Citation
The development of conformity as a function of the development of self-blame responsiveness

Material Information

Title:
The development of conformity as a function of the development of self-blame responsiveness
Added title page title:
Self-blame responsiveness
Creator:
Costanzo, Philip Robert, 1942-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 58 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Age groups ( jstor )
Blame ( jstor )
Boxes ( jstor )
Conformity ( jstor )
Group pressure ( jstor )
Internalization ( jstor )
Morality ( jstor )
Peer groups ( jstor )
Socialization ( jstor )
Walking ( jstor )
Conformity ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 55-56.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
022267877 ( ALEPH )
13565211 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONFORMITY
FUNCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
SELF-BLAME RESPONSIVENESS







By
PHILIP ROBERT COSTANZO













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE BEQUI1EMENTS FOB THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


April, 1967


AS A
OF





































TO MY WONDERFUL, WIFE


FRAN
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer would like to express his appreciation to all those who contributed to the preparation of this dissertation.

Thanks are due to Dr. Louis Cohen, Dr. Vernon Van De Reit,

Dr. Henry Pennypacker and Dr. E. Wilbur Bock who served as members of the author's supervisory committee and who in the process afforded him

with clarification and direction throughout the study.

The writer wishes to express deep appreciation to Dr. Marvin

E. Shaw, chairman of his supervisory committee, who afforded the author with guidance and support on this dissertation and throughout the course of his graduate study.

A note of thanks is also extended to Mr. Philip Alvers, Mr. James Benson and Mr. Joseph Hendrix, the Principals in the Putnam County school system who made their students and facilities available to the author.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapter
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

III RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

IV DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

V SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendixes
A SELF-BLAME SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

B OTHER BLAME SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

C RAW CONFORMITY DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page
1 Mean rankings and standard deviations of occupational
prestige in each of the four age groups . . . . . . . . . 23

2 Analysis of variance of occupational prestige across
age level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 Analysis of variance of self-blame across age level . . . 25

4 Summary table of 3 x 4 analysis of variance of conformity responses at different age levels and for different
blame intensities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5 Matrix of correlations among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity collapsed across age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6-9 Matrices of correlation among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity for each age level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

10 Summary table of the analysis of covariance with SB-OB
as the X-covariate and conformity as the Y-covariate . . 34
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Percent conformity as a function of age level, n = 36
per age level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2 Self-blame as a function of age level . . . . . . . . . . 27

3 Percent conformity as a function of age at different
levels of self-blame intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Percent conformity based on SB-OB corrected conformity
scores as a function of age level . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5 S-O blame difference as a function of age level . . . . . 36















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION



Conformity can be best defined in terms of the susceptibility of the individual to the prevailing norms of his social group. The conforming process arises naturally as a product of continued group interaction and it is necessary for the establishment of the group concensus which generally precedes social action. The significance of conformity as an area of study in experimental social psychology is reflected by the numerous investigations into this area in the past fifteen years (Berg and Bass, 1961). While these studies have resulted in a variety of theoretical positions on the nature of conformity, it is generally assumed by virtually all theoreticians in this area that conformity behavior is the result of developmental processes (Berg and Bass, 1961). An integral part of the child's socialization is his ability to identify and adhere to the norms of both his peer group and appropriate authority figures. The present investigation is concerned with the development of peer conformity across age and with the relationship between the development of conformity and the development of morality as two aspects of the socialization process.


(A) The ontogeny of conformity behavior

Despite the proliferation of research into the conformity process in the past fifteen years, very little empirical work has been done










in relating age level to conformity behavior. The theoretical position which seems to be most popularly held postulates that conformity, defined as a yielding response to perceived social pressure decreases with increasing age (Campbell, 1961). This formulation assumes that the young child is susceptible to peer influences because of his low level of social competence and his general vulnerability in the social situation. Further, it purports that as the child develops he becomes more competent, acquires a higher status and thus becomes increasingly independent from his reliance upon the social group. Empirical support for these propositions has come from two unrelated and temporally separated studies. The first of these is a study by Marple (1933) in which it was found that high school students were more prone to conform to the majority opinion of their peers than either college students or postcollege age adults. Also, adults were found to be less likely to conform to the pressures of the group than either high school or college students.

In the second study Berenda (1951) found that 7-10 year-old

children were more likely than 10-13 year-old children to yield to the pressure of their teacher in the Asch-line judgment situation. Berenda interpreted these findings as indicating that the older children were able to remain more independent than the younger children because of their increased social competence and their expressed pride in their intellectual integrity. It should be noted, however, that Berenda found no differences between her 7-10 and 10-13 year-old groups when the social pressure to conform came from peers.











Most theorists and investigators, including Campbell (1961) have accepted and combined the studies of Berenda (1951) and Marple (1933) and have postulated a one-stage linear or curvilinear development of independence. Conforming sets are attributed to younger children and individual response sets are said to develop with age. In further support of this hypothesis, Campbell (1961) has made reference to studies which bear an indirect relationship to the effect of age on conformity. Most of these studies have found that there is a tendency for conformity behavior to decrease with increasing status and competence (Crutchfield, 1955; Kelley and Volkert, 1952; Tuddenham, 1959). Campbell pointed out that these findings lend support to the hypothesis that age and conformity are inversely related.

An alternative postulation on the relationship between age

level and conformity which is in direct contradiction to both the combined findings of Berenda and Marple and the formulation of Campbell has been proposed by Piaget (1951). On the basis of his interview studies with children, Piaget implies that social conformity develops in a two-stage fashion. Specifically, Piaget found that the tendency for children to conform to the rules of a game increased up to age 11 or 12 and thereafter decreased. This general finding was explained by Piaget in terms of a stage theory of social development. That is, the child progresses from an initial egocentricc" stage, in which social rules are insignificant and secondary to individual needs, to a stage of "individual codification," in which the individual adheres to social rules but yet is able to codify his own body of rules.












This author's interpretive breakdown of Piaget's stages yields to the following development pattern:


STAGE


AGE


MODE


BEHAVIOR


1-5 Egocentric Disregard for social rules; no internalization.


II 7-8 Competitional Recognition of social rules but little internalization or utilization of them in a socially harmonious fashion.
4

III 11-12 Cooperational Recognition, full internalization and use of social rules in maintaining strictly
harmonious social relations.


IV @ post 13 Individual Rules are recognized, Codification internalized and adhered to--but not so strictly that individual rules are not codified.


According to Piaget, the progression from one stage of development to the next is a cognitive transformation and is the result of the individual's synthesizing of information acquired in the social situation. Hence, the child can be thought of as proceeding from

ineffective to effective social behavior. The model, which this











author devised from Piaget's investigations, is applicable only to the development of peer relationships. Piaget depicts the development of the child's relational dispositions with adults as a totally different course of development.

The broadness of Piaget's model makes the empirical testing of it difficult and cumbersome. However, Costanzo and Shaw (1966), utilizing the Crutchfield apparatus and Asch line judgment procedure, obtained findings that support Piaget's formulation. Using subjects ranging in age from seven to 21, they found that the child's tendency to yield to the erroneous line judgments of a simulated majority initially increased with age up to thirteen years and thereafter decreased. The greatest amount of conformity was found to occur in the 11-13 year-old range; the 7-9 year-olds were found to be least likely to conform to the erroneous judgments of a peer majority. The curve generated by Costanzo and Shaw's findings corresponds to the bidirectional two-stage function which might be predicted by Piaget's theory of the development of conformity behavior. A similar study was undertaken by Iscoe, Williams and Harvey in 1963. They used a group of subjects ranging in age from 7 to 15, and found that the tendency of the individual to yield to group pressure increased with age up to an asymptotic point in adolescence. Specifically, the task of the subjects in their study was to judge the number of metronome clicks in the presence of the erroneous judgments of a simulated peer group. Iscoe et al. found that females conformed more than males generally increasing from age 7 to 10 and then decreasing; whereas male conformity increased from 7 to 15 years. As can be noted, the general trends










of these findings are very similar to those of Costanzo and Shaw. However, while Costanzo and Shaw's study utilized both male and female subjects, and while there were trends toward a sex difference, this difference was not significant. Further, they did not find the asymptotic points in the conformity development function to be sex-specific. Despite these discrepancies, both studies tend to support Piaget's hypothesis on the bidirectional development of conformity. If the

results of both studies :e compared by partitioning the data into similar composite age groups and summing across sex, the same developmental function is generated. While both these studies support the linear downward trend found by Marple (1933) in his adolescent to adult age groups, they are inconsistent with the findings of Berenda (1951) and the postulations of Campbell (1961) which depict conformity to be a monotonic decreasing function of age.

The inconsistency between Costanzo and Shaw's (1966) findings and the findings of Berenda (1951) probably results from the different nature of the social pressure used in these two studies. In Berenda's investigation, social pressure to conform was provided by high status persons: the eight brightest children in the class or the teacher. One might suspect that younger children are more influenced by high status persons than peers, whereas older children are more influenced

by peers. Since Costanzo and Shaw's (1966) study used peers as the source of social pressure, the differences between these two studies might reflect differences between the effects of prestige suggestion and peer suggestion on conformity behavior. Viewing peer conformity

as a linear decreasing function of age seems paradoxical in that the











young child must be seen as becoming more unsocialized with greater exposure to his peer group.


(B) The interrelationship of the development of selfblame and the development of conformity

In the experimental literature on conformity behavior, conformity has been traditionally defined as the yielding of the individual to the pressure of the group. It is interesting to note that Piaget (1951) states that the child's moral judgments are the result of social pressure from peers in a social situation. Further, Piaget discusses the development of conformity in terms of the development of moral behavior. He apparently considers both moral behavior and conformity to be two aspects of the same internalization process in which specific bodies of rules and norms are developmentally formulated which define appropriate behavior in the social group. Since social rules and norms are the basis of moral behavior, and it is these norms and rules which are internalized in the development of the child, then a violation of fully

internalized social rules should lead to "moral guilt." A state of discomfort arises when an internalized social rule concerning the correctness of majority opinion comes L.to conflict with the individual's own perception that he is correct and the majority is wrong. In order to alleviate this discomfort those individuals who have a greater tendency toward moral guilt based on a more fully internalized set of social rules would most probably resolve the conflict by "blaming" themselves for the conflict situation and hence conform more frequently. Those individuals who have not internalized, or at least not fully internalized, the prescribed set of social rules would probably not be as prone











to experience moral guilt for violating the rules and hence would probably blame others for the conflict and conform less frequently.

The above statements are the essence of Piaget's theory concerning moral behavior. In this formulation morality is nothing more than conformity to group norms, and moral guilt the result of deviation from those norms. As the normal child develops he progresses from an amoral, nonconforming individual to a tacitly moral and overconforming individual to an individual who while moral and conforming is free to deviate somewhat from the social standard.

Both moral behavior and social conformity deal with the adherence of the individual to social standards and norms. One would therefore expect that an individual who would score low on some criterion indicator of morality would also score low on some criterion indicator of conformity. Aronfreed (1961) has operationally defined the construct morality as the tendency of the individual to make self-blaming, self-critical responses after transgression. Utilizing this definition he has found that the tendency to make self-blaming, selfcritical responses is positively related to nondelinquency (Aronfreed, 1960). Furthermore he found self-blame responsiveness to be virtually

absent in delinquents, who by their very definition are violators of societal standards of conformity. Despite the obvious difference between nonconformity as defined by delinquency, and nonconformity defined by current experimental social psychology, se findings lead to some hypotheses concerning the positive relationship between experimentally defined conformity and self-blame responsiveness.










Costanzo and Shaw (1966) did some exploratory testing of the

proposed positive relationship between self-blame and onformity. After each group of four age homogeneous subjects were tested for conformity to line stimuli, they were individually asked if they had noted a discrepancy between their own perception and that of their peers. If their response to this question was positive, they were then asked what they felt the reason for the discrepancy was. The responses to the initial postexperimental question indicated that all Ss perceived some discrepancy between their responses and those of the other Ss in the group. The reasons given for these discrepancies were classified as either "internal" (self-attributed reasons) or "external" (other attributed reasons). Classifications were made by four graduate students in psychology who showed 100 percent agreement.

They found that the development of internal attribution of

self-blame, like conformity development can be represented as a twostage function of age. That is, as conformity increases with age to an asymptotic point in adolescence and then decreases, the frequency

of "internal" attribution generated a similar two-stage developmental function with like trends. In order to test more directly the relationship between self-blame and conformity, Costanzo and Shaw computed a biserial correlation between conformity and internal attribution of subjects. A highly significant relationship was indicated (rb = .87, o b p<.01). While the measure of self-blame was not a very powerful one, the findings of this study strengthen the plausibility of the hypothetical interrelationship between conformity and self-blame.










There are some further results which lend support to the developmental trends in self-blame as found by Costanzo and Shaw (1966). Maccoby and Whiting (1960) found that responses connoting self-criticism, self-blame and self-punitiveness are practically never made by 4-6 year-olds. O'n the other hand, Aronfreed (1961) has indicated that 75 percent of all the 12 year-olds he tested reacted to their own transgressions with self-blaming, self-critical responses. Kohlberg (1963) found that the development of the need to be a morally good person occurs in the same pre-adolescent period in which he observed a high frequency of self-critical responsiveness. While all of these findings indicate that Piaget's hypothesis of an interrelated development of conformity and self-blame is tenable, a convincing test of the relationship between these two factors has not been made.


(C) Summary of introductory material

In summary then, there are essentially two positions on the development of conformity. The first is espoused by Campbell (1961) and is based on some early research by Marple (1933) and Berenda (1951). This theoretical position hypothesizes that conformity defined as the yielding of the individual to simulated group pressure is a monotonic decreasing function of age. On the other hand, some more recent research tends to support Piaget's formulation on the bidirectional development of conformity. Both Iscoe, Williams and Harvey (1963) and Costanzo and Shaw (1966) have found that the frequency of conformity behavior increases from 7 years up to pre-adolescence and thereafter decreases. The discrepancy between the postulations of these two











positions can probably best be explained in terms of the difference in the source of social pressure utilized in Berenda's as opposed to Costanzo and Shaw's study. It appears t. t Berenda's results depicting conformity as a decreasing function of age are based on the effects of prestige suggestion, while Costanzo and Shaw's results depicting conformity as a two-stage, nonlinear function of age are based on the effects of peer suggestion.

The issues in the interrelatedness of self-blame and conformity are not nearly so clear cut. Piaget (1951) contends that since conformity and morally oriented behavior such as self-blame both

involve adherence to societal norms, their development is the result of the same cognitive-evaluative process. Although the developmental trends found in self-blame appear to parallel those found in conformity, there is no strong empirical support for the interrelated nature of conformity and self-blame responsiveness (Aronfreed, 1960, 1961; Kohlberg, 1963; Costanzo and Shaw, 1966; Maccoby and Whiting, 1960).


(D) Purpose

The primary purpose of the present study is to determine whether or not morality development in the form of self-blame responses and the development of peer conformity are interrelated processes. That is, do they develop in the same fashion and also, does variation in one result in like variation in the other. A secondary purpose of this study is to test the replicability of the developmental function of conformity generated by the findings of Iscoe, Williams and Harvey (1963) and Costanzo and Shaw (1966).










(E) Hlypothleses

On the basis of the above reported material, the following hypotheses are suggested:

(1) The developmental functions of both self-blame and peer conformity will take the same form. That is, there will be an initial rise in frequency of both behaviors from 7-13 years.

Thereafter, there will be a decrease in the incidence of both

these behaviors.

(2) Subjects scoring high on self-blame in relation to their age

group will conform more than those obtaining average or low scores. Furthermore, those scoring at an average self-blame

level for their age group will score higher on conformity than

those scoring low on self-blame. A confirmation of this

hypothesis would directly reflect the interrelatedness of selfblame and conformity. It would indicate that as you vary one,

the other will vary with it and in the same direction.

(3) A significant positive relationship will be found between

self-blame and conformity both within and across age groups.

(4) The larger the positive differential obtained by subtracting

other-blame score from self-blame score, the greater will be the tendency to conform. This relationship is also hypothesized to hold up both within and across age groups. The

rationale for this hypothesis is that individuals who tend to

blame others more than themselves will also tend to rely on the judgments of others less than they would rely on their

own judgments.







13



(5) Due to the positive linear relationship that is hypothesized

to exist between self-other blame score (SB - OB) and conformity score, it is further hypothesized that the differences

between age groups on conformity will be minimized when conformity score is covaried with SB - OB score.















CHAPTER II


METHOD



Subjects

Four hundred and ninety males ranging in age from 7-21 were administered a self-blame test devised especially for this study.

This initial screening sample consisted of four age groups:


(1) 7- S year-olds; n = 86
(2) 12-13 year-olds; n = 130
(3) 16-17 year-olds; n = 128
(4) 19-21 year-olds; n = 146


Those subjects ranging in age from 7-17 were randomly selected from the elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in Putnam County, Florida. The 19-21 year-old age group was made up of subjects randomly selected from elementary psychology courses at the University of Florida.

From this initial pool of subjects, 36 were selected at each age level on the basis of their scoring on the self-blame test. The 12 highest, lowest and middlemost scorers on self-blame in each age group who met the criterion of average or above intelligence were chosen to participate in the conformity and other-blame portions of this study. Furthermore, a measure of social class based on the North-Hatt scale of occupations was obtained on each subject in order











to determine whether or not social class differences could be partially accountable for age differences found in self-blame and conformity.


Experimental Design

A 3 x 4 factorial design was used in order to test the differences among age groups and blame groups on conformity. This design

generates the following matrix: AGE GROUPS


7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21 N High Blame 12 12 12 12 48

Medium Blame 12 12 12 12 48

Low Blame 12 12 12 12 48

N 36 36 36 36 N = 144



Additionally, a single factor analysis of variance with

unequal n's per cell was utilized to test differences in self-blame attribution among the four age groups. The scores of all 490 subjects tested on the self-blame scale served as the dependent variable in this analysis.


Materials and Apparatus

In order to measure self-blame, 12 incidents, all involving

interaction or confrontation of oneself with a peer, were constructed. All of these incidents culminated in a negative or undesirable result. Eight praise-conducive incidents culminating in a positive result of peer interaction were inserted into the blame scale to avoid the











negative effects that might arise from having subjects consistently blame themselves (see Appendix A). The answer sheet was numbered from 1-20 with each number corresponding to either a self-blame or selfpraise incident. Next zo each number on the answer sheet there were five boxes vertically descending in size. Subjects were to indicate the amount of praise or blame they were willing to attribute to themselves for any given incident by placing a check in the appropriate sized box. The largest box represented "a very lot" of praise or blame while the smallest box indicated no praise or blame at all. The same scale with self and peer roles reversed was given to each subject participating in the conformity portion of this study in order to obtain a measur of other-blame (OB) (see Appendix B).

The scales used had content validity and split-half reliabilities were computed for each group on the self-blame scale. Full test reliabilities were estimated from split-half reliabilities computed within each of the four age groups. These coefficients indicate that the test can be reliably used to estimate self-blame in all of the age groupings. The rel.iabilities obtained were:


(1) Group I ( 7- 8 year-olds) - .77; n = S6 (2) Group II (12-13 year-olds) - .82; n = 130 (3) Group III (16-17 year-olds) - .83; n = 128 (4) Group IV (19-21 year-olds) - .Sa: n = 146


The apparatus used to measure conformity was the same as that used by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) and similar to the one described by Crutchfield (1955). It consisted of five booths arranged in a semicircle. The center booth was occupied by the experimenter and










contained a Baesler opaque projector and master panels of lights and switches. The subjects occupied the four side booths and faced a projection screen located approximately ten feet from each of the experimental booths to insure isolation for both subjects and experimenter.

In a slight modification of the original Crutchfield apparatus, each subject booth contained a panel of twenty lights arranged in four rows of five lights each, with five mercury switches placed beneath the fourth row of lights. Each of these mercury switches, when turned on, activated one of the lights in the fourth row of the subject's response panel and an analogous light on the master response panel in E's booth. Although all Ss were instructed that the first three rows of lights would record the responses made by the other three Ss in the experimental situation, these lights were actually controlled by master switches in E's booth. This permitted identical lights to be turned on in each booth simultaneously. All responses made by Ss were recorded on the master panel in E's booth. In the

present experiment, only three of the five possible response alternatives represented on the subject's response panels were utilized.

The particular version of the Crutchfield aoaratus in this

experiment was constructed to be portable. This was done in order to allow the experimenter to test the elementary and secondary school students at the various elementary and secondary schools in Putnam County, and thus avoid the transport of these students to and from the

University of Florida.











The stimulus materials which were used in conjunction with this apparatus consisted of the simple straight line stimuli described by Asch (1951). Each stimulus card was made up of one standard line and three comparison lines. One of the three comparison lines matched the

standard in length, one was longer than the standard, and another was shorter than the standard.


Procedure

The initial pool of 490 male subjects drawn from all four of the age groups was administered the self-blame test. The scale was administered to one total age group at a time in a large classroom or auditorium in their respective schools. The experimenter introduced

the scale to the subjects in each group by reading aloud the instructions provided on the face sheet of each test booklet (see Appendix A). In the course of this introductory period the experimenter explained how to use the system of responding whereby the subjects might indicate different amounts of blame or praise by choosing an appropriate sized box from the five which vertically descended in size for each item. After it was apparent that everyone understood the manner of response, the three eldest age groups were instructed to read each item carefully and to make the response that most applied to them on any given item. The youngest age group (7 and S year-olds) were read each item aloud because of the great variation in reading ability at this age. These younger subjects were instructed not to respond until the experimenter complained reading the incident. All subjects in all age groups appeared to understand the endorsement procedure.











Twelve subjects each from the high, medium and low levels of

blame endorsement within each age group who met the criterion of average or better intelligence were selected to participate in the conformity portion of this study, which was administered approximately

one week after the administration of the self-blame scale.

The conformity portion of this study was also administered

in a room at the school which the subjects were attending. When Ss

reported at the time they were scheduled for, they were asked to select

one of the four booths. They were also told that after they had been

seated in their chosen booth there was to be no discussion among themselves. After the four Ss in any group were seated, the experimenter

gave instructions pertaining to the nature of the task and the operation of the apparatus. These instructions, presented below, were made

as simple as possible to insure that Ss of all age levels would understand them.

I am going to project a number of cards onto the screen
you see in front of you. As you see (Experimenter displays
sample card), each card has four lines on it. This line
(Experimenter points to standard line) on the left has no
letter above it. The other three lines, as you see, have the letters A, B, and C above them. You are to match one of these lines (Experimenter points to comparison lines) with this line (Experimenter points to standard). One of the three lettered
lines on each card will be equal to the unlettered one, so
you will make a choice on every trial.
In order to make a choice of the line you think is equal
to the unlettered one, you will push up a switch on the panel
in front of you. You will notice that although there are
twenty lights and five switches on this panel board, only
three of the columns are lettered (Experimenter goes to each
booth and points to the three columns and then corresponding switches). These three columns are the only ones which will be used. Thus, there are four rows of lights numbered
1, 2, 3, and 4, and three columns lettered A, B, and C.











Therefore, if you are perS ;n three, and on a particular slide
you think that B is the right choice, you will push up the
switch below the letter B and the 3B light will be lit up on
your panel (Experimenter goes to each booth and instructs
each subject to push up the switch he might if he thought C were the correct answer--the apparatus at this time was not
plugged in). Each of you will be given a number later on which will correspond to one of the rows numbered 1, 2, 3,
and 4. Thus, when I call number 1, he will light up either
A, B, or C in row one, and so forth. If you are person number
three, it does not mean that person two and person four are on each side of you. The numbers do not go in the order of
the booths.
Each group of four lines will be shown to you for three
seconds. Then I will shut off the projector and when I call
your number you are to press the switch you think is right.
Do not push the appropriate switch until I call your number.
After you put on the switch, leave it on until I tell you
to close it. Once you press up a switch, you cannot change
your mind. Please do not talk, even to yourself, during the experiment. I am now going to come to each booth to explain
anything that you did not understand. When I come to your
booth, I will also give you your number. Before the actual
experiment starts we will have five practice trials. In these practice trials you will go in no particular order; after I show the slide I will merely say "choose" and you
will all flick your switches. After these five trials, the
experiment will start and you will go when I call your number.
I know these instructions were long, so if you have any
questions when I come to your booths, don't hesitate to ask
them. After I start showing slides I cannot answer any
more questions.

After the instructions were presented and the experimenter

was assured that all subjects comprehended the task, he proceeded to

administer the five pre-experimental trials to ascertain the original

response level of each subject and to further insure that Ss across

all grades understood and were able to perform the task.

The test period consisted of twenty trials with the line stimuli. On fifteen of these twenty trials the experimenter, simulating

a peer majority, made erroneous judgments. Since all subjects were

assigned number four, and erroneously believed that their peers







21



occupying the other booths were numbers 1, 2, and 3, they were all confronted with a unanimously wrong peer majority on 15 of the 20 experimental trials. Each individual's conformity score was the number of times his choice corresponded with the erroneous judgments of the simulated peer majority.

After the administration of the conformity portion of this study to a given age group, that age group was once again assembled and administered the other-blame scale (see Appendix B).
















CHAPTER III


RESULTS



Preliminary Findings

Before the main findings of this study are reported, the results of some preliminary measures of social class and task competency among age groups will be presented. These measures were taken in order to

assure that the four age groups were equivalent with regard to social class and ability to perform the experimental task.

Social c la ss: An analysis of variance was done in order to test the difference among the four age groups on the North-Hatt Scale of occupational prestige. Although the college age group tended to

originate from families in which the father's occupation was ranked somewhat higher than the precollege age groups (see Table 1), no significant differences were found among afge groups on occupational classifications (see Table 2). In interpreting Table 1, it should be noted that each occupation was ranked on an eight point scale with the lower rankings representing occupations of higher prestige.

Pre-experimental line judgment trials: A total of eight errors were made on the 720 pre-experimental trials in all age groups. The errors were distributed among tll four of the age groups with no predominance of error in any one age group. This performance represents a line judgment accuracy of over 98 percent and indicates that all


















Table 1. Mean rankings and standard deviations of occupational prestige in each of the four age groups 7 - 8 12 - 13 16 - 17 19 - 21


X 4.97 4.77 4.69 4.00 s 1.18 1.73 1.84 1.97


Table 2. Analysis of variance of occupational prestige across age level



Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P Age 19.37 3 6.45 2.18 N.S. Within groups 413.83 140 2.96 Total 433.20 143










subjects in all age groups could perform the task and use the apparatus with equal facility.


Main Findings

The results of social pressure on conformity at the different age levels are presented graphically in Figure 1. As predicted, conformity was lowest for Group I (ages 7-8) increased to an asymptotic point for Group II (ages 12-13) and decreased for Group II (ages 1617) and Group IV (ages 19-21).

The experimenter's prediction on the development of self-blame was not upheld. As Figure 2 demonstrates, the tendency to attribute blame to oneself decreases with increasing age. Table 3 indicates that there is a highly significant difference among the age groups on selfblame responsiveness (p <.001). The hypothesis that the development of self-blame and the development of conformity could be represented by parallel functions is not upheld. As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, the three oldest age groups display the downward linear trend predicted for the postadolescent groups on both self-blame and conformity, whereas Group I (ages 7-8) scored highest rather than lowest on selfblame as had been predicted.

The nonparallelism in the development of self-blame and conformity does not, however, contraindicate the interrelated nature of these two variables. The analysis of the difference among blame groups and age groups on conformity (Table 4) reveals that there are highly
t
significant differences in conformity as a function of both age and self-blame intensity. Figure 3 depicts the developmental functions





























Table 3. Analysis of variance of self-blame across age level (N = 490)



Source Sum of Squares df MS F P Between age groups 13,421 3 4,473.61 60.76 .001 Error 35,786 486 73.63 -
(wg)

Total 49,207 489 - - -


















































12-13
Age Leve I


16-17


19-21


Figure 1. Percent conformity as a function of age level, n = 36
per age level


35L...


30 25 ... ii , i-

























55.





50.


0


co 45
-4


CO
Ix 4








35
A
'I I ..... . ...I I

7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21

Age Level


Figure 2. Self-blame as a function of age level










of conformity for high, medium and low blame groups. As self-blame increases conformity likewise increases for all four age groups.

To further test the strength of the relationship between selfblame and conformity, correlations between these two factors were computed both within each age group and across all age groups. As indicated by Tables 6-9 the correlation coefficients between self-blame and conformity within each age group range from .67 for Group II (ages 1213) to .78 for Group IV (ages 19-21). It is noteworthy that when age groups are combined and a correlation computed between self-blame and conformity (Table 5) the total correlation drops to .54. This drop in the strength of the relationship between self-blame and conformity is predominantly the result of Group I's low point scoring on conformity and their unpredicted high point scoring on self-blame.

The analysis of covariance utilizing SB-OB score as the Xcovariate did not tend to equalize the age groups on conformity as hypothesized, but rather changed the nature of the differences among the groups. Figure 1 depicts the bidirectional function obtained when plotting uncorrected conformity means across age level, and Figure 4 shows the function obtained when SB-OB corrected conformity means are plotted across age. As can be noted, when conformity is corrected for the effect of SB-OB score, Group I and Group II reverse positions. That is, Group I (ages 7-8), the group scoring lowest on conformity, becomes the peak point in the function when its scores are corrected for the effect of SB-OB. Group II (ages 12-13), on the other hand, moves from the highest to the lowest conforming group when its

























Table 4. Summary table of 3 x 4 analysis of variance of conformity
responses at different age levels and for different blame
intens it ies


Source Sum of Squares df MS F P 1) A (Age) 137.58 3 45.86 12.53 <.001 2) B (Blame intensity) 327.87 2 163.94 44.79 <.001 3) AB 8.80 6 1.47 < 1 N.S. 4) Error 483.50 132 3.66 - -










65



60



55



50


45





.9. .*
*,4*

o I9
"-4 40q


435 �.

o ,*$* 30 . *
I Q


*.
25 *
I

20 I O I 15
1P


7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21
Age Leve 1





High Blame Group

Medium Blame Group ...........

Low Blame Group .................

Figure 3. Percent conformity as a function of age at different levels
of self-blame intensity

























Table 5.


Matrix of correlations among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity collapsed across age


OB


SB-OB


Conformity


* p < .05 p < .01
p < .01


N.C. - not computed


SB -- .61 N.C. .54 OB -- -- N.C. -.03


SB-OB -- -- -- .66


Conformity -- -- -- --









Tables 6-9. Matrices of correlation among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity for each age level


Table 6: ages SB OB SB-OB


7-8

Conformity


** *A SB -- .72 N.C. .78 OB -- -- N.C. .68
**
SB-OB -- -- -- .58

Conformity -- -- -- -Table 8: ages 16-17 SB OB SB-OB Conformity
* **
SB -- .35 N.C. .68 OB -- -- N.C. .33

SB-OB -- -- -- .61

Conformity -- -- -- -p< .05 p< .01

N.C. - not computed


Table SB OB


7: ages SB-OB


12-13

Conformity


* **W SB -- .36 N.C. .67 OB -- -- N.C. .19

SB-OB -- -- -- .54

Conformity -- -- -- -Table 9: ages 19-21 SB OB SB-OB Conformity SB -- .79 N.C. .76 OB -- -- N.C. .63

SB-OB -- -- -- -Conformity -- -- -- --










scores are corrected by an SB-OB covariate. Therefore, the effect of age level on conformity remains significant (p<.01)(see Table 10). However, the directionality of the differences among age groups changes as a function of SB-OB covariation.

Hypothesis four which postulated a positive relationship between SB-OB score and conformity was tested by the correlation of these two factors both within and across age groups. Tables 6-9 indicate that there are significant positive relationships between SB-OB and conformity within each age group. These correlations range from a low of .46 in Group IV to a high of .61 in Group III. Table 5 shows an overall correlation of .66 between SB-OB and conformity across all age groups. Figure 5 graphically depicts the development of SB-OB scoring as a function of age level. The trends of this curve are very similar to those of Figure 1 displaying conformity as a function of age level. The likeness in the curves of these two functions explains the positive relationships between SB-OB and conformity reported above.

Additional correlations were run between OB and conformity and OB and SB. These correlations like the ones above were computed both within age groups and across age groups. Correlations between SB and OB within age groups varied from .35 in Group III (16-17 years) to .79 in Group IV (19-21 years). These four correlations were all significant at the .05 level or better (Tables 6-9). Table 5 indicates an overall, across age group correlations of .61 between SB and OB. These findings indicate the individuals are relatively consistent in their blaming tendencies whether the target person is self or other.
























Table 10. Summary table of the analysis of covariance with SB-OB
as the X-covariate and conformity as the Y-covariate


Source Sum of Squares df MS F p Age 36.61 2 18.31 5.90 p<.01 Error 430.81 139 3.10 Total 467.42 141 -- -- --































L


I-


2 .


12-13


16-17


19-21


Age Leve 1



Figure 4. Percent conformity based on SB-OB corrected conformity
scores as a function of age level


451


' 40
0
0
o
0 35
4.o


~30















































16-17 19-21 Age Level I


S-O blame difference as a function of age level


12-13


Figure 5.










This finding accentuates the importance of the SB-OB score as a measure of morality behavior, for in using this subtraction factor, each subject can serve as his own base level for attribution of blame tendencies.

The correlations between OB and conformity within age groups vary from a low of .19 in Group III (12-13 years) to a high of .68 in Group I (7-8 years) with significant positive relationships obtaining in Groups I and IV (r= .63)(see Tables 6-9). The relationship between OB and conformity across age groups yields a coefficient of -.03 indicating that in a population of subjects of heterogeneous age, OB and conformity operate as orthogonal factors.















CHAPTER IV


DISCUSSION



The nonlinear relationship between age and conformity reported by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) receives decisive support from the results of this study. As predicted, conformity was found to be a two-stage function of age. Figure 1 indicates that conformity behavior increases from its lowest level in the 7-8 year-old age group to asymptote in the 12-13 year-old age group after which it decreases with increasing age. This finding fits well with Piaget's conceptualization of the child's developmental progression from egocentricism to a "socialized individualism." Social pressure from peers has little salience to the younger child whose rewards and punishments for conformity are administered by adult figures. The importance of peer opinion and judgment increases as a function of socialization. In the course of the child's integration into a peer group, he gradually becomes aware of the necessity to yield to social pressure in order to maintain harmonious peer relationships. Social rules can neither be adhered to nor recognized until the child is able to perceive his own effect upon his relationship with his peers. Once he perceives himself as interacting with a peer culture, he adopts the rules inherent to that culture. Until these rules are adopted or internalized, the child cannot anticipate the censure inherent in the violation of those rules.











The nonconforming child becomes the over-conforming preadolescent with his internalization of the rules of the peer culture. At this stage, deviation from the peer group in behavior, judgment, preferences, or dress,etc., is met with the censorship of the group. The preadolescent receives negative reinforcement for deviating from peer norms and he becomes acutely aware and sensitive to his own conformity needs. After this preadolescent stage the individual begins to experiment with nonconformity to the peer culture. When successful peer relationships are maintained despite occasional nonconformity, the adolescent who is still very aware of peer group rules feels safer in deviating from them. Thus conformity should be expected to decrease through young adulthood as the individual becomes aware of the rewards

of "socialized individualism" and is able to integrate individualized behavior with the conformity necessary for harmonious social relationships.

As is indicated by a comparison of Figures 1 and 2, the hypothesis that conformity and self-blame should develop on a parallel fashion was not supported. Figure 2 depicts self-blame as a linear decreasing function of age. While there is a correspondence in the trend of conformity behavior and self-blame in the three oldest age groups, the 7-8 year-old age group scored higher than any of the other groups on self-blame and lower than the other age groups on conformity. The tendency of the 7-8 year-old group to conform the least and self-blame the most of any group is particularly surprising in the light of the high positive relationships which were obtained between self-blame and










conformity both within age groups and across age groups (see Tables 5-9). Several explanations for this finding are possible. The explanation that the 7-8 year-old subjects have a tendency to endorse high on a scale of this type is contraindicated by the finding that their scores on the self-praise items did not differ significantly from the other three age groups.

A more plausible explanation is that the younger children in this study were attributing blame for somewhat different reasons than the older age groups. Rather than responding with self-blame attribution to the transgression against a peer, it is possible that the 7-8 year-olds were responding to the negative outcomes which occurred in each of the blame incidents. Thus, instead of responding to their own role in the incident which occurred, they responded to the fact that

something "bad" happened for which blame must be assigned. Since the items were constructed so that there would be no option to select the target of the blame attribution, the subjects in the 7-8 year-old group were forced to blame themselves for the negative outcomes. Piaget (1951) in describing the absolutistic morality of the child at this stage of development suggests that a child of this age does not differentiate between different degrees of "bad." An event which occurs in the environment is generally judged as all bad or not bad at all. In the presence of negative outcomes it is tenable that the 7-8 year-old child will attribute high blame to either self or other or both despite either's involvement or noninvolvement in the incident preceding the negative outcome.










In order to take out the effect of severity of outcome in blame attribution, an other-blame version of the Self-Blame Scale (Appendix B) was administered to all subjects. Thus, the outcomes of the incidents remained constant across scales and the difference score (SB-OB) which was computed for each subject reflected that subject's attribution to the locus of blame. It was hypothesized that the larger the positive differential between blame and conformity, the greater the tendency to conform. This hypothesis was upheld and while the SB-OB was not as effective a predictor of conformity within age groups as self-blame, it was more strongly related to conformity across age level than self-blame (see Table 5). Furthermore, the likelihood that conformity develops parallel to SB-OB differences is suggested by the similar trends apparent in the figures plotting the development of conformity and SB-OB differential as a function of age (Figures 1 and 5).

It is noteworthy that the 7-8 year-old age group was the only one of the four age groups which attributed more blame to others than to themselves. Insofar as this result reflects a lesser degree of socialization in this group, it is partially explanatory of the relatively low amount of conformity found among 7-8 year-olds.

Socialization appears to involve an increase in the tendency of the child to blame himself more than he blames others for similar situations. This tendency increases from a negative point in the 7-8 year-old age group to an asymptotic positive point in the 12-13 year-old age group. The younger child first enters into the social










situation as a self-oriented, egocentric being and through a gradual increment in his need for peer approval begins to develop an orientation toward peers. The preadolescent has so rigidly internalized the rules of his peer group that he becomes peer oriented rather than self-oriented, and thus becomes less willing to apply negative sanctions to his peer group than to himself and more willing to conform to the peer group than rely on his own judgment. The adolescent and young adult stages are accompanied by a gradual tempering of the need for peer approval because of the greater feeling of security in peer relations which results from experience in socialization. These older groups are much more willing to externalize blame and deviate from the norms of their peer group than the preadolescents.

The effect of SB-OB on conformity is demonstrated by the

analysis of covariance presented in Table 10. In this analysis SB-OB was utilized as the X-covariate with conformity responsiveness the Y-covariate. While the effect of age on conformity was not removed by this analysis, the directionality of the conformity differences between the age groups changed (see Figure 5). With conformity scores corrected for SB-OB scores the 7-8 year-old group became the highest conforming group, while the 12-13 year-old group became the lowest conforming group. This reversal of the initial findings is highly suggestive of the strong effect SB-OB differences have on conformity behavior.

The hypothesis that morality in the form of self-critical, self-blaming responses and conformity are interrelated behaviors










stemming from the same cognitive evaluative process was strongly supported by the findings of this study. In addition to highly significant positive correlations between SB and conformity and SB-OB and conformity, the most decisive support came from the results of the analysis of variance presented in Table 4. The results of this analysis indicate that while the developmental trends remain the same for high, medium and low self-blame groups, the high self-blame groups, regardless of age tend to conform more than the medium or low self-blame groups. Thus, conformity is a positive linear function of self-blame (see Figure 4). As predicted, variations in the intensity of selfblame lead to like variations in the amount of conformity behavior.















CHAPTER V


SUMMARY



This study was undertaken in order to determine both the

developmental and nondevelopmental relationships which obtain between self-blame and conformity. It was predicted that both conformity and self-blame would develop in a two-stage nonlinear fashion with initial increases in the incidence of both behaviors through adolescence and decreases thereafter. The prediction of a positive relationship between conforming behavior and self-blame behavior was based upon Piaget's postulation which holds that both conformity to peer rules and morality are two aspects of the same internalization process. Piaget has indicated that both behaviors are interchangeable components of the socialization process and both deal with the internalization of social group norms.

The criterion measure of conformity utilized in this study was the frequency with which individual subjects conformed to the erroneous line judgments of a simulated peer majority. Self-blame and other blame tendencies were measured by the use of two scales devised by this author especially for this study (see Appendices A and B).

Consistent with the experimenter's expectations, conformity was found to be a two-stage function of age. That is, there was an










increase in the percentage of conforming responses from childhood to preadolescence and a decrease thereafter. Contrary to prediction, however, the development of self-blame did not yield the same function as the development of conformity. Rather, self-blame was found to be a monotonic decreasing function of age from childhood through young adulthood. It was noted that one very plausible reason for this study's failure to obtain parallel developmental functions for selfblame and conformity is the observed tendency of the youngest age group to attribute blame absolutistically for negative outcomes regardless of the target of that attribution.

In order to test more precisely the relationship between conformity and attribution to self or other targets, an other-blame scale was administered and difference scores were computed between attribution of blame to self and attribution of blame to peers. The results indicated that this self-other blame difference as a function of age paralleled closely the development of conformity. The age group to blame others more than themselves was the youngest age group, and from this point S-O score progressed to its highest positive differential in the preadolescent age group and thereafter decreased. This study indicates that future research attempting to determine the relationships between self-blame and other measures of socialization should utilize the differential attribution of blame to self versus other targets as the measure of self-blame.

The hypothesized interrelated nature of self-blame and conformity both within each age group and summed across all age groups










was found to obtain in this study. As self-blame was varied from low to high intensity, conformity also increased. The correlations obtained between self-blame and conformity and S-O blame and conformity were all significant at beyond the .01 level both within and across age groups.

The results of this study indicate that the conceptualization of conformity and morality as closely related processes both developmentally and nondevelopmentally is a valid one. The implications of the above findings are manifold but one of the more significant ones would tend to suggest that the socialization of the child does not predominantly involve the internalization of parental and adult norms, as is purported by such concepts as superego development, but rather the internalization of both the social and moral rules of a peer-group culture.




































APPENDIXES














APPENDIX A


SELF-BLAME SCALE


INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY


On this test there are twenty stories. I want you to try to imagine yourself in the situation presented in the stories. What I want you to do is read each story carefully. After you've read each story, go to your answer sheet and mark down the amount of blame or praise you deserve for what happened in the story. DO ONE STORY AT A TIME.

Your answer sheet is numbered from one-to-twenty and the numbers correspond to the story numbers. Next to each number you will see 5 boxes vertically descending in size. The different sized boxes represent different amounts of praise and blame you will give yourself for each story. The larger the box, the greater the praise or blame:


D


L1


D


- A VERY LOT


- A LOT


- SOME BUT NOT A LOT


- A LITTLE


- NONE AT ALL


Just put a check in the box that applies to you for any given story. This system of indicating amounts of praise and blame is being used because this test is also being given to young school children.

Before you start the test itself, place your name, age and father's occupation in the places provided on the answer sheet. Thank you.










1. You and your friend are walking home from school. Neither of you is paying attention to where you are going. Finally, you knock into your
friend and his books fall into a puddle of water and are ruined.
How much are you to blame:

2. You and your friend are angry with one another and begin to argue.
The argument goes on for a long time and finally his feelings are
hurt by something you say. How much are you to blame:

3. Your friend is doing poorly in his schoolwork. One night you decide to study with him and try to help him. The next day he gets
a good grade on a class quiz. How much praise do you deserve:

4. You and your friend are at your house having a good time. However, you're having such a good time that you both forget what time it is.
When your friend gets home, his parents are angry with him for being
late for dinner. How much are you to blame:

5. One day your friend loses a valuable object in the bushes. Both you and he look for it for a long time and finally you find it and give
it to him. How much praise do you deserve:

6. You and your friend are eating lunch in the cafeteria and you are both joking around with one another when your knee hits the bottom
of the table and his plate full of food falls into his lap.
How much are you to blame:

7. You tell your friend that it is easy to sneak into the movies without paying. When he tries, he is caught. How much are you to blame:

8. You and your friend are crossing the street one day, when you see a car coming. When your friend keeps on walking, you pull him back
and the car misses him. How much praise do you deserve:

9. You and your friend plan together to copy from one another during a class quiz. Early in the quiz your friend is caught copying from
you by the teacher. How much are you to blame:

10. One day you whisper something to your friend during a class. The
teacher gets angry with your friend and tells him to stop talking.
You tell the teacher that it wasn't your friend talking but you.
How much praise do you deserve:

11. One day you and your friend are in a store together. He decides
that he is going to take something without paying for it. If he did he would have gotten caught. You talk him out of taking the
object. How much praise do you deserve:

12. You and your friend are swimming in a pool. Both of you begin to
splash water at one another at the deep end. All of a sudden,
you splash your friend, he loses his balance and goes under and
almost drowns. How much are you to blame:










13. You and your friend go roller skating at the local roller skating
rink. You are both skating fast and fooling around bumping into
one another. One time, you knock into your friend and he falls
down and breaks his leg. How much are you to blame:

14. As your friend is walking home from school one day, two boys who are
hiding behind the bushes jump out and both start punching him and
beating him up. A few minutes later you come by and see this and go
help your friend. Because of your help he was not badly hurt.
How much praise do you deserve:

15. You and your friend are riding your bicycles together and you decide
that it might be fun to have a race. In the middle of the race your friend's wheel hits a stone, the bike topples over and he gets many
cuts and scratches. How much are you to blame:

16. You and your friend are walking to another friend's house. Both of
you decide that rather than take the long way, you should find a
short cut. You suggest a short cut through the woods and ask your
friend to follow you. Both of you get lost and have a hard time
finding your way out of the woods. How much are you to blame:

17. Neither you nor your friend are paying attention when your teacher
puts a homework assignment on the board. You insist that she didn't
assign any homework and he claims she did. You argue about it and you win the argument and neither of you do any homework. The next
day, you both are unprepared for class and fail the quiz. How much
are you to blame:

18. One day you and your friend are mad at each other. All you keep on
doing is arguing about silly things. Finally you decide that it
would be best to end the argument and so you apologize to your
friend and as a result, the argument stops. How much praise do you
deserve:

19. One day in class you are acting like a clown, talking out loud and
joking. Your friend thinks you are funny and begins to laugh. The
teacher catches him and angrily tells him to leave the room. How
much are you to blame:

20. Your friend is walking his dog and you are walking along with him.
All of a sudden, the dog breaks loose from your friend and starts
running away. Your friend likes his dog very much and he gets upset.
So you run after the dog and finally find it, catch it and bring
it back to your friend. How much praise do you deserve:















APPENDIX B


OTHER BLAME SCALE


INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY


On this test there are twenty stories. I want you to try to
imagine yourself in the situation presented in the stories. What I want you to do is read each story carefully. After you've read each story, go to your answer sheet and mark down the amount of blame or praise your friend deserves for what happened in the story. DO ONE STORY AT A TIME.

Your answer sheet is numbered from one-to-twenty and the numbers correspond to the story numbers. Next to each number you will see 5 boxes vertically descending in size. The different sized boxes represent different amounts of praise and blame you will give your friend for each story. The larger the box, the greater the praise or blame:


D2


FD


- A VERY LOT


- A LOT


- SOME BUT NOT A LOT


- A LITTLE


S- NONE AT ALL


Just put a check in the box that applies to your friend for any given story. This system of indicating amounts of praise and blame is being used because this test is also being given to young school children.

Before you start the test itself, place your name, age and father's occupation in the places provided on the answer sheet. Thank you.










1. You and your friend are walking home from school. Neither of you is paying attention to where you are going. Finally, he knocks into you and your books fall into a puddle of water and are ruined. How
much is your friend to blame:

2. You and your friend are angry with one another and begin to argue.
The argument goes on for a long time and finally your feelings are
hurt by something he says. How much is your friend to blame:

3. You are doing poorly in your schoolwork. One night your friend
decides to study with you and try to help you. The next day you
get a good grade on a class quiz. How much praise does your friend
deserve:

4. You and your friend are at his house having a good time. However,
you're having such a good time that you both forget what time it is.
When you get home, your parents are angry with you for being late
for dinner. How much is your friend to blame:

5. One day you lose a valuable object in the bushes. Both you and your
friend look for it for a long time and finally he finds it and gives it
to you. How much praise does your friend deserve:

6. You and your friend are eating lunch in the cafeteria and you are
both joking around with one another when his knee hits the bottom of
the table and your plate full of food falls into your lap. How
much is your friend to blame:

7. Your friend tells you that it is easy to sneak into the movies without paying. When you try, you are caught. How much is your friend
to blame:

8. You and your friend are crossing the street one day, when he sees a
car coming. When you keep on walking, your friend pulls you back and the car misses you. How much praise does your friend deserve:

9. You and your friend plan together to copy from one another during
a class quiz. Early in the quiz you are caught copying from him by
the teacher. How much is your friend to blame:

10. One day your friend whispers something to you during a class. The
teacher gets angry with you and tells you to stop talking. He tells the teacher that it wasn't you talking but him. How much praise does
your friend deserve:

11. One day you and your friend are in a store together. You decide that
you are going to take something without paying for it. If you did you would have gotten caught. Your friend talks you out of taking
the object. How much praise does your friend deserve:

12. You and your friend are swimming in a pool. Both of you begin to
splash water at one another at the deep end. All of a sudden, he
splashes you. You lose your balance and go under and almost drown.
How much is your friend to blame:











13. You and your friend go roller skating at the local roller skating
rink. You are both skating fast and fooling around bumping into one another. One time, he knocks into you and you fall down and
break your leg. How much is your friend to blame:

14. As you are walking home from school one day, two boys who are hiding
behind the bushes jump out and both start punching you and beating you up. A few minutes later your friend comes by and sees this and helps you. Because of his help you were not badly hurt. How much
praise does your friend deserve:

15. You and your friend are riding your bicycles together and you decide
that it might be fun to have a race. In the middle of the race your
wheel hits a stone, the bike topples over and you get many cuts and
scratches. How much is your friend to blame:

16. You and your friend are walking to another friend's house. Both of
you decide that rather than take the long way, you should find a
short cut. He suggests a short cut through the woods and asks you
to follow him. Both of you get lost and have a hard time finding
your way out of the woods. How much is your friend to blame:

17. Neither you nor your friend are paying attention when your teacher
puts a homework assignment on the board. He insists that she didn't
assign any homework and you claim she did. You argue about it and he wins the argument and neither of you do any homework. The next
day, you both are unprepared for class and fail the quiz. How much
is your friend to blame:

18. One day you and your friend are mad at each other. All you keep on
doing is arguing about silly things. Finally, he decides that it
would be best to end the argument and so he apologizes to you and as
a result, the argument stops. How much praise does your friend
deserve:

19. One day in class your friend is acting like a clown, talking out
loud and joking. You think he is funny and begin to laugh. The
teacher catches you and angrily tells you to leave the room. How
much is your friend to blame:

20. You are walking your dog and your friend is walking along with you.
All of a sudden, the dog breaks loose from you and starts running
away. You like your dog very much and you get upset. So your friend
runs after the dog and finally finds it, catches it and brings it
back to you. How much praise does your friend deserve:













APPENDIX C


RAW CONFORMITY DATA


n= 12
Age Level


12-13

8
9
4
5 5
4
6
6
6
5
3
8


7-8

3
3
5
2
4
2
3
3
0
1
4
5


16-17

7
3
6
2
4
6
6
4
4
3
3
5


19-21

2
3
5
2
3
3
1
3
5
3
3
4


MEDIUM


HIGH
















REFERENCES


Aronfreed, J. Moral behavior and sex identity. In O. R. Miller and
G. E. Swanson (eds.). Inner Conflict and Defense. New York:
Henry Holt and Co., 1960.

Aronfreed, J. The nature, variety and social patterning of moral
responses to transgression. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1961,
63, 223-241.

Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In Guetzkow (ed.). Groups, Leadership
and Men. Pitts: Carnegie Press, 1951.

Berenda, Ruth W. The Influence of the Group on the Judgments of Children. New York: Kings Crown Press, 1951.

Berg, I. A., and Bass, B. (eds.). Conformity and Deviation. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1961.

Campbell, D. T. Conformity in psychology's theories of acquired
behavioral dispositions. In I. A. Berg and B. M. Bass (eds.).
Conformity and Deviation. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961,
101-142.

Costanzo, P. R., and Shaw, M. E. Conformity as a function of age level.
Child Development, 1966, 37, 967-975.

Crutchfield, R. S. Conformity and character. American Psychologist,
1955, 10, 191-198.

Iscoe, I., Williams, M., and Harvey, J. Modification of children's
judgments by a simulated group technique: a normative developmental study. Child Development, 1963, 34, 963-978.

Kelley, H., and Volkert, E. The resistance to change of groupanchored attitudes. Amer. Sociol. Rev., 1952, 17, 453-485.

Kohlberg, L. Moral development and identification. In Stevenson
(ed.). Child Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1963, 277-332.

Maccoby, E. E., and Whiting, J. W. Some child rearing correlates of
young children's responses to deviation stories. Mimeographed
unpublished paper, Stanford University, 1960.











Marple, C. H. The comparative susceptibility
the suggestion of group versus expert
Psychol., 1933, 10, 3-40.

Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child.
Free Press, 1951.

Tuddenham, R. D. Correlates of yielding to a
J. Pers., 1959, 27, 272-284.


of three age levels to opinion. J. Soc. Glencoe, Illinois: distorted group norm.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Philip Robert Costanzo was born on January 10, 1942, in New York City, New York. In June, 1959, he was graduated magna cum laude from Holy Cross High School, Flushing, New York. In September, 1959, he enrolled at Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, where he received the Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in June, 1963. In September, 1963, he enrolled in the Graduate School of Queens College, Flushing, New York, where he worked and studied as a graduate research assistant in the Department of Psychology. From June, 1964, until September, 1964, he was employed as a research fellow at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York. In September of 1964, he entered the Graduate School of the University of Florida in the Department of Psychology where he received his Master of Arts degree in June, 1965. Since receiving his Master's degree he has been working on the completion of his doctoral dissertation in the area of conformity behavior and completing his practicum and internship studies in clinical psychology.

During his tenure at the University of Florida, Philip Costanzo has been supported by a Veterans Administration Training Grant, an Arts and Sciences fellowship, and a Vocational Rehabilitation training grant. After he receives the Ph.D. degree he plans to pursue research in the area of childhood socialization and small group processes, and






58



undertake psychotherapeutic work with adolescents and young adults.

Philip Robert Costanzo is married to the former Frances Margaret Simone.











This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


April, 1967


0 414
Dean, Collo A ts and Sciences


Dean, Graduate School


Supervisory Committee:


* 1. ~i~>



'ot(A7b6~4ZA~J




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-BLAME RESPONSIVENESS By PHILIP ROBERT COSTANZO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AprU, 1967

PAGE 2

TO MY WONDERFUL WIFE FRAN

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to express his appreciation to all those who contributed to the preparation of this dissertation. Thanks are due to Dr. Louis Cohen, Dr. Vernon Van Be Re it, Dr. Henry Pennypacker and Dr. E. Wilbur Bock who served as members of the author's supervisory committee and who in the process afforded him with clarification and direction throughout the study. The writer wishes to express deep appreciation to Dr. Marvin E. Shaw, chairman of his supervisory committee, who afforded the author with guidance and support on this dissertation and throughout the course of his graduate study. A note of thanks is also extended to Mr. Philip Alvers, Mr. James Benson and Mr. Joseph Hendrix, the Principals in the Putnam County school system who made their students and facilities available to the author .

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 II METHOD 14 III RESULTS 22 IV DISCUSSION 38 V SUMMARY 44 Appendixes A SELF-BLAME SCALE 48 B OTHER BLAME SCALE 51 C RAW CONFORMITY DATA 54 REFERENCES 55 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 57 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Mean rankings and standard deviations of occupational prestige in each of the four age groups 23 2 Analysis of variance of occupational prestige across age level 23 3 Analysis of variance of self -blame across age level ... 25 4 Summary table of 3 x analysis of variance of conformity responses at different age levels and for different blame intensities 29 5 Matrix of correlations among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity collapsed across age 31 6-9 Matrices of correlation among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity for each age level 32 10 Summary table of the analysis of covariance with SB-OB as the X-covariate and conformity as the Y-covariate . . 2k V

PAGE 6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Percent conformity as a function of age level, n = 36 per age level 26 2 Self-blame as a function of age level 27 3 Percent conformity as a function of age at different levels of self-blame intensity 30 4 Percent conformity based on SB-OB corrected conformity scores as a function of age level 35 5 S-0 blame difference as a function of age level 36 vi

PAGE 7

CRA.PTER I INTRODUCTION Conformity can be best defined in terms of the susceptibility of the individual to the prevailing norms of his social group. The conforming process arises naturally as a product of continued group interaction and it is necessary for the establishment of the group concensus which generally precedes social action. The significance of conformity as an area of study in experimental social psychology is reflected by the numerous investigations into this area in the past fifteen years (Berg and Bass, 1961). While these studies have resulted in a variety of theoretical positions on the nature of conformity, it is generally assumed by virtually all theoreticians in this area that conformity behavior is the result of developmental processes (Berg and Bass, 1961). An integral part of the child's socialization is his ability to identify and adhere to the norms of both his peer group and appropriate authority figures. The present investigation is concerned with the development of peer conformity across age and with the relationship between the development of conformity and the development of morality as two aspects of the socialization process. (A) The ontogeny of conformity behavior Despite the proliferation of research into the conformity process in the past fifteen years, very little empirical work has been done 1

PAGE 8

2 in relating age level to conformity behavior. The theoretical position which seems to be most popularly held postulates that conformity, defined as a yielding response to perceived social pressure decreases with increasing age (Campbell, 1961). This formulation assumes that the young child is susceptible to peer influences because of his low level of social competence and his general vulnerability in the social situation. Further, it purports that as the child develops he becomes more competent, acquires a higher status and thus becomes increasingly independent from his reliance upon the social group. Empirical support for these propositions has come from two unrelated and temporally separated studies. The first of these is a study by Marple (1933) in which it was found that high school students were more prone to conform to the majority opinion of their peers than either college students or posted lege age adults. Also, adults were found to be less likely to conform to the pressures of the group than either high school or college students . In the second study Berenda (1951) found that 7-10 year-old children were more likely than 10-13 year-old children to yield to the pressure of their teacher in the Asch-line judgment situation. Berenda interpreted these findings as indicating that the older children were able to remain more independent than the younger children because of their increased social competence and their expressed pride in their intellectual integrity. It should be noted, however, that Berenda found no differences between her 7-10 and 10-13 year-old groups when the social pressure to conform came from peers.

PAGE 9

Most theorists and investigators, including Campbell (1961) have accepted and combined the studies of Berenda (1951) and Marple (1933) and have postulated a one-stage linear or curvilinear development of independence. Conforming sets are attributed to younger children and individual response sets are said to develop with age. In further support of this hypothesis, Campbell (1951) has made reference to studies which bear an indirect relationship to the effect of age on conformity. Most of these studies have found that there is a tendency for conformity behavior to decrease with increasing status and competence (Crutchf ield, 1955; Kelley and Volkert, 1952; Tuddenham, 1959). Campbell pointed out that these findings lend support to the hypothesis that age and conformity are inversely related. An alternative postulation on the relationship between age level and conformity which is in direct contradiction to both the combined findings of Berenda and Marple and the formulation of Campbell has been proposed by Piaget (1951). On the basis of his interview studies with children, Piaget implies that social conformity develops in a two-stage fashion. Specifically, Piaget found that the tendency for children to conform to the rules of a game increased up to age 11 or 12 and thereafter decreased. This general finding was explained by Piaget in terms of a stage theory of social development. That is, the child progresses from an initial "v^gocentr ic" stage, in which social rules are insignificant and secondary to individual needs, to a stage of "individual codification," in which the individual adheres to social rules but yet is able to codify his own body of rules.

PAGE 10

1 This author's interpretive breakdown of Piaget's stages yields to the following development pattern: STAGE AGE MODE BEHAVIOR I 1-5 Egocentric Disregard for social rules; no internalization . II 7-8 Compe t it iona 1 Recognition of social rules but little internalization or utilization of them in a socially harmonious fashion . III 11-12 Cooperationa 1 Recognition, full internalization and use of social rules in maintaining strictly harmonious social re lations . IV @ post 13 Individua 1 Cod if ication Rules are recognized, internalized and adhered to--but not so strictly that individual rules are not codif ied . According to Piaget, the progression from one stage of development to the next is a cognitive transformation and is the result of the individual's synthesizing of information acquired in the social situation. Hence, the child can be thought of as proceeding from ineffective to effective social behavior. The model, which this 4

PAGE 11

author devised from Piaget's investigations, is applicable only to the development of peer relationships. Piaget depicts the development of the child's relational dispositions with adults as a totally different course of development. The broadness of Piaget's model makes the empirical testing of it difficult and cumbersome. However, Costanzo and Shaw (1966), utilizing the Crutchfield apparatus and Asch line judgment procedure, obtained findings that support Piaget's formulation. Using subjects ranging in age from seven to 21, they found that the child's tendency to yield to the erroneous line judgments of a simulated majority initially increased with age up to thirteen years and thereafter decreased. The greatest amount of conformity was found to occur in the 11-13 year-old range; the 7-9 year-olds were found to be least likely to conform to the erroneous judgments of a peer majority. The curve generated by Costanzo and Shaw's findings corresponds to the bidirectional two-stage function which might be predicted by Piaget's theory of the development of conformity behavior. A similar study was undertaken by Iscoe, Williams and Harvey in 1963. They used a group of subjects ranging in age from 7 to 15, and found that the tendency of the individual to yield to group pressure increased with age up to an asymptotic point in adolescence. Specifically, the task of the subjects in their study was to judge the number of metronome clicks in the presence of the erroneous judgments of a simulated peer group. Iscoe et al . found that females conformed more than males generally increasing from age 7 to 10 and then decreasing; whereas male conformity increased from 7 to 15 years. As can be noted, the general trends

PAGE 12

6 of these findings are very similar to those of Costanzo and Shaw. However, while Costanzo and Shaw's study utilized both male and female subjects, and while there were trends toward a sex difference, this difference was not significant. Further, they did not find the asymptotic points in the conformity development function to be sex-specific. Despite these discrepancies, both studies tend to support Piaget's hypothesis on the bidirectional development of conformity. If the results of both studies are compared by partitioning the data into similar composite age groups and summing across sex, the same developmental function is generated. While both these studies support the linear downward trend found by Marple (1933) in his adolescent to adult age groups, they are inconsistent with the findings of Berenda (1951) and the postulations of Campbell (1961) which depict conformity to be a monotonic decreasing function of age. The inconsistency between Costanzo and Shaw's (1966) findings and the findings of Berenda (1951) probably results from the different nature of the social pressure used in these two studies. In Berenda's investigation, social pressure to conform was provided by high status persons: the eight brightest children in the class or the teacher. One might suspect that younger children are more influenced by high status persons than peers, whereas older children are more influenced by peers. Since Costanzo and Shaw's (1966) study used peers as the source of social pressure, the differences between these two studies might reflect differences between the effects of prestige suggestion and peer suggestion on conformity behavior. Viewing peer conformity as a linear decreasing function of age seems paradoxical in that the

PAGE 13

7 young child must be seen as becoming more unsocialized with greater exposure to his peer group. (B) The interrelationship o£ the development o£ selfblame and the development of co nformity In the experimental literature on conformity behavior, conformity has been traditionally defined as the yielding of the individual to the pressure of the group. It is interesting to note that Piaget (1951) states that the child's moral judgments are the result of social pressure from peers in a social situation. Further, Piaget discusses the development of conformity in terms of the development of moral behavior. He apparently considers both moral behavior and conformity to be two aspects of the same internalization process in which specific bodies of rules and norms are deve lopmental ly formulated which define appropriate behavior in the social group. Since social rules and norms are the basis of moral behavior, and it is these norms and rules which are internalized in the development of the child, then a violation of fully internalized social rules should lead to "moral guilt." A state of discomfort arises when an internalized social rule concerning the correctness of majority opinion comes ii.to conflict with the individual's own perception that he is correct and the majority is wrong. In order to alleviate this discomfort those individuals who have a greater tendency toward moral guilt based on a more fully internalized set of social rules would most probably resolve the conflict by "blaming" themselves for the conflict situation and hence conform more frequently. Those individuals who have not internalized, or at least not fully internalized, the prescribed set of social rules would probably not be as prone

PAGE 14

8 to experience moral guilt for violating the rules and hence would probably blame others for the conflict and conform less frequently. The above statements are the essence of Piaget's theory concerning moral behavior. In this formulation morality is nothing more than conformity to group norms, and moral guilt the result of deviation from those norms. As the normal child develops he progresses from an amoral, nonconforming individual to a tacitly moral and overconforming individual to an individual who while moral and conforming is free to deviate somewhat from the social standard. Both moral behavior and social conformity deal with the adherence of the individual to social standards and norms. One would therefore expect that an individual who would score low on some criterion indicator of morality would also score low on some criterion indicator of conformity. Aronfreed (1961) has operationally defined the construct morality as the tendency of the individual to make self-blaming, self-critical responses after transgression. Utilizing this definition he has found that the tendency to make self-blaming, selfcritical responses is positively related to nonde linquency (Aronfreed, 1960). Furthermore he found self-blame responsiveness to be virtually absent in delinquents, who by their very definition are violators of societal standards of conformity. Despite the obvious difference between nonconformity as defined by delinquency, and nonconformity defined by current experimental social psychology, L.^ese findings lead to some hypotheses concerning the positive relationship between experimentally defined conformity and self-blame responsiveness.

PAGE 15

9 Costanzo and Shaw (1966) did some exploratory testing of the proposed positive relationship between self-blame and ;"onformity. After each group of four age homogeneous subjects were tested for conformity to line stimuli, they were individually asked if they had noted a discrepancy between their own perception and that of their peers. If their response to this question was positive, they were then asked what they felt the reason for the discrepancy was. The responses to the initial postexperimental question indicated that all Ss perceived some discrepancy between their responses and those of the other Ss in the group. The reasons given for these discrepancies were classified as either "internal" (self-attributed reasons) or "external" (other attributed reasons). Classifications were made by four graduate students in psychology who showed 100 percent agreement. They found that the development of internal attribution of self-blame, like conformity development can be represented as a twostage function of age. That is, as conformity increases with age to an asymptotic point in adolescence and then decreases, the frequency of "internal" attribution generated a similar two-stage developmental function with like trends. In order to test more directly the relationship between self-blame and conformity, Costanzo and Shaw computed a biserial correlation between conformity and internal attribution of subjects. A highly significant relationship was indicated (r^ = .87, p<.01). While the measure of self-blame was not a very powerful one, the findings of this study strengthen the plausibility of the hypothetical interrelationship between conformity and self-blame.

PAGE 16

10 There are some further results which lend support to the developmental trends in self-blame as found by Costanzo and Shaw (1966). Maccoby and Whiting (1960) found that responses connoting self-criticism, self-blame and se If-punitiveness are practically never made by 4-6 year-olds. On the other hand, Aronfreed (1961) has indicated that 75 percent of all the 12 year-olds he tested reacted to their own trans gressions with self-blaming, self-critical responses. Kohlberg (1963) found that the development of the need to be a morally good person occurs in the same pre-ado lescent period in which he observed a high frequency of se 1 f -cr it ica 1 responsiveness. While all of these findings indicate that Piaget's hypothesis of an interrelated development of conformity and self-blame is tenable, a convincing test of the relationship between these two factors has not been made. (C) Summary of introductory material In summary then, there are essentially two positions on the development of conformity. The first is espoused by Campbell (1961) and is based on some early research by Marple (1933) and Berenda (1951) This theoretical position hypothesizes that conformity defined as the yielding of the individual to simulated group pressure is a monotonic decreasing function of age. On the other hand, some more recent research tends to support Piaget's formulation on the bidirectional development of conformity. Both Iscoe, Williams and Harvey (1963) and Costanzo and Shaw (1966) have found that the frequency of conformity behavior increases from 7 years up to pre-ado lescence and thereafter decreases. The discrepancy between the postulations of these two

PAGE 17

11 positions can probably best be explained in terms of the difference in the source of social pressure utilized in Berenda's as opposed to Costanzo and Shaw's study. It appears th .t Berenda's results depicting conformity as a decreasing function of age are based on the effects of prestige suggestion, while Costanzo and Shaw's results depicting conformity as a two-stage, nonlinear function of age are based on the effects of peer suggestion. The issues in the interre latedness of self-blame and conformity are not nearly so clear cut. Piaget (1951) contends that since conformity and morally oriented behavior such as self-blame both involve adherence to societal norms, their development is the result of the same cognitive-evaluative process. Although the developmental trends found in se-lf-blame appear to parallel those found in conformity, there is no strong empirical support for the interrelated nature of conformity and self-blame responsiveness (Aronfreed, 1960, 1961; Kohlberg, 1963; Costanzo and Shaw, 1966; Maccoby and Whiting, 1960). (D) Purpose The primary purpose of the present study is to determine whether or not morality development in the form of self-blame responses and the development of peer conformity are interrelated processes. That is, do they develop in the same fashion and also, does variation in one result in like variation in the other. A secondary purpose of this study is to test the replicability of the developmental function of conformity generated by the findings of Iscoe, Williams and Harvey (1963) and Costanzo and Shaw (1966).

PAGE 18

1 12 j { (E) Hypotheses On the basis of the above reported material, the following hypotheses are suggested: (1) The developmental functions of both self-blame and peer conformity will take the same form. That is, there will be an initial rise in frequency of both behaviors from 7-13 years. Thereafter, there will be a decrease in the incidence of both these behaviors . (2) Subjects scoring high on self-blame in relation to their age group will conform more than those obtaining average or low scores. Furthermore, those scoring at an average self-blame level for their age group will score higher on conformity than those scoring low on self-blame. A confirmation of this hypothesis would directly reflect the interre latedness of selfblame and conformity. It would indicate that as you vary one, the other will vary with it and in the same direction. (3) A significant positive relationship will be found between self-blame and conformity both within and across age groups. (4) The larger the positive differential obtained by subtracting other-blame score from self-blame score, the greater will be the tendency to conform. This relationship is also hypothesized to hold up both within and across age groups. The rationale for this hypothesis is that individuals who tend to blame others more than themselves will also tend to rely on the judgments of others less than they would rely on their own judgments .

PAGE 19

13 Due to the positive linear relationship that is hypothesized to exist between self-other blame score (SB OB) and conformity score, it is further hypothesized that the differences between age groups on conformity will be minimized when conformity score is covaried with SB OB score.

PAGE 20

CHAPTER II METHOD Sub jects Four hundred and ninety males ranging in age from 7-21 were administered a self-blame test devised especially for this study. This initial screening sample consisted of four age groups: (1 ) 7-8 year-olds ; n = 86 (2) 12-13 year-olds ; n = 130 (3) 16-17 year-olds; n = 128 (4) 19-21 year-olds; n = 146 Those subjects ranging in age from 7-17 were randomly selected from the elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in Putnam County, Florida. The 19-21 year-old age group was made up of subjects randomly selected from elementary psychology courses at the University of Florida. From this initial pool of subjects, 36 were selected at each age level on the basis of their scoring on the self-blame test. The 12 highest, lowest and middlemost scorers on self-blame in each age group who met the criterion of average or above intelligence were chosen to participate in the conformity and other-blame portions of this study. Furthermore, a measure of social class based on the North-Hatt scale of occupations was obtained on each subject in order 14

PAGE 21

15 to determine whether or not social class differences could be partially accountable for age differences found in self-blame and conformity. Experimental Design A 3 x: 4 factorial design was used in order to test the differences among age groups and blame groups on conformity. This design generates the following matrix: AGE GROUPS 7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21 N High Blame 12 12 12 12 48 Medium Blame 12 12 12 12 48 Low Blame 12 12 12 12 48 N 36 36 36 36 N = 144 Additiona 1 ly , a s in^ lie factor ana lys is of variance with unequal n's per cell was utilized to test differences in self-blame attribution among the four age groups. The scores of all 490 subi'ects tested on the self-blame scale served as the dependent variable in this ana lys is . Materials and Apparatus In order to measure self-blame, 12 incidents, all involving interaction or confrontation of oneself with a peer, were constructed. All of these incidents culminated in a negative or undesirable result. Eight praise-conducive incidents culminating in a positive result of peer interaction were inserted into the blame scale to avoid the

PAGE 22

16 negative effects that might arise from having subiects consistently blame themselves (see Appendix A). The answer sheet was numbered from 1-20 with each number corresponding to either a self-blame or selfpraise incident. Next to each number on the answer sheet there were five boxes vertically descending in size. Subjects were to indicate the amount of praise or blame they were willing to attribute to themselves for any given incident by placing a check in the appropriate sized box. The largest box represented "a very lot" of praise or blame while the smallest box indicated no praise or blame at all. The same scale with self and peer roles reversed was given to each subject participating in the conformity portion of this study in order to obtain a measur of other-blame (OB) (see Appendix B) . The scales used had content validity and split-half reliabilities were computed for each group on the self-blame scale. Full test reliabilities were estimated from split-half reliabilities computed within each of the four age groups. These coefficients indicate that the test can be reliably used to estimate self-blame in all of the age groupings. The reliabilities obtained were: (1) Group I (7-8 year-olds) .77; n = 86 (2) Group II (12-13 year-olds) .82; n = 130 (3) Group III (16-17 year-olds) .83; n = 128 (i+) Group IV (19-21 year-olds) .84; n = 1U6 The apparatus used to measure conformity was the same as that used by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) and similar to the one described by Crutchfield (1955). It consisted of five booths arranged in a semicircle. The center booth was occupied by the experimenter and

PAGE 23

17 contained a Baesler opaque projector and master panels of lights and switches. The subjects occupied the four side booths and faced a projection screen located approximately ten feet from each of the experimental booths to insure isolation for both subjects and experimenter . In a slight modification of the original Crutchfield apparatus, each subject booth contained a panel of twenty lights arranged in four rows of five lights each, with five mercury switches placed beneath the fourth row of lights. Each of these mercury switches, when turned on, activated one of the lights in the fourth row of the subject's response panel and an analogous light on the master response panel in E's booth. Although all Ss were instructed that the first three rows of lights would record the responses made by the other three _Ss in the experimental situation, these lights were actually controlled by master switches in E's booth. This permitted identical lights to be turned on in each booth simultaneously. All responses made by ^s were recorded on the master panel in E's booth. In the present experiment, only three of the five possible response alternatives represented on the subject's response panels were utilized. The particular version of the Crutchfield apparatus in this experiment was constructed to be portable. This was done in order to allow the experimenter to test the elementary and secondary school students at the various elementary and secondary schools in Putnam County, and thus avoid the transport of these students to and from the University of Florida.

PAGE 24

18 The stimulus materials which were used in conjunction with this apparatus consisted of the simple straight line stimuli described by Asch (1951). Each stimulus card was made up of one standard line and three comparison lines. One of the three comparison lines matched the standard in length, one was longer than the standard, and another was shorter than the standard. Procedure The initial pool of i+90 male subjects drawn from all four of the age groups was administered the self-blame test. The scale was administered to one total age group at a time in a large classroom or auditorium in their respective schools. The experimenter introduced the scale to the subjects in each group by reading aloud the instructions provided on the face sheet of each test booklet (see Appendix A). In the course of this introductory period the experimenter explained how to use the system of responding whereby the subjects might indicate different amounts of blame or praise by choosing an appropriate sized box from the five which vertically descended in size for each item. After it was apparent that everyone understood the manner of response, the three eldest age groups were instructed to read each item carefully and to make the response that most applied to them on any given item. The youngest age group (7 and 8 year-olds) were read each item aloud because of the great variation in reading ability at this age. These younger subjects were instructed not to respond until the experimenter completed reading the incident. All subjects in all age groups appeared to understand the endorsement procedure.

PAGE 25

19 Twelve subjects each from the high, medium and low levels of blame endorsement within each age group who met the criterion of average or better intelligence were selected to participate in the conformity portion of this study, which was administered approximately one week after the administration of the self-blame scale. The conformity portion of this study was also administered in a room at the school which the subjects were attending. When Ss reported at the time they were scheduled for, they were asked to select one of the four booths. They were also told that after they had been seated in their chosen booth there was to be no discussion among themselves. After the four Ss in any group were seated, the experimenter gave instructions pertaining to the nature of the task and the operation of the apparatus. These instructions, presented below, were made as simple as possible to insure that Ss of all age levels would understand them. I am going to project a number of cards onto the screen you see in front of you. As you see (Experimenter displays sample card), each card has four lines on it. This line (Experimenter points to standard line) on the left has no letter above it. The other three lines, as you see, have the letters A, B, and C above them. You are to match one of these lines (Experimenter points to comparison lines) with this line (Experimenter points to standard). One of the three lettered lines on each card will be equal to the unlettered one, so you will make a choice on every trial. In order to make a cho'ice of the line you think is equal to the unlettered one, you will push up a switch on the panel in front of you. You will notice that although there are twenty lights and five switches on this panel board, only three of the columns are lettered (Experimenter goes to each booth and points to the three columns and then corresponding switches). These three columns are the only ones which will be used. Thus, there are four rows of lights numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, and three columns lettered A, B, and C.

PAGE 26

20 Therefore, if you are person three, and on a particular slide you think that B is the right choice, you will push up the switch below the letter B and the 33 light will be lit up on your panel (Experimenter goes to each booth and instructs each subject to push up the switch he might if he thought C were the correct answer — the apparatus at this time was not plugged in). Each of you will be given a number later on which will correspond to one of the rows numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. Thus, when I call number 1, he will light up either A, B, or C in row one, and so forth. If you are person number three, it does not mean that person two and person four are on each side of you. The numbers do not go in the order of the booths . Each group of four lines will be shown to you for three seconds. Then I will shut off the projector and when I call your number you are to press the switch you think is right. Do not push the appropriate switch until I call your number. After you put on the switch, leave it on until I tell you to close it. Once you press up a switch, you cannot change your mind. Please do not talk, even to yourself, during the experiment. I am now going to come to each booth to explain anything that you did not understand. When I come to your booth, I will also give you your number. Before the actual experiment starts we will have five practice trials. In these practice trials you will go in no particular order; after I show the slide I will merely say "choose" and you will all flick your switches. After these five trials, the experiment will start and you will go when I call your number. I know these instructions were long, so if you have any questions when I come to your booths, don't hesitate to ask them. After I start showing slides I cannot answer any more questions . After the instructions were presented and the experimenter was assured that all subjects comprehended the task, he proceeded to administer the five pre-experimental trials to ascertain the original response level of each subject and to further insure that S^s across all grades understood and were able to perform, the task. The test period consisted of twenty trials with the line stimuli. On fifteen of these twenty trials the experimenter, simulating a peer majority, made erroneous judgments. Since all subjects were assigned number four, and erroneously believed that their peers

PAGE 27

21 occupying the other booths were numbers 1, 2, and 3, they were all confronted with a unanimously wrong peer majority on 15 of the 20 experimental trials. Each individual's conformity score was the number of times his choice corresponded with the erroneous judgments of the simulated peer majority. After the administration of the conformity portion of this study to a given age group, that age group was once again assembled and administered the other-blame scale (see Appendix B).

PAGE 28

CHAPTER III RESULTS Preliminary Findings Before the main findings of this study are reported, the results of some preliminary measures of social class and task competency among age groups will be presented. These measures were taken in order to assure that the four age groups were equivalent with regard to social class and ability to perform the experimental task. Social class : An analysis of variance was done in order to test the difference among the four age groups on the North-Hatt Scale of occupational prestige. Although the college age group tended to originate from families in which the father's occupation was ranked somewhat higher than the preco liege age groups (see Table 1), no significant differences were found among age groups on occupational classifications (see Table 2). In interpreting Table 1, it should be noted that each occupation was ranked on an eight point scale with the lower rankings representing occupations of higher prestige. Pre-exper imental line judgment trials : A total of eight errors were made on the 720 pre-exper imenta 1 trials in all age groups. The errors were distributed among all four of the age groups with no predominance of error in any one age group. This performance represents a line judgment accuracy of over 98 percent and indicates that all 22

PAGE 29

23 Table 1. Mean rankings and standard deviations of occupational prestige in each of the four age groups 7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21 X 4.97 4.77 4.69 4.00 s 1.18 1.73 1.84 1.97 Table 2. Analysis of variance of occupational prestige across age level Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square 19.37 3 6.45 2.18 N.S, Within groups 413.83 140 2.96 Total 433.20 143

PAGE 30

24 subjects in all age groups could perform the task and use the apparatus with equal facility. Main Findings The results of social pressure on conformity at the different age levels are presented graphically in Figure 1. As predicted, conformity was lowest for Group I (ages 7-8) increased to an asjonptotic point for Group II (ages 12-13) and decreased for Group II (ages 1617) and Group IV (ages 19-21). The experimenter's prediction on the development of self -blame was not upheld. As Figure 2 demonstrates, the tendency to attribute blame to oneself decreases with increasing age. Table 3 indicates that there is a highly significant difference among the age groups on selfblame responsiveness (p <.001). The hypothesis that the development of self-blame and the development of conformity could be represented by parallel functions is not upheld. As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, the three oldest age groups display the downward linear trend predicted for the postadolescent groups on both self-blame and conformity, whereas Group I (ages 7-8) scored highest rather than lowest on selfblame as had been predicted. The nonpara 1 le 1 ism in the development of self -blame and conformity does not, however, contraind icate the interrelated nature of these two variables. The analysis of the difference among blame groups and age groups on conformity (Table U) reveals that there are highly significant differences in conformity as a function of both age and self-blame intensity. Figure 3 depicts the developmental functions

PAGE 31

25 Table 3. Analysis of variance of self-blame across age level (N = 490) Source Sum of Squares df MS F P Between age groups 13,421 3 4,U73.61 60.76 .001 Error 35,786 486 73.63 (wg) Total 49,207 489 _ -

PAGE 32

26 55,7-J t 12-13 16-17 Age Level 19-21 Figure 1. Percent conformity as a function of age level, n = 36 per age leve 1

PAGE 33

27 Age Level Figure 2. Self-blame as a function of age level

PAGE 34

28 of conformity for high, medium and low blame groups. As self-blame increases conformity likewise increases for all four age groups. To further test the strength of the relationship between selfblame and conformity, correlations between these two factors were computed both within each age group and across all age groups. As indicated by Tables 6-9 the correlation coefficients between self-blame and conformity within each age group range from .67 for Group II (ages 1213) to .78 for Group IV (ages 19-21). It is noteworthy that when age groups are combined and a correlation computed between self-blame and conformity (Table 5) the total correlation drops to .5U. This drop in the strength of the relationship between self-blame and conformity is predominantly the result of Group I's low point scoring on conformity and their unpredicted high point scoring on self-blame. The analysis of covariance utilizing SB-OB score as the Xcovariate did not tend to equalize the age groups on conformity as hypothesized, but rather changed the nature of the differences among the groups. Figure 1 depicts the bidirectional function obtained when plotting uncorrected conformity means across age level, and Figure U shows the function obtained when SB-OB corrected conformity means are plotted across age. As can be noted, when conformity is corrected for the effect of SB-OB score, Group I and Group IT reverse positions. That is, Group I (ages 7-8), the group scoring lowest on conformity, becomes the peak point in the function when its scores are corrected for the effect of SB-OB. Group II (ages 12-13), on the other hand, moves from the highest to the lowest conforming group when its

PAGE 35

29 Table 4. Summary table of 3 x 4 analysis of variance of conformity responses at different age levels and for different blame in tens it ies Source Sum of Squares df MS F P 1) A (Age) 137.58 3 45.86 12.53 <.001 2) B (Blame intensity) 327.87 2 163 .94 44.79 <.001 3) AB 8.80 6 1.47 < 1 N.S. 4) Error 483.50 132 3.66

PAGE 36

30 65 60 55 50 45 C o o ^ 35 0) o u
PAGE 37

31 Table 5. Matrix of correlations among SB, OB, SB-OB and conformity collapsed across age SB OB SB-OB Conformity SB ** .61 N.C. ** .54 OB N.C. -.03 SB-OB ** .66 Conformity * p < .05 ** p < .01 N.C not computed

PAGE 38

32. >> p 4-1 c; a U + * •K O 1 0 CO 1 1 m «o 1— t in 1 r— 1 U-l vO 1 1 t—t • CM • 1 o I o CN o 1— t r— ( m w (U 0) 03 bO CQ « O O 1 CB O CJ O 1 1 • • n z 1 1 •• i CQ z Z 1 On CO 0) fi PQ ) 1 1 nj CQ o ' 1 f o On 1 1 1 n 1 1 CQ 1 1 1 1 CQ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 1 CO >, >, *J 4J •r-l 6 U CO o CQ o O O c 1 c 00 CQ CQ o CQ CQ CQ o m O V) u CO O CO u >. >. 4-1 4-1 •i-l •r4 E * * B u * K I-l * * o CO 00 00 1 0 CO CO 1 U-l vO in 1 u-l fO vO 1 00 c 1 — 1 c 1 0 1 o 1^ CJ VO o CO (1) en bO Q) CO CQ bO CQ o 1 CJ U 1 1 CO O o O 1 1 VO CQ Z z 1 1 1 CQ z z 1 1 CO 00 CO 0) r— * as -K £1 H CQ K 1 1 1 CQ + O CN 1 1 1 H O in 1 1 1 ro 1 1 CQ 1 1 1 1 CQ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 1 >> >, P 4-1 •r-l e B u I-l CO o CQ 0 o <4-l O u-l 1 c 1 C CQ CQ CQ o CQ CQ CQ o W O CO CJ CO O CO u in O V a V 0) 4-1 3 a o c z

PAGE 39

33 scores are corrected by an SB-OB covariate. Therefore, the effect of age level on conformity remains significant (p<.01)(see Table 10). However, the directionality of the differences among age groups changes as a function of SB-OB covariation. Hypothesis four which postulated a positive relationship between SB-OB score and conformity was tested by the correlation of these two factors both within and across age groups. Tables 6-9 indicate that there are significant positive relationships between SB-OB and conformity within each age group. These correlations range from a low of .46 in Group IV to a high of .61 in Group III. Table 5 shows an overall correlation of .66 between SB-OB and conformity across all age groups. Figure 5 graphically depicts the development of SB-OB scoring as a function of age level. The trends of this curve are very similar to those of Figure 1 displaying conformity as a function of age level. The likeness in the curves of these two functions explains the positive relationships between SB-OB and conformity reported above. Additional correlations were run between OB and conformity and OB and SB. These correlations like the ones abovt were computed both within age groups and across age groups. Correlations between SB and OB within age groups varied from .35 in Group III (16-17 years) to .79 in Group IV (19-21 years). These four correlations were all significant at the .05 level or better (Tables 6-9). Table 5 indicates an overall, across age group correlations of .61 between SB and OB. These findings indicate the individuals are relatively consistent in their blaming tendencies whether the target person is self or other.

PAGE 40

3k Table 10. Summary table of the analysis of covariance with SB-OB as the X-covariate and conformity as the Y-covariate Source Sum of Squares df MS F p Age 36.61 2 18.31 5.90 p<.01 Error 430.81 139 3.10 Total U67.42 141

PAGE 41

7-8 — i 12-13 Age Level 16-17 -H — 19-21 Figure U. Percent conformity based on SB-OB corrected conformity scores as a function of age level

PAGE 42

36 Figure 5. S-0 blame difference as a function of age leve

PAGE 43

37 This finding accentuates the importance of the SB-OB score as a measure of morality behavior, for in using this subtraction factor, each subject can serve as his own base level for attribution of blame tendencies. The correlations between OB and conformity within age groups vary from a low of .19 in Group III (12-13 years) to a high of .68 in Group I (7-8 years) with significant positive relationships obtaining in Groups I and IV (r = .63)(see Tables 6-9). The relationship between OB and conformity across age groups yields a coefficient of -.03 indicating that in a population of subjects of heterogeneous age, OB and conformity operate as orthogonal factors.

PAGE 44

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The nonlinear relationship between age and conformity reported by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) receives decisive support from the results of this study. As predicted, conformity was found to be a two-stage function of age. Figure 1 indicates that conformity behavior increases from its lowest level in the 7-8 year-old age group to asymptote in the 12-13 year-old age group after which it decreases with increasing age. This finding fits well with Piaget's conceptualization of the child's developmental progression from egocentricism to a "socialized individualism." Social pressure from peers has little salience to the younger child whose rewards and punishments for conformity are administered by adult figures. The importance of peer opinion and judgment increases as a function of socialization. In the course of the child's integration into a peer group, he gradually becomes aware of the necessity to yield to social pressure in order to maintain harmonious peer relationships. Social rules can neither be adhered to nor recognized until the child is able to perceive his own effect upon his relationship with his peers. Once he perceives himself as interacting with a peer culture, he adopts the rules inherent to that culture. Until these rules are adopted or internalized, the child cannot anticipate the censure inherent in the violation of those rules . 38

PAGE 45

39 The nonconforming child becomes the over-conforming preadolescent with his internalization of the rules of the peer culture. At this stage, deviation from the peer group in behavior, judgment, preferences, or dress, etc., is met with the censorship of the group. The preadolescent receives negative reinforcement for deviating from peer norms and he becomes acutely aware and sensitive to his own conformity needs. After this preadolescent stage the individual begins to experiment with nonconformity to the peer culture. When successful peer relationships are maintained despite occasional nonconformity, the adolescent who is still very aware of peer group rules feels safer in deviating from them. Thus conformity should be expected to decrease through young adulthood as the individual becomes aware of the rewards of "socialized individualism" and is able to integrate individualized behavior with the conformity necessary for harmonious social relationships . As is indicated by a comparison of Figures 1 and 2, the hypothesis that conformity and self-blame should develop on a parallel fashion was not supported. Figure 2 depicts self -blame as a linear decreasing function of age. While there is a correspondence in the trend of conformity behavior and self -blame in the three oldest age groups, the 7-8 year-old age group scored higher than any of the other groups on self-blame and lower than the other age groups on conformity. The tendency of the 7-8 year-old group to conform the least and self-blame the most of any group is particularly surprising in the light of the high positive relationships which were obtained between self -blame and

PAGE 46

conformity both within age groups and across age groups (see Tables 5-9). Several explanations for this finding are possible. The explanation that the 7-8 year-old subjects have a tendency to endorse high on a scale of this type is contraindicated by the finding that their scores on the self-praise items did not differ significantly from the other three age groups . A more plausible explanation is that the younger children in this study were attributing blame for somewhat different reasons than the older age groups. Rather than responding with self-blame attribution to the transgression against a peer, it is possible that the 7-8 year-olds were responding to the negative outcomes which occurred in each of the blame incidents. Thus, instead of responding to their own role in the incident which occurred, they responded to the fact that something "bad" happened for which blame must be assigned. Since the items were constructed so that there would be no option to select the target of the blame attribution, the subjects in the 7-8 year-old group were forced to blame themselves for the negative outcomes. Piaget (1951) in describing the absolutistic morality of the child at this stage of development suggests that a child of this age does not differentiate between different degrees of "bad." An event which occurs in the environment is generally judged as all bad or not bad at all. In the presence of negative outcomes it is tenable that the 7-8 year-old child will attribute high blame to either self or other or both despite either' s involvement or noninvolvement in the incident preceding the negative outcome.

PAGE 47

In order to take out the effect of severity of outcome in blame attribution, an other-blame version of the Self-Blame Scale (Appendix B) was administered to all subjects. Thus, the outcomes of the incidents remained constant across scales and the difference score CSB-OB) which was computed for each subject reflected that subject's attribution to the locus of blame. It was hypothesized that the larger the positive differential between blame and conformity, the greater the tendency to conform. This hypothesis was upheld and while the SB-OB was not as effective a predictor of conformity within age groups as self-blame, it was more strongly related to conformity across age level than self -blame (see Table 5). Furthermore, the likelihood that conformity develops parallel to SB-OB differences is suggested by the similar trends apparent in the figures plotting the development of conformity and SB-OB differential as a function of age (Figures 1 and 5). It is noteworthy that the 7-8 yearold age group was the only one of the four age groups which attributed more blame to others than to themselves. Insofar as this result reflects a lesser degree of socialization in this group, it is partially explanatory of the relatively low amount of conformity found among 7-8 yearolds. Socialization appears to involve an increase in the tendency of the child to blame himself more than he blames others for similar situations. This tendency increases from a negative point in the 7-8 year-old age group to an asymptotic positive point in the 12-13 year-old age group. The younger child first enters into the social

PAGE 48

42 situation as a se If -oriented , egocentric being and through a gradual increment in his need for peer approval begins to develop an orientation toward peers. The preadolescent has so rigidly internalized the rules of his peer group that he becomes peer oriented rather than self-oriented, and thus becomes less willing to apply negative sanctions to his peer group than to himself and more willing to conform to the peer group than rely on his own judgment. The adolescent and young adult stages are accompanied by a gradual tempering of the need for peer approval because of the greater feeling of security in peer relations which results from experience in socialization. These older groups are much more willing to externalize blame and deviate from the norms of their peer group than the preadolescents . The effect of SB-OB on conformity is demonstrated by the analysis of covariance presented in Table 10. In this analysis SB-OB was utilized as the X-covariate with conformity responsiveness the Y-covariate. While the effect of age on conformity was not removed by this analysis, the directionality of the conformity differences between the age groups changed (see Figure 5). With conformity scores corrected for SB-OB scores the 7-8 year-old group became the highest conforming group, while the 12-13 year-old group became the lowest conforming group. This reversal of the initial findings is highly suggestive of the strong effect SB-OB differences have on conformity behavior • The hypothesis that morality in the form of self-critical, self-blaming responses and conformity are interrelated behaviors

PAGE 49

43 stenuning from the same cognitive evaluative process was strongly supported by the findings of this study. In addition to highly significant positive correlations between SB and conformity and SB-OB and conformity, the most decisive support came from the results of the analysis of variance presented in Table k. The results of this analysis indicate that while the developmental trends remain the same for high, medium and low self-blame groups, the high self-blame groups, regardless of age tend to conform more than the medium or low self-blame groups. Thus, conformity is a positive linear function of self-blame (see Figure 4). As predicted, variations in the intensity of selfblame lead to like variations in the amount of conformity behavior.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER V SUMMARY This study was undertaken in order to determine both the developmental and nondeve lopmental relationships which obtain between self-blame and conformity. It was predicted that both conformity and self-blame would develop in a two-stage nonlinear fashion with initial increases in the incidence of both behaviors through adolescence and decreases thereafter. The prediction of a positive relationship between conforming behavior and self-blame behavior was based upon Piaget's postulation which holds that both conformity to peer rules and morality are two aspects of the same internalization process. Piaget has indicated that both behaviors are interchangeable components of the socialization process and both deal with the internalization of social group norms. The criterion measure of conformity utilized in this study was the frequency with which individual subjects conformed to the erroneous line judgments of a simulated peer majority. Self-blame and other blame tendencies were measured by the use of two scales devised by this author especially for this study (see Appendices A and B) . Consistent with the experimenter's expectations, conformity was found to be a two-stage function of age. That is, there was an 44

PAGE 51

increase in the percentage of conforming responses from childhood to preadolescence and a decrease thereafter. Contrary to prediction, however, the development of self-blame did not yield the same function as the development of conformity. Rather, self -blame was found to be a monotonic decreasing function of age from childhood through young adulthood. It was noted that one very plausible reason for this study's failure to obtain parallel developmental functions for selfblame and conformity is the observed tendency of the youngest age group to attribute blame absolutis tical ly for negative outcomes regardless of the target of that attribution. In order to test more precisely the relationship between conformity and attribution to self or other targets, an other-blame scale was administered and difference scores were computed between attribution of blame to self and attribution of blame to peers. The results indicated that this self-other blame difference as a function of age paralleled closely the development of conformity. The age group to blame others more than themselves was the youngest age group, and from this point S-0 score progressed to its highest positive differential in the preadolescent age group and thereafter decreased. This study indicates that future research attempting to determine the relationships between self-blame and other measures of socialization should utilize the differential attribution of blame to self versus other targets as the measure of self-blame. The hypothesized interrelated nature of self-blame and conformity both within each age group and summed across all age groups

PAGE 52

46 was found to obtain in this study. As self-blame was varied from low to high intensity, conformity also increased. The correlations obtained between self-blame and conformity and S-0 blame and conformity were all significant at beyond the .01 level both within and across age groups . The results of this study indicate that the conceptualization of conformity and morality as closely related processes both developmentally and nondevelopmenta lly is a valid one. The implications of the above findings are manifold but one of the more significant ones would tend to suggest that the socialization of the child does not predominantly involve the internalization of parental and adult norms, as is purported by such concepts as superego development, but rather the internalization of both the social and moral rules of a peer-group culture .

PAGE 53

APPENDIXES

PAGE 54

APPENDIX A SELF-BLAME SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY On this test there are twenty stories. I want you to try to imagine yourself in the situation presented in the stories. What I want you to do is read each story carefully. After you've read each story, go to your answer sheet and mark down the amount of blame or praise you deserve for what happened in the story. DO ONE STORY AT A TIME . Your answer sheet is numbered from one-to-twenty and the numbers correspond to the story numbers. Next to each number you will see 5 boxes vertically descending in size. The different sized boxes represent different amounts of praise and blame you will give yourself for each story. The larger the box, the greater the praise or blame: A VERY LOT J A LOT SOME BUT NOT A LOT A LITTLE NONE AT ALL Just put a check in the box that applies to you for any given story, This system of indicating amounts of praise and blame is being used because this test is also being given to young school children. Before you start the test itself, place your name, age and father's occupatio n in the places provided on the answer sheet . Thank you. 48

PAGE 55

You and your friend are walking home from school. Neither of you is paying attention to where you are going. Finally, you knock into your friend and his books fall into a puddle of water and are ruined. How much are you to blame: You and your friend are angry with one another and begin to argue. The argument goes on for a long time and finally his feelings are hurt by something you say. How much are you to blame: Your friend is doing poorly in his schoolwork. One night you decide to study with him and try to help him. The next day he gets a good grade on a class quiz. How much praise do you deserve: You and your friend are at your house having a good time. However, you're having such a good time that you both forget what time it is. When your friend gets home, his parents are angry with him for being late for dinner. How much are you to blame: One day your friend loses a valuable object in the bushes. Both you and he look for it for a long time and finally you find it and give it to him. How much praise do you deserve: You and your friend are eating lunch in the cafeteria and you are both joking around with one another when your knee hits the bottom of the table and his plate full of food falls into his lap. How much are you to blame: You tell your friend that it is easy to sneak into the movies without paying. When he tries, he is caught. How much are you to blame: You and your friend are crossing the street one day, when you see a car coming. When your friend keeps on walking, you pull him back and the car misses him. How much praise do you deserve: You and your friend plan together to copy from one another during a class quiz. Early in the quiz your friend is caught copying from you by the teacher. How much are you to blame: One day you whisper something to your friend during a class. The teacher gets angry with your friend and tells him to stop talking. You tell the teacher that it wasn't your friend talking but you. How much praise do you deserve: One day you and your friend are in a store together. He decides that he is going to take something without paying for it. If he did he would have gotten caught. You talk him out of taking the object. How much praise do you deserve: You and your friend are swimming in a pool. Both of you begin to splash water at one another at the deep end. All of a sudden, you splash your friend, he loses his balance and goes under and almost drowns. How much are you to blame:

PAGE 56

50 13. You and your friend go roller skating at the local roller skating rink. You are both skating fast and fooling around bumping into one another. One time, you knock into your friend and he falls down and breaks his leg. How much are you to blame: lU. As your friend is walking home from school one day, two boys who are hiding behind the bushes jump out and both start punching him and beating him up. A few minutes later you come by and see this and go help your friend. Because of your help he was not badly hurt. How much praise do you deserve: 15. You and your friend are riding your bicycles together and you decide that it might be fun to have a race. In the middle of the race your friend's wheel hits a stone, the bike topples over and he gets many cuts and scratches. How much are you to blame: 16. You and your friend are walking to another friend's house. Both of you decide that rather than take the long way, you should find a short cut. You suggest a short cut through the woods and ask your friend to follow you. Both of you get lost and have a hard time finding your way out of the woods. How much are you to blame: 17. Neither you nor your friend are paying attention when your teacher puts a homework assignment on the board. You insist that she didn't assign any homework and he claims she did. You argue about it and you win the argument and neither of you do any homework. The next day, you both are unprepared for class and fail the quiz. How much are you to blame: 18. One day you and your friend are mad at each other. All you keep on doing is arguing about silly things. Finally you decide that it would be best to end the argument and so you apologize to your friend and as a result, the argument stops. How much praise do you deserve : 19. One day in class you are acting like a clown, talking out loud and joking. Your friend thinks you are funny and begins to laugh. The teacher catches him and angrily tells him to leave the room. How much are you to blame: 20. Your friend is walking his dog and you are walking along with him. All of a sudden, the dog breaks loose from your friend and starts running away. Your friend likes his dog very much and he gets upset. So you run after the dog and finally find it, catch it and bring it back to your friend. How much praise do you deserve:

PAGE 57

APPENDIX B OTHER BLAME SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY On this test there are twenty stories. I want you to try to imagine yourself in the situation presented in the stories. What I want you to do is read each story carefully. After you've read each story, go to your answer sheet and mark down the amount of blame or praise your friend deserves for what happened in the story. DO ONE STORY AT A TIME . Your answer sheet is numbered from one-totwenty and the numbers correspond to the story numbers. Next to each number you will see 5 boxes vertically descending in size. The different sized boxes represent different amounts of praise and blame you will give your friend for each story. The larger the box, the greater the praise or blame: A VERY LOT A LOT SOME BUT NOT A LOT A LITTLE NONE AT ALL Just put a check in the box that applies to your friend for any given story. This system of indicating amounts of praise and blame is being used because this test is also being given to young school children. Before you start the test itself, place your name, age and father's occupation in the places provided on the answer sheet. Thank you. 51

PAGE 58

52 1. You and your friend are walking home from school. Neither of you is paying attention to where you are going. Finally, he knocks into you and your books fall into a puddle of water and are ruined. How much is your friend to blame: 2. You and your friend are angry with one another and begin to argue. The argument goes on for a long time and finally your feelings are hurt by something he says. How much is your friend to blame: 3. You are doing poorly in your schoolwork. One night your friend decides to study with you and try to help you. The next day you get a good grade on a class quiz. How much praise does your friend deserve : 4. You and your friend are at his house having a good time. However, you're having such a good time that you both forget what time it is. When you get home, your parents are angry with you for being late for dinner. How much is your friend to blame: 5. One day you lose a valuable object in the bushes. Both you and your friend look for it for a long time and finally he finds it and gives it to you. How much praise does your friend deserve: 6. You and your friend are eating lunch in the cafeteria and you are both joking around with one another when his knee hits the bottom of the table and your plate full of food falls into your lap. How much is your friend to blame: 7. Your friend tells you that it is easy to sneak into the movies without paying. When you try, you are caught. How much is your friend to blame: 8. You and your friend are crossing the street one day, when he sees a car coming. When you keep on walking, your friend pulls you back and the car misses you. How much praise does your friend deserve: 9. You and your friend plan together to copy from one another during a class quiz. Early in the quiz you are caught copying from him by the teacher. How much is your friend to blame: 10. One day your friend whispers something to you during a class. The teacher gets angry with you and tells you to stop talking. He tells the teacher that it wasn't you talking but him. How much praise does your friend deserve: 11. One day you and your friend are in a store together. You decide that you are going to take something vithout paying for it. If you did you would have gotten caught. Your friend talks you out of taking the object. How much praise does your friend deserve: 12. You and your friend are swimming in a pool. Both of you begin to splash water at one another at the deep end. All of a sudden, he splashes you. You lose your balance and go under and almost drown. How much is your friend to blame:

PAGE 59

53 13. You and your friend go roller skating at the local roller skating rink. You are both skating fast and fooling around bumping into one another. One time, he knocks into you and you fall down and break your leg. How much is your friend to blame: 14. As you are walking home from school one day, two boys who are hiding behind the bushes jump out and both start punching you and beating you up. A few minutes later your friend comes by and sees this and helps you. Because of his help you were not badly hurt. How much praise does your friend deserve: 15. You and your friend are riding your bicycles together and you decide that it might be fun to have a race. In the middle of the race your wheel hits a stone, the bike topples over and you get many cuts and scratches. How much is your friend to blame: 16. You and your friend are walking to another friend's house. Both of you decide that rather than take the long way, you should find a short cut. He suggests a short cut through the woods and asks you to follow him. Both of you get lost and have a hard time finding your way out of the woods. How much is your friend to blame: 17. Neither you nor your friend are paying attention when your teacher puts a homework assignment on the board. He insists that she didn't assign any homework and you claim she did. You argue about it and he wins the argument and neither of you do any homework. The next day, you both are unprepared for class and fail the quiz. How much is your friend to blame: 18. One day you and your friend are mad at each other. All you keep on doing is arguing about silly things. Finally, he decides that it would be best to end the argument and so he apologizes to you and as a result, the argument stops. How much praise does your friend deserve : 19. One day in class your friend is acting like a clown, talking out loud and joking. You think he is funny and begin to laugh. The teacher catches you and angrily tells you to leave the room. How much is your friend to blame: 20. You are walking your dog and your friend is walking along with you. All of a sudden, the dog breaks loose from you and starts running away. You like your dog very much and you get upset. So your friend runs after the dog and finally finds it, catches it and brings it back to you. How much praise does your friend deserve:

PAGE 60

APPENDIX C RAW CONFORMITY DATA n = 12 :e Leve 1 7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21 3 8 7 2 3 9 3 3 c 4 0 c J 2 5 2 2 5 4 3 LOW 2 6 3 3 6 6 1 3 6 4 3 0 6 4 5 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 8 5 4 6 5 7 6 5 9 5 4 c D 7 7 c 0 5 7 7 6 7 6 5 6 3 8 3 6 MEDIUM 10 3 5 5 8 8 9 4 H 8 6 7 7 10 4 8 8 5 11 5 3 5 6 3 7 10 13 7 7 6 7 9 8 6 10 5 7 9 10 6 13 11 6 HIGH 5 9 6 5 7 4 5 8 9 8 7 5 7 8 9 5 6 11 10 9 6 12 7 5 5 13 12 7 M CO 2 W H 2 03 54

PAGE 61

REFERENCES Aronfreed, J. Moral behavior and sex identity. In 0. R. Miller and G. E. Swanson (eds.)Inner Conflict and Defense . New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1960. Aronfreed, J. The nature, variety and social patterning of moral responses to transgression. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. , 1961, 63, 223-241. Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In Guetzkow (ed . ) . Groups, Leadership and Men . Pitts: Carnegie Press, 1951. Berenda, Ruth W. The Influence of the Group on the Judgments of Chil dren . New York: Kings Crown Press, 1951. Berg, I. A., and Bass, B. (eds . ) . Conformity and Deviation . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961. Campbell, D. T. Conformity in psychology's theories of acquired behavioral dispositions. In I. A. Berg and B. M. Bass (eds.). Conformity and Deviation . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961, 101-142. Costanzo, P. R., and Shaw, M. E. Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development , 1966, 37_, 967-975. Crutchfield, R. S. Conformity and character. American Psychologist , 1955, 10, 191-198. Iscoe, I., Williams, M., and Harvey, J. Modification of children's judgments by a simulated group technique: a normative developmental study. Child Development , 1963, 3i4, 963-978 . Kelley, H., and Volkert, E. The resistance to change of groupanchored attitudes. Amer . Sociol . Rev. , 1952, J_7, 453-485. Kohlberg, L. Moral development and identification. In Stevenson (ed.). Child Psychology . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, 277-332. Maccoby, E. E., and Whiting, J. W. Some child rearing correlates of young children's responses to deviation stories. Mimeographed unpublished paper, Stanford University, 1960. 55

PAGE 62

56 Marple, C. H. The comparative susceptibility of three age levels to the suggestion of group versus expert opinion. J. Soc . Psychol. , 1933, 10, 3-40. Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child . Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951. Tuddenham, R. D. Correlates of yielding to a distorted group norm. J. Pers. , 1959, 27, 272-284.

PAGE 63

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Philip Robert Costanzo was born on January 10, 1942, in New York City, New York. In June, 1959, he was graduated magna cum laude from Holy Cross High School, Flushing, New York. In September, 1959, he enrolled at Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, where he received the Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in June, 1963. In September, 1963, he enrolled in the Graduate School of Queens College, Flushing, New York, where he worked and studied as a graduate research assistant in the Department of Psychology. From June, 1964, until September, 1964, he was employed as a research fellow at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York. In September of 1964, he entered the Graduate School of the University of Florida in the Department of Psychology where he received his Master of Arts degree in June, 1965. Since receiving his Master's degree he has been working on the completion of his doctoral dissertation in the area of conformity behavior and completing his practicum and internship studies in clinical psychology. During his tenure at the University of Florida, Philip Costanzo has been supported by a Veterans Administration Training Grant, an Arts and Sciences fellowship, and a Vocational Rehabilitation training grant. After he receives the Ph.D. degree he plans to pursue research in the area of childhood socialization and small group processes, and 57

PAGE 64

58 undertake psychotherapeutic work with adolescents and young adults. Philip Robert Costanzo is married to the former Frances Margaret Simone.

PAGE 65

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. April, 1967 ciences Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee: