Conscience, Personality, and Socialization Techniques

Two groups of 7th-grade children with internal moral orientations were selected on the basis of moral judgment responses: one whose judgments showed concern for human consequences of behavior and consideration of extenuating circumstances (humanistic); and another whose judgments showed rigid adherence to institutional norms regardless of consequences and circumstances (conventional). A third group oriented toward detection and punishment (external) was also selected. The humanistic and conventional Ss were found similar to each other and higher than the external on guilt, confession, acceptance of blame, and parent identification; their parents were reported to express affection and use induction discipline more frequently, and power assertion less frequently. The major differences were: the humanistic Ss appeared more tolerant of anti-moral impulses, more apt to experience guilt as a direct result of awareness of consequences of their behavior for others, and more identified with personal characteristics of their parents. Their parents’ discipline techniques were more varied, ranging from permissiveness to power assertion depending on the situation, and cushioning the handling of aggression by focusing on precipitating issues and suggesting reparation where possible. The conventional Ss appeared to be more repressed, more apt to experience guilt as a result of their own impulse expression rather than the harm done to others, and more identified with the power aspect of the parental role. Their parents’ discipline was characterized by frequent use of love withdrawal and inductions highlighting the harm done to the parent by the child’s action. The differences, especially on the guilt and repression indexes, were more pronounced for boys than girls. The findings were discussed and interpreted in terms of a general analysis of the discipline encounter and the attempt was made to link them with trends among today’s youth.