Crying Wood chips

Citation preview

m iim m s

aid a m m o a iT c t

atj tokehxhsit ii

DEVELOP?'r;2yT OF IDEOLOGY

by Beatrice Ann Wright

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of Child Welfare, in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa July, 1942

ProQuest Num ber: 10592891

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality o f this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon th e quality o f th e c o p y subm itted. In th e unlikely e v e n t th a t th e author did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript a n d th e re a re missing pag es, these will b e n o te d . Also, if m aterial h a d to b e re m o v e d , a n o te will in d ic a te th e deletio n .

uest ProQuest 10592891 Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). C opyright o f th e Dissertation is held by th e Author. All rights reserved. This work is p ro te c te d against unauthorized copyin g under Title 17, United States C o d e Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

ACKNOMiEDGMENTS

I should like to express my deepest appreciation to Professor Kurt Lewin wad to Dr* Tamara Derabo for their stimulating guidance and assistance in this investigation*

For the untiring

efforts and skillful assistance of the observers*

Mr* Douglas

Blocksma, Mrs* Sue Dietrich, Mrs* Ruth Karslake, Mr* Gorham Lane* and Mr* Bernard Steinsor of the Ohio State University, the writer Is also much indebted#

I should like to thank Professor Horace 3*

English for his help in securing subjects and In providing observer assistance*

The Iowa University I^lsmentary School said the Michigan

Avenue School of Columbus, Ohio, have both boon most cooperative in planning the schedules of the children so that they might serve as subjects*

To the school administrations, many thanks*

Finally, I

am grateful to my husband, M* Erik Wright, for his continued help in the research and for all the long hour® spent by him in the preparation of the manuscript

ii

coutimts

Chapter

I

Page

Xittroducbioiit#**••»*•*♦**♦♦ **«» *••*.»** »»**»* ****

3.

Ideology As A Psychological Problem*»«*•*••.«* Problems Under Investigation**.*.*.*.***««*..» dxsh^)©cts»«****• ***«*■*« *«..** *.**.» •«*****.*■•■*♦*. Experimental Procedures* *»***»•*.»•*•*******•**

X 4 5 6

II

Changes In The Content Of Ideology Kith Age*.**** 7 General Characteristics Of An Ideology*. ».**** 7 The Ideologies Of Generosity, Fairness And >elfishness* *♦*»*.*•*■*■* ****.•***»*•*■*• 7 Considerations Of M e t h o d o l o g y * * * ♦• .**•**•• S The Story Situs 11on* *. **#*********** **•*«**•■*■* 10 Procedure* ********** *********** .**•*»«-**- 10 Re su lts** « « # . * * * * * * * • * » * ** » * * • • » * * • * * * • * • * ** 13 The IrrcerTz©vv»*..*.*•.«**«*«**••*»*«****«*..** 16 Procedure*** *...*.***«•*•*••*.***«.*.••*•*•* 16 Measuring The Ideology*******************•** 24 Results ********** *»♦*****#**•*♦♦ ************ 26 Stability of Ideology****** ***.**«■* •*»********* 32 'Theory of Change in Ideology V/ith Ag©********* 32 Fairness Presupposes a Fore Difficult Cognitive Structure****..«.**•**•*••«#.. 34 Differentiation of Ideology Into Action Ideology and Unrealistic Ideology******* 37 Role Played by Parents in Determining The Child1,g IGeology* »»#«******»• **-** ***•*** 35 Results 13oaring on Theory*.*«*•••*••«**•***-** 43

III

Qeveloprient of Equity Between Fight and Eleven Years of Age**..»»»»********■***.*••*•*.*** 48 Theory of Uquity* ** ** **#■♦-***.«*•»**• ********* * 48 Gift Value and Position Scales***.*****.**** 48 Operational Definition of Equity*** **** •*♦ 49 Vsays in Vihi oh The Positions of The Donor and Recipient Are Considered**.**.****** 50 breadth ol Rquioy****.*•*.*.*** *•******....* 52 Devslopsiienl> o 1

ijy* * * * * * . « * » * * * * . »» * * * * * *

52

Iveasurlng -ivquity**********•**».** •****•**« »**«

55

Results****. « « • * • « * . • . . « . * » * . * * • . * . . . • • . • * * » • *

65

Comments****...... •***.*•***•*«.«»••«•*•*•**.• Equity Expressed in Actual Behavior* An Ex­ periment Tilth Eleven Year Old Children*. Probl am* *.«••..••.•••••••*••••.«.*•**ient 1 0 Per Per Per I Per j Per W s GROUP H Freq*Cent Freq*Gent Freq*Gent Freq*Gent |Proq*Cent light Tear 31ds

SC

Eleven fear )lds

56

idulta

:.4*

5

3

27

7S 16

1?

2

44

6 1

2

14

14

a

3 0

47 11

7

0

1

1 0

0 79

0

3 0

0

0

!

• One of the Bothers was so feebleminded that th© problem presented in the story was too diffioult for her*

* 15 -

Fourteen per cent o f th© eight year old children expressed the ideology of

fairness* while 47$ of th© eleven year old children and 79$ of the

adults advocated such a distribution*

Th© reverse trend is observed in

the ease of the ideology of generosity*

Seventy-five per cent of th©

eight year old children adhered, to a completely generous ideology, whereas 44$ of the eleven year olds and only 14$ of th© adults expressed this Judgment#

that tills relationship between age and ideology is not due to

Ghana© is indicated by th© chi^square tost (Xz=19.91, 2 d#f#, significant at th© 1$ level (IS) )• g) In this situation, th© dominant ideology for th© eight year old children is th© ideology of generosity#

Five times as many eight year

olds advised complete generosity as advised fairness (27 vs* 6)«

That

this greater support for the ideology of generosity i© not due to chance factor© i© indicated by the chi-square test (%^19*2, 1 d#f*, significant at th© 1$ level)* 3) About an equal number of eleven year old children favored com­ plete generosity a© favored fairness (16 vs* 17)* 4)

The ideology of fairness Is dominant for the adults#

Five time©

as many adults advised fairness as advised complete generosity (11 vs# 2)* This difference is statistically significant (x*4#9, 1 d*f*, significant at the 5$ level)# 5) By far th© majority of all th© subjects advocated either an ideology of fairness or generosity# Only five children and one adult ad­ vised giving three of the good toys away, and two children favored a selfish distribution of the toys# It is olear that by the very nature of the task, th© subjects wore forced to make a single Judgment which, presumably, was an expression of their most potent ideology*

From this test there is no way of knowing

m l6 *P

whether a ohild who mad# a generous judgment contemplated fairness at all*

The interview conducted in the last experimental session per­

mitted th© ohild greater vacillation in the expression of his ideology, since a series of situations t&re presented to him* The Interview Procedure The interview followed an experiment in which th© subject had to divide the four attractive and four less attractive toys between him­ self and a second ohild* After his decision he was told that his class­ mates divided up the toys differently* He was then permitted to make a second decision with another set of eight toys* Th© interview was designed to give information as to two aspects of the child*s ideology*

1) What is the content of the child’s ideology?

Is it one of fairness? Generosity? Does the ohild vaocllat© In his sup­ port of two or more ideologies?

2) To what extent do considerations of

equity enter the judgments of the child? That is, to what extent are his decisions based on the particular characteristics of the situation under consideration? In order to make the setting la which the ohild mad© his judg­ ments clear, th© entire interview will be presented* Attention will be called to those questions which were designed to reveal the oonteni of the ideology and the extent of equity* In most of th© interview questions, the child was required to give his judgment as to how the four preferred and four non-preferred toys ought to be divided between a recipient and a donor*

Sometimes the

donor was indicated as being different from th© recipient in certain

*» 1Y «#

specific respects, whereas in other questions the general situations of the donor and recipient were the same#

In some o f th© questions the sub-*

ject was asked to judge how a second ohild ought to divide th© toys, while In other questions the subject himself acted as donor#

Part of the

interview was based on a type of projective technique in which the child, assuming the role of a person in authority, gave his opinion as to the correct behavior# A more complete aooount of th© interview is offered below#

1

It should be kept in mind that this general plan of the interview was modified la terms of the child’s unique responses to each of the questions* the interview was introduced to the children as follows* "You know, there’s something else I’d like to tell you about# I’m going to write a book about what different people think about different things# And instead of guessing what they think, I thought I’d ask them# I thought that you probably would have some good ideas, and so 1 thought today would be a good time to ask you about them#" The comments on the right of th© questions relate to the problems of content of the ideology and equity as well as other considerations# Questions

Comments

Behavior of Classmates l#"Bcw do you think the other children divided up the toys?**

The response to this question indicated whether th© child com­ prehended the description of the behavior of th© classmates# This was important for the fourth ex­ perimental problem to be discussed in this paper*

2 *"What

This give© an Indication of th© way the child regards the behavior of th© group*

do you think of giving : of the good toy© and ( of the^bad toys away?” (Th© particular number corresponding to th© behavior of the classmates*)

1 This account is reproduced from th© record of the observer# Th© subject is an eight year old child# These question© were th© same for th© eleven year old children, though they were cast at a more adult level#

* is * Question*

Comments

Twin Questions 3# ft ttAnd do you know, in another school The ohild here has to ehoose where X was I met two twins#” (At between two alternative ide** this point , frequently there was a ©logics, both of which are discussion about twins, how they dress culturally accepted# alike, etc#, in an effort to make th© interview free,) ”Everything about This question appeared in the these twins was just |exaotly alike ex** early part of the interview oept for one thing# {And do you know for two reasons* what that was? Weill on© of these a# It made sure that the twins picked out the ffour boatffcoys ohild became aware of both and gave those to th| other boy and systems of distribution# kept the four old toys for himself# b« Twins, being a topic of And do you know what fbhe other twin interest to children, made did? He picked out -fwo good toy© and possible a friendly discussion two bad toys and gave those sway, end and did much to ease th© at** kept two good toys and two bad toys mosphere# for himself# Which of these twins would you rather have for your frijond?” V*$fhah did the other twin do?” (l#e#, the nort-preferred twin*)

The response to this question indicated whether the child comprehended the alternatives* In case of misunderstanding, the experimenter structured again the two behaviors*

o *why would you rather have the other twin for your friend?,, (i*e*, the pro#* ferred twin*)

The child was always asked to give reasons for M s decision* On th© basis of his reason, the experimenter was able to tell whether th© response in­ volved considerations of equity or not* Also, an analysis was mad© of the kind of reason® given by eight and eleven year old children

4# ft A second twin question was asked in which one of the twins yielded three of the good toys* The other twin either gave away all four of the good toys, if th© subject hod selected the generous twin in the preoedlng twin question, or half of the good toys, if the subject had selected th© fair twin*

This question made sure that the ohild became aware of the possibility of giving three of th© good toys away#

1 Throughout the Interview the sex of th© individuals under discussion was that of the subject* s* 2

These results are not presented in this paper#

m

19 —

Questions

Comments

4* b*What did the other twin do?* (I*©*, the non-proferred twin?) ©"Why would you rather have the other twin for your friend?* (i*©«, the pre­ ferred twin*) 6# Occasionally there was yet a third twin question depending upon the child’s previous response®* For example, if a ohild gave ©me indication of favoring a selfish division of the toys, he was given an alternative between a selfish twin and either a fair or generous twin* Teacher Questions 6# a^fhere’s something els© 1 would like to Thd© is on© of th© questions ask you about# Suppose you were a teach­ in which th© child assumed er, say of little children, and one day the role of a person in one of the pupils came up to you and said, ’May I ask you a question?* And you said, *0f course you may# What* s on your mind?* And th® little boy explained to you that he had eight toys and four of them were very nice toys and four of them weren’t so hot* And he said he could pick out any four toys and give thorn to another boy, and could keep any four toys for himself* And then he said, ’But 1 don’t know what I ought to do* 1 don’t know what th® right thing to do is* Could you pleas® tell me which toys I should give to the other boy?* And what would you say?11 6# b"And then the little boy thanked you and then he said, ’Why should I do that?’ w 7* "And then th© little boy thanked you again This question gave the ohild and then he ©at down in his seat* Suddenly an opportunity to shift his he raised his hand up, wayup high, so that support to th© alternative you could see* And so you called on him* presented# And he said, ’What about giving all the good toys away; what about that?’** (The pupil refers to an ideology contrasting that advised by the teacher* If the ohild, as teacher, had advised a generous distri­ bution, the pupil questions fair alternative*)

Questions

Comments

8# The little boy then asked the teacher about yet another ide­ ology (e#g* selfishness), con­ trasting with that originally advised# 9#

Tillage Questions awKow let me tell you about a village 1 think l*m going to build in my book# I think I’m going to make th© village out of little people and little houses for them to go in* And little animals* And in my story I shall go to the village and show a vil­ lage boy these eight toys# You know, the four very nice ones,and the four old ones# But, do you know, I wasn’t very sure which toys that village boy ought to give to the other boy# I wonder if you have any ideas about that# Which toys do you think he should give to the other boy?”

The subject, without assuming any role, judged what a second child should do* This question also helped to loosen any tension in the interview situa­ tion#

b”^hy do vyou think he should do that?" Justifloation for Alternative Behavior 10* a*D© you think he should give the This was the first question directly four bestest* toys away all the giving th© ohild an opportunity to time?1* (i*e*, the number of good offer particular situational faotors toys advised by the child#) which might modify hi© judgment (equity)# b If the child answered the pre­ ceding question in the negative, he was asked, *$©11, could you tell m© when he shouldn’t give all the four bestest toys away?”

Considerations of equity were mad© specific*

II*1 "Can you think of any time at all when the right thing to do is to give away two of th© good toys and two of the bad toys?" (The question was put in this form If the subject had advised the vil­ lage boy to give away the four

This question is even more pointed in its effort to lead th© ohild to express his judgment in terms of specific situation (equity)*

♦ The subject, from whose records this interview is recorded, used th© term "bestest" to refer to th© desired toys# Throughout contact with th© child, th© experimenter adopted the child’s jargon#

«* .SKL o

m

©

© H

to

to

CO H

a

© CO iHl

to

- 85 00

to

r-4

*-4

rl

*m t3

©

G» CO

£

Si

CO

to

© ©

ltOo u

* This judgment was not possible for th© twin question ** lo child advised giving 1 good toy away# Bo eleven year old advised giving none of the good toys awav*

to ©

• 26 —

It was therefor© felt that th© increase in th© number of jud^aents provided by the twin question warranted its Inclusion#

The additional

twin questions (e»g** the on© in which the first twin gave three good toys away, the second four good toys) were not included since they did not permit both a generous and fair response# In general# there was no difficulty In discovering what Ideol­ ogy was expressed In th© child*® response#

There were, however# a few

responses which required special considerations# Some of the problems which arose in considering th© judgments are set forth in th© appendix# In a few instances# it was necessary to exclude the judgement from th# calculations#

Because of this# and th© fact that some of th© children

declined to give their opinion* th© number of responses to each of the five questions may be leas than the number of children# Results fable 2 presents th© result® of the frequency of generous# fair* and selfish judgments made to the five questions*

The judgments given to

each of th© question® received equal weight a® an expression of th© ide­ ology#

Th© justification for this is based on the fact that th© relative

proportions of th© various Ideologies do not differ significant from one question to th© other*

Even the largest difference for the ©l@ven year

old children, 38$ versus 27/6 of generous judgments to the twin and village questions, is not significant (40$ level) by th© ohi-square test*

Th©

same holds true for th© eight year old children where a difference between 69%

and 60$ generous judgments to these questions is not significant (1^

level ohi-square test)* No-one question^* therefore# seems to favor a generous* fair# or selfish response*

rr In

-

t e r n s o f th e fr e q u e n c y o f f a i r

and generous ju d g m e n ts ,

m ain d i f f e r e n c e s b etw een th e e i g h t and e le v e n y e a r o ld c h i l d r e n , d ic a t e d I n 1*

is

as i n ­

T a b le 2 , a r e as fo llo w s s

G e n e r o s it y i s

c h ild r e n *

th e

th e p re d o m in a n t

Id e o lo g y o f t h e e i g h t y e a r o ld

The t o t a l number o f c o m p le te ly g en ero u s ju d g m en ts (o n e h u n d red )

a lm o s t t w ic e as g r e a t as t h e number o f f a i r

judgm ents ( f i f t y - n i n e ) *

T h is pred o m in an ce o f g en ero u s ju d g m en ts can n o t be a t t r i b u t e d t o chance s in c e t h e c h i —s q u a re t e s t I s 2*

F a ir n e s s i s

c h ild r e n *

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e I,'* l e v o ^ l *

(% VLG *6, 1 d * f * )

t h e p re d o m in a n t Id e o lo g y o f th e e le v e n y e a r o ld

T w ice as many f a i r

ju d g m en ts (o n e hundred and f i v e )

ous ju d g m en ts ( f i f t y —t h r e e ) w o re mad® by t h e o ld e r c h i l d r e n * fe r e n c e i s

s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1 . le v e l * In

In

T h is d i f ­

(x h -1 7 *£ , 1 d « f * )

T a b le 2, t h e d a t a a r e e x p re s s e d

r a t h e r th a n i n number o f c h i l d r e n *

as g e n e r­

i n te rm s o f number o f judgm ents

o r d e r t o make t h e

id e o lo g y e x p re s s e d i n t h e I n t e r v i e w and i n

a n a ly s is o f t h e

th e s t o r y c o m p a ra b le , t h e r e —

- s u i t s can be s t a t e d i n te rm s o f th e number o f c h i l d r e n who p re d o m in a n tly s u p p o rte d f a ir n e s s o r g e n e r o s it y ( T a b le made a t l e a s t t h r e e f a i r

3 , page 2 8 ) *

judgm ent® t o th e f i v e

Those c h i l d r e n who

q u e s tio n s w e re c l a s s i f i e d

as h a v in g a p r e d o m in a n tly f a i r Id e o l o g y , and th o s e who gave a t l e a s t t h r e e c o m p le te ly gen erous ju d g m e n ts w e re grouped as h a v in g a p r e d o m in a n tly generous id e o lo g y *

T h ir ty -tw o c h ild r e n

th© o t h e r c a t e g o r y *

fro m each o f th© age groups f a l l i n t o on© o r

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s

a n a ly s is b e a r o u t

bhe c o n c lu s io n s

based on t h e t o t a l number o f re s p o n s e s * 1* t o age*

The id e o lo g y su p p o rte d by th e c h i l d r e n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d T w ic e as many o f th e o ld e r c h i l d r e n

s u p p o rte d f a ir n e s s

c h i l d r e n and v i c e v e r s a f o r th © generoiss id e o lo g y * s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l ) *

as yoxmg&r

(7 ^ 7 *5 7 , 1 c U f . ,

Table 3i Comparison of the Ideologies of Eight and Eleven Year Old Children as Expressed in the Interview

Age Croup

Ho# of children predominently supporting Fairness Generosity

8 year olds

10

22

11 year olds

SI

11

— 20 «*

•»

29

**

2# Generosity is the typical ideology for th© eight year old ohildreti, twice as many favoring it as fairness*

(t*4*50, 1 d#f#,

significant at the 8$ level *) 9# fairness tends to he th® typical ideology for the eleven year old children* twice as many favoring it as generosity (t%S*lg, 1 d*f«9 significant at the 8^ level#) There are* however, some new trends which appear in the interview*

Table 4 (page 30) presents the results of the story and

the interview concerning the ideologies of fairness and generosity among the eight and eleven year old children*

It is seen that for

both age group® the number of children who support the ideology of fairness tends to b© greater In th© interview than in the story* (Xv; 2*82, 1 d#f*, signifioant at the 10$ level)#

This tendency may be

accounted for on th© basis of a change in the meaning of th© general situation which took place shortly before th® interview* At that time the subjects had actually to give four of the eight toys to a second child# It seems likely that the child* having experienced th© conflict, would have a greater appreciation for the self-saorifice in* volved, and become more lenient in his moral approbation*

Furthermore,

the behavior which was attributed to th© subject1s classmates did af* feet his own ideology to some degree* (Cf* Chapter ?)*

Th© children

were told that their classmates were either fair, generous, or selfish as indicated in Table 5 (page 31)*

The net result of th© group ©on-

duct may have been to enhance th© potency of the ideology of fairness* A third factor which may contribute to th© greater support of fairness in the interview Is that when the children were told that on© of the twins gave away two of the good toys and two of th© bad toys, the possi­ bility of such a division was brought out clearly*

T a b le 4 *

Ccenp&rison Betw een Id e o lo g ie s E x p ressed i n S t o r y and i n I n t e r v i e w S i t u a t io n s

11 Y e a r O ld s

8 y e a r O ld s

Expl*

S itu a tio n

Story Interview

Ho*, o f C S iild re n P re d o m in a n tly S u p p o rtin g F a ir n e s s G e n e r o s ity F a ir n e s s G e n e r o s ity 3

27

10

22

- 30 ~

J

16

17

SI

11

T a b le 5«

B e h a v io r o f C lass m ate s as D is c lo s e d t o C h ild r e n

Ho*, o f C h ild r e n T o ld C la s s m a te s "Wore Age Croup

S e lfis h

F a ir

Generous

8 yr* olds

9

17

10

11 Spur* olds

16 -----— —

9 ---m-- -— — «—

- 31

11

- $n The differences in the ideologies expressed in th© story and Interview situations ©mphasiz© that no one ideology can be said to characterize an age level in all situations#

This is illustrated by

the foot that in th© story situation there was no one most potent ide­ ology among the eleven year old children# seemed to play an equal role#

Both generosity and fairness

In th© interview* however, fairness

tended to become the dominant ideology*

The conclusion that can be made,

©n the fba&is of the two measures of the content of th© ideology, is that the eight year old children will tend to offer more generous judgments than the eleven year old children and fewer fair judgments# Stability of Ideology Some of th© children gave a consistently generous or fair res­ ponse to each of the five question® presented in the interview! whereas, other children sometimes supported one ideology and sometimes another# The maximum number of these questions responded to by th© same judgment may be taken as an index of the stability of the child* s ideology (fable 6, page 33)# Only those children who gave five judgments wore included in this calculation (thirty, eight year old children* and twenty-eight eleven year old children)#

The two age groups did not show any significant

difference in the stability of th© ideology* Theory of Change in Ideology With Age A number of studios (5)* (23), and (31) have reported that the knowledge of right and wrong increases with age# American culture seems to support both fairness and generosity as morally acceptable behavior# An increase in th® ideology of fairness or of generosity with age, there­ fore, would not indicate an increase in moral knowledge $ th® explanation of such an Increase has to be based on other factors#

T a b le 6s

S t a b i l i t y o f Id e o lo g y f o r B ig h t and E le v e n Y e a r O ld C h ild r e n

D e g re e o f S t a b i l i t y o f Id e o lo g y

Ag© Group 8 y r * © Id s

H ig h S ta b ility 5 4

H SO

11 y r # o ld s 28

!

Low S ta b ility 3 2

19

3

7

1

21

4

t

1

• U m Fiaget’ & research indicates that between the agog of eight and eleven years, the child1s behavior becomes progressively equalitarian (19) • He attributes this change to the fact that the young child is subordinated completely to adult authority (a unilateral relationship)*

It is only when the child begins to break away from

adult supervision* only when he has exchanges with his own peers* that feelings of cooperation and equality can develop*

This theory may be

adequate for an explanation of the development of cooperation and fair­ ness in the behavior of the child* but it doe® not see© to be able to explain the change from a generous to fair ideology* If th© child re** gards as law the judgment of the adult* why does not he adopt as immutable the ideology of fairness* since this ideology is so much more characteristic of the adult ideology than i® generosity? Fairness Presupposes a More Difficult Cognitive Structure One of the more obvious explanations of why the eight year old child does not take over the adult’a ideology of fairness includes the following assumption#

F&irnese implies a more differentiated cog­

nitive structure than th© more all or non© division inherent In the ideology of generosity#

Briefly* the complete derivation would be as

follows* Assumption It Differentiation of the Life Space Is a function of age# Both th© psychological environment and the inner personal regions are more differentiated for an eleven year old than for an eight year old* "

2« An Ideology of fairness requires greater differ­ entiation of the cognitive s t r u c t u r e th a n docs an Ideology of generosity*

**

3* Eight year old children have not reached a level of differentiation necessary for the cognitive structure of the ideology of fairness*

~ 36 -

Derivations

Therefore* eleven year old children should more frequently have an ideology of fairness than should eight year old children#

It is possible to test this hypothesis#

Those children

who have an ideology of fairness should be expected to show other behavior characteristic of a more highly differentiated cognitive structure than those children who have an ideology of generosity* since it was assumed that th® ideology of fairness demands a more complex cognitive structure than the ideology of generosity# Mental ag® has often been taken as an operational definition of the degree Of differentiation of th® person (4) (12) (30)* but unfortunately we were not able to secure the mental age® of our subjects# Besides mental age* the degree of equity manifested in the judgments may be taken as an indication of the degree of differentiation of the person# The relationship between equity and differentiation will be brought out more fully in the next section of this paper*

It is sufficient

to state at this point that a judgment based on the particular char­ acterIsties of a situation (equity)* rather than on a general rule# requires a higher level of differentiation since the equity judgment involves the introduction of additional relationships into th© decision region# The equity score for each child was based on his response® to twelve questions in th© interview*

(Gf# next chapter for further details)

The scores ranged from 0 (no equity evidenced# all judgments following the dictates of a rule) to 1 (maximal equity)# In Table 7 (page 56) the average equity scores obtained by children predominantly supporting the ideologies of fairness or gener­ osity in the interview are presented#

These results do not reveal any

T a b le 7 s

R e la t io n Between E q u it y and Id e o lo g y ( i n t e r v i e w )

A v erag e S q u it y S core f o r C h ild r e n hhos© P red o m in a n t Id e o lo g y 1 s t Age Group

P a ir

Generous

1 1

*4 2 (IS® 9 ) *

*5 0 (I> 1 9 )

11 y r * o ld s j

*6 3 ( It * 2 1 )

#63 (IM L 1 )

: B y r * o ld s

I

* Th© **N#'a n f o r th© t h i s t a b l e do n o t g iv e n i n T a b le 4 , y e a r o ld c h ild r e n e q u i t y score*.

-

e ig h t y e a r o ld c h ild r e n i n c o rre s p o n d w it h th© f ig u r e s s in c e a few o f t h e e ig h t c o u ld n o t be g iv e n a v a l i d

36

- $7 ~

/ d iffe r e n c e s in

t h e d e g re e o f e q u i t y c h a r a c t e r ! s i n g c h i l d r e n who p r e ­

d o m in a n tly s u p p o rt f a i r n e s s o r g e n e r o s it y *

When the ideology as manifested taken as the basis of generosity and equity m

are

p re s e n te d i n T a b le & (p a g e 5 8 ) *

the

ideology of

s i golflo a n e e

d iffe r e n c e s

is

in

T h e re i s

f o r b o th e i g h t and e le v e n y e a r o ld c h i l ­

f a ir n e s s t o show a h ig h e r d e g re e o f

th a n do c h i l d r e n w i t h an id e o lo g y o f g e n e r o s it y *

for the

s itu a tio n

d i v i d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n i n t o th o s e a d v o c a tin g

tendency (not significant) an

story

th o s e a d v o c a tin g f a i r n e s s * t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a v e ra g e

s c o re s o b ta in e d

dren with

in th e

of a

d iffe r e n c e o f

equity

S tu d e n t* s " i ” t e s t

small ‘ sam ples m m

e q u it y b etw een t h e tw o id e o lo g ie s

a p p lie d

(15)*

to

The Mt "

t e s t i s n e i t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t f o r th e e le v e n y e a r o ld c h i l d r e n (2 0 ^ l e v e l ) n o r f o r t h e e ig h t y e a r o ld c h ild r e n ( $ > t l e v e l ) * B e l e v e n t t o t h e d is c u s s io n o f t h e h y p o th e s is i s t h a t a t t h e b e g in n in g o f t h e i n t e r v ie w *

th e f a c t

th e b e h a v io r consonant w it h

t h e id e o lo g y o f f a i r n e s s was a c t u a l l y s t r u c t u r e d f o r t h e c h i l d by means o f t h e t w in q u e s tio n s *

I n s p i t e o f t h i s * t h e y o u n g er c h i l d r e n *

th o u g h in c r e a s in g t h e i r s u p p o rt o f f a i r n e s s * s t i l l p r e d o m in a n tly fa v o r e d t h e id e o lo g y o f g e n e r o s it y * Th® e v id e n c e p re s e n te d above g iv e s v e r y l i t t l e

s u p p o rt t o

th ® h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e d e g re e o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n n e c e s s a ry t o m a in ta in

an

id e o lo g y o f f a i r n e s s i s

beyond th e develo pm ent o f t h e a v e ra g e e i g h t

y e a r o ld c h i l d *

D iffe r e n tia tio n

o f Id e o lo g y I n t o A c tio n Id e o lo g y and U n r e a l i s t i c Id e o lo g y

Th® t h e o r y w© w is h t o p ro p o se as e x p la n a t io n f o r t h e in c r e a s e in

p ro m in e n c e o f t h e id e o lo g y o f f a ir n e s s w it h age i s

a ls o based on t h e

a s s u m p tio n o f t h e g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f th e p e rs o n w i t h a g e *

It

lia b le St

Age Group 8 y r * o ld s

11 y r *

o ld s

d e l a t i o n Between E q u it y and Id e o lo g y ( S t o r y )

A v e ra g e E q u l by S core F o r C h ild r e n 'th o s e Id e o lo g y i s * Generous F a ir *6 1 (!i« S )

(it-n}

* 71 (11*17)

*5 8 (tJ»16)

38 -

• 42

m"9$ *.

does not assume* however* that th© degree of differentiation nocoseary far th© cognitive structure of the Ideology of fairness is beyond th© developmental ©tag© of th© eight year old child*

It assumes rather

that th© ideology itself becomes differentiated with age into two regions* On© region corresponding to a s©t of rules which should, guide actual behaviors and a second region corresponding to a set of rules which are regarded as guiding an "unrealistic"* or "ideal" type of behavior* This latter set of rules is not considered as best for practical behavior* W© shall designate the former as the action ideology* and th© latter as the unrealistic of ideal Ideology (Fig* t$, page 40)* The differentiation of the ideology for children and adults Is represented in figure 2# For th© young child* th© action Ideology is identical with th© "ideal" ideology*

Though both th® ideologies of

generosity and of fairness are accepted values In the adult culture* probably generosity is regarded as a higher* more ’’idealistic* type of behavior* child*

Th© ideal of generosity becomes the action ideology for th©

That generosity should become the "action-ideal" ideology rather

than fairness is probably a consequence of th© fact that the young child 1© so frequently praised in his everyday behavior for being* according to the child* somehow "unrealistically" good*

Th© possibility of sup­

porting th© ideology of fairness increases when th© ideology becomes differentiated into an aotion ideology and an ideal ideology# Role Played by Parents in Determining th© Child*s Ideology Above we have said that the child generally takes over th© culturally determined ideal ideology as his aotion ideology rather than Vic© versa because of th© type of behavior for which he is praised* He might ©aspect individual differences in th© ideology of the young child

_

Cj-V

Unre&hsttc,

"

/d e $ / /d e o /a y y

©

Leve/ o f /dQoloyyj

/9c t i o r f fd e o /a y y Q )

8

V