fixed behavioral traits is consistent with the finding that several ego abilities are related to moral conduct. Grim, Kohlberg, and White (1964) found the capacity to maintain stable focused attention to correlate well with experimental measures of resistance to cheating as well as with teachers' rating of ”conscience strength." In this study the stability of attention was measured by lack of variation in reaction time to simple repetitive task stimuli and by lack of variation in level of galvanic skin responses elicited by such stimuli. Inter- estingly, cheating was related to instability of autonomic reactivity rather than to a high level of autonomic re- activity. Therefore, the lack of control in the cheating situation did not appear to be a result of high potential for emotional arousal but Of low potential for keeping one's attention on the appropriate stimuli. Another ego variable contributing to moral conduct is the tendency to choose the more advantageous remote out— come over the lesser immediate outcome. Mischel (1963) found the preference for a larger reward in the future (a large candy bar next week) over a smaller reward in the present (a small candy bar at the moment) discriminated noncheater from cheater in an experimental situation with I-Q. and age controlled. Piaget has pointed to another ego capacity, which he feels is especially relevant in moral development. This capacity is the ability to distinguish one's own perspective of an event from that of others. A deficiency in this capacity he called egocentrism. The concept of egocentrism was interestingly studied by Neale (1966) in group of over— aggressive, poorly socialized children who had been institu- tionalized. He found that these children were significantly more egocentric than a "normal" group of noninstitutionalized children with age and I.Q. controlled. Guilt A conception of morality as guilt avoids one difficulty raised for the behavior—conformity approach, for it is possible to yield to temptation and still have an internal standard expressed in terms of a guilt reaction. This approach, however, depends on the assumption that some observable responses to transgression are eXpressive of pain-inducing expression of guilt rather than being anxiety- reducing instrumental responses. Aronfreed (1962) tested the hypothesis that children learn self—critical responses when the position of adult criticism in the course of punishment is such that its cue components become secondary reinforcers through their association with anxiety termination. An experimental analOgue of the learning of self—criticism was developed by telling the children that a transgression in the use of a machine was a "blue" act. The experimenter punished the act with strong verbal disapproval and deprivation of candy. Three experimental conditions were used: (1) the child was told that he had acted in a "blue" way at the very onset of punishment and at the sounding of a buzzer which served to signal the occurrence of transgression; (2) the child was told he had been "blue" at the very termination of punishment and at the turning Off of the buzzer, (3) no punishment was associated with performing a "blue" act. Only the group of children who had been trained with the blue label at termination of punishment and buzzer were found to imitate the experimenter's labeling to any sub- stantial extent. Thus the hypothesis was supported. In addition, another investigation by Levine (1961) demonstrated that confession is an instrumental response learned if parents reduce punishment to reward it. The results of Sears, Rau, and Alpert (1965) also suggest that children may use confession as an instrumental reSponse in order to obtain forgiveness. In spite of the above evidence Aronfreed (1963) has pointed out that a guilt reaction is more than an instru— mental response and that its place in moral development depends on its cognitive and evaluative predecessors. This Conclusion was drawn from his finding that the induction of self—criticism following transgression was significantly related to the experimenter's cognitive structuring during training. Children who were given high cognitive structure responded with more self—critical responses than the chil— dren who were given low cognitive structure. Also supporting the contention that a guilt reaction is more than an instrumental response is the finding of a positive correlation of self-criticism with experimental resistance to temptation (Grinder and McMichael, 1963; Mac— Kinnon, 1938) and nondelinquency (Bandura and Walters, 1959). In some studies confession is also correlated with resistance to temptation (Grinder, 1962; Rebelsky, Allin— smith, and Grinder, 1963). These results indicate that while guilt reactions appear to be more than instrumental responses for reducing anxiety, we need to be careful in interpreting them as indi- cations of conscience. Moreover, cognitive factors have emerged as important aspects of guilt reactions. Moral Judgment While it has been the psychoanalytic concepts and the learning theory concepts which have led to the investigation of the behavioral conformity criterion and the guilt reaction criterion, Piagetian concepts have been the main focal point of research on the judgmental side of morality. Piaget's account of moral development springs largely from his general theory of the development of the child's conception Of the World. First of all, the child's unilateral respect for adults inspires a heteronomous attitude toward adult rules as sacred, unchangeable things. This heteronomous emotional attitude is supported by two cognitive defects of the young Child. One defect, egocentrism (the inability to distinguish one's own perspective on events from that of others), leads to an inability to see moral value as relative to various persons or ends. The other defect, realism (the inability to distinguish between subjective and objective aspects of one's experiences), leads to a view of moral value as fixed eternal things rather than as psychosocial expectation. Piaget believes that intellectual growth and experiences of role—taking in the peer group naturally transform per— ceptions of rules from external authoritarian commands to internal principles (Piaget, 1928, 1932)- A large body of research on Piaget's theory of moral judgment has been carried on by other workers. The age trends for several of the Piagetian dimensions are consistent enough to warrant the conclusion that they are genuine developmental dimensions in both American and in French- speaking cultures. These dimensions include the following: Immanent justice.——Young children have some tendency to view physical accidents occurring after misdeeds as punishments; older children do not confuse natural misfortunes with punishment (Lerner, 1937a). Independence of sanctions.—-The young child says an act is bad because it will elicit punishment; the Older child says an act is bad because it violates a rule or does harm to others (Kohlberg, 1963b). Intentionality'in judgment.-—Young children tend to JUdge an act as bad mainly in terms of its actual physical consequences, whereas Older children judge an act as bad in terms of the intent to do harm (Boehm and Nass, 1962). Restitutive rather than expiative justice.——Young children advocate severe painful punishment; Older children favor milder punishments leading to restitution to the victim and reform of the transgressor (Johnson, 1962). Relativism in judgment.--The young child views an act as either totally right or totally wrong, and thinks everyone views it in the same way. In contrast, the older child is aware of possible diversity in views of right or wrong (Lerner, 1937b). Use of reciprocity.--Four-year—old children do not use reciprocity as a reason for consideration of others, whereas children of seven and Older do (Kohlberg, 1958). These results suggest the possibility of uncovering basic trends in the development of moral judgment. Further aspects of moral judgment have been studied by Kohlberg (1963b). He demonstrated in a study of 72 boys of ages lO—l6 the following six types of moral judgment. Level I. Premoral Type 1. Punishment and obedience orientation. Type 2. Naive instrumental hedonism. Level II. Morality of Conventional Role-Conformity Type 3. Good-boy morality of maintaining good relations, approval of others. Type 4. Authority maintaining morality. Level III. Morality of Self-Accepted Moral Principles Type 5. Morality of contract, of individual rights, and of democratically accepted law. Type 6. Morality of individual principles of conscience. IO Kohlberg has found that the first two types decrease with age, the next two increase until age thirteen and then stabalize, and the last two continue to increase from age thirteen to age sixteen. If the age development of moral judgment were a matter of verbal learning, the age factor would be largely a matter of Verbal intelligence. If broader factors of social experience were involved, age would be expected to be highly related to moral development with verbal intelligence controlled. Kohlberg suggests that the latter expectation is true. He found that moral judgment is moderately correlated with I.Q. (r = .31) but quite highly related to age with I.Q. controlled (r = .59). The Kohlberg studies (1964) also indicated the same basic stages of moral development in middle and working class children, in Protestants and Catholics, in popular and socially isolated children, in boys and girls, and in Formosan Chinese and American children. Thus Kohlberg concluded that level Of moral judgment appears to be a unitary or consistent personal characteristic distinct from intelligence or specific subcultural background and beliefs. Efforts to relate moral judgment to the other criteria Of morality have also been made. Kohlberg (1964) reports fairly high correlations of moral judgment level with teachers rating for conscience(r’==.3l) and with fairness tO peers (r*=.51). He also found that an experimental measure of cheating significantly discriminated those high 11 and low in moral judgment. Johnson (1963), furthermore, found a correlation between moral judgment and self—blame or "guilt" responses. Summary and Conclusions The notion of internalization implies that a person holds a strongly motivated internal rule prohibiting trans— gression. Such a person should have a strong belief that such acts are wrong and should have painful feelings after their performance. The research findings have not given strong support to such an interpretation. In many studies general and stable moral character traits have not been found. For example, in the Hartshorne and May study the tendency to cheat in one situation was not highly related to the tendency to cheat in another situation. The findings have pointed, however, to the importance of cognitive and evaluative processes in the moral conflict situations. The ability to predict long—range consequences of action, the ability to weigh probabilities, the ability to prefer the distant greater gratification to the immediate lesser gratification, and the ability to maintain stable focused attention are several social cognitive capacities Which have been found to be related to moral conduct. The importance of cognitive structuring in inducing guilt— expressive reactions has also been demonstrated. Finally, the implications of these findings have been reinforced by the substantial correlations found between moral judgment capacities and moral conduct. CHAPTER III STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It is our contention that one primary reason for the lack Of conclusive findings in the area of the development of morality is the failure in previous research to distin- guish between two different kinds of internalization. Iioffman (1961) interestingly defined three types of responses ‘to moral judgment situation: an external type (judging in ‘termm of punishment), a conventional type (judging in terms cof upholding rules), and a humanistic type (judging in teerms of consequences to the interests and feelings of otihers). The external morality can be viewed as a product of‘ a weak superego where internalization has not taken place. Ori the other hand, the humanistic and conventional types of moruality can be viewed as two different kinds of internaliz— ation. Conventional and humanistic morality can both be exmfilained in terms of psychoanalytic theory. In regard to true conventional morality, this theory points to the rEpression of impulses as an important function of the Superego, which had been established through the child's identification with the parent and the internalization of his standards. Here the superego is seen as responsible to 12 13 a great extent for the decision as to which discharges are permitted and which are negated. The warding-off ego acts under the command of the superego, and guilt feelings rather than simple anxiety motivate the defense. The ego now has to respect, besides reality, still another, Often irrational "representative of reality.” The developmental process of this function of the superego is largely com— plete in early childhood before cognitive and other ego processes have sufficiently matured for inner conflicts to be verbalized. The resulting superego operates to a great extent outside conscious awareness and is relatively unaffected by changes in reality conditions; consequently it imposes further restrictions upon receptivity to experi— ence and effective cognitive functioning. The humanistic type of conscience was seen by psycho- analytic writers as a more positively based morality and has been referred to as "ego ideal,” ”integrated superego," and "humanistic conscience.” In this case the superego Operates with fuller awareness of the impulses and the acts to be evaluated. Its principles, while based in part on Inoral values which are central to the ego-ideal, would not Abe followed rigidly, but with due regard for their human consequences. The person is aware of his responsibility, experiences a more or less appropriate amount of guilt, and may attempt reparative or restitutive action where it is possible. Jacobsen (195“) is one psychoanalytic writer Who has discussed the problem of the develOpment Of a 14 "mature" conscience. He feels the superego mellows and loses some of its "exaggerated idealism" as the result of ego maturity. Consequently, the superego can Operate on the basis of more reasonable goals, more mature judgments and more tolerance. Hartmann (1960) also accepts the notion that the superego loses some of its harshness, idealism, and unrealism due to the increasing strength of the ego. The notion of a humanistic morality and a conventional morality can also be interpreted in terms of the theoretical constructs of Piaget and Kohlberg. For example, Piaget points to the develOpment of intentionality in judgment as an important aspect of the development of morality. Intentionality can be viewed as an aspect of the humanistic orientation, while in the conventional orientation inten— tionality is not fully develOped. Also a careful examina- tion of the three levels of moral development defined by Kohlberg suggests their close correspondence to Hoffman's three types of responses to moral situations. Hoffman (1964) gathered some evidence supporting his notion that the humanistic and the conventional groups reflect two variants Of an internalized conscience. Groups Of conventionals and humanists who were equated for age, Class, and I.Q. showed about equal guilt on a story com- pletion item where impulse expression is highlighted. But a comparison of the responses of the two groups on a story completion item where the transgression does not involve 15 impulse expression but the consequences to others were severe indicated that the humanistic group had significantly higher guilt scores. The conventional group and the human— istic group combined were generally higher on the guilt indices than the external group. There are two related findings of interest. The humanistic and conventional groups showed equal identification with parents on a ques— tionnaire. On the other hand, the conventionals showed more blocking on a sentence—completion test involving dis— approved feelings which suggested that they repressed superego—alien impulses more severely than the humanistic group. It can thus be concluded that the humanistic and the conventional groups reflect two variants of an internal— ized conscience. Each appears to be internalized to about the same degree, but the humanists are particularly respon— sive to the human consequences of action and are more accepting of anti—moral impulses. The conventionals, on the other hand, appear to be primarily concerned with the control of prohibited impulses. Hoffman's findings seem to support our contention of the importance of this distinction between the humanistic and the conventional morality. Therefore, we propose that it would be useful to investigate in more detail the distinction between these two kinds of internalization in order to clarify its relevance in the development of morality. 16 The importance of ego abilities in moral development has emerged in many of the studies, and it appears that this set Of variables would provide a meaningful way of looking at the distinction between these two kinds Of internalization. In fact, the psychoanalytic writers sug— gest. that the increasing strength of the ego is the impor— tant variable in the development of the humanistic morality. It is this notion that provides our point of departure for this study. Egocentrism which has been defined by Piaget appears to be particularly relevant to the development of humanistic versus conventional morality. The cognitive—social capacity to decenter or to differentiate the self's point—of-view from that of others appears likely to be a major-factor in the humanistic orientation. In fact, the humanistic con— science seems tuned outwardly toward consequences for others while the conventional conscience seems tuned inwardly toward their own impulses and internalized parental prohibitions. An example of Piaget's use Of the concept of egocen- trism in his theoretical system can be found in The Child's anception of Space. Here an operational measure of egocen— trism was constructed involving the perception of different perspectives of a mountain scene. Using this measure, Neale (1966) was able to distinguish between a group of over-aggressive, poorly socialized children and a group of "normal" children. From Piaget's original Operational 17 definition of egocentrism and from Neale's finding, we arrive at the contention that the ability to decenter when confronted with such perceptual-inanimate content is related to the humanistic moral orientation. Specifically, we predict: Hypothesis I: There will be a positive relationship between humanistic moral orientation and decline in egocentrism as measured by a perceptual task. A second measure of egocentrism—-the ability to shift perspectives and vieWpoints vis—a—vis a social-interpersonal situation——is especially relevant to the study. Therefore, we also predict: Hypothesis II: There will be a positive relationship between humanistic moral orientation and decline in egocentrism as measured by a task using social—interpersonal content. Also of interest in this study are the antecedents of moral development. The child lives in a total social world--his family, his peer group, and the wider society. It appears that participation in these various groups con- Verges in stimulating the development of morality. Hoffman (1964) has stressed the importance of the family in the development of the humanistic orientation versus the con- Ventional orientation. He found that parents of children With a humanistic orientation used moderate power assertion, gave reasons and showed disappointment. Furthermore, they cushioned the disciplining of aggression by focusing on the precipitating issues and by orienting the child toward 18 reparation where possible. Parents of children with a conventional orientation, however, more often used love withdrawal, ego attack, and guilt—induction. In Piaget's theory of moral development (1932) parental training and discipline are viewed as influential only as a part of the world or social order perceived by the child. The child can internalize the moral values of his parents and the culture and make them his own only as he comes to relate these values to a comprehended social order and to his own goal as a social self. Piaget contends that the fundamental factor causing this development of morality in the child is his experiences of social participa— tion and role-taking in the peer group. This experience in the peer group allows the child to play a social role where he must implicitly take the role of others toward himself and toward others in the group. Such role—taking involves an emotional emphathic component, but it also involves a cognitive capacity to define situations in terms Of rights and duties, in terms of reciprocity and the perspectives of others. Therefore, we contend that participa— tion and acceptance in the peer group is especially relevant to the development of the humanistic moral orientation. Specifically, we predict: Hypothesis III: There will be a positive relationship between humanistic moral orientation and participation and acceptance in the peer group. CHAPTER IV METHOD Subjects The subjects were fifth and sixth grade children who were attending a three—week summer session at the Clear Lake Camp near Battle Creek, Michigan. The children were students in the Battle Creek School System. In selecting children for the camp, there had been a careful process of screening to eliminate those who exhibited any sort of emo- tional or behavioral problem. There were 120 children involved in the three—week summer session. From this original sample, subjects who were uncooperative or who did not appear to comprehend the tasks were eliminated from our sample. The final sample consisted of 52 girls and 56 boys and can be described in terms of social class, age, race, intelligence, and intactness of family. Sgpial Class The children selected for the summer session were all from working class families since a major goal of the camp Program was to provide opportunities for cultural enhance— ment to economically deprived children. Moreover, the director of the camp described the families of the children as economically deprived but as exhibiting ”middle—class Values." The "middle class values" can be demonstrated in 19 20 the fact that the families were interested in sending their children to camp and were interested in their educational progress. Age Fifth and sixth grade children were chosen for this study because Piaget suggests that a gradual decline of egocentrism occurs as the child passes through the range of seven to eleven years. The mean age for the girls was 10.9 with a standard deviation of .81, while the mean age for the boys was 11.1 with a standard deviation of .91. Intelligence Since intelligence may be an important factor in the decline of egocentrism, we obtained the subjects' score on the California Mental Maturity Test from the school files. The mean California Mental Maturity score for the girls was 93.4 with a standard deviation of 14.80. The mean score for the boys was 95.3 with a standard deviation of 13.76. sage: In regard to race the total sample was fairly evenly divided with 51 white children and 57 Negro children. There were some differences, however, when the boys and girls were analyzed separately. There were 20 white girls and 32 Negro girls, while there were 31 white boys and 25 Negro boys. Therefore, the girls were predominantly Negro, while the boys were predominantly white. 21 Intactness of Family Since Hoffman (1964) suggests that several familial variables are important in the development of humanistic morality, we felt that information regarding the intactness of the family might be useful. We found that 35 boys were living with both parents and 21 boys were living with only a single parent. The information obtained from the girls in our group was very similar to that of the boys-—30 girls were living with both parents while 22 girls were living with a single parent. This variable was not considered in the statistical analysis of our data which is presented in this study but might prove interesting and useful in future work. Procedure The Egocentrism I task, the Egocentrism II task, and the Moral Orientation task were administered in that order to each of the children individually during their stay at the Clear Lake Camp. The booklet containing these three tasks can be found in Appendix A. The children were told that the tasks were part of a research project at Michigan State University and that their help would be appreciated. They were further told that no one at school, no one at camp, nor their parents would know what they had said. Approximately an hour was allowed for the completion of these three tasks. Most of the Children were very cooperative and enthusiastic. The socio- metric task was group—administered on the closing day of camp by a member of the camp staff. During the same session the Subjects gave responses to sentence completion items which lVere being used in another research project. 22 The Egocentrism I Measure As one measure of egocentrism, we used a task which was described by Piaget and Inhelder (1956). This measure consisted of a mountain scene and a series of views of this scene. The child's task was to identify views other than the one at which he was looking. Apparatus Three Papier-mache mountains were constructed on a two-foot square board. The mountains were of different heights, shapes, and colors. This apparatus is shown in Figure 1. A series of nine colored photographs of the mountains were mounted on a sheet of cardboard. The photo— graphs were made to represent the four "head—on" views from each side of the apparatus, two "corner views" and three impossible views. These nine photographs are reproduced in Figure 2. Procedure Each subject was seated in a chair four feet from a table on which the apparatus had been placed. The following instructions were given: I am going to show you this mountain scene from each side. (Rotate the apparatus slowly and return to a position such that the subject has a direct view of one side.) Here are nine different photographs of the mountains (pointing to the mounted photographs). I would like for you to choose the photograph which shows the View that you are looking at now. (After the subjects have pointed to the correct photograph, bring out a doll.) This doll will be placed at different positions 23 | I .xmmp H Emflnpcooowm esp cfi poms mcfimpcsoe OQBII.H opswfim 24 xmmp H EmflLOCOOme who CH COLOHHQO who Op egosm mgdmprDOhQ ocfic ocelu m onswflm 25 around the mountains, and it will be your job to pick out the photograph which shows what the doll would see from his positions. Guess if you are not sure. All of the possible arrangements of model position and doll placement for the head-on views were used, and one corner view (shown in photograph 8 in Figure 2) was used. The order of presentation was randomized for each subject. Scoring A correct response was given two points. A response in which the correct side of the scene was ascertained but in which a right-left transposition of the mountains had occurred was scored as one point. A completely incorrect response was given zero points. A perfect score was 26 points. The ranges, means and standard deviations for the scores attained on this task are shown in Table l. The Egocentrism II Measure Since the above Piagetian task was concerned primarily with perceptual perspectives, a second measure of egocentrism was uSed also in order to assess more directly the ability to assume different social perspectives. Using the develOp- mental framework Of Piaget, Feffer (1959) devised a projec- tive role-taking task. A modification of this projective task appeared appropriate for this aspect of the study. Procedure Each subject was presented two background scenes and a variety of figures of men, women, and children from the 26 m:.m m I o mo.m sm.m OH I o mH.m assumpxm mo.: . m.ma I m mo.oa mH.m ma I m zm.m HOQOHusm>soo mm.m ma I m mm.s mn.m ma I o om.m oapmfismEzm coapmpcoflno Hmnoz m:.H m I m oo.m mH.H m I m mm.: HH Emfinpcmoowm :m.: ma I o mm.m mm.: mm I m mm.HH H amassemoowm coapmfi>mo mwsmm ewe: coaumfi>oo omcwm new: pnmucmme eanQMpm OHhmHnm> mamas whom monoom GOprpCOHno ammo: new onoom HH Emfinpcmoowm .opoom H Emanucooomm pom thHpMH>cQ Unaccepm Ohm mowcmm .memszI.H mamas 27 Schneidman's Make A Picture Story Test. The two background scenes were the "Living Room" card and the "Schoolroom" card. These two cards were selected because it was felt that they would elicit interpersonally-oriented responses involving both familial relationships and peer relationships. Moreover, the following figures were used: M-10, M-ll, M-12, M-13, M-14, M—15, M-16, M—19, F-3, F—4, F-5, F—7, F—8, C-1, C—2, C-3, C-4, C-7, C—8, 0—9, 0-10, C-ll, 0-12. This selec— tion of figures included men, women, boys, and girls who were expressing a variety of emotions, such as anger, sadness, happiness, and fear. The subject was then given the following instructions: You are to tell a story for each of these two background situations by using three of these figures. You may use the same three figures for the two stories or you may choose three different ones for the second story. After the subject had given the two stories, he was again presented each background situation along with the figures he selected for that particular background. In order to assure that his memory was not being tested, the examiner reviewed the story for him; he was then instructed to retell the story as it would appear from the point—of—view of each of the figures in the story: Now make believe that you are the ___ (the mother, the boy, etc.) in the story you made up. Tell the story again like you are the Each of the subjects' responses was taperecorded. 28 Scoring The responses of the subjects were evaluated in terms of the following categories: 1. Simple refocusing I. Scoring in this category reflects an inconsistent change between the actor as described in the initial story and as described in his own role. 2. Simple refocusing II. In order to be classified under this category there must be evidence that there is continuity between the actor as described in the initial story and as described in his own role. 3. Consistent elaboration I. In order to be classified under this category, there must be evidence that there is a line of continuity between successive descriptions of an actor. 4. Consistent elaboration II. Requirements have to be met for consistent elaboration I. In addition these descriptions should character- istically differ from role to role in the sense that the description of an actor in his own role should have an "inner" orientation as contrasted with an external description of that actor from 'a viewpoint other than his own. 5. Change of perspective. The description of at least two actors must meet the requirements for consistent elaboration II. In order to assess the reliability of this scoring SVstem, the stories of the children were scored by three raters. Each rater gave each story a rating from one to five in terms of the criteria presented above. Some sample ScOrings are given in Appendix B. Then a summary score for each subject was derived by adding the scores given to his twO stories. Using Ebel's formula (Guilford, 1954), we Obtained an interjudge reliability of .71 for the three raters combined. Therefore, this scoring system appeared to kDEe an acceptable one for this study. 29 The score used for each subject was the average summary score given by the three raters. The ranges, means, and standard deviations for the scores attained on this task are shown in Table 1. The Moral Orientation Measure The index of moral orientation which was used in this study is a direct and conscious one. Seven stories which presented moral conflict situations were devised. The stories were based in part on modifications of some of the stories used by Kohlberg (1958) and Hoffman (1964). In general, the content of the stories involved three different kinds of moral conflict situations——lying (Story 3 and Story 4), violation of trust (Story 1 and Story 2), and stealing (Story 5, Story 6, and Story 7). The stories are given in Appendix A. Progedure The subjects were read the stories. They were then asked to make moral judgments about the violations committed under different conditions and to give reasons for their judgments. The following instructions were given: I am going to read you some stories. Then I am going to ask you some questions about how you feel about what happened in the story. This is not a test. Your opinion is as good as anyone else's. We are interested in all the different ways kids answer the questions. No one here at camp or at home will know your answers. 30 Scoring The responses to the moral orientation items were coded according to three basic criteria. Those responses which emphasized the consequences of the action for others or which emphasized an interpersonally relevant moral value, such as trust, were coded humanistic; those which emphasized moral convention or which referred to moral authorities were coded as conventional those which brought in questions of punishment or apprehension were coded as external. Since it was discovered in a pilot study that some responses contain more than one of the above aspects of moral orientation, the scoring system allowed for multiple scoring. The rater was asked to choose the pre- dominat characteristic of the response and then to indicate if the other two categorical characteristics were present. For example, a response could be scored as predominant humanistic with some conventional aSpects present, or a response could be scored as predominantly external with some humanistic and some conventional aspects present. Some sample scorings are given in Appendix C. A humanistic score, a conventional score, and an external score were derived for each subject. Three points were allowed for each story and could be distributed in the fellowing two ways: if the reSponse was given a single Scoring, the subject was given three points in the scored category; if there was a multiple scoring for the response, the predominate scored category received two points and the 31 other scored category received 1 point. A summary human- istic score, a summary conventional score, and a summary external score were derived by adding the scores received for the seven stories. Thus a subject who gave only human- istic response would have the following scores: Humanistic—- 21 points, Conventional——0 points, and External--0 points. The ranges, means, and standard deviations for these summary scores for the subjects in this study are given in Table l. The summary humanistic score was the predominant one used in this study. In order to assess the reliability of this scoring system, the stories were coded by four raters. The reliability of these ratings was determined by Ebel's formula (Guilford, 1954). The interjudge reliability of the summary humanistic score was .96 for the four raters combined. Therefore, this scoring system appeared to be an acceptable one. We also looked at the internal consistency of this measure in order to determine the appropriateness of using summary scores. Using the Odd-even method, we found a cor- relation of .35 between the humanistic scores on the odd and even story completion items for the boys and a correlation Of .47 for the girls. Given this reliability coefficient for half of the measure, the reliability coefficient for the whole measure was estimated by using the Spearman-Brown formula. Here the correlations of .52 and .64 were found for the boys and girls, respectively. The correlations for the conventional scores were .30 and .48 for the boys and 32 girls, respectively. Again using the Spearman-Brown formula, we found the corresponding correlations of .47, and .65. The correlations for the external scores were .38 for the boys and .44 for the girls. Here the Spearman- Brown formula yields .55 and .61 for the boys and girls, respectively. While these correlations are only moderate, they are all significant at the p < .01 level. In addition, the individual intercorrelations among the humanistic scores of the seven story competion items are given in Table 11 of Appendix D. Here we found a lower degree of internal consistency than was given by the odd-even method. From these results we felt it would be acceptable to use the summary score in testing the hypotheses, but in addition we felt that each of the story items should also be consid- ered separately since there was not a high degree of correlation between them. Sociometric Measure At the camp the children of the same sex were grouped together in units of six or seven. Each unit of children were together almost 100% of the time during the three-week session. They lived together, and they engaged in all the camp activities as a unit. Therefore, patterns of peer participation likely emerged in each unit grouping during this period. A sociometric technique appeared to be an appropriate method of assessing these patterns. However, it can be noted that such a technique will not yield a 33 direct measure of peer group participation, for we are obtaining to some extent an assessment of peer acceptance rather than peer group participation. But it appears as though peer acceptance and peer group participation would be highly related, that is the more popular child will likely be an active participant in the peer group, while the rejected child will be a less active participant. Procedure A member of the camp staff administered this task in a group session near the close of the camp. Some of the subjects had left camp before this task was administered so we used only a subsample of 48 girls and 52 boys for this measure. The subjects were given the following instruc— tions: Write down the name of the girl (or boy) in your unit with whom you like to play the most. Write down the name of the girl (or boy) in your unit with whom you like to play second best. Write down the name of the girl (or boy) in your unit with whom you like to play the least. Scoring The scoring system was complicated by the fact that some of the subjects had left camp before the measure was administered, and consequently all of the units were no longer of the same size. The following scoring system appeared to be the most appropropriate. The percentage of Judges in the unit who nominated the subject was calculated for each of the three categories, "best liked," "second best 34 liked," and "least liked," A single peer participation score for each subject is obtained by weighting the per— centage scores in the ratio 2:1:-1, respectively. A con— stant was added to the weighted sum in order to eliminate negative scores. Statistical Analysis In order to analyze the degree of association between moral orientation and egocentrism and between moral orienta— tion and peer participation, product moment correlations were used. This statistic seemed appropriate since the data appeared to be approximately normally distributed, N was large, and the data presented continuous variables. Partial correlations were also used at certain points in order to hold the effect of age and intelligence constant. Data for the boys and for the girls were analyzed separately throughout. The Kruskal-Wallis, a nonparametric statistical test, was also used on part of the data in order to further in— vestigate the relationship which might exist between moral orientation and peer participation. The extreme groups (highly popular and highly rejected) on the peer participa- tion measure were compared in terms of their humanistic orientation score. In this case N was fairly small and a parametric statistic would have been inappropriate. The numerical calculations of the means, standard deviations, simple correlations and the approximate critical 35 significance levels for the simple correlations were performed on the Control Data 3600 Computer at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. The BASTAT Routine was used. CHAPTER V RESULTS In the previous chapters, a presentation was made of the particular hypotheses and experimental procedure that comprised the research design for the present investigation. A brief description of the method Of statistical analysis of the data was also given. In the subsequent pages the results obtained from the statistical analysis of the data are presented and interpreted. Relationship Between Egocentrism I and Moral Orientation The first hypothesis predicted a positive correlation between the decline in egocentrism as measured on a perceptual task and humanistic moral orientation. This hypothesis was tested separately for the boys and for the girls. The data are shown in Table 2. A product moment correlation of r = .20 between humanistic moral orientation and the decline in egocentrism was obtained from the analysis of the boys' data. This correlation is not statistically significant but is approach— ing significance at the p < .13 level. Thus while Hypothesis I is not supported for the boys, the tendency is in the predicted direction. 37 .empmcaeHHm 9H spa; coaschssoo Heapsmm O .OmpmcHEHHo two th3 :OHOmHOLLOO Hmemem Hoe. v aa** Ho. v O** mo. v O* mocowHHHmch ***m:.l *mmm.l mw< Hm. NH. :m. om. H EmHchmoowm mm.I mo.I Hm.I so. mo.I mo. Hmcsmuxm as. ms.- no.-***aq.- mo.- ms.- *Am.- AH.- Hmcoascm>coo A mH.V AsHm.V isms v laws V mo.I mH. mH. mH.I ***om.I :o.I MH. om. ***:m.l ***HH.I OHOchmEsz :OHOMOQOHLO Hmpos - H m o x H m 0 0H ow< .oowm COHmeCOHno Hmsoz @H mw< .oowm COHOmOCOHpo Hanoz mHLHo whom mocowHHHmch Ohm mw< Ampoom H EmHchooowm .mopoom :OHpmpcmHno Homo: HO mCOHmeHmpLoonmchII.m mqmmo.o \011 o . \,...,i u/ I/WUF. l I/fiqu \ M). ms.I **xrm.I 4i.I ma. *m*m». ***I3.I ***HH.I OprHxsns: coaomnanso Hanoi HH h m E vs ma: HH m o L .ooum gnHOmo:OHLQ Hugo: I It .oomm :OHpmpzmaso Hmso: mHLHo than n) ascom HH EmHchmoomm nmOLOUm :OHpsOcmHno Hanoi Ho mcoHOmHoLLoonOOcHII.m mqm<9 40 This zero-correlation is in contrast to the fairly high correlation which was obtained for the boys. While there was a negative correlation (r = -.10) between con— ventional orientation and the egocentrism 11 score for the girls, the relationship was very small. Relationshipretween Egocentrism and Moral Orientation with the Effect of Age and Intelligence Eliminated For the boys, there was a low positive relationship between age and the three variables--humanistic orientation (r .13), egocentrism I (r = .19), and egocentrism II (r .18). In order to insure that the correlation obtained between humanistic orientation and the two measures of egocentrism was not merely due to the variables' correlation with age, we computed the partial correlations. When the effect of age was eliminated from the correlation between egocentrism I and humanistic orientation, the partial cor— relation r12.3 = .18 was obtained. In addition, when the effect of age was eliminated from the correlation between egocentrism II and humanistic orientation, the partial correlation r12.3 = .41 was obtained. These correlations are only slightly lower than those given originally. The boys' California Mental Maturity scores correlated with humanistic orientation (r = -.00), egocentrism I (r = .23), and egocentrism II (r = .18). Eliminating the effect of intelligence as defined by the California Mental Maturity scores, a partial correlation of r12 3 = .21 was obtained 41 between humanistic orientation and egocentrism I and a partial correlation of r .43 was obtained between 12.3 _ humanistic orientation and egocentrism II. Thus intelli— gence appears to have a negligible effect on the correlation of these variables for the boys. For the girls, there are also low positive correlations between age and the three experimental variables and between intelligence and the three experimental variables. These correlations are reported in Table 2 for the egocentrism I measure and in Table 3 for the egocentrism II measure. It can also be noted in Tables 2 and 3 that the effect of age and intelligence on the correlation between the experimental measures was negligible. An additional finding, for which no hypothesis was offered, can also be noted at this point. Age and the California Mental Maturity scores were negatively correlated for both the boys (r = -.35) and for the girls (r = —.46). These product moment correlations were significant at the p < .01 level. This finding can best be explained by the fact that there were a few older children in the group who had not done well in school and had to repeat a grade at some point in their school history. Relationship Between Sociometric Measure and MoralIOrientation The third hypothesis predicted a positive correlation between peer acceptance and humanistic moral orientation. AS shown in Table 4, neither the boys or the girls gave clear 42 TABLE 4.--Correlations between the Sociometric Measure and Moral Orientation Scores, Age and Intelligence Sociometric Measure Boys Girls Moral Orientation Humanistic .15 .12 Conventional .02 .12 External —.25 —.38*** Age .00 .26 Intelligence —.04 -.03 p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 4'3 support for this hypothesis. There was a low positive correlation (r = .15) between peer acceptance and human- istic orientation for the boys and also a low positive correlation (r = .12) between these two variables for the girls. Interestingly, for the girls the relationship of the sociometric measure to conventional orientation (r = .12) is identical to its relationship with humanistic orientation. For the boys, however, the relationship between the sociometric measure and conventional orienta- tion is almoSt zero (r = .02). Using the Kruscal-Wallis test, a statistical analysis of the comparison of extreme groups (highly popular children versus highly rejected children) in terms of the humanistic score was made. Again there was no clear support for the hypothesis. An H—score of 2.5 was obtained for the girls. While this score is not significant, it approaches signifi— cance at the p < .13 level. The boys, on the other hand, obtained an H-score of .9, which is clearly not significant. There are two interesting findings regarding peer acceptance which are not of direct relevance to the present hypothesis but which may be helpful in interpreting our results. There was a moderately high negative correlation (r = —.38) between peer acceptance and external moral orientation for the girls and a moderate negative correlation (r = -.25) between these two variables for the boys. The second finding indicated that the girls' peer acceptance was related to age (r = .26). This relationship 44 did not hold true for the boys (r = .00). It can also be noted that intelligence had almost no correlation with peer acceptance (r = -.04 for the boys and r = -.03 for the girls). Additional Findings There were several additional findings which were not directly predicted but which may be helpful in interpreting the results. One interesting finding is the high negative correlation for both girls (r = —.80) and boys (r = -.77) between humanistic orientation and conventional orientation on the story items. On the other hand, the relationship of external orientation with the other two variables differed for the boys and for the girls. For the boys, external had a fairly high negative correlation (r = —.54) with human- istic and a low negative correlation (r = —.11) with conven- tional. For girls, external had a low negative correlation (r -.l8) with humanistic and a high negative correlation -.44) with conventional. Of course, a negative correla— (r tion between these variables is somewhat predetermined by the nature Of our scoring system, but the extent and the variation of these relationships are worth noting. We chose two measures of egocentrism; therefore, an interesting question is the degree to which these two measures are testing the same cognitive process. The data showed only moderate correlations between these two measures. 45 However, the correlation between the measures for the boys (r = .26) was greater than the one for the girls (r = .16). Additional results were also obtained from an individ— ual analysis of each moral orientation story completion item. In Table 5 in Appendix D is shown the variability among the items in their "pull" of humanistic responses. Both boys and girls tended not to respond humanistically to Story 1. On the other hand, Story 3 had a fairly high "pull" for the humanistic response among the girls, while Story 2 and Story 4 had a high "pull" for the humanistic response among the boys. The variability among the human- iStic scorings for the stories appears to be slightly greater for the girls than for the boys. The variability of the items in their "pull" of conventional and external responses are reported in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. It is interesting to note that Story 1 has a very strong "pull" for conventional reSponses in both boys and girls, while Story 5 has the strongest "pull" for external responses in both boys and girls. In Table 8 in Appendix D are reported the product moment correlations between the humanistic orientation on the individual story items and egocentrism I and egocentrism II. Again the girls exhibited much greater variability than the boys. We will look particularly at the humanistic cor- relation with egocentrism II since it was in this relation— ship that such large sex differences were found. Here one finds for the girls correlations ranging from r = -.35 for 46 Story 6 to r = .41 for Story 3. For the boys, on the other hand, the correlations range only from r = .09 for Story 6 to r = .31 for Story 4. For both the boys and the girls, Story 6 was the least likely to be correlated with egocen- trism II. The story yielding the highest degree of correlation with egocentrism II is different for the two sexes--Story 3 for the girls and Story 4 for the boys. Also it can be noted that when the stories were grouped into the three content categories——violation of trust (Stories 1 and 2), lying (Stories 3 and 4) and stealing (Stories 5, 6, and 7)—— there was also a greater variability for the girls than for the boys. Interestingly, for the girls, humanistic orientation on the stories dealing with stealing was negatively related to egocentrism II. In Table 9 and Table in Appendix D are reported the product moment correlations between the egocentrism scores and conventional orientation and external orientation. It is important to note that for the boys conventional orienta- tion on Story 4 has a fairly high negative correlation (r = .30) with the ability to shift perSpectives on the social—interpersonal egocentrism task. On the other hand, for the girls conventional orientation on Story 3 has a fairly high negative correlation (r = —.41) with the social— interpersonal egocentrism task. Another interesting finding was noted by scanning the intercorrelations among the seven stories in terms of moral orientation scorings. These intercorrelations are reported 47 in Tables 11, 12, and 13 in Appendix D. Here one finds a low degree of internal consistency, that is, a child's tendency to respond humanistically in one situation does not necessarily have a strong relationship to his tendency to respond humanistically in other situations. The fact that there was a large variation among the intercorrelations suggests that some additional variables may also be elicited by the stories. Moreover, the type of transgression did, not appear to be a crucial variable since stories dealing with a particular type of transgression, such as lying did not appear to have higher intercorrelations than stories dealing with different types of transgression. Additional variables, which may have been eSpecially important for the girls, will be suggested in the next chapter. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION Our contention that the distinction between the two proposed variants of internalized conscience can be made in terms of a cognitive capacity received some support, but there were significant sex differences. It was supported by the boys who demonstrated a fairly strong positive rela- tionship between humanistic orientation and the decline of egocentrism and a fairly strong negative correlation between conventional orientation and the decline of egocen— trism. However, these relationships were significant in the boys only when egocentrism was measured by a task which was social-interpersonal in nature rather than by a purely perceptual task. The importance of this cognitive capacity in the distinction of these two variants of internalized conscience is much more dubious for the girls. Interestingly, for the girls the correlation between humanistic orientation and the perceptual task was only slightly lower than that obtained for the boys, but the correlation between humanistic orientation and the social-interpersonal task was nearly zero for the girls which is in great contrast to the finding for the boys. Furthermore, for the girls conventional 48 49 orientation has a very low negative correlation with both egocentrism tasks. Our task now is the interpretation of these sex differences. In looking fOr possible explanations, Freud's (1932) postulations regarding the differences between the sexes in conscience development should be noted. He maintained that while the Oedipal complex in boys is terminated by a fear of castration and replaced by a severe superego, for girls it is a "preliminary solution" to which they cling indefinitely. He thus concludes, "In these circumstances the formation of the superego must suffer, it cannot attain the strength and independence which gave it its cultural significance" (p. 129). Freud seems to be saying that boys will have strong independent superegos, whereas the girls' superegos will be weaker and more conditional or dependent on other factors. This explanation, however, is not com— pletely satisfactory for the data, since it was not demonstrated that the superego in boys is stronger than the superego in girls. In fact, the mean humanistic, conven- tional and external scores were nearly equal for the two sexes. In addition to his theory of defensive identification, Freud also describes a second process——anaclitic identifica- tion——which he felt led to the creation of internalized prohibitions. Anaclitic identification is believed to be a process whereby behaving like the parents becomes intrinisically rewarding. Various sources of reinforcement 50 have been hypothesized to account for the establishment of this motivational system; basically most of them reduce to gratification of dependency needs. In other words, the child may respond to the pain produced by the nurturant mother's gradual withdrawal of love and intimacy as the child's matures by perceiving a similarity between the self and the parents. Sears, Rau, and Alpert (1965) tested this theory of anaclitic identification and concluded that there appeared to be a constellation of behavior in five—year—old girls that could be described as the product of such a process. This constellation of behavior included positive attention seeking, adult role behavior, prosocial aggressions, emotional upset after wrongdoing, and femininity. For the boys there was no evidence to support the notion of a cluster of primary-identification behaviors. Assuming that such a constellation of behaviors does exist in girls and does interact with the development of conscience in them, we looked at these variable carefully to see if they were helpful in explaining our data. The variables of adult role behavior provides an interesting point of departure for further discussion of our data. The behavioral concept of adult role as developed by Sears, Rau, and Alpert (1965) was essentially an abstrac— tion of the common elements of adult behavior which are sometimes performed by children. These behaviors included 51 mannerism, chores, or work, imparting facts or knowledge, and nurturance. In girls they found substantial inter- correlations between these four categories of adult role behavior. However, in boys they found no evidence of such a trait structure. We propose that it may be this behavioral trait in girls that accounts in part for our results. The highest humanistic score for girls was on Story 3. In this story a little girl wants to play with some big girls, but the big girls won't let her. The girls' tendency to respond to an "other—oriented" manner to this story might have been due to the story's "pull" for a nurturant response, which is an important aSpect of adult role behavior as described above. Also it is interesting to note that humanistic responses on Story 3 are highly correlated with egocentrism II for the girls; moreover, conventional responses on this story have a high negative correlation with egocentrism II for the girls. Related to the adult role behavior is another set of variables-—peer loyalty versus adult loyalty—-which might have been having an effect on the child's response to the moral orientation story items. In Story 2 and in Story 6 the content might be interpreted in terms of peer loyalty being pitted against adult loyalty. The peer-oriented response was scored humanistic in the two stories while the adult-oriented reSponse was scored conventional. In 52 both cases the boys were more peer oriented than the girls. While these differences between the boys and girls were not large, they interestingly were both in the same direction. Finally, in attempting to look at the assumption that peer participation is an important variable in the development of humanistic orientation, we found that our results were inconclusive. While popularity on the socio— metric measure was related positively to humanistic orientation, the correlation was not high. It may be that a limitation in our measure was the primary cause for our failure to support the theoretical hypothesis. As we pointed out previously, the sociometric measure is not a direct measure of peer participation; instead it assesses peer acceptance. A more direct measure of peer participation might be indicated in future research. One interesting possibility would be observational data regarding peer interaction. In interpreting our results we also need to note the lack of high internal consistency in the moral orientation items. Specifically, a child's tendency to respond human- istically or conventionally in one situation does not nec- essarily relate strongly to his tendency to respond in the same manner in another situation. Such a finding can be interpreted in two ways. First, we can note its support for Hartshorne and May's notion of the importance of situational decision-making capacities rather than general and stable moral character traits. In this case we can 53 conclude that our instrument was a valid one and was picking up the actual heterogeneity in the children. This interpretation suggests the limited usefulness of con- ceiving of humanistic and conventional orientation as general and stable traits. A second possible interpretation of this finding is that the limitation rested in the instru— ment and not in the usefulness of the concepts. In this case we would predict that a different instrument could be developed that would demonstrate a higher degree of con- sistency across situations. Only future research can clarify this issue. One possible direction is an attempt to develop an instrument where the "pull" of the items in terms of humanistic and conventional responses is carefully determined and controlled. It appeared that this might have been one limitation in our measure. Looking at the behavior of children might also provide some information about the usefulness of the two concepts of humanistic moral orientation and conventional moral orientation. Therefore, another approach to the problem might be to look at the conduct of children in various situations and determine whether some children tend to be more rule conscious and some children tend to be more concerned with the consequences to others. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was concerned with the investigation of two variants of internalized conscience-~the humanistic moral orientation and the conventional moral orientation. It was the author's contention that the inconclusive findings in previous research in the area of moral develop- ment is due in part to the failure of the research to distinguish between these two variants. The main objective Of the present study was to distinguish these two variants and to investigate their possible relationship to the ego ability to shift perspectives. We predicted that humanistic orientation would be positively related to the ability to shift both perceptual perspectives and social perspectives. Conversely, we expected conventional orientation to be negatively related to this ego ability. In addition, we ex~ plored the role that peer group participation and peer acceptance plays in the development of these two variants of moral orientation. We predicted that peer acceptance would be positively related to humanistic orientation and negatively related to conventional orientation. 54 55 The subjects were 108 fifth and sixth grade children who were attending a three-week summer session at a camp sponsored by the Battle Creek School System, Battle Creek, Michigan. Three tasks were administered individually to each child. As a measure of moral orientation, the sub— jects were read stories describing norm violations com— mitted under different conditions. They were then asked to make moral judgments about these violations and to give their reasons for their judgments. The responses were scored in terms of humanistic orientation, conventional orientation, and external orientation. As a measure of the ability to shift perceptual perspective, we used a task which consisted Of a mountain scene and a series of views of this scene. The subjects' task was to identify views other than the one he was looking at. As a measure of the ability to shift social perspectives, a projective role-taking task was used. Here the subjects' task was to assume the role of various characters in a story. In addition, a sociometric measure was group-administered near the close of the camp session. This measure was used to assess peer group participation and acceptance. The data obtained from these tasks were analyzed separately for the boys and for the girls. Using product moment correlations, the following results were obtained: 1. For both the boys and the girls there was a positive relationship between humanistic moral orientation 56 and the ability to assume various perceputal perspectives. However, the product moment correlations obtained here did not reach statistical significance. On the other hand, the conventional moral orientation had a significant negative correlation with this ability to assume various perceptual perspectives for the boys, but not for the girls. 2. For the boys there was a fairly strong positive relationship between humanistic orientation and the ability to shift social perspectives. This relationship was highly significant statistically. Conversely, there was a signifi- cant negative correlation between conventional moral orienta— tion and the ability to shift social perspectives. On the other hand, the girl's ability to shift social perspectives had almost no correlation with either variant or internalized conscience. ! 3. There was a low positive relationship between peer acceptance and humanistic orientation for both boys and girls, but this relationship was not statistically significant in either case. Moreover, there was a similarly low positive relationship between peer acceptance and con- ventional orientation for both boys and girls. An intere- esting finding, which had not been predicted, was the Significant negative correlation between peer acceptance and external orientation (a non-internalized moral orientation) for the girls and the near—significant negative correlation between these two variables for the boys. 57 While these findings provide some support for our theoretical predictions, we need to proceed with some caution in interpreting their significance since there was not a high degree of internal consistency in the moral orientation items. Such a finding throws some question on the usefulness of conceiving of humanistic orientation and conventional orientation as general and stable traits in the individual. The implications of such a finding were discussed and possible directions for research in clarifying this issue were suggested. BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aronfreed, J. The origins of self—criticism. ngchol. Rev., 1964, 1;, 193—218. Aronfreed, J., Cutick, R. A., and Fagen, S. A. Cognitive structure, punishment and nurturance in the experi— mental induction of self—criticism. Child Developm. 1963, 33, 281-294. Aronfreed, J. The effects of experimental socialization paradigms upon two moral responses to transgression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 66, 437—448. Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. Adolescent agression. New York: Ronald Press, 1959. Boehm, L. and Nass, M. L. Social class differences in conscience development. Child Develpm., 1962, 33, 565-575. Feffer, M. H. The cognitive implications of role—taking behavior. J. Pers., 1959, 31, 152-168. Feffer, M. H. and Gourevitch, V. Cognitive aSpects of role-taking in children. J. Pers., 1960, 33, 383- 396. Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Norton, 1945. Freud, S. Femininity. In New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis and other works. Vol. 22 (1932—1936). London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho— analysis, 1964, ch. 33 (pp. 112—135). Grim, P., Kohlberg, L., and White, S. Some relationships between conscience and attentional processes. Unpublished paper, 1964. Grinder, R. Parental childrearing practices, conscience, and resistance to temptation of sixth grade children. Child Develpm., 1962, 33, 802-820. 59 60 Grinder, R. and McMichael, R. Cultural influences on conscience development: resistance to temptation and guilt among Samoans and American Caucasians. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 66, 503—507. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York and London: McGraw—Hill, 1954. Hartmann, H. Psychoanalysis and moral values. New York: International Universities Press, 1960. Hartshorne, H. and May, M. A. Studies in the nature of character: Vol. I, Studies in deceit; Vol. II, Studies in selfacontrol; Vol. III, Studies in the organization of character. New York: Macmillan, 192841930. Hoffman, M. L. Progress report: techniques and processes in moral development. Detroit: Merrill—Palmer Inst., 1964, mimeographed. Jacobson, E. Contributions to the metapsychology of psychotic identification. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 1954, 2, 239—262. Johnson, R. A study of children's moral judgments. Child Develpm., 1962, 33, 327—354. Kohlberg, L. The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years ten to sixteen. Unpublished ! doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Chicago, 1958. Kohlberg, L. Moral development and identification. In H Stevenson (ed.), Child psychology. 62nd Yearb. nat. soc. stud. Educ. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963(a). Kohlberg, L. The development of children's orientations toward a moral order: I. Sequence in the develop— ment of moral thought. Vita Humana, 1963, 6, 11—33(b). Kohlberg, L. Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (eds.), Review of child development research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Lerner, E. Constraint areas and the moral judgment of children. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta Pub. Co., 1937(a)- Lerner, E. Perspectives in moral reasoning. Amer. J. Sociol., 1937, 53, 249-269(b). 61 Levine, B. Childrearing antecedents of conscience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1961. MacKinnon, D. W. Violation of prohibitions. In H. W. Murray (ed.), Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1938. Mischel, W. Delay of gratification and deviant behavior. Paper read at meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Berkeley, Calif., April, 1963. Cited by L. Kohlberg, Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (eds.), Review of child development research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Neale, J. M. Egocentrism in institutionalized and noninstitutionalized children. Child Develpm., 1966, 31, 97-101. Piaget, J. The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul, 1928. Piaget, J. The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, Il .' Free Press, 1932. Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. The child's conception of space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956. Rebelsky, F. G., Allinsmith, W. A., and Grinder, R. Sex differences in children's use of fantasy confession and their relation to temptation. Child Develpm., 1963, 4, 955-962. Sears, R. R., Rau, L., and Alpert, R. Identification and child—rearin . Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1965. APPENDIX A Data Collection Booklet 62 INFORMATION SHEET Subject Number Sex Age Grade Race Living with both parents with father with mother __ other Father's occupation Mother's occupation California Mental Maturity Score 64 2—-Subject EGOCENTRISM I Instructions: I am going to show you this mountain scene from each side. (Rotate the appratus slowly and return to a position such that the subject has a direct view of the first side to be viewed.) Here are nine different photo— graphs Of the mountains (pointing to the mounted photo— graphs). I would like for you to choose the photograph which shows the view you are looking at now. (After the subjects have pointed to the correct photograph, bring out a doll.) This doll will be placed at different positions around the mountains, and it will be your job to pick out the photograph which shows what the doll would see from his position. Guess if you are not sure. Side viewed Doll position Response Score Total Score 3--Subject EGOCENTRISM II Instructions: F ory for each of these Part A. You are to yell st v n g three of these figures. s es two background situations U i i You may use the same three figur you may choose three different on C)“ (f D A S I (O n e for the two stories or for the second one. Part B. Now make believ that you are the (the mother, the boy, etc ) in the story you made up. Tell the story again as if you are the Q (Responses are taperecorded) 66 4——Subject MORAL ORIENTATION Instructions: I am going to read you some stories. Then I am going to ask you some questions about how you feel about what happened in the story. This is not a test. Your opinion is as good as anyone else's. We are interested in all the different ways kids answer the questions. No one at school or at your home will know your answers. 67 5—(Boys)--Subject STORY I Bill's mother baked fresh cookies and placed them on the table to cool. Then she went shopping. Bill came home from school and found a note from his mother. She had told him in the note that she would be gone until suppertime and had warned him not to eat any of the cookies because she is saving them for a party. He was hungry. He looked at the cookies and started to walk away. Then he turned and came back to the cookies. He grabbed a handful. Do you think Bill was wrong to take the cookies? Why? Would you have wanted to take the cookies? Would you have taken the cookies? Why? ! 68 5—(Girls)-—Subject STORY I Sue's mother baked fresh cookies and placed them on the table to cool. Then she went shopping. Sue came home from school and found a note from her mother. Sue's mother had told Sue in the note that she would be gone until suppertime and had warned her not to eat any of the cookies because she is saving them for a party. Sue was hungry. She looked at the cookies and started to walk away. Then she turned and came back to the cookies. She grabbed a handful. Do you think Sue was wrong to take the cookies? Why? Would you have wanted to take the cookies? Would you have taken the cookies? Why? 69 6—(Boys)—-Subject STORY II One day Fred's friend says to him, "Fred I have a secret I want to tell you. I just bought a pair of ice skates with money I've been saving. My parents won't allow me to have skates because they're afraid I might get hurt. So I'm hiding them in my room." On his way to school the next day Fred sees his friend's mother. They say "hello" to each other. Fred thinks to himself, "It's my duty to tell her about the skates." So he tells her and she takes the skates away from his friend. Do you think Fred was right or wrong to tell his friend's mother about the skates? Why? If you were in Fred's place, do you think you would tell the friend's mother about the skates? Would a boy like Fred be one of your best friends? Why? 70 6-(Girls)——Subject STORY II One day Jane's friend says to her, "Jane I have a secret I want to tell you. I just bought a pair of ice skates with money I've been saving. My parents won't allow me to have skates because they're afraid I might get hurt. So I'm hiding them in my room." On her way to school the next day Jane sees her friend's mother. They say ”hello" to each other. Jane thinks to herself, "It's my duty to tell her about the skates.” So Jane tells her and she takes the skates away from Jane's friend. Do you think Jane was right or wrong to tell her friend's mother about the skates? Why? If you were in Jane's place, do you think you would tell the friend's mother about the skates? Would a girl like Jane be one of your best friends? Why? 71 7-(BOyS)--Subject STORY III One afternoon Bob and Bruce were hurrying home from school. They were planning to get their baseball and bat and go to the park playground. On the way, they met Tommy, who had very few friends and was walking home alone. Tommy asked if he could play ball with them. Bob and Bruce didn't want to play with Tommy because he was much smaller than they were and couldn't play baseball as well. They looked at each other and finally told Tommy they weren't planning to play this afternoon. Tommy looked sad but turned and walked away. Bob and Bruce ran the rest of the way home and picked up the baseball and bat. Then they went to the playground. Do you think what Bob and Bruce did was right or wrong? Why? Do you think you would like a boy like Bob or Bruce? Why? 72 7—(Girls)——Subject STORY III One afternoon Sally and Carol were hurrying home from school. They were planning to do to the park play— ground. On the way, they met Betty, who had very few friends and was walking home alone. Betty asked if she could play with them. Sally and Carol didn't want to play with Betty because she was much smaller than they were and would be a nuisance on the playground. They looked at each other and finally told Betty that they weren't planning to play this afternoon. Betty looked sad but turned and walked away. Sally and Carol ran the rest of the way to the playground. Do you think what Sally and Carol did was right or wrong? Why? Do you think you would like a girl like Sally or Carol? Why? 73 8—(Boys)——Subject STORY IV Jim is the best swimmer of all his friends. One day some of the boys are teasing his friend, Bobby, about how poorly he swam in a swimming race the day before. They keep saying that Bobby is the slowest swimmer in the town. Bobby looks very sad. Finally he says, "I didn't swim very well yesterday, but once I won a swimming race. I beat ten other boys.” The other boys don't believe him. They just laugh. Jim never saw Bobby win a swimming race. But he said, "It's true what Bobby says. I saw him win the race." Do you think what Jim did was wrong? Why? Would you do what Jim did? Would you like a boy like Jim? 7M 8-(Girls)——Subject STORY IV Judy is the best swimmer of all her friends. One day some of the girls are teasing her friend, Pam, about how poorly she swam in a swimming race the day before. They keep saying that Pam is the slowest swimmer in the town. Pam looks very sad. Finally she says, "I didn't swim very well yesterday but once I won a swimming race. I beat ten other girls." The other girls don't believe her. They just laugh. Judy never saw Pam win a swimming race. But she says, "It's true what Pam says. I saw her win the race." Do you think that what Judy did was wrong? Why? Would you do what Judy did? Would you like a girl like Judy? 75 9-(Boys)—-Subject_____ STORY V Joe's friends have formed a baseball team. They promised Joe he could play if he could get a mitt. His parents told him he would have to save his own money for it. At last Joe had saved $10.00 to get a really good glove. When he arrives at the sports store, he sees the sales—clerk going down the stairs to the cellar of the store. The clerk does not see Joe. Joe decided to look at the gloves himself before calling the clerk. He finds just the one he wants. Then he reaches for his money. It is gone. He realizes that he has lost the money. Joe feels awful. He looks around. There is nobody in the store or near it outside. Joe knows that the mitt would just fit under the bulge of his jacket. He hides the mitt under his jacket and walks out of the store. No one sees him leave. Do you think Joe was wrong to do that? Why? Why shouldn't someone steal from a store? What harm do you think it does when someone steals from a store? 76 9-(Girls)——Subject STORY V Joyce's friends all have new gold bracelets. Her parents told her that she would have to save her own money for one. At last Joyce had saved $10.00 to get a really pretty bracelet. When she arrives at the store, she sees the sales-clerk going down the stairs to the cellar of the store. The clerk does not see Joyce. Joyce decides to look at the bracelets herself before calling the clerk. She finds just the one she wants. Then she reaches for her money. It is gone. She realizes that she has lost the money. Joyce feels awful. She looks around. There is nobody in the store or near it outside. Joyce knows that the bracelet would fit in her pocket. She hides the bracelet in her pocket and walks out of the store. No one sees her leave. Do you think Joyce was wrong to do that? Why? Why shouldn't someone steal from a store? What harm do you think it does when someone steals from a store? 77 lO-(Boys)-—Subject STORY VI Ron came over to Andy's house to play one afternoon. They played for a while in Andy's backyard. Then Ron left to go to the store for his mother. After Ron had left, Andy found a five dollar bill in the backyard. He knew that the money probably belonged to Ron. Andy had been saving money to buy a basketball, and this five dollars would give him enough money to buy a good one. He decided to keep the money. The next day at school Ron looked very sad. He said to Andy, "I lost the five dollars yesterday which nw mother had given to me to buy some groceries. When she found out that I had lost the money, she made me take five dollars out of the money I had been saving for a baseball bat." Then he asked Andy if he had found any money in the place where they had been playding yesterday. Andy answered, "No, I didn't find any money." If you had to decide who did worse, Joe who stole the mitt from the store or Andy who kept the money which belonged to Ron, which one would you say? Why do you think he did worse? Would you more likely choose Andy or Joe as a friend? Would you feel worse stealing the mitt or taking the money? 78 lO-(Girls)-—Subject STORY VI Ruth came over to Alice's house to play one afternoon. They played-for a while in Alice's backyard. Then Ruth left to go to the store for her mother. After Ruth had left, Alice found a five dollar bill in the backyard. She knew that the money probably belonged to Ruth. Alice had been saving money to buy a small radio for her room, and this five dollars would give her enough money to buy it. She decided to keep the money. The next day at school Ruth looked very sad. She said to Alice, "I lost the five dollars yesterday which my mother had given me to buy some groceries. When she found out that I had lost the money, she made me take five dollars out of the money I had been saving for a bracelet." Then she asked Alice if she had found any money in the place where they had been playing yesterday. Alice answered, "No, I didn't find any money." If you had to decide who did worse, Joyce who stole the bracelet from the store or Alice who kept the money which belonged to Ruth, which one would you say? Why do you think she did worse? Would you more likely choose Alice or Joyce as a friend? Would you feel worse stealing the bracelet or taking the money? 79 ll-(Boys)--Subject STORY VII Dick's mother was very sick. His father had died two years ago. Since he was the oldest child in the family, he felt it was his responsibility to help his mother. There was one medicine that the doctors thought might help her get well. This medicine was Very expensive. It cost $50 for one bottle. Dick's mother was very poor and didn't have enough money to buy the medicine. Dick went to everyone he knew to borrow the money. He could only get together $25. Dick took this money to the drug store and asked the druggist to sell the medicine to him for $25 or to let him pay the rest later. The druggist buys the medicine for only $20, but he said, ”I'm sorry but the price is $50.” Dick waited outside the drug store until he saw the druggist leave the counter and go to the basement. Then he hurriedly slipped behind the counter and took a bottle of the medicine from the shelf where he had seen the druggist place it. Do you think Dick was right or wrong to do that? Why? If you were Dick, do you think you would have done the same thing? Do you think a good son would think it was his duty to steal the medicine if he were in Dick's place? Why? 80 ll—(Girls)-—Subject STORY VII Donna's mother was very sick. Her father had died two years ago. Since she was the oldest child in the family, she felt it was her responsibility to help her mother. There was one medicine that the doctors thought might help her get well. This medicine was very expen- sive. It cost $50 for one bottle. Donna's mother was very poor and didn't have enough money to buy the medicine. Donna went to everyone she knew to borrow the money. She could only get together $25. Donna took this money to the drug store and asked the druggist to sell the medicine to her for $25 or to let her pay the rest later. The druggist buys the medicine for only $20, but he said, ”I'm sorry but the price is $50." Donna waited outside the drug store until she saw the druggist leave the counter and go to the basement. Then she hurriedly slipped behind the counter and took a bottle of the medicine from the shelf where she had seen the druggist place it. Do you think Donna was right or wrong to do that? Why? If you were Donna, do you think you would have done the same thing? Do you think a good daughter would think it was her duty to steal the medicine if she were in Donna's place? Why? APPENDIX B Sample Scorings for Egocentrism II Task 81 82 Subject Bu STORY I Part 1_ The boy's crying because he couldn't go with his father. The mother is pretty sad because the father wouldn't let him go along. His sister is coming out from washing dishes. She is going to kiss him. Part 2 A. Boy: Mother: Why are you crying? Boy: Dad wouldn't let me go with him. Mother: Why not? Girl: Oh mom, I'm tired from washing all those dishes. B. Mother: Are you through washing dishes? C. Girl: Yes, mother I'm through. 83 Subject 23 STORY II Part 1 This boy acted up. The teacher called him up and gave him a spanking. The girl started laughing at him. Part2 A. Boy: I threw something at the teacher. She made me come up. She gave me a spanking. B. Girl: The little girl started laughing. C. Teacher: Then the teacher started fussing around with the other kids. Score __2__w 84 Subject U8 STORY I Part 1 The mother has just come home from shopping. The father is angry and is shouting at his son. The son just sits there looking at him. Part 2 A. Mother: The mother just came in from shopping. The father was talking to his son about something. ,Mother was mad about something. The father was fussing at the boy. The boy was not looking at his father but was looking somewhere else. B. Father: Mother came in, and she looked at father because he was talking to his son. The boy was just gazing up. C. Son: The boy had done something he wasn't supposed to do. His father was fussing at him. His mother came home from shopping. The father is still fussing and the mother got mad. Score 3 Subject ll STORY II Part 1 One day Mary and Judy went to school. Their teacher's name was Mr. Harmes. The teacher asked Mary and Judy a question. Mary answers wrong. Judy answers right. The teacher gave them a book last night to study, but Mary didn't study hers and Judy did. The teacher started yelling at Mary. "Why didn't you study? Judy studied and you didn't." Mary got upset. She got real upset and started crying and ran out of the door. Part 2 A. Teacher: One day Mary and Judy came to school. I asked Mary and Judy a question. They ought to know the answer because I gave them a book to study last night. I asked Judy first, and she got it right. Then I asked Mary, and she didn't get it right. I started yelling at Mary because she didn't get it right. Mary ran out of the door. She was real mad. B. Judy: One day Mary and me came to school. I told Mary to study her book but she said she knew it anyway. The teacher asked me a question, and I got it right. The teacher asked Mary a question, and she didn't get it right. The teacher started yelling at her. Mary got real mad and she ran home crying. C. Mary: One day Judy and me came to school. I thought I could get the question that the teacher was going to ask. Judy studied her book, but I didn't study mine. The teacher asked Judy a question and she got it right. The teacher asked me a question, and I didn't get it right. I got real mad and ran out of the school door. Score __3__~ 86 Subject 36 STORY I Part 1 This is Jane, her father, and her mother. One day it was - her birthday and she wondered what her father is going to bring her for her birthday present. She could hardly wait until her father came home. When her father came home, he had a present in his hand. She ran through the door to meet him so she could see what the present was. She had always wanted a watch. When she opened the box, there was a watch in it. Part 2 A. Jane: My name is Jane, and this is my mother. Today is my birthday and I wonder what my father is going to get me for my birthday. I could hardly wait until he came-home. When he finally came home, he had a package under his arm. I opened it and there was a watch in it. I had always wanted a watch. B. Motherz' My name is Mrs. Box. This is my daughter, Jane. This is Jane's birthday, and she is excited and wondering what her father will get her for her birthday. C. Father: My name is Mr. Fox. This is my daughter Jane. Today is her birthday. She is wondering what I will give her for her birthday present. It is a watch, and I think it is what she has always wanted. I hope she will like it. Score 5 APPENDIX C Sample Scorings for Moral Orientation Task 87 88 STORY I Bill's (Sue's) mother baked fresh cookies and placed them on the table to cool. Then she went shopping. Bill (Sue) came home from school and found anotefrom his (her) mother. She had told him (her) in the note that she would be gone until suppertime and had warned him (her) not to eat any of the cookies because she is saving them for a party. He (she) was hungry. He (she) looked at the cookies and started to walk away. Then he (she)turned and came back to the cookies. He (she) grabbed a handful. Do you think Bill (Sue) was wrong to take the cookies? Why? Would you have wanted to take the cookies? Would you have taken the cookies? Why? Responses to Story I Subject 3 (Boy): Yes...His mother told him not to take the cookies. Yes. No....because I would have gotten a whipping. Score E (C)* Subject 22 (Boy): Yes...because his mother told him not to. Yes. , No...You are supposed to do what your mother tells you to do. Score 0 Subject 135 (Girl): Yes...When the party came, there probably wouldn't be enough. No. I might have taken one but not a whole handful...be— cause there wouldn't be enough for the party and my mother might have to bake or buy some more. Score____li____ *( ) indicates secondary scoring. 89 STORY II One day Fred's (Jane's) friend says to him (her), "Fred (Jane) I have a secret I want to tell you. I just bought a pair of ice skates with money I've been saving. My 'parents won't allow me to have skates because they're afraid I might get hurt. So I'm hiding them in my room." On his (her) way to school the next day Fred (Jane) sees his (her) friend's mother. They say "hello" to each other. Fred (Jane) thinks to himself (herself), "It's my duty to tell her about the skates." So he (she) tells her and she takes the skates away from his (her) friend. ‘Do you think Fred (Jane) was right or wrong to tell his (her) friend's mother about the skates? Why? If you were in Fred's (Jane's) place, do you think you would tell the friend's mother about the skates? Would a boy (girl) like Fred (Jane) be one of your best friends? Why? =Responses to Story II Subject 6 (Boy): Right...because she would have found out anyway... then Fred would have gotten in trouble too because he knew and didn't tell. Yes. Yes...He tells the truth. Score E(C) Subject 59 (Girl); Right...because her friend's mother didn't want her to have_them. Yes. Yes... because she did what was right. SubJect 1214 (Boy): SCOPe______C__.__ Right sorta...His mom said not to get them because he might get hurt...so Fred wouldn't want his friend to get hurt...sorta wrong...because you want to stick by your friend. No...because I don't want to get him into trouble. No...If I told him a secret, he would probably tell it. Score H 90 STORY III One afternoon Bob and Bruce were hurrying home from school. They were planning to get their baseball and bat and go to the park playground. On the way they met Tommy, who had very few friends and was walking home alone. Tommy asked .if he could play with them. Bob and Bruce didn't want to play with Tommy because he was much smaller than they were and couldn't play baseball as well. They looked at each other and finally told Tommy they weren't planning to play this afternoon. Tommy looked sat but turned and walked away. Bob and Bruce ran the rest of the way home and picked up the baseball and bat; then they went to the playground. Do you think what Bob and Bruce did was right or wrong? Why? Do you think you would like a boy like Bob or Bruce? Why? (The girls' version of this story is given in Appendix A.) Responses to Story III Subject A (Boy): Wrong...They told Tommy they weren't going to play. No...They told a story. “ Score C Subject 10 (Boy): Wrong...because if I was little I would want to play , baseball with the bigger boys. No...Too mean...like bullies or something...They' don't play with smaller kids. Score H Subject 60 (Girl): Wrong...They wouldn't play with her because she was too small...They also tell lies. No...They might tell me stories. Score , C (H) 91 STORY IV Jim (Judy) is the best swimmer of all his (her) friends. One day some of the boys (girls) are teasing his (her) friend Bobby (Pam) about how poorly he (she) swam in a swimming race the day before. They keep saying that Bobby (Pam) is the slowest swimmer in the town. Bobby (Pam) looks very sad. Finally he (she) says, "I didn't swim very well yesterday, but once I won a swimming race. I beat ten other boys (girls)." The other boys (girls) don't believe him (her). They just laugh. Jim (Judy) never saw Bobby (Pam) win a swimming race. But he (she) says, "It's true what Bobby (Pam) says. I saw him (her) win the race." Do you think what Jim (Judy) did was wrong? Why? Would you do what Jim (Judy) did? Would you like a boy (girl) like Jim (Judy)? Responses to Story IV Subject 101 (Boy): Kinda right...He helped his friend out...Kinda wrong He told a lie. Yes. Yes...He helps people out. Score H (C) Subject 108 (Boy): Yes...He shouldn't have said Bobby won a race... That was a lie. No. No...because he tells stories. Score C Subject 41 (Girl): No...because she was sticking up for her girl friend so they wouldn't tease her anymore. Yes. Yes. Score H 92 STORY V Joe's friends have formed a baseball team. They promised Joe he could play if he could get a mitt. His parents told him he would have to save his own money for it. At‘ last Joe has saved $10.00 to get a really good glove. When he arrives at the sports' store, he sees the sales— clerk going down the stairs to the cellar of the store. The clerk does not see Joe. Joe decided to look at the gloves himself before calling the clerk. He finds just the one he wants. Then he reaches for his money. It is gone. He realizes that he has lost the money. Joe feels awful. He looks around. There is nobody in the store or near it outside. Joe knows the mitt would just fit under the bulge of his jacket. He hides the mitt under his jacket and walks out of the store. No one sees him leave. Do you think Joe was wrong to do that? Why? Why shouldn't someone steal from a store? What harm do you think it does when someone steals from a store? (The girl's version of this story is given in Appendix A.) Responses to Story V Subject 16 (Boy): Yes...It is wrong to steal. If everyone would steal things, the storekeeper wouldn't have anything left to sell in order to make money. You might start stealing more and more and then start robbing banks...When you rob banks, you may be stealing the money that people need. Score H (C) Subject 37 (Girl): Yes...because you are not supposed to steal. Because they didn't pay for something that was not theirs. The person who stole would keep worring about it... He would feel guilty. Score C Subject 43 (Girl): No...because she had lost her money. Somebody might be walking by outside and see her... Then they would tell the clerk. The men who work in the store might get in trouble for not seeing the customer. Score E (H) 93 STORY VI Ron (Ruth) came over to Andy's (Alice's) house to play one afternoon. They played for a while in Andy's (Alice's) backyard. Then Ron (Ruth) left to go to the store for his (her) mother. After Ron (Ruth) had left, Andy (Alice) found a five dollar bill in the backyard. He (she) knew that the money probably belonged to Ron (Ruth). Andy (Alice) had been saving money to buy a basketball (a small radio for her room), and this five dollars would give him (her) enough money to buy a good one. He (she) decided to keep the money. The next day at school Ron (Ruth) looked very sad. He (she) said to Andy (Alice), "I lost the five dollars yesterday which my mother had given me to buy some groceries. When she found out that I had lost the money, she made me take five dollars out of the money I had been saving for a base— ball bat (bracelet)." Then he (she asked Andy (Alice) if he (she) had found any money in the place where they had been playing yesterday. Andy (Alice) answered, "No, I didn't find any money." If you had to decide who did worse, Joe (Joyce) who stole the mitt (bracelet) from the store or Andy (Alice) who kept the money which belonged to Ron (Ruth), which one would you say? Why do you think he (she did worse? Would you more likely choose Andy (Alice) or Joe (Joyce) as a friend? Would you feel worse stealing the mitt (bracelet) or taking the money? Responses to Story VI Subject 7 (Boy): Both of them, but Joe is a little bit worse. He stole it, and he probably lied and said he didn't steal it. Stealing from a store...You are not supposed to steal from a store. Score 0 Subject 12 (Boy): ggiause you get in trouble if you steal from a store. Andy. Stealing the mitt. Score B SubJect 14 (Boy): Andy. Ron got $5.00 taken out from his savings. Joe...Andy should have given the money back to his friend. Taking the money. Score H 9“ STORY VII Dick's (Donna's) mother was very sick. His (her) father had died two years ago. Since he (she) was the oldest child in the family, he (she) felt it was his (her) responsibility to help his (her) mother. There was one medicine that the doctors thought might help her get well. This medicine was very expensive. It cost $50 for one bottle. Dick's (Donna's) mother was very poor and didn't have enough money to buy the medicine. Dick (Donna) went to everyone he (she) knew to borrow the money. He (she) could only get together $25. Dick (Donna) took this money to the drug store and asked the drug- gist to sell the medicine to him (her) for $25 or to let him (her) pay the rest later. The druggist buys the medicine for only $20, but he said, "I'm sorry but the price is $50." Dick (Donna) waited outside the drug store until he (she) saw the druggist leave the counter and go to the basement. Then he (she) hurriedly slipped behind the counter and took a bottle of the medicine from the shelf where he (she) had seen the druggist place it. Do you think Dick (Donna) was right or wrong to do that? Why? If you were Dick (Donna), do you think you would have done the same thing? Do you think a good son (daughter) would think it was his (her) duty to steal the medicine if he (she) were in Dick's (Donna's) place? Why? Responses to Story VII Subject 2 (Boy): Wrong...because he could have gotten fined for it. No. No...He should have found some other way. Score E Subject A (Boy): Right...If my mother was sick, I would help her too. Yes. Yes...to help get his mother well. Score H Subject 60 (Girl) : Wrong...She should earn enough money to buy it, not steal it. No...I would earn it. No...because it is bad to steal. Score C APPENDIX D Data Tables 95 96 TABLE 5.——Means and Standard Deviations of Humanism Scores for the Seven Moral Orientation Items. Boys Girls Standard . Standard Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Story 1 .31 .60 .29 .68 Story 2 1.53 1.02 1.A8 1.10 Story 3 1.H5 1.17 1.57 .95 Story A 1.58 1.24 1.28 1.30 Story 5 1.00 .93 .68 .68 Story 6 1.38 1.25 1.00 1.11 Story 7 1.38 1.17 1.28 1.19 ’ 97 TABLE 6.--Means and Standard Deviations of the Conventional Scores for the Seven Moral Orientation Items Boys Girls Standard Standard Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Story 2.01 .90 2.30 .98 Story 2 1.18 .96 1.29 1.17 Story 3 1.63 1.19 1.43 .96 Story 4 1.37 1.22 1.42 1.32 Story 5 .89 .68 1.10 .73 Story 6 .97 1.08 1.14 1.23 Story 7 1.25 1.07 1.47 1.21 98 TABLE 7.--Means and Standard Deviations of External Scores for the Seven Moral Orientation Items. Boys Girls Standard Standard Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Story 1 .68 .91 .41 .82 Story 2 .28 .54 .23 .44 Story 3 .04 .18 .01 .07 Story 4 .05 .22 .05 .25 Story 5 1.09 .87 1.22 .89 Story 6 .65 1.09 .85 1.03 Story 7 .37 .77 .26 .66 99 TABLE 8.-—Corre1ations between Humanistic Scores for Moral Orientation Items and the Two Egocentrism Measures. Boys Girls Egocegtrism Egoceggrism Egocegtrism Egocentrism Story 1 - .02 .13 ~ .12 — .21 Story 2 .03 .20 .21 .26 Story 3 .10 .22 .07 .42*** Story 4 .29* .31* — .04 .07 Story 5 .04 .15 .38** .05 Story 6 .04 .10 .02 — .35** Story 7 .15 .26 .04 - .11 Sum of Stories 1 & 2 .02 .22 .11 .11 Sum of Stories 3 & 4 .27* .37** .01 .29* Sum of Stories 5.6.& 7 .09 .25 .15 .22 *p < .05 ** < .01 ***p < .001 100 TABLE 9.—-Corre1ations between Conventional Scores for Moral Orientation Items and the Two Egocentrism Measures. Boys Girls Egocentrism Egocentrism Egocentrism Egocentrism I II I II Story 1 - .16 - .11 .33* .15 Story 2 - .16 - .21 - .24 - .24 Story 3 - .06 ~ .21 - .09 - .41*** Story 4 - .26 - .30“ .02 — .07 Story 5 .05 .12 - .07 — .13 Story 6 - .12 - .08 .05 .13 Story 7 - .16 -..22 - .03 .10 Sum of . Stories . 1 & 2 - .23 — .23 .03 - .09 Sum of Stories 3 & 4 - .22 — .35** — .03 w .28* Sum of Stories 5,6,& 7 — .15 - .14 - .01 .08 *p < .05 “*p < .01 ***p < .001 101 TABLE 10.—-Correlations between External Scores for Moral Orientation Items and the Two Egocentristheasures. if Boys Girls EgocenErism Egocengrism Egocegtrism EgocegErism Story 1 .16 .02 _ .29“ - .01 Story 2 .24 - .01 .11 .01 Story 3 - .25 - .02 - .01 .07 Story 4 - .18 - .09 .10 - .01 Story 5 .01 - .21 - .24 .06 Story 6 .08 - .02 — .07 .22 Story 7 - 01 - 09 - 03 02 Sum Of I Stories . 1 & 2 .25 - .01 - .19 — .01 Sum of Stories — .31* - .09 .08 .01 3 & 4 Sum of Stories 5,6,& 7 .04 — .13 — .24 .20 *p < .05 102 Hoo. v daxs Ho. v as: mo. v a: *Hm. mm. o atoom *mm. NH. mm. so. m Stoom mH. *eqm. OH. mm. NH. om. : aooom 0H. SH.- so. mH. mo.u So. mH. mo. m atoom mH. HH.: NH. mo. mm. mm. *mm. mo. mo. mo. m anoom *mm. mm. mo. mH. No.1 mo. SH.I Hm. mH.- mm.« mm. am. H atoom S S S S S S S S S S S S 3 4 n4 1 n4 1 Q. n+ 1 1. n4 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O J J J J J J J J J J J J K nA nA p“ K nA A AA p“ K .A nA L 9 C. .W (C a ./H 9 C]. .W. Cc _C manfiu whom .meopH coapmpsoaso Homo: one mo mmcflnoom ofipmfiswesm Mo chprHohhoonmchsx.HH mqmcoo mo mCOprHonnoomochll.mH wmoem 104 Hoo. v axe: Ho. v axe mo. v a: ***m:. ***m:. w hfiOpm ma. 0m. 0H. ma. m OLOBm ***zm. :m. 0H. OH.I ma.l No. : Oeopm gsxom. *eqm. NH.***HO. OH.I MH.I no. mo.a m OhOpm AH. OH. OH. HO.u OO. OO. OH. OH. OH.- HH.- m Oooom 0H. 00.1 mm. m0.l :0. 0m. mo. 50. 30.! 00.! am. ma. H hpOpm S co 8 as S S as S HS 8 HS 8 3 n4 1 ea 1 1 3. A4 «4 1 4+ 3 o o o o o o o o o o o o J a J a .u a a J a J J a A "A .A cu A p“ .A "A AA R“ K .A .1.— 9 C... .n CC 8 ll.— 9 (3 ha CC 7v mHhflm whom .mEopH coapmpcmwno Homo: on» pom mmcHnoom Haemopxm mo OQOHpmaonnoonl.mH mam¢e TRIES [WI 0 "11111111111111