THE EFFECTS or REWARD - DESERVEDNESS 0N ” SHARING BY CHIIIIIIEII AND THE RELATIONSHIPS _ , _ i -if- 421; BETWEEN ROLE - TAKING, MORAL JUDGMENTS ‘ ‘ AIID SHARING BEHAVIOR ’ Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D; MICHIGAN. STATE UNIVERSITY ANTHONY B. OLEJNEK 1973 This is to certify that the thesis entitled . THE EFFECTS OF REWARD—DESERVEDNESS ON. SHARING BY CHILDREN AND THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE-TAKING, MORAL JUDGMENTS AND SHARING BEHAVIOR presented by Anthony B. Olejnik has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _EHD_degree in _P§yc_ho_109y Date ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF REWARD-DESERVEDNESS 0N SHARING BY CHILDREN AND THE REALTIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE-TAKING, . MORAL JUDGMENTS AND SHARING BEHAVIOR BY Anthony B. Olejnik In a 2 x 4 x 2 factorial design, the effects of sex of subject, the grade level of subject, and the deservedness of a reward for work input on the number of M&M candies shared with another child were studied in 20 boys and 20 girls from each of four grades: kindergarten, first, second, and third. Although there were no significant main effects, there was a significant interaction effect for Grade X Reward-Deservedness (p1<.001) on sharing. Kindergarten and first-graders shared more when they didn't deserve a reward than when they did deserve a reward, while second and third graders shared more when they deserved a reward than when they didn't deserve a reward. The increase with age in the number of candies shared by children in the reward-deserved condition suggests that children do learn a norm of sharing as they get older and may behave accordingly. These results and those of previous studies were discussed in terms of reward-deservedness (equity), cognitive dissonance theory, and the effects of mood on shar- ing by children. Data were also reported on the relationships between and the develOpment of role-taking ability, moral judgments and Anthony B. Olejnik sharing behavior in these same 160 children. When age was partialled out positive correlations were obtained between role-taking and moral judgments (r = .41), role-taking and sharing (r = .49), and moral judgments and sharing (r = .32). The intercorrelations between the four role-taking measures as well as the intercorrelations between the six moral judg- ment stories were consistently high. The moral judgment responses were analyzed by a 2 (sex of subject) x 4 (grade level of subject) x 2 (story conse- quences) analysis of variance with repeated measures. While there was no significant effect for sex of subject, there were significant main effects for grade (pt(.005) and story consequences (p (.001) on the use of intentionality for making moral judgments on Piaget type stories. Consistent with previous research, older children were more likely to use intent rather than consequences of an act as a basis for making moral judgments. The children were also more likely to use intentionality as a basis for their judgments when the stories involved positive consequences than when they involved negative consequences. The data on sharing and role-taking were analyzed by several 2 (sex of subject) x 4 (grade level of subject) analyses of variance. There was a significant effect for sex on sharing with a friend (p‘(.025) and a significant effect for sex on role-taking scores (pt(.05). The girls had higher role-taking scores and shared more with a friend than boys. There was also a significant increase with age Anthony B. Olejnik in role-taking ability (p‘<.025) and a marginally significant increase with age in sharing with a friend (P‘(.06). For girls a significant negative correlation between family size and sharing with a friend (r = —.21) was found. These results and those of previous studies on the development of role-taking ability, moral judgments, and sharing were dis- cussed. THE EFFECTS OF REWARD-DESERVEDNESS ON SHARING BY CHILDREN AND THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE-TAKING, MORAL JUDGMENTS AND SHARING BEHAVIOR BY Anthony B. Olejnik A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1973 To My Family ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Drs. William Crano, Lucy Ferguson, Hiram Fitzgerald, Lawrence Messé: and John McKinney for their constructive criticism, advice, and assistance in the design, analysis, and planning stages of this research. I am espe- cially grateful to Dr. John McKinney, chairman of my disserta- tion committee, for his support and encouragement throughout the course of this project and the doctoral program. I am indebted to Mr. Daly Magrayne, principal, Mrs. Hart, secretary, the teachers, and children at North Aurelius Ele- mentary School for their cooperation throughout the winter months making the data collection an enjoyable experience. I am especially grateful to Mrs. Jackie Drake and Linda Peck for their assistance as experimenters in the research. Their diligent and conscientious effort in collecting the data and their dedication to the project made the trials of the re- search a pleasure as well as a success. I also want to thank Deborah Rambie and Stan Pohl for their assistance in rating the tapes of the children's responses. I also want to thank the twenty families in Spartan Village who participated in the pilot study of this project; the Psy- chology Department, especially Dr. O'Kelly and Mr. Roger Halley for their financial assistance; and Mrs. Sue Weesner for typing earlier drafts of this report. iii Finally, I am forever grateful to my wife, Shirley, for her assistance in reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this dissertation and for her love, patience, and understand— ing, without which I may never have succeeded, throughout these last few years. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION II. METHOD Subjects Materials Design Procedure III.RESULTS IV. DISCUSSION REFERENCES APPENDICES A. Scoring for Role-Taking Tasks B. Role-Taking Stories C. Moral Judgment Stories D. Reward-Deservedness for Work Inputs. Page vi vii 12 12 12 13 13 20 27 47 52 53 55 57 61 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Significant Correlations Between Variables with Age Partialled Out. 2. Correlation Matrix for Role-Taking, Moral Judgments and Sharing Behavior. 3. Correlations Between Role-Taking Tasks with Age Partialled Out. 4. Correlations Between Moral Judgment Stories with Age Partialled Out. 5. Mean Scores for Role-Taking, Moral Judgments and Sharing. 6. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Intentionality Responses on Moral Judgment Stories. 7. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Role-Taking Scores. 8. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Sharing with a Friend. 9. Mean Number of M & M's shared with a Stranger. 10. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Sharing with a Stranger. D-l Mean Number of M &.M's Awarded to Different Work Inputs by Children. vi Page 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Number of Candies Shared by Children at Each Grade in Two Experimental Conditions. 46 vii INTRODUCTION The two major objectives of this investigation were to investigate the relationships among the development of role- taking ability, moral judgments, and sharing behavior of children; and to study the effects of reward-deservedness on the sharing behavior of children. Several investigators (Handlon & Gross, 1958; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1967; Staub & Feagans, 1969; Ugurel-Semin, 1952; Wright, 1942) have reported developmental changes in the al- truistic behavior of children. The amount of generosity, sharing, and helping displayed by children between 4 and 12 years tends to increase with age. One possible explanation for this change in behavior is that as children get older they have more Opportunities to learn self-sacrificing responses by imitating adults and peers as well as more Opportuni- ties to be rewarded for their sharing and helping behavior. In their review of self-sacrificing behavior by children, Bryan and London (1970) cited several studies which provided evidence for the influence of behavioral example and reinforce- ment upon the donation behavior of children. However, Krebs (1970) noted that studies on the modeling of altruistic behav- iors have produced temporary effects rather than long term changes and that these studies have not demonstrated modeling effects which generalize to a variety of self—sacrifice situa- tions. Krebs also pointed out that modeling was merely a description of behavioral sequences rather than an explana- tion for the behavior. Therefore, it appears that modeling neither produces changes in the altruistic behavior of children for extended periods of time nor fully explains the develop- mental changes in the altruistic behavior of children. A second, more cognitive explanation for the increase in the altruistic behavior of children as they grow older is that there are develoPmental changes in children's cognitive thought processes which influence their moral judgments and moral behavior. According to Piaget (1932), the egocentric thought of young children prevents them from judging moral situations from any viewPoint other than their own and, there— fore, limits their moral judgments and social interactions in a variety of activities. Piaget (1926), Flavell et al. (1968) and others have investigated developmental changes in role- taking skills in children between three and fourteen years and have found that, while signs of role-taking skills begin to develop around three or four years, it isn't until some- time during middle-childhood or even as late as early adoles- cence that children are capable of accurately taking the role of another person. Selman (1973) has recently suggested an ontogenetic sequence of stages of role-taking ability which he has termed "social perspective taking ability." Role-taking ability and altruiqm Although there are interesting developmental changes in the altruistic behavior of children and in their role-taking skills, the relationship between these behavioral and cognitive changes has not been investigated. In the numerous studies which have investigated altruistic behavior of children (see Krebs, 1970), researchers have not known if the subjects un- derstood the needs of fictitious poor children, crippled chil- dren, or even children who had fallen off a chair in another room. It would seem that the ability to take the role or per- spective of another person would very much influence a child's response in these self-sacrificing situations. It could be expected that a child with a better developed ability to take the perspective of another might behave more altruisticly than a child who was less able to put himself in another per- son's position. In a recent study on the learning of helping and sharing by kindergarten children, Staub (1971) found that when role- playing procedures were used there was an increase in sharing by boys and an increase in helping by girls. Staub suggested that role-playing of specific situations may have increased a child's capacity for empathy. Based on evidence from sev- eral experiments (Aderman & Berkowitz, 1969; Aronfreed & Paskel, 1968; Krebs, 1970), Krebs (1971) has concluded that "empathy has gone furthest to explain altruism (p. 411)." These stud- ies have emphasized only the affective component of empathy (i.e. the ability to vicariously experience another's emotions or feelings) rather than the cognitive component of empathy (i.e. role—taking or the ability to view another's situation from that other's perspective). Since earlier studies (Burns & Cavey, 1957; Dymond, Hughes, & Raabe, 1952) have reported age changes in children's ability to experience another's emotions, it appears that both the cognitive as well as the affective components of empathy may be related to the developmental changes in sharing and help- ing behavior of children. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study was that children who are capable of accurately perceiving the emotional and cognitive aspects of another's position would be more altruistic than children who have not deve10ped these empathic abilities. In other words, role— taking ability and altruism were expected to be positively related. The more egocentric a child was, the less likely he was expected to be altruistic. Role-taking ability and moral judgments Although research has not investigated the relationship between the development of role-taking ability and moral be- havior, Selman (1971) has found a relationship between role- taking and moral judgments. Selman found that, with eight, nine, and ten year-old children, those children who had de- veloped reciprocal role-taking skills were more likely to make moral judgments at the conventional rather than the pre- conventional level. Reciprocal role-taking ability appeared to be a necessary condition for the development of moral judg- ments in children. While Selman studied the relationship be- tween moral judgments on Kohlberg's moral dilemmas (Kohlberg, 1958) and role-taking skills in children between eight and ten years of age, the present study investigated the relationship between role-taking skills and moral judgments on Piaget-type stories (Piaget, 1932). Therefore, the second hypothesis of this study was that children with better develOped role-taking skills would make moral judgments at a more advanced stage than children who have not develOped these skills. A positive correlation between moral judgments and role-taking ability was expected. Moral_judgments: prescriptive and proscriptiyg Research on moral judgments has been primarily stimu- lated by Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1958; 1964). Both theo- rists view moral development in terms of cognitive processes in making moral judgments, and both suggest that moral devel- 0pment progresses through a sequence of stages due to chang- ing thought structures which underlie moral concepts. While investigating the child's respect for the rules of social or- der and the child's sense of justice, Piaget (1932) suggested that it was through the process of organizing and regulating SOcial experiences that a child deve10ps moral structures. According to Piaget, children are limited in their moral judg- ments by their egocentric thought until around seven years of age. At this time children advance from the early stage of moral realism or subjective morality to the more advanced Stage of moral relativism or objective morality. A finding which has been well supported (Boehm & Mass, 1952; Cowan, Langer, Heavenrich, & Nathanson,.l969; Johnson, 1962; Piaget, 1932) is that younger children tend to make moral judgments based on the consequences of an act, while older children take into consideration the intentions behind the action. Both Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1958) have used inter- view techniques to obtain moral judgments to either stories or moral dilemmas. In determining the stage or level of moral judgment, Piaget and Kohlberg have emphasized the im- portance of intentionality rather than consequences of an act in the judgments which are made. The original stories which were used by Piaget (1932) as well as the revised sto- ries which have been recently used (Armsby, 1971; Gutkin, 1972; Hebble, 1971; King, 1971), for studying intentionality in moral judgments have involved making judgments on the wrongness of two acts (e.g. Which boy is naughtier? The one who broke one cup or the one who broke fifteen cups?). Do children use similar bases for making judgments to the right- ness or goodness of two acts as they do to the wrongness of two acts?1 7 Since research interest in moral develOpment has shifted from studying proscriptive behaviors (cheating, stealing, and lying) to prescriptive behaviors (giving, sharing, and helping), it seems that some of the interest in studying moral judgments might also shift to studying judgments which involve prescrip- tive behaviors. Recently Baldwin and Baldwin (1970) and Shure (1968) applied Heider's naive psychology to the study of de- velopmental changes in the cognitive understanding of inter- personal relationships. Shure (1968) found developmental chan- ges in children's judgments of fairness, generosity, and 1This manipulation of the Piaget stories was suggested to me by John McKinney in discussions on prescriptive values. selfishness, while Baldwin and Baldwin (1970) reported sig- nificant increases in adultlike judgments of kindness by chil- dren between five and seven years. This latter finding sup- ports Piaget's (1932) findings of changes in cognitive under- standing at this period of time in the child's develoPment. Research by Baldwin and Baldwin (1970) and Shaw and Sulzer (1964) also suggests that children might use intentionality ‘differently under various consequence conditions. While Cos- tanzo, Coie, Grumet, and Farnhill (1973) recently found that children's use of intentionality was different under condi- tions of positive and negative consequences, their procedure differed from the Piagetian format. Children were asked to make judgments of single actors rather than comparisons of pairs of children. According to Costanzo et al. (1973), "this may have allowed subjects' consideration of intention- ality to become more visible, since it did not force the sub— ject to choose between intentionality and consequence bases for judgment" (p. 160). In the present study, Piagetian type stories which in- volved both positive and negative consequences were used. It was expected that children who make moral judgments based on intentionality for negative consequence stories would also use intent as a basis for making moral judgments to the revised prescriptive or positive consequence stories. Based on pre- vious research, children's scores on moral judgments for pos- itive gnui negative consequence stories were expected to be positively related as well as to increase with age. Moral judgments and sharing Researchers have not established a strong relationship between moral judgments and moral behavior. Some support for the hypothesis of a relationship between moral reasoning and moral behavior was found in experimental studies of cheating behavior (Grim, Kohlberg, & White, 1968; Krebs, 1968; Lehrer, 1967). Individuals at the lower stages of moral judgment were more likely to cheat than individuals at the more advanced stages. While these studies involved wrong-doing (cheating) and moral judgments, there is little evidence relating moral judgments and prescriptive behavior (Olejnik and McKinney, 1973; Ugurel-Semin, 1952). In an early study on altruism with children in Istanbul, Ugurel-Semin investigated the relationship between moral be- havior and age, sex, social class, family size, and moral judgment. Children between 4 and 16 years were asked to di- vide an unequal number of nuts between themselves and another child. Prior to performing the sharing act, each child was asked how he would share the nuts and why. Ugurel-Semin found that generosity increased between 6 and 8 years and that the selfish tendency was strongest between 4 and 6 years. There was also a develOpmental change in the types of moral judg— ments made by the children, and the consistency between moral behavior and moral judgments was strongest among the children who shared equally and those who were generous. Olejnik and McKinney (1973) recently reported that prescriptive value ori- entations in both parents and children were related to generosity in 4 year old children. As a result of these find- ings involving sharing behavior and those studies dealing with moral judgments and cheating, it was hypothesized that moral behavior (sharing) and moral judgments on Piaget type moral dilemmas would be related. Children who made moral judgments at higher levels of moral reasoning would be more altruistic than children who made moral judgments at lower levels of moral reasoning. Therefore, regarding the first major objective of this study, positive relationships are expected between the devel- Opment of role-taking ability and moral behavior (sharing); role-taking ability and moral judgments; moral judgments to positive and negative consequence conditions; and moral judg- ments and sharing behavior. Reward-deservedness and sharing Several investigators have reported that experimentally induced feelings of failure, shame, and guilt lead to repar- ative altruistic behavior (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Darlington &Macker, 1966; DePalma & Olejnik,‘l973; Freedman, Wallington & Bless, 1967; . Lerner & Matthews, 1967; Rawlings, 1968). Interpretations for these results vary from behavior that rights a wrong doing and increases self-esteem to self-puni- tive responses that reduce feelings of guilt. Recent studies (Isen, 1970; Isen, Horn, & Rosenham, 1973; Isen & Levin, 1973; Moore, Underwood, & Rosenham, 1973) have reported that positive affect increased altruistic behavior. An interesting interpretation for the results of the 10 effects of success and failure on sharing by children was suggested by Staub (1968). Stahb found that fourth graders were more likely to share candy after failing on a bowling task than after being successful. This relationship was re- versed for fifth-graders. Staub proposed that the fourth- graders may have learned a "norm of deservedness" which in- fluenced their sharing behavior. He argued that individuals would be more likely to share after being rewarded for a poor performance than after a good performance because the indivi- dual in the poor performance condition did not have a justifi- able claim to the reward. The norm of deservedness apparently stOps Operating by the fifth grade since the fifth graders shared more after the successful performance. Unfortunately no reason has been offered to explain why the norm of deserved- ness affected the two age groups differently. Although Staub (1973) recently reported some additional evidence with third and sixth-grade children which was consistent with his pre- vious findings, the results demonstrated effects for success and failure on sharing rather than any effects for reward- deservedness (i.e. the reward a person should receive for per- forming a particular task). It has been assumed, rather than established, that the children in the success and failure con- ditions perceived their rewards as being either deserved or not deserved. Therefore, the second objective of the present study was to test experimentally the effects of reward—deservedness on the sharing behavior of young children. It was expected that 11 children between kindergarten and third-grade who have worked and received a reward they deserved (equity or sufficient re- ward) would share their reward less with another child than children who received a reward they did not deserve (inequity or oversufficient reward). Also, since many investigators (Handlon & Gross, 1958; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1967; Staub & Feagans,l969;Ugurel-Semin,l952; Wright, 1942) have reported that the amount of giving, sharing, and helping displayed by children tends to increase with age, it was expected that there would be a significant effect for age on the sharing behavior of the children in the present study. Since Krebs (1970) concluded in his review of altruism research that there were no consistent sex differences in the altruistic behavior of young children, no sex differences were expected. METHOD Subjects Subjects were 40 white children (20 boys and 20 girls) from each of four grades: kindergarten, first, second, and third. The mean age for each grade level was 68, 81, 92, and 104 months respectively. The children were attending an elementary school in a rural town (pOp. 5468) in central Michigan. According maschool administrators they were average in performance on intelligence and standard achievement tests administered routinely in the state and came from predominant- ly lower-middle class families. The data were collected at the school during the winter months from January through March. Materials Session 1. A taperecorder; pictures similar to those described by Flavell et a1. (1968) involving a young boy be- ing chased up a tree by a dog; miniature wooden figures (two little girls, two little boys, and a dog); a small toy truck; a 9 x 12 inch pegboard with a street, railroad tracks, and houses painted on it; and several packages of M&M candies were used during the session. M&Ms were used as rewards to be shared since Midlarsky and Bryan (1967) found no relation- ship between children's preferences for M&Ms and their giving behavior and because Witryol (1971) found no age or sex dif- ferences in preferences for M&Ms for children in kindergarten, 12 ’13 second, and fourth grades. Session 2. In this experimental session the following items were used: a pinball game; a bag of 50 colorfully wrap- ped candies; pairs of scissors; sheets of paper with four shapes (circle, square, triangle, and oval) on each; a pic- ture of a refugee child; a donation can with a few M&Ms in- side; and packages with 19 M&Ms in each. Design In a 2 x 4 x 2 factorial design, the extent of the de- servedness of a reward for work input (deserved or not-de- served), the grade level of the subject (kindergarten, first, second, or third), and the sex of the subject were the inde- pendent variables studied. Half of the boys and half of the girls in each grade were randomly assigned to one of two ex- perimental conditions. In the reward-deserved condition, children performed a relatively large amount of work by cut- ting out 20 shapes from paper, and they received an appro- priate reward which was previously determined for the task (see Appendix D). In the reward not-deserved condition, the children performed less work by cutting only four shapes, but they received the same reward as the children who cut 20 shapes. Procedure Each child individually participated in two separate 30 minute sessions. Approximately 10 days after participating in session 1 with a male experimenter, each child participated in session 2 with one of two female experimenters. There were 14 no differences in the data collected by the two female exper- imenters.. Session 1. The first session was designed to measure each child's role-taking ability, moral judgments and sharing behavior. The experimenter asked each subject questions abouttflmznumber of brothers and sisters in his family as well as the name of the child's best friend at school. The child was then given 11 M&M candies in a bag. These were emptied out on the table. The experimenter then said, "Here are some M&M candies. These are for you to have. If you want to, you can leave some for (name of best friend). We'll put the ones you want to keep for yourself in this bag and put your name in it. Then we'll put the ones you want to give to your friend in another bag. If you don't want to, you don't have to give your friend any candy." After the child made his decision the experimenter put the bag of candy aside and said he would give it to the teacher who would later give it to the child at lunch. The children and teachers agreed with this procedure. After the M&Ms were divided, each child was presented with four measures of role-taking ability. The first task required the child to tell a story about a sequence of seven pictures which involved a boy being frightened by a dog, run- ning down a street, and climbing a tree to eat an apple (de- scribed by Flavell, et al., 1968, p. 71). After telling the story with all seven cards presented, three cards were re- moved. The experimenter then said, "Your teacher has never 15 seen these pictures. What I'd like you to do this time is tell me the story your teacher would tell if she saw these pictures. What would your teacher say is happening in this story?" Each child then told the story he thought his teacher would tell. Since the three cards which were removed eliminated the fear of the dog motive for climbing the tree, the experimenter then asked each child why the teacher thought the boy climbed the tree and what the teacher thought the dog was doing in the last picture. See Appendix A for scoring of responses. The second, third, and fourth role-taking tasks were an adaptation of a procedure used by Chandler and Greenspan (1972). Each child was presented with three story situations which in- volved a main character experiencing either sadness, anger, or happiness, and a second character who entered the scene too late to know the circumstances arousing these emotions in the main character. While Chandler and Greenspan (1972) used pic- tured situations, miniature toy children, a dog, and a truck were manipulated in the present study. Each child was given an opportunity to assign an emotion to the main character in the story by choosing one from among four pictured emotions. The subject then was asked to tell the story from the point of View of the main character and then from the perspective of the naive late comer. The following is an example of one of the situations. The experimenter gave the following instructions: "Listen to the stories carefully. Then I'll ask you some questions about them. 'One day a little girl was playing outside with her pet 16 dog. The dog ran into the street and was hit by a truck. The dog died.‘ How does this girl feel now?" The experi- menter then showed the child the four faces with different emotions. After the child made his response, the experimenter continued with the story: "The little girl started to walk home. A friend saw her and asked her if she wanted to go to the zoo to see some animals. The little girl said no and ran into her house. Her friend was surprised because the little girl enjoys seeing the animals at the zoo. So the friend had to go to the zoo by herself." The experimenter then asked the subject to tell the story from the beginning. After the child told the complete story, he was asked, "What would the friend say happened in this story? What story would she tell?" Following the child's response, the experimenter asked, "Why does the friend think the little girl is sad? and why does the friend think the little girl doesn't want to go to the zoo?" This procedure and similar questioning were also used for the other two stories (see Appendix B). The responses were tape-recorded and later scored by two independent raters. The total role-taking ability score was the sum of the scored re- sponses on the four role-taking tasks. Each child was then presented with six moral judgment stories. Three revised Piagetian stories involving negative consequences which were used by Armsby (1971) were presented along with three stories involving positive consequences (giv- ing, sharing, and helping) written by the author for the l7 purpose of this study (see Appendix C). After each negative consequence story, the subject was asked which of the two children he thought was the naughtiest and why he thought he was the naughtiest. After the positive consequence stories, each subject was asked which one of the two children he thought was the nicest and why he thought he was the nicest. Responses to these stories were also tape-recorded and later scored by two independent raters. Points were assigned for each moral judgment response: zero points were given for responses based on the consequences of an act and one point was given for each response which took intentionality into account. After all the moral judgment stories were presented, the experimenter thanked each child and returned the child to his classroom. Session 2. The second session was designed to measure each child's helping behavior and to study the effects of reward-deservedness on sharing. The female experimenter briefly described to the child what was going to happen dur- ing the experimental session. Each subject was told he would have an opportunity to play with a toy pinball game and then he would be given an opportunity to earn some M&M candies. Following this introduction, the experimenter presented the subject with an attractive pinball game with which the child could play. The experimenter told each child that she was interested in what children thought about this game and how much they liked it. Once the experimenter showed the 18 subject how to play the game, the experimenter let the child play the game and she moved away from the child to a place where she could not be seen. After the subject began playing the game, the experimenter dropped a bag of candies on the floor, and fifty wrapped candies fell within a previously marked area. The experimenter then expressed mild alarm over dropping the candies and began picking them up. Unless the subject joined the experimenter immediately, she made addi- tional prompts to get the subject to help: "I should have been more careful. Could you help me a little?" After the child began picking up the candies, the experimenter picked up five candies and then excused herself to find another bag for the candies. The subject was then told to pick up as many as he wanted to pick up and then leave the rest if he wanted to and go back to playing with the game. The experimenter left the room and returned in about three minutes which was sufficient time for the child to pick up the remaining candies. When the experimenter returned, she noted the number of candies picked up by the child and then finished picking up the candies that were left on the floor. Each child was then asked if he wanted to earn some M&M candies. In the reward-deserved ‘condition each subject was asked to cut out 20 shapes from paper and was then given 19 M&M candies. In the reward not-deserved condition each subject was asked to cut out 4 shapes but was also given 19 M&M candies. The number of M&M candies allocated for these cutting tasks was previously determined (Olejnik, 1973). 19 After cutting the shapes and receiving the M&M candies, each subject was presented with a donation can and a picture of a refugee child. The experimenter then gave each subject an Opportunity to share his candy with the child in the picture (see Olejnik & McKinney, 1973). The experimenter left the room while the child decided whether or not to share any Of his candies. When the experimenter returned, she asked the child if he gave any M&Ms away and why he decided to give or not give. The experimenter then thanked the subject and re- turned him to the classroom. RESULTS Session 1. Positive correlations were found between age and sharing with a friend (r = .20, p (.01); age and role-taking (r = .30, p (.001); and age and moral judgments (r = .34, p (.001). There were no significant correlations between age and either helping or sharing with a stranger. A general summary Of the correlations found in the study with age partialled out is presented in Table 1, while the data are presented separately for boys and girls in Table 2. Role-taking and sharing As the data in Table 1 show, role-taking ability was sig- nificantly and positively correlated with sharing with a friend (r = .66, pI(.001); sharing with a stranger (r = .24, p (.01); and total sharing (r = .49, p‘<.001). There were no signi— ficant correlations between role-taking and helping behavior for either boys or girls. While the relationship between role- taking and sharing with a friend (see Table 2) was significant for both boys (r = .64, p'<.001) and girls (r = .69, p‘<.001); the correlations between role-taking ability and sharing with a stranger were significant only for boys (r = .32, p‘(.01). While the correlation between role-taking and sharing with a friend is quite high, the correlation between role- taking and sharing with a stranger is not as high. Since the data on sharing with a stranger were obtained from children 20 21 in two different experimental groups, a closer examination of the correlation between role-taking and sharing for each grade and in each experimental condition seemed warranted. The following correlations were obtained for children in each grade from kindergarten to third, respectively: reward not- deserved (r = -.l7, .05, -.27, and .49) and reward-deserved (r = .17, .47, .56, and .63). While the correlations between role-taking and sharing with a stranger were rather inconsis- tent for children in the reward not-deserved condition, there was a positive relationship between role-taking and sharing with a stranger for children in the reward-deserved condition. It appears that the lower over-all correlation between role- taking and sharing with a stranger is partially due to the ex- perimental manipulation. Role-taking and moral judgments Role-taking ability and the use Of intentionality for making moral judgments were positively correlated (r = .43, p (.001). The correlations between role-taking and moral judgments were significantly higher for negative consequence stories than for positive consequence stories (t = 4.10, df = 157, p (.001). The correlations between role-taking and moral judgments were similar for boys (r = .42, p<(.001) and girls (r = .49, p (.001). Children with better developed role-taking skills were more likely to use intentionality when making moral judgments. 22 Moral judgments and sharing The data presented in Table 1 suggest that moral judg- ments and sharing with a friend are significantly and posi- tively correlate (r = .44,p(.001) . There was also a small sig- nificant correlation between moral judgments and sharing with a stranger (r = .15, p (.05). However, there was no signifi— cant relationship between moral judgments and helping. A further examination Of the correlations for boys and girls in- dicated that, while the relationship between moral judgments and sharing was significant for both boys and girls, only for boys was there a positive relationship between moral judgments and sharing with a stranger. Boys using intentionality as a basis for moral judgments shared more with both friends and strangers, while girls using intentionality as a basis for moral judgments shared more with a friend but not with a stranger. While the correlations between moral judgments and sharing with a friend were higher for negative consequence stories than for positive consequence stories, they were not significantly different (t = 1.60, df = 157). Sex and age differences A summary of the mean scores for role-taking ability, moral judgments, sharing and helping behaviors for boys and girls at each grade is presented in Table 5. Children's in- tentionality responses on the moral judgment stories were analyzed by a 2 (sex of subject) x 4 (grade level Of subject) x 2 (story consequences) analysis Of variance with repeated 23 measures (see Table 6). There was a significant effect for grade on the use of intentionality for making moral judgments (F = 5.56, df = 3,144, p (.005). Older children were more likely to use intentionality as a basis for making moral judg- ments, while younger children tended to make moral judgments based on the consequences of the act. There was also a sig- nificant effect for the story consequences on intentionality responses for making moral judgments (F = 34.18, df = lJA4, p (.001). Children were more likely to use intentionality as a basis for making moral judgments when the stories involved positive consequences rather than negative consequences. The data on role-taking, sharing, and helping were ana— lyzed by several 2 (sex of subject) x 2 (grade level of sub- ject) analyses of variance. While there were no significant 'effects for either sex or grade on either helping, sharing with a stranger, or sharing total, there were significant ef- fects for sex of subject (F = 3.92, df = 1,152, p'(.05) and grade (F = 5.78, df = 3,152, p (.025) on role-taking scores (see Table 7). While girls had higher rOle-taking scores than boys at each grade, individual comparisons of the means (Winer, 1962, p .238) revealed that only in the third grade was there a significant difference in role-taking scores between boys and girls (F = 4.19, df = 1,152, p <.05). The finding that role-taking scores increased with age is consistent with pre— vious research that suggests Older children have better devel— oped role-taking skills. There was also a significant effect for sex Of subject 24 on sharing with a friend (F = 5.51, df = 1,152, p (.025). While girls shared more M&M candies with a friend than boys at each grade, an individual comparison Of the means (Winer, 1962, p. 238) indicated that only in kindergarten was the difference between boys and girls statistically significant (F = 3.91, df = 1,152, p‘<.05). There was a marginally sig- nificant increase with age in sharing with a friend (F = 3.74, df = 3,152, p (.06) which is consistent with earlier studies on sharing. Measures Of role taking, moral judgments, and sharing The intercorrelations of each Of the four role-taking tasks compared to the total role-taking score were r = .65, .88, .84, and .86 respectively. These correlations are pre- sented in Table 3 and indicate some internal reliability for the items on the role-taking task. While the intercorrelations for each of the moral judg- ment stories and the total moral judgment score were higher for the three negative consequence stories (r = .75. .73, and .77) than for the three positive consequence stories (r = .55, .57, and .55) respectively (see Table 4) they were not signif- icantly different. Scores on the negative and positive con- sequence items were positively correlated (r = .33, p‘(.001). Children were generally consistent in using either intentional‘ ity or consequences as the basis for making moral judgments to both positive and negative consequence stories. Two independent raters scored the responses to the four role-taking tasks as well as the responses to the six moral 25 judgment stories. The rater reliabilities were .95 for the role-taking scores and .93 for the moral judgment scores. Although there were no significant correlations between the sharing measures and the helping behavior, there was a significant positive correlation between the two sharing meas- ures (r = .41, p (.001). Children who shared M&Ms with their friend were also likely to share M&Ms with a stranger. This finding was significant for both boys (r = .51, p<(.001) and girls (r = .30, p<(.01). There seems to be a difference in altruism when given two different self-sacrificing tasks, since children who shared the most were not necessarily those who helped the most. Family size and constellation. From the data presented in Table 1 it appears that family size did not correlate with any of the other variables inves- tigated. A closer examination Of the data in Table 2 suggests that family size for girls correlated negatively with sharing with a friend (r = -.21, p <.05). Girls from larger families shared fewer M&Ms with their friends than girls from smaller families. When the number of variables studied is considered this finding may have been nothing more than a chance result. Furthermore, when sharing responses were analyzed by a 2 (sex of subject) x 3 (ordinal position) analysis Of variance with ordinal position referring to being either Oldest, youngest, or somewhere in between, there was no significant effect for ordinal position (Fmnmm maHumnm one musmemooh Hmuoz .OOHMOBIOHOm How xHHumz GOHumHmHHOU N mqmdfi TABLE 3 Correlations Between Role—Taking Tasks With Age Partialled Out 1 2 3 4 5 1. RTTl - 2. RTT2 .40 - 3. RTT3 .32 .67 - 4. RTT4 .32 .72 .68 - 5. RTTTotal .65 .88 .84 .86 - Note: p (.001 for all Of the above correlations. Total is for l, 2, 3, and 4. 38 TABLE 4 Correlations Between Moral Judgment Stories With Age Partialled Out l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S 1. MJ (-)1 - 2. MJ (-)2 .60 - 3. MJ (-)3 .58 .65 - 4. MJ (--)Total .85 .87 .87 - 5. MJ (+)1 .22 .14 .27 .24 - 6. MJ (+)2 .21 .18 .30 .26 .41 - 7. MJ (+)3 .25 .21 .14 .24 .26 .34 - 8. MJ (+)Total .31 .24 .32 .33 .73 .75 .75 - 9. MJTotal .75 .73 .77 .87 .57 .57 .55 .75 4 is total for l, 2, and 3;,8 is total for 5, 6, and 7; 9 is total for 4 and 8. Note: Critical r value for Critical r value for Critical r value for p (.05 39 .15 .20 - .27 TABLE 5 Mean Scores For Role-Taking, Moral Judgments and Sharing Kindergarten First Second Third boys girls boys girls boys girls boys girls Role-taking' Mean 5.40 5.60 6.65 7.05 6.50 7.30 6.90 8.40 scores SD 2.11 1.93 2.66 2.33 2.11 2.54 2.59 2.16 MOral JUdgments.Mean 1.00 1.35 1.80 1.60 1.60 1.60 2.00 2.50 (negative cone SD 1.17 1.31 1.32 1.27 1.31 1.27 1.30 1.10 sequences) .Moral JUdgments.Mean 1.90 2.00 2.05 2.60 2.20 2.40 2.55 2.60 (positive cone SD 1.07 1.07 .89 .82 .95 .82 .89 .94 sequences) .Moral JUdgments Mean 2.90 3.35 3.85 4.20 3.80 4.00 4.55 5.10 (total) SD 1.83 2.00 1.84 1.85 1.82 1.84 1.85 1.41 Sharing with Mean 2.10 3.30 3.55 4.40 3.45 3.50 3.60 4.55 Friend SD 2.02 2.18 1.98 1.96 1.90 2.42 2.33 1.50 Sharing with Mean 2.65 4.25 4.30 3.55 3.25 3.65 3.80 4.20 Stranger SD 2.08 3.93 2.70 2.89 3.04 2.28 2.98 2.97 Sharing Total Mean 4.75 7.55 7.85 7.95 6.70 7.15 7.40 8.75 SD 3.39 4.90 3.81 3.61 4.22 4.03 4.65 3.70 Helping Mean 27.05 33.70 40.50 39.55 36.00 39.10 35.15 34.90 SD 21.35 17.40 13.85 14.17 18.47 14.54 18.09 17.23 NOte: N'= 20 in each cell. 40 TABLE 6 Summary of Analysis Of Variance Of Intentionality Responses on Moral Judgment Stories Source df MS F Sex of Subject (A) 1 3.00 1.72 Grade (B) 3 9.68 5.56** A x B 3 .ll .06 Error (between) 144 1.74 Story Consequences (C) l 29.40 34.18*** A x C l .08 .09 B x C 3 .77 .89 A x B x C 3 1.42 1.65 Error (within) 144 ** p (.005 *** p(.001 41 TABLE 7 Summary of Analysis Of Variance of Role-Taking Scores Source df MS F Sex Of Subject (A) l 21.02 3.92* Grade (B) 3 31.03 5.78** A x B 3 3.29 .61 Error 152 5.37 * p (.05 ** p (.025 42 TABLE 8 Summary of Analysis Of Variance of Sharing With a Friend Source df MS F Sex Of Subject (A) 1 23.25 5.51** Grade (B) 3 15.78 3.74* A x B 3 2.47 .58 Error 152 4.22 * p (.06 ** p (.025 43 TABLE 9 Mean Number Of M&Ms Shared with a Stranger Kindergarten First Second Third Reward Not-Deserved 5.30 4.65 2.40 2.50 Reward Deserved 1.60 3.20 4.35 5.25 N = 20 subjects per cell. 44 TABLE 10 Summary of Analysis of Variance Of Sharing with a Stranger Source , df MS F Reward-Deservedness (A) l .5065 (1. Grade (B) 3 3.2230 (1 Sex (C) 1 10.5065 1.58 A x B 3 90.3617 13.59*** A x C 1 15.0060 2.25 B—x c 9.3228 1.40 A x B x C 3 8.7563 1.31 Error 144 6.6465 *** p (.001 45 FIGURE 1 110 w 100 - Number 90 ~ of 80 » Candies 70 - Shared 60 ~ 50 - 40 F 30 - 20 - Reward-Deserved 10 - ---------- Reward Not-Deserved I l l I Kdgn. lst 2nd 3rd grade Figure 1. Number of candies shared by children at each grade in two experimental conditions. 46 LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Aderman, P. & Berkowitz, L. Empathy, outcome, and altruism. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, 5, 379-380. Armsby, R. E. A reexamination of the development of moral judgments in children. Child Development, 1971, 32, 1241- 1248. Aronfreed, J. & Paskel, V. Altruism, empathy, and the condi- tioning of positive affect. Reported in J. Aronfreed, Conduct and Conscience. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Baldwin, C. P. & Baldwin, A. L. Children's judgments of kindness. Child Development, 1970, 31, 29-47. Boehm, L. & Nass, M. L. Social class differences in conscience develOpment. Child Development, 1962, 3;, 565-575. Borke, H. Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy? Developmental_Psychology, 1971, 5, 263-269. Bryan, J. H. & London, P. Altruistic behavior by children. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 13, 200-211. Burns, N. & Cavey, L. Age differences in empathic ability among children. Canadian Journal_p§_Psychology, 1957, 11, 227-230. Carlsmith, J. M. & Gross, A. E. Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 232-240. — Chandler, M. J. & Greenspan, S. Ersatz egocentrism: A reply to H. Borke. Deve10pmental Psychology, 1972, 7, 104-106. Costanzo, P. R., Goie, J. D., Grumet, J. F., & Farnill, D.A. reexamination of the effects of intent and consequence on children's moral judgments. Child Deve10pment, 1973 31, 154-161. Cowan, P. A., Langer, J., Heavenrich, J. & Nathanson, M. Social learning and Piaget's cognitive theory of moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 261—274. 47 48 Darlington, D. J. & Macker, C. E. Displacement of guilt- produced altruistic behavior. Journal_of_Personality and Social Psyghology, 1966, 3, 442;443. DePalma, D. J. & Olejnik, A. B. The effect of social class, moral orientation and punishment on generosity in children. Paper to be presented at Biennial meetings - International Society for the Study of Behavioral Deve10pment, August, 1973 DeVries, R. The development of role-taking as reflected by behavior of bright, average, and retarded children in a social guessing game. Child Development, 1970, 25, 759- 770. Dymond, R. F., Hughes, A. S., & Raabe, V. L. Measurable changes in empathy with age. Journal of Consulting Psychology: 1952, 55, 202-206. Flavell, J. H. (in collaboration with Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L. Wright, J. W. & Jarvis, P. E.) The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: Wiley, 1968. Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S. A. & Bless, E. Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt. Journal of Personality_and Social P§ychology, 1967, 1, 117-124. Grim, P., Kohlberg, L., & White, S. Some relationships be- tween conscience and attention processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 5, 239-253. Gutkin, D. C. The effect of systematic story changes on intentionality in children's moral judgments. Child Development, 1972, 55, 187-195. Handlon, B. J. & Gross, P. The develOpment of sharing behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social_Psychology, 1959, 55, 425-428. Hebble, P. W. The development of elementary school children's judgment of intent. Child Deve10pment, 1971, 55, 1203- 1216. Isen, A. M. Success, failure, attention, and reaction to others: The warm glow of success. Journal of PersonalityAand Social Psychology, 1970, 55, 294-301. Isen, A. M. & Levin, P. F. Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality_and Social Psychology, 1972, El, 384-388. 49 Isen, A. M., Horn, N. & Rosenhan, D. L. Effects of success and failure on children's generosity. Journal_g£ Personality and Social Psychology, in press. Johnson, R. A study of children's moral judgments. Child Development, 1962, 55, 327-354. King, M. The development of some intention concepts in young children. Child-Develgpment, 1971, 53, 1145-1152. Kohlberg, L. The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation. University of Chicago, 1958. Kohlberg, L. The development of children's orientations toward a moral order. I. Sequence in the develOpment of moral thought. Vita Humana, 1963, 5, 11-33. Kohlberg, L. Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (eds.), Review of child development_research, Vol. 1, New York: Russell—Sage Foundation, 1964. Krebs, R. L. Some relationships between moral judgment, attention, and resistance to temptation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1968. Krebs, D. L. Altruism - an examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, Krebs, D. L. Infrahuman altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 15, 411-416. Lane, I. M. & Messé, L. A. Equity and the distribution of rewards. Journal of Personality_and Social Psychology 1971, 39, 1-17: Lane, I. M. & Messé, L. A. Distribution of insufficient, sufficient, and oversufficient rewards: A clarification of equity theory. Journal of Personality_and Social Psychology, 1972, 35, 228-233. Lehrer, L. Sex differences in moral behavior and attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1967. Lerner, M. J. & Matthews, G. Reactions to the suffering of others under conditions of indirect responsibility. Journal g£_Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 319-3257"—' 50 Midlarsky, E. & Bryan, J. H. Training charity in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 408-415. Moore, P. S., Underwood, 3., & Rosenhan, D. L. Affect and altruism. Developmental Psychology; 1973, 5, 99-104. Olejnik, A. B. & McKinney, J. P. Parental value orientation and generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 5, 311. Olejnik, A. B. Reward allocations by children: The effects of sex, age, and work inputs. Unpublished paper, 1973. Piaget, J. The language and thopght of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1926. Piaget, J. The moral judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1932. Rawlings, E. I. Witnessing harm to other: A reassessment of the role of guilt in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, $2! 377-380. Rosenhan, D. The natural socialization of altruistic autonomy. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), A1truism_and helping behavior, New York: Academic Press, 1970, PP. 251-268. Rosenhan, D. Prosocial behavior of children. In W. Hartup (Ed.), The_young_child: Reviews of research Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: NatiOnal Association for the Education of Young Children, 1972. Selman, R. L. Taking another's perspective: Role-taking development in early childhood. Child Development, 1971 35, 1721-1734. Selman, R. L. The relation of role-taking to the development of moral judgment in children. Child Development, 1971 23, 79-91. Selman, R. A- structural analysis of the ability to take another's social perspective: Stages in the development of role-taking ability. Paper presented at meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1973. Shaw, M. E., & Sulzer, J. L. An empirical test of Heiders levels in the attribution of responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology: 1964, 55, 39-46. 51 Shure, M. B. Fairness, generosity and selfishness: The naive psychology of children and young adults. Child Development, 1968, 55, 875-886. Staub, E. The Effects of success and failure on children's sharing behavior. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., April, 1968. Staub, E. & Feagans, L. Effect of age and number of witnesses in children's attempt to help another child in distress. Paper presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April, 1969. Staub, E. The use of role playing and induction in children's learning of helping and sharing behavior. Child Development, 1971, 55, 805-816. Staub, E. Sharing and helping. Presented at symposium for meetings of Society for Research in Child Development, 1973. Stotland, E. Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychologll Vol. 3, New York: Academic Press, 1969. Ugurel-Semin, R. Moral behavior and moral judgment of children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 51, 463-474. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., Walster, G. W. New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 55, 151-176. Weick, K. E. The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Administrative Science ngrterly, 1966, 55, 414-439. Witryol, S. L. Incentives and learning in children. In H. W. Reese (Ed.) Advances in Child developmenp5and Behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, 1971 Wright, B. A. Altruism in children and perceived conduct of others. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1942, 51, 218-233. APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDICES Scoring for role-taking tasks Role-taking task stories Moral judgment stories Reward-deservedness for work inputs III"! .II . . {lull 01.44.! : APPENDIX A Scoring for role-taking tasks Seven picture story. A three category system used by Selman (1971) was used to score the responses to this role- taking task. Category 1 included responses which indicated that the dog frightened the boy and chased him up the tree, as well as a failure to just tell a four pictured story. Ca- tegory 2 included responses which indicated that the subject could tell a straight four-pictured story but maintained that the dog frightened the boy up the tree when asked why the teacher said the boy was climbing the tree. Category 3 in- cludes responses which told an accurate four-pictured story, as well as left out the motivational force of the dog fright- ening the boy. No points were assigned to responses in Cate- gory 1, one point to Category 2, and two points to Category 3 responses. Naive-late-comer stories. In each of the three stories, responses which accurately described the feelings of the main character in the story were assigned one point. Responses to the question, "what would the friend say happened in the sto- ry?" which were included were scored for the amount of pro- vided information included. Any responses including addi— tional information which was unknown to the late-comer in the story (e.g. the dog was hit by the truck) were assigned zero points. Responses which did not include "privileged" 53 54 information were assigned one point (see Chandler & Green- span, 1972). In addition, responses to questions about the emotional state of the main character were scored 0 for in- cluding privileged information and for responses which did not . APPENDIX B Role-taking task stories One day a little girl was playing outside with her pet dog. The dog ran into the street and was hit by a truck. The dog died. How does the girl feel now? The little girl started walking home. A friend saw her and asked her if she wanted to go to the zoo to see some ani- mals. The little girl said no and ran into her house. Her friend was surprised because the little girl enjoys seeing the animals at the zoo. Can you tell me what happened in the story from the be- ginning? Why does the friend think the little girl is sad? Why does the friend think the little girl doesn't want to go to the zoo? One day a little boy wanted to go outside and play with his friends, but his mother wouldn't let him go until he cleaned up his room. He didn't want to clean up his bedroom, so he went to the playroom and started throwing toys against the wall. "How does this boy feel now?" His brother Timmy came into the playroom from outside and was looking for a baseball. Timmy asked his little brother if he wanted to go outside to play. The little brother said 55 56 no and threw a toy at Timmy. Timmy was surprised that his brother didn't want to play baseball. So, Timmy went to play outside with some other children. "Can you tell me what happened in this story from the beginning? What would Timmy say happened in this story? Why does Timmy think his little brother is angry? Why does Timmy think his little brother doesn't want to go outside? One day a boy and a girl were going to the store for their mother to buy a loaf of bread. When they were crossing the street they found a quarter and now they could buy some candy for themselves. "How do the boy and girl feel now?" As they were walking down the street, a friend came run- ning by and asked them to play a game of hide and seek with a group of children. The boy and girl said no they didn't want to. The friend was surprised that the boy and girl didn't want to play hide and seek. So, the friend had to go play with some other children. "Can you tell me what happened in the story from the be- ginning? What would the friend say happened in the story? Why does the friend think the boy and girl are happy? Why does the friend think the little boy and girl don't want to play hide and seek?" APPENDIX C Moral judgment stories - negative consequences (Armsby, 1971) Once there was a boy named Bill. One day Bill's mother told him he had to help her set the table for dinner. Bill did not want to help. He was very angry because he had to help and so he let one of the cups fall to the floor and it broke. "Compare Bill with...." Once there was a boy named Henry. One day Henry was go- ing into the kitchen of his house. Behind the kitchen door there was a chair with 15 cups on it. There was no way for Henry to know that the chair was behind the door. He opened the door and knocked over the chair. When the chair fell over,the 15 cups broke. Which one of the two boys do you think was naughtiest, Bill or Henry? Why do you think he was the naughtiest? Once there was a girl named Susan. One day Susan wanted to go outside but her mother would not let her. Susan became very angry and got a pair of scissors and cut a little hole in her new dress. Compare Susan with.... Once there was a girl named Mary. One day Mary wanted to help her mother do some housework. She got a pair of scis- sors and was going to help her mother do some cutting. She 57 58 did not want to do anything bad but she accidently cut a big hole in her new dress. Which one of the two girls do you think was the naugh- tiest, Susan or Mary? Why do you think she was the naughti- est? Once there was a boy named Tom. One day Tom's dad went out of the house. While his dad was gone Tom wanted to do something bad. He went to his Dad's desk and spilled some ink on the table cloth and it made a little blot. "Compare Tom with...." Once there was a boy named Alfred. One day Alfred wanted to do something nice for his Dad. He went to his Dad's desk and was going to fill his ink-pen for him. While he was fil- ling the ink-pen, he dropped some ink on the table cloth and it made a great big blot. Which one of the two boys do you think was the naughti- est, Tom or Alfred? Why do you think he was the naughtiest? Moral judgment stories - positive consquences Once there was a boy named Bob. One day Bob was playing with a lot of blocks on a table. His friend did not have any blocks and was sitting on the floor watching. Bob was build- ing a tower with his blocks and he accidently bumped the table and knocked 20 blocks to the floor. The friend who was play- ing on the floor then started to have fun playing with the 20 blocks. 59 Compare Bob with.... Once there was a boy named Ray. Ray was playing with a lot of blocks when his friend came over to play. Ray wanted his..friend.'to: have some blocks to play with, so Ray gave his friend three blocks while Ray played with the other blocks. The friend picked up the blocks and had fun playing with the three blocks. Which one of the two boys do you think was the nicest? Why do you think he was the nicest? Once there was a little girl who wanted to play with a lot of crayons but the crayons were on the tOp shelf of a book- case in the playroom. Because the girl was little she could not reach them. Her friend Sally was playing a game and came running into the room. Sally accidently bumped into the book- case and knocked 15 crayons off the t0p shelf. The little girl picked up the 15 crayons and was happy that she could now color in her book. Compare Sally with.... Once there was a little girl who wanted a red crayon which was on the top of the refrigerator. The little girl couldn't reach the crayon because she was too short. Her friend Jane came into the kitchen and saw her reaching for the crayon. Jane wanted to reach the crayon and give it to the little girl. The little girl took the crayon and started to color in her book. Which one of the two girls do you think was the nicest? 60 Why do you think she was the nicest? Once there was a girl named Helen. One day Helen was going to give some money to a man who was collecting money for crippled children. Helen wanted to give the man one dol- lar, so she reached into her purse and quickly took out some money and gave it to the man. Later when Helen looked into her purse she realized that she made a mistake and had given away a five dollar bill instead of one dollar. "Compare Helen with...." Once there was a girl named Fran. One day Fran wanted to give some money to a man who was collecting money for crippled children. Fran did some work for her mother and earned two dollars. Fran gave the two dollars to the man who was collecting money for crippled children. Which one of the two girls do you think was the nicest? Why do you think she was the nicest? APPENDIX D Reward-Deservedness for Work Inppts This is a summary of an unpublished paper by Olejnik on the effects of sex, age, and work inputs on reward a1- locations by children. In a 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 x 2 factorial design, the effects of sex of subject, work input of subject (cut either four or 20 shapes), order of task presentation, grade level of subject (kindergarten,first, second, or third grade) and the work in- put of other workers (cut either four or 20 shapes) on the allocation of M&M candy rewards was investigated in 320 ele- mentary school children. Groups of children were asked to cut out either four or 20 shapes (circles, squares, triangles and ovals) from paper and then they were asked to allocate rewards to fictitions other workers who had also out either four or twenty shapes. This was done to establish a norm of deservedness (sufficient reward) for what children believed was fair pay for working on the task of cutting the shapes. There was a significant main effect for work input of other workers (p‘<.001). Children allocated significantly more M&Ms to the worker who cut 20 shapes than to the worker who cut four shapes. The mean number of M&Ms allocated to each worker at each grade is presented in Table Del. Based on this data 19 M&Ms was considered a reward-deserved (suf- ficient reward) for cutting 20 shapes and a reward-not- 61 62 deserved (oversufficient reward) for cutting four shapes. There was no significant effect for age on reward allocations. TABLE D-l Mean Number of M&Ms Allocated to Different Work Inputs by Children Kindergarten First Second Third Cut 4 shapes 9.99 8.83 9.12 7.59 Cut 20 shapes 20.47 18.82 20.01 19.30 ‘ .. F. f .7, . , a 4 ,. | , “D.,..fr wv‘-;0l. "‘mmMilli“