A cognitive-developmental analysis of achievement and moral judgments.

Abstract

300 Black and White subjects aged 4-18 made moral and achievement evaluative judgments in sixteen situations. The situations differed according to the intent (effort) and ability of the person being judged, and in the objective consequences of the behavior. Analyses of variance revealed that the three evaluative dimensions cf intent, ability, and outcome are systematically used it both achievement and moral appraisal. Further, there are highly significant age trends. In both the achievement and the moral conditions subjective intent replaces objective outcome as the main determinant oi judgment. However, following the age of twelve in the achievement context objective outcome again becomes the more important determinant of evaluation. It is contended that society reinforces this more primitive developmental stage. Racial differences in the time of onset of the various stages were exhibited, although the sequence of evaluative stages was identical between racial and sex groupings. In addition, the data strongly support the position that achievement strivings are maintained by social reward, while moral behavior is controlled by social punishment. FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U. S. DEPARTMENT Of KA! T4, ronrArtoN & WELFARE OfFla Gr. I This ;11.1'..'i;t F Prr !XT. IV *J !1. ai.:rEivro rROM THE Y71 OR Oil:A:6 Sr PC; 7;';r Ji LA' EDUCANUN POSI HOPI OR roi icv. A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Achievement and Moral Judgments/ Bernard Weiner:Ihnd Nancy V. Peter University of California, Los Angeles The most prominent approach to the study of the development of achievement motivation is to search for differentialchild rearing antecedents that produce high versus low achievement needs. The usual methodology has been to relate contrasting parental practices, or the demographic correlates of those practices, to subsequent individual differences in fantasy or real achievement behaviors. The initial and oft-cited contributions of Winterbottom (1953) and Rosen and D'Andrade (1959), respectively reporting relationships between early independence and achievement training and later need for achievement, offered swift and exciting promise that the sodial origins of achievement motivation could be identified. Ilut the ensuing research did not fulfill the early hopes, and the mysteries of the development of achievement motivation remain unraveled. Therefore, it may prove fruitful to turn towards different research strategy or developmental paradigm than that associated with social learning theory. The cognitive-developmental theoretical orientation, exemplified Ci2.) in the writings of Piaget;(1932) and Kohlberg (1969), offers one alter-CD native approach to the understanding of change processes. The basic tenets of this viewpoint have been described in detail (Kohlberg, 1969; (in Langer, 1969; Piaget, 1960). Rather than stressing disparate parental C:14 training and individual differences, the cognitive approach examines the universals in development. A postulated invariant sequence of 2 developmental stages, and hierarchical. integration of these stages, is the center of focus. This theoretical conception has been most successful in explaining the growth of intellective functioning. However, it also has proven useful in the explication of moral judgment and moral behavior (Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1932) . There are number of logical and empirical reasons to believe that the cognitive-developmental orientation, and specifically the cognitive model advanced in the study of moral systems, can be applied to the study of achievement motivation.First, there appears to be moral components in achievement striving. For example, in recent study individuals were asked: What might cause them to feel guilty? One high frequency response was a failure to expend sufficient effort to accomplish one's aims (Leedham, Signori, and Sampson, 1967, p. 918). It also has been reported that individuals are especially punishiag of others who are able yet fail because of lack of effort (Lanzetta and Hannah, 1969; Leventhal and Michaels, 1971; Weiner and Kukla, 1970). Thus, one feels guilty and is judged harshly for failure to utilize his or her capacities. In addition, one source of motivation in group achievements is an experienced obligation toward the other group mem-