A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of ‘Reasoning’ in the Socialization of Young Children

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Cognitive developmental theories of moral judgment assume that some types of moral argument are more advanced or more valid than others; however, logical analysis reveals that they vary not in logical type but only in content (type of behavior approved or disapproved) and the source of moral authority to which they appeal (e.g., parental authority, legality, justice etc). Consequently, the current distinction in studies of child-rearing techniques between ‘reasoning’ and various authoritarian procedures calls for reformulation. A two-stage multivariate analysis of structured interview material from a sample of 70 middle class mothers of 5-year-old boys produced a factor structure which, inter alia, supported the validity of characterizing moral expressions in terms of their content and source. It also bore out the contention that love withdrawal and ‘reasoning’ represent separate but not mutually exclusive socialization practices.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: