CHILDREN'S BELIEFS IN THEIR OWN CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENTS IN INTEUECTUAL-ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT SITUATIONS

VIRGINIA C CRANDALL Fels Research Institute WALTER KATKOVSKY Fordham Umversity VAUGHN J. CRANDALL Fels Research Institute

This study descr&es a scale for assessing chddren's beliefs that they, rather than other people, are resportsible for their intellectual-academic successes and failures. Subscale scores assessing responstb^ty for successes and for failures were generally independent of each other Splft-half and test-retest rebabdOies were moderately high Normatwe data on 923 Ss m grades 3-12 mdicate that self-responsiMxty is already established by thtrd grade, ^lat older girls give more self-responsible answers than older boys, and that sUght but stenificant age changes occur tn subscale scores dependent upon the sex of the child. ResponsibUtty scores were moderately related to JnteJUgence, ordinal posttion, and size of family, and inconsisterOly related to social dass Evidence of predtctwm to mteUectual-achtevemeni performance is presented Many situations, m the laboratory or m nature, contain cues g the degree to whi6h lein^cements are contmgent on the subject's instrumental acts. Similarly, mdividuals have been found to differ m die degree
This staidy was primarfly supported by NIH Grant M-2238 and partially suppcoted by NIH Giant GM-10146 The followmg persons asisted m varkms a^ects of data-^tiiermg and/or data analysis- Barbara Abrams, Suzanne Good, Jean Lindhohn, Nmcy Te^pen, Elmor Watera, Margo Wilson, aol Shelley Wmg Grate-

CHILD DEVELOPMENT to whidi they bebeve that they are usually able to influence the outcome of situations They may beheve that their actions produce the reinforcements which follow their efforts, or they may feel that the rewards and pumshments meted out to them are at die discretion of powerful others or are m the hands of luck or fate In fact, the same remforcement m the same situation may be perceived by one mdividual as withm his ovwi control and by another as outside his own lnfiuence These personal beliefs could be important determmers of the remforcmg effects of many experiences If, for example, the mdividual is convmced that he has httle control over the rewards and punishments he receives, then he has htde reason to modify his behavior m an attempt to alter the probabJify that those events vwll occur Rewards and punishments, then, will have lost much of their remforcmg value, smce they will not be as effective m strengthenmg or weakenmg the S's response A more complete discussion of beliefs m internal (self) versus external (environmental) control and the hkely role of these m social learnmg can be found elsewhere (Rotter, Seeman, & Liverant, 1962) Recent studies suggest that remforcement-responsibilify behefs hold promise of bemg predictive of individual differences m reinforcement sensitivify, m attitudes, and m social behaviors The onginal questionnaire constructed to assess this vanable was devised by Fhares (1955) and revised by James (1957) Research usmg the I-E (mtemal vs external control) scale has found that a behef m external responsibJify is positively correlated with defensive and maladaptive level of aspiration behaviors (Phares, 1957, Simmons, 1959), is more prevalent among schizophremcs than among normal subjects (Cromwell, Rosenthal, Shakow, & Kahn, 1961), and is positively associated with high California F-scale scores (Holden, 1958) A newer form of die I-E scale was developed by Liverant, Rotter, Crowne and Seeman (Rotter et al, 1962) Behefs m mtemal or self-responsibihfy on this scale were positively associated with commitments of southern Negro college students to take action toward mtegration (Core & Rotter, 1963), with greater attainment of information and understanding of theu: ovra disease by tuberculosis patients (Seeman & Evans, 1963), and with realistic and cautious betting behavior (Liverant & Scodel, 1960) In addition, mdividuals who hold strong convictions of mtemal responsibdify express less confornung attitudes on the Barron Independence of Judgment fill appreciation is also expressed to the followmg members of the Greene Gounty (Ohio) Sdiool Systran and the Greeneview, Tecumseh, and Yellow Sprmgs Schools whose cooperation greatly facilitated this study E Glayton Wiseman, guidance supervisor, and Louis King, pnncipal, Antioch School, Paul Goulter, principal, Tecumseh School, Harold Thomas, principal, Greeneview Gentral, Hugh H Hames, pnncipal, Greeneview South, Howard E Swaim, pnnapal, and Kenneth McDonough, guidance director, Greeneview North, John Mdone, prmcq>al, Bryan H i ^ School GrandaD's address Feb Research Institute, Yellow Sprmgs, Oh 92

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL

Scale (Odell, 1959) and display less behavioral conformity to group pressure (Crovrae & Liverant, 1963) The I-E scales mentioned above were constructed for adult Ss Recently, two other techniques to measure this construct have been develojjed for children the Locus of Control scale devised by Bialer and Cromwell (1961) and the Children's Picture Test of Internal-External Control (Battle & Rotter, 1963) Self-responsibihty, as measured by the Locus of Control scale, correlated moderately but positively with chronological age, and to an even greater degree with m^ital age (Bialer, 1961) Battle and Rotter (1963) found lntemahty on that same scale positively associated with social class and vnth fewer unusual shifts of expectancy statements on a Level of Aspiration task In the same study, mtemal-responsibihty behefs reflected m responses to the Children's Picture Test, like those on the Locus of Control scale, were positively associated with socioeconomic status and were stronger m white than m Negro children In summary, a behef m reinforcement responsibility is related to a number of demographic vanables, attitudes, and behaviors, suggesting that such a variable may be useful in personahty and personality-development research The Intellectual Achievement Responsibibty (IAR) Questionnaire, employed m the present investigation, shares the aim of the above-mentioned scales in that it attempts to measure beliefs m mtemal versus external remforcement responsibihty However, it differs from the other measures m several respects First, the techniques discussed so far contain items descnbmg reinforcements in a number of motivational and behavioral areas such as a5hation, dominance, achievement, and dependency However, there has been no demonstration so far that such behefs are consistent across all areas of experience The IAR, on the other hand, was developed withm the context of a larger research program dealmg with children's achievement development Thus, it is aimed at assessing children's behefs m reinforcement responsibihty exclusively m mtellectual-academic achievement situations The IAR also differs from the other assessment methods m the external environmental forces descnbed While previous scales mdude a vanety of sources and agents such as luck, fate, nnperscmal social forces, more-personal "significant others," etc, the IAR limits the source of external control to those persons who most often come in face-to-face contact with a child, his parents, teachers, and peers This restnction was based on two considerations The first had to do vnth the possibihty that a child may attnbute different amounts of power or control to vanous external agents For example, he might attnbute a great deal of control to adults, but discoimt the influence of luck or fate on his expenences, or vice versa There is no information yet available to determme whether children have any generahty in tlieir b e h ^ in the power of vanous lands of external forces, although there is some evidence of such generality m adults' behefs (Rotter et al, 93

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

1962). Qmsequently, at this early stage of investigation, it was thought advisable to restnct the scale to one type of external control A second reason was that it seemed important from a developmental p)omt of view to focus pjarticularly on children's beliefs m the mstnimentahty of their own actions compared with that of other p)eople m their immediate environment TTie depiendence of young children upon others for instrumental help and emotional supprort is, of course, a necessary condition of early development However, the resolution of dependence on such caretakers and the concomitant acqmsition of mdep)endent problem-solvmg techniques are equally important requisites of normal personality development It would not be surprising, then, to find that mfants and preschool children^lf they could repxHt such behefs^would ascnbe reinforcement resp>onsibility to the powerful others m their environment But with age and expenence, most children should begm to feel that their own actions are often instrumental m attam-

mg the remforcements they receive.

Unlike the other I-E scales, the scale used m this research was constructed to sample an equal number of positive and negative events It was felt that the dynamics operative m assuming credit for causing good thmgs to happ)en might be very different frcon those operative m acceptmg blame for unpleasant consequences It is px)ssible that behef m personal responsibihty for the two kmds of events may develop at differential rates, or that this may be so for some children but not others Thus, the IAR was so constructed that, m addition to a total I (internal or self-) respronsibihty score, separate subscores could be obtamed for beliefs m mtemal respKjnsibihty for successes (1+ score) and for failures (I score) The amis of the present mvestigation were both methodological and substantive It was necessary to determme the strength and the Imutations of the IAR for use with children, the best methods of administration at different ages, test-retest reliabihty, etc Regardmg substantive issues, the study exammed relations between children's reinforcement behefs and a number of demographic vanables age, sex, IQ, socioeconomic status, ordmal position, and size of family METHOD The InteUectutd Achievement ResponsAOity Questionnaire The children's IAR scale is composed of 34 forced-choice ltans. Each item stem descnbes edier a positive or a negative achievement exp>enence which routine^ occurs m children's daily hves This stem is followed by one altiemative statmg that the event was <used by the child and anotl^r statmg that the event occurred because of the bdtavior of someone else m the duld's immediate environment The items are pr^ented m Table 1* Internal altonativra are designated by an I Positive-event items are mdi94

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDAU

cated by a plus sign, and negative events by a mmus sign following the I A child's I-l- score is obtamed by summmg all positive events for which he assumes credit, and his I score is the total of all negative events for which he assumes blame His total I score is the sum of his I-{- and his I subscores TABLE 1
THE IAR SCALE

1
2 1 -|3

If a teacher passes you to the next g^rade, would it probably be because she liked y , or you, f h k b b because of the work you d did?
When you do weU on a test at school, it it more likely to be a because you studied for it, or b because the test was especially easy? When you have trouble understanding something in school, is it usually because the teacher didn't explain it clearly, or -b because you didn't listen carefully? When you read a story and can't remember much of it, is it usually because the story wasn't well wntten, or because you weren't lnto'ested m the story? Suppose your parents say you are doing well m school Is this likely to nappen because your school wwk is good, or because they are m a good mood? Suppose you did better than usual m a subject at school Would it probably happen because you tned harder, or because someone helped you? When you lose at a game of cards or checkers, does it usually happen because the other player is good at the game, or _b because you don't play well? Suppose a person doesn't think you are very bright or clever. can you make him change his mmd if you try to, or _b are there some people who will think you're not very bnght no matter what you do? If you solve a puzzle quickly, is it because it wasn't a very hard puzzle, or because you wwked on it carefully? If a boy or girl tells you that you are dumb, is it more likely that they say that a because they are mad at you, or ^ because what you did really wasn't very bnght? b Suppose you study to become a teacher, scientist, or doctor and you fail Do you think this would happen a. because you didn't work hard iough, or b. because you seeded some help, and other people didn't give it to you? When you learn somethmg quickly m school, is it usually because you paid dose attention, or because the teacher explained it dearly?

I II I

95

CHILD DEVELOPMENT TABLE 1Continued 13 I -114 I 15 I 16 I -f 17 I -f18 I 19 I 20 I -\21 I -)22 I 23 I If a teacher says to you, "Your work is fine," is it a something teachers usually say to encourage pupils, or b because you did a good job? When you find it hard to work anthmetic or math problems at school,
IS It

I -\26 I

a because you didn't study well enough before you tried them, or b because the teacher gave problems that were too hard? When you forget something you heard m class, is it a because the teacher didn't explain it very well, or b because you didn't try very hard to remember? Suppose you weren't sure about the answer to a question your teacher asked you, but your answer turned out to be right Is it likely to happen a because she wEisn't as particular as usual, or b because you gave the best answer you could think of? When you read a story and remember most of it, is it usually a because you were interested in the story, or b because the story was well wntten? If your parents tell you you're acting silly and not thinking clearly, is it more likely to be a because of something you did, or b because they happen to be feeling cranky? When you don't do well on a test at school, is it a because the test was especially hard, or b because you didn't study for it? When you win at a game of cards or checkers, does it happen a because you play real well, or b because the other person doesn't play well? If people think you're bnght or clever, is it a because they happen to like you, or b because you usually act that way? If a teach^ didn't pass you to the next grade, would it probably be a because she "had it in for you," or b because your school work wasn't good enough? Suppose you don't do as well as usual in a subject at school Would this probably happen a because you weren't as careful as usual, or b because somebody bothered you and kept you from working? If a boy or girl tells you that you are bnght, is it usually because you thought up a good idea, or because they hke you? Suppose you became a famous teacher, scientist or doctor Do you think this would happen a because other people helped you when you needed it, or b because you worked very hard? Suppose your parents say you aren't doing well in your sdiool wwk Is this bkely to happen more a because your work isn't very good, Mb. because they are feeling cranky?

96

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL TABLE 1Conhnued Suppose you are showing a fnend how to play a game and he has trouble with It Would that happen because he wasn't able to understand how to play, or because you couldn't explain it well? When you find it easy to work arithmetic or math problems at school, is It usually _a because the teacher gave you especaally easy problems, or _b because you studied your book well before you tned them? When you remember something you heard m class, is it usually because you tned hard to remember, or _b because the teacher explamed it well? If you can't work a puzzle, is it more hkely to happen because you are not especially good at workii^ puzzles, or because the instructions weren't written clearly enough? If your parents tell you that you are bright or clever, is it more likely because they are feehng good, or because of somethmg you did? Suppose you are explaining how to play a game to a fnend and he learns quickly Would that happen more often because you explained tt well, or because he was able to understand it? Suppose you're not sure about the answer to a question your teacher asks you and the answer you give turns out to be wroiy; Is it hkely to happen because she was more particular than usual, oc because you answered too quickly? If a teacher says to you, "Try to do better," would it be a because this is something she might say to get pupils to try harder, or b because your work wasn't as good as usual?

27

33

The Sample The sample wats composed of 923 elementary- and high-school students and was drawn from five different schoob so that it would be representative of children m diverse kmds of communities Included were students from a consolidated coimtry school, a village school, a small-city school, a mediumcity school, and a college laboratory school None came from a large metropohtan sdiool system, however Subsamples m vanous grades were third grade, N = 102, fourth grade, N = 103, fifth grade, 2 = 99, sixth grade, V N = 166, eighth grade, N = 161, tenth grade, N = 183, twelfth grade, N = 109. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the children in grades 6, 8,10, and 12 was detenmned by Hollm^ead's Two Factor Index of Social Position (HoQingshead, 1957) This mdex is based on the type of occupation and amount of education of the head of the household, with th^e two fact(:s weighted'and summed SES information was obtained from a questionnaire administered to the children Complete information was obtamed for all tentii-grade Ss, but was acquired for only parts of the sixth-, eighth-, and

97

CHILD DEVELOPAAENT twelfth-grade subsamples However, Ss m these grades were m the same schools as the tenth-grade sample, and there was no evidence to suggest that the subsamples on which mfonnation was mcomplete difiFered from those with complete information For grades 3, 4, and 5, an estimate of the children's SES was obtamed from their fathers' occupations only, smce they were not able to provide information on their fathers' educations Both SES distnbutions compare favorably with the normative sample of Holhngshead and Redhch (1958) except that neither is as heavily weighted with cluldren from famihes on the lower end of the distnbution For the older children the distnbution was normal (non-signiflcant Fisher gi and gj), and for the yoimger children the distnbution showed some pilmg up of scores on the lower end of the range (Fisher gi significant at the 05 level) However, even the distnbution of the younger sample is still not as skewed as Holhngshead and Redhch report is true of their New Haven sample The Califorma Test of Mental Maturity, the mteihgence test used by all schools for grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 yielded a mean of 103 4 and an SD of 14 15 The intelligence test which all but one of the schools had used for grades 3, 4, and 5 was the Lorge-Thomdike The mean Lorge-Thomdike score for the Ss who had had the test was 103 0 with an SD of 12 51 Administration Procedures One aim of this study was to investigate children's behefs m mtellectualacadenuc remforcement respwnsibihty throughout as broad an age range as pwssible Ideally, it would have been desirable to examme these behefs at least from the time children enter elementary school until they graduate from high school However, preliminary research mdicated that children of average mteihgence m the first two elementary grades often had difficulty m responding to the questionnaire, primarily because they could not keep an item and its two alternatives m mmd long enough to make meanmgful responses As a result, only children m the third grade and above were used Interviewmg of the subjects used m the prehnunary study also mdicated that some children m even the third, fourth, and fifth grades were not able to read well enough to take the test m wntten form It was decided, therefore, that individual oral presentation of the scale was desirable for children below the sixth grade, and it was administered m this fashion to the third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade samples The questions were tape recorded so tiiat each duld was presented verbal stimuh which had the same inflections, tone, and rate His oral responses were recorded by the exammer The older children m grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 were administered the scale m wntten form m group sessions The instructions presented m both the oral and the wntten administrations requested the S to pick the answer "that best descnbes what happens to you or how you feel" He was told that there were no nght or wrong 98

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL

answers and assured that his responses would not be given to anyone at his school Data Analyses Distnbution charactenstics of lAR scores and all other vanables were tested vnth Fisher g statistics, then all non-normal distnbutions were normalized by McCall T-score transformations Product-moment correlations were used for measures of association, and tests of difference were t test Twotailed tests of significance were used to determine all p values Smce the Ns oi the subsamples differed, and smce some demographic data were not available for all Ss vwthm a subsample, the N for each statistical test is presented separately m the tables
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the children's IAR total scores and subscores for each of the grades tested Since each of the 34 Items presents an internal and an external alternative, chance distnbutions would result m mean total I scores of 17 and mean I-f- and I scores of 8 5 each In all cases the obtamed means exceed the means that would be expected by chance There is a possibilify that some accidental f)ecuhanfy m the wordmg of the IAR items "pulls for" internal responses However, it may also be that the high means which were obtamed mdicate that self-responsibihfy is a characteristic which develops m children as early as the third grade Common observation would indicate that parents and teachers attempt to promote and encourage a behef m personal responsibihfy for mtellectual-academic success very early m the child's trammg Perhaps the genesis of self-responsibihfy for mtellectual activities occurs even earlier than third grade, but a different method of assessing mtemal responsibJify would have to be developed for use with younger subjects smce children below that level have diflBculty with forced-choice questions The high mean scores, the relatively short ranges, and the small amount of vanance aroimd means suggest that there are a number of non-discnminatmg items which ehat an mtemal response from most children However, while some of the items are not contnbuting to the vanance, there appear to be sufficient mdividual differences m childrai's responses to allow prediction to the achievement performances which are discussed m the final section of th& paper

99

CHILD DEVELOPMENT TABLE 2

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND RANGES OF I A R SCORES SUBJBCinS AND GBADB N TOTAL I Mean SD

1+
Range Mean
SD

Range

Mean

SD

Range

Boys 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 Girb3 4 5 6 . 8 10 12 Total 3 4 5 8 10 12

44 59 52 93 68 90 52 58 44 47 73 93 93 57 102 103 99 161 183 109

23 16 24 83 24 04 24 74 25 38 25 27 24 38 23 22 24 75 24 36 26 93 26 64 26 50 27 33 23 20 24 80 24 19 25 70 2611 25 90 25 93

380 300 3 69 4 57 3 51 4 62 3 71 400 3 81 3 96 3 71 3 86 3 93 2 98 3 92 3 37 3 83 4 35 3 77 4 33 3 66

16-30 17-30 16-31 12-32 15-32 6-32 14r-30 13-31 15-30 15-32 14-33 13-34 16-33 19-32 13-31 15-30 15-32 12-33 13-34 6-33 14-32

12 32 12 41 12 38 12 99 13 07 13 13 1185 12 88 12 66 12 47 13 88 13 27 13 29 13 40 12 64 12 51 12 42 13 38 13 19 13 21 12 66

2 02 2 07 2 52 2 54 197 260 2 83 2 08 2 20 2 54 2 21 2 35 2 22 2 15 2 08 2 13 2 53 2 20 2 41 2 62

8-16 7-16 7-16 6-17 7-17 2-17 5-17 ^16 7-17 6-17 5-17 7-17 6-17 6-17 8-16 7-17 fr-17 5-17 7-17 2-17 5-17

10 84 12 42 1165 1175 12 31 12 13 12 54 10 35 12 04 1185 13 05 13 38 13 22 13 93 10 56 12 26 1175 12 32 12 92 12 68 13 27

3 08 2 08 2 46 2 79 2 23 2 83 196 3 01 2 65 2 92 2 43 2 27 240 194 3 05 2 35 2 69 2 72 2 31 268 2 07

4-16 8-17 3-16 S-17 5-16 4-16 8-16 2-15 5-16 1-16 fr-16 6-17 5-17 &-17 2-16 5-17 1-16 5-17 4-17 8-17

166

244

5-17

RehabiUty

Test-retest rehabtbty^The consistency of children's IAR responses over tnne is moderately high Forty-seven of the children in grades 3, 4, and 5 were given the test a second time after a 2-month mterval For these ycunger children, the test-retest correlations were 69 for total I, 66 for l-t, and .74 for I These correlations were all significant at the 001 level The sxth-, eighth-, tentii-, and twelfth-grade children of the present study were not ret^ted. However, 70 mnth-grade students from one of the same schools used m the present study were given the test after a similar mterval rf 2 months. The reliabihty coefficients for these children were .65 for total I, .47 for I-f-, and 69 for I. Agam, these correlations were all significant at the .001 leveL There were no significant sex differences m any of the correlations Tlirare is some possibihty, then, that children's assumptions of responsibility for causmg their academic-mtellectual failures is a som^vhat more stable belief than that for causmg their success^ Reasons far sudb a phencnnraion are unknown However, because sev^^ studies (Braddbill and CHara, 1958, Sulhvan, 1960, Meyer and Offenbach, 1962, Crandall, 1963, 100

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL and Crandall, Cood, and Crandall, 1964) have found negative social reinforcement to be more effectn^e than positive reinforcemrait, it may possibly be that the greater impact of punishment produces a more durable effect on the mtemal-extemal responsibihty behefs surroundmg these expenencra Internal consistency^Because the IAR contams two kmds of items, those samphng behefs m self-responsibihty for positive events and those posing negative events, spht-half rehabihties were computed separately for the two subscales Thus, responses to the eight even-numbered items of the I-f subscale were correlated with the mne odd-numbered ltons of that subscale, and the nme even-numbered I items were correlated with the eight odd-numbered I items For a random sample of 130 of the younger chil6iea, the correlation is 54 for I-|- and 57 for I after correction with the Spearman-Brown Prophesy Foimula For a similar random sample of older children, the correlations are 60 for both the 1+ and the I subscales While the brevity of the subscales mihtates against high spht-half rehabihties, it is apparent that the items withm each subscale are somewhat heterogeneous Relations between IAR Subscores Table 3 reports the correlations between the two subscales of the IAR and demonstrates variable, but generally low, relations between I-|- and I Part of the mdepeidence of the subscale scores should, of course, be attnbuted to the general heterogeneity of items mdicated by the rather low mTABLE 3
CORRELATIONS OF IAR SUBSCALE SCORES Grade

N
102 103 99 166 161 183 109

I -Fvs I 14 11 11 38* 40* 43* 17

3 4 5 6 8 10 12
*p < 001

temal consistency of the items within each subscale However, the obvious independence of the two subscale scores lmphes that it would be imprudent to assume diat I-f- and I scor^ are measurmg the same onentations Such low intra:sca]e correlaticnis may mean that assummg responsibihty for successful mtdlectual-academic expenraices may be diff^ent from assummg responsibihty for failure eiqienences. In addition, the low correlations between ili^ two subscales rmses some doubt about the use of the total I score alone. Since this score combmes self-responsibility for success and failure. It may mask important differ^ices between the two m the mdividual child Tlie very low association of subscale scores for the children in the lower

101

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

grades raise the possibihty that self-responsibility for successes and failures may be learned separately, and the young child may assume more responsibility for the one than for the other Older children m grades 6, 8, and 10 seem to evidence somewhat more generalization of this behef, regardless of the outcome of their efforts It is diflBcult to explam the lack of relationship between subscores for grade 12, considenng the fact that they were related for the precedmg three grades Smce high-school graduation was lmpendmg for these children, there is the possibihty that anxieties over their vocational or college careers and uncertainty about their ability to control future events m the "big, broad world out there" resulted agam m differential responses to the success and failure items Age (Grade) and Sex Differences General tendencies can be noted m Table 2 for positive, negative, and total I scores to mcrease only shghtly with age, and for girls' scores to be somewhat higher than boys', especially from grade 6 upward A more defimtive exammation of age (grade) changes was made by f-test compansons between each two grade levels No companson was made between any of the earher grades and the sixth grade since methods of test admmistrabon change at this pomt Thus, compansons were between third and fifth, sixth and eight, eighth and tenth, and tenth and twelfth grades Finally, an over-all comparison was made between sixth- and twelfth-grade students m order to observe changes over this broader age span where the test administration was consistent All analyses were made separately by sex and for the sexes combined The f-test compansons revealed that there is mdeed no significant change m mtemahty m general (total I) from third grade to fifth, or from sixth grade to twelfth for either of the sexes nor for boys and girls together Nevertheless, some changes m subscale scores did reach significance over these years The boys showed a significant decrease m I-f subscale scores between tenth and twelfth grades (t = 2 80, p < 01) m spite of the fact that the means of earher grades show a gradual and non-significant growth m the assumption of self-credit In fact, the decrease between tenth and twelfth grades was so sharp as to cause the over-all test of I-f- between grades 6 and 12 to show a drop significant at the 05 level (t = 2 52) Two possible reasons for this decrease m I-f- from grades 10 to 12 seem worth considenng As mentioned previously, it may be that the lmmmence of graduabon and the necessity of having to find and ment employment or acceptance mto college provoked uncertamties m the boys about future success and thus lowered their I-f- scores A very different possibihty, however, IS that the older boys may have developed an mcreased sense of modesty, not present at earher ages, which caused them to respond to the questionnaire as though they were not responsible for their mtellectualacademic good fortune 102

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL The girls, on the other hand, did not show a significant mcrease m their I-f scores, but did significantly mcrease their mtemahty for negative events from third grade to fifth (* = 2 89, p < 01), and over the broad span from sixth to twelfth grades (* = 2 18, p < 05) The means m Table 2 show that the first change actuaUy took place chiefiy between third and fourth grades It is mterestmg to note that by sixth grade the girls have already assumed a level of responsibihty for negative events which is shghtly greater than that the boys finally achieve m the twelfth grade In addition, the girls' I scores contmue to nse even higher durmg jumor and senior high school This difference m the development of an acceptance of blame m the two sexes is congruent with recent research deahng with sex differences m superego development In fact, the t-test comparisons reported m Table 4 mdicate that at any given grade level above the surth, and for the TABLE 4
SEX DIFFERENCES IN IAR SCORES TOTAL I GRADE

I-f
Dir

IDir

N 102 103 99 304 166 161 183 109 619

t 0 08 0 06 0 42 0 17 3 26 2 20 2 05 465 5 80

P
ns ns ns ns 01

t B 135 B 0 69 B 0 10 B 1 14

P
ns ns ns ns

t B 0 81 B 0 72 B 063 B 1 16 B 3 10 B 3 17 B 3 08 B 3 74 B 6 55

P
ns ns ns ns 01 01 01 01 001

Dir

3 4

3,4,5 6 8 10 12 6, 8, 10, 12

G G G G

> > > >

G G G G

> > > >

B B G B G G G G G

> > > > > > > > >

G G B G B B B B B

05 05 01 001

G> G> G> G> G>

n
B B B B

2 27 0 75 0 30 311 3 07

05 ns ns 01 01

G> G> G> G> G>

upper grades combined, girls give significantly more mtemal responses of botih kmds than do boys (except for I-f m grades 8 and 10) InteUtgence and Social Class Influences Correlations presented m Table 5 mdicate that IAR scores relate only moderately to mtelligence-test scores and to social status, but reach signifiTABLE 5
RELATIONS OF IAR SCORES TO INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL CLASS

IQ
GRADES

SOCIAL CLASS

N 233 503
*p < 01

Total I 26 16*

I-f 22

I14* 14'

N 259 346

Total I 08

I-f 04

I-04

3,4,5 6, 8, 10, 12
< OS

# < 001

103

CHILD DEVELOPAfWENT caiK because of the large size of the samples mvolved * It seems likely tiiat the moderate relationships found between both self-creditmg and sdlfbkmmg responses and inteUigence are partially accounted for by the greater abJity of the bright child to see the casual relationship between the rewards and punishments he receives and his own mstnimental behavior Because the greater adequacy of that instrumental behavior has allowed him to manipulate his environment more successfully than the duller child, he bas had more evidence that he can control what happens to him and can achieve success more frequently and with greater competence than the chiH with Iras abihty In addibon, it may be that he can accept the bkme for those failures which he does ejcpenence precisely because his generally competent behavior has given him sufficient secunty to do so The IAR was ongmally developed as a predictor to children's mtellectual-achievement behaviors If mtemahty had been found to relate positively, consistently (m each grade), and highly to mteUigence-test scores. It might be assumed that mtemal responses were simply another measure of mteDigent behavior, per se Smce this was not the case, however, it may be that an mtemal or external onentabon represents a motivatmg propensity which will help to acaiimt for mdividual difiFerences m achievement performances Social class, as may be seen m Table 5, accounts for only a very small proportion of the variance m IAR scores, although, as has been previously mentioned, it was found to relate to responses on the Locus of Qmtrol scale and Children's Picture Test of Intemahty-Extemahty It would seem, as Battle and Rotter (1963) mamtam, that there should be a lesser behef m self-responsibihty among lower-class individuals than among those of upper classes Persons from the lower soaal strata are, by reason of their vocations, lack of education, and httle money with which to manipulate their envircmments, m positions of less power to control the events whidi influence their hves than are those at high SES levek It is not surpnsmg, then, tJiat h i ^ y significant social-class differences were found m children's responses to the Locus of Control scale and the Children's Picture Test, which sample g^ieral social expenences The IAR, on the other hand, contains a majonty of ltesns directly related to school-associated activities It is oiir observatitm that teachers attempt to encourage children of all social dasses to achieve an mtemal onentation toward &eir academic efforts with such statements as I f you study hard enough youil pass the test," and "You can be anything you want if you just keep workmg toward i t " It is our conclusion that siwh 1 In addition to assessing associattons between tiiese variable and total IAR and subscale scores for the sexes pooled among the younger and die ddiw duldien as leported above Correlations weie run separately for boys ai^ gfi& at eacb the grade levels studied The significaat conelations were few and did tat ( any observable or cansistait pattern. 104

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL

precepts (togetiber with direct ranforcement in the form of better grades w^en the student persists m his study) account for the high mean I scores reported m Table 2 These same school pressures are exerted upon the duD child, as well as the lower-class duld, although for the slower child these exhortations may be somewhat attenuated Thus, it is not surpnsmg that mteUigence and SES show htle relationship to IAR scores, but that the relationship of mtelhgence to self-responsibihty behefs should be shghtly stronger than tliat for social dass It IS apparent from Table 5 that the younger children's total I and I scores, and tiie older children's I-f scores were predicted by their IQ scores, but not by their social or SES status For the remainmg I scores (younger children's I-f and older children's total I and I), botib IQ and SES correlations, though small, were significant Because of the consistent relationships often reported between social class and mtelligence, analyses of vanance were computed on diese latter scores on the basis of IQ and SES For the oHw children's total I scores the one significant effect was that of mtelligence (F = 9.31, p < 01). For their I scores, however, only the interaction of the two vanables was significant (F = 5 37, p < 05) For the I-f scores of die younger children, social class and the mteraction were both significant (F = 5 79, p < 05, and 8 42, p < 01, respectively) Thus, the effects of social dass and mtelhgence, while weak, seem to mdicate that mtelhgence is more often the stronger of the two predictors to mtemahty In both cases where mteraction occurred, * tests revealed that the effects of the two factors are additive, rather than fomung a complex interaction ^ Ordtnal Position and Family Stze An analysis of IAR total and subscale responses by ordmal position was made by dichotomizmg the scores of first-bom and of later-bom children This analysis yielded no significant differences m the younger group, but mdiited that first-bran children m the upper grades gave more total I responses (* = 2 15, p < 05). (Tests of T e r e n c e on the older children's subscale scores were non-significant) Responses were also analyzed on the basis of die size of the famihes from w ^ d i the children came Those who came from famihes of one or two children were considered "small-family" children, diose from famihes of three or more children were designated as coining tram hage fanuhes Agam, no significant differences were found for die youngCT childf^, but for the older Ss total I and I responses were m^uficandy more prevalent among the children from small families (f = 2 23, p < 05, and t = 2 63, p < 01, re^ectively) h fact that first-bom children accept more self-responsibihty than do * R^ults oi these analyses are not r^x>rted in detail here but may be obtained from thefirstlisted author 105

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

bom later is predictable from most personahty theories and from common observation Not only are first-bom children more often placed m positions of responsibihty for household affairs and for their own conduct, but they are often put m charge of younger siblmgs, as welL Thus, the eld^t cjuld comes to observe both the consequences of his actions upon his own successes and failures and also the effect of his actions upon the welfare of his yotmger siblmgs and of the total famJy unit In contrast, the laterbom duld IS often told that his older brother or sister "will take care of you," allowmg him to assume that he is less responsible for his own actions Probably even more pertment to the IAR, smce it deals with mtellectualacademic situations, is the fact that the eldest child must often use school success as his best pathway to parental approval Some of the same dynamics probably operate for children m a smallfamily settmg But, m addition, the child m a one- or two-child family has a greater chance of bemg recogmzed as an mdividual, of havmg a good deal of attention focused on him, of bemg required to stand on his own, and of bemg accountable for his own actions He cannot be considered just "one of the children" In contrast, the child m a large family is more often mvolved m larger group activities and is less likely to be able to mampulate the direction of these family affairs or to feel personally responsible for the outcome of family decisions Social Desirability Durmg the last decade, much attention has been focused on the tendency of subjects to give socially desirable answers to self-report instruments In constructmg the IAPl, a careful attempt was made to word the mtemal and external altemabves to avoid discrepancies m the social-desirabihty "pull" of the two responses In order to assess the success of those efforts, the children's IAR scores were correlated with their scores on the Children's Soaal Desirabihty (CSD) Questionnaire (Crandall, Crandall, & Katkovsky, 1964) This is a scale designed to measure the tendency with which children will dissemble m order to put themselves m a socially desirable hght An absence of relationship between these two measures would suggest that IAR scores are independent of social-desirabihty tendencies Of the SIX correlabons between IAR and CSD scores (CSD with I-f-, I, and total I for the younger children, and the same tests of associabon for the older children), only two were significant Among the younger children, I scores related negatively to CSD scores (f = 26, p < 001), and among the older subjects I-f scores were posibvely associated with CSD responses (r = 15, p < .01) It is apparent, then, that social desirabihty tendencies do not account for much of the vanance m IAR responses, even m the two cases m which the large size of the samples causes diese small associabons to reach significant levels
106

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL

On the other hand, if the tendency to give socially desirable responses IS thought of as a personality charactenstic, its tendency to be related to reinforcement responsibility behefs is of some mterest That is, the two smaD but significant relationships reported above would mdicate that there is a trend for the young child who wishes to appear socially acceptable to deny that he is at fault when he fails, and for the older child who seeks social acceptance to claim credit for his successes These findmgs are consistent with other research which demonstrated that children with the greatest desu'e to appear socially acceptable tend to be shy, withdrawn, inhibited, and lackmg m self-confidence and a sense of personal worth (Crandall et al, 1964) It may be that children with high social-desirabihty needs tend to form internal and external responsibihty onentations which bolster and defend their uncertam perceptions of their own mtellectual-academic adequacy The Prediction of Achievement Behavior from Behefs tn Self-Responsibthty It will be remembered that the IAR was developed within the context of a larger program of research dealmg with children's achievement development While the intent of the present paper is primarily methodological, the following data are presented in summary fashion as early evidence of the posible predictive utihty of the scale A future paper will present these data in more detail IAR scores were correlated with two measures of academic achievement m the present samples For the younger children, these measures were the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and their report-card grade averages Total I scores correlated positively and significantly with almost all achievement-test measures (reading, math, and language subscores and total achievement-test scores) and with report-card grades for grades 3, 4, and 5 However, separate analyses for I-f and I by sex of child revealed mterestmg differences in prediction All achievement-test measures and report-card grades of the girk m grades 3 and 4 were highly related to I-f (all correlations m the 4O's and 5O's), indicating that the greater the young gu-l's sense of responsibihty for her academic success, the more successful she is likely to be The I scores, however (l e , then- self-responsibihty for failures), related significantly to all the same measures for the boys at grade 5 (correlations rangmg from 34 to 53) In grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, achievement-test scores (Califorma Achievement Tests) were only occasionally related sigmficandy to IAR scores Whether this difference m prediction is a function of the difference between the Iowa and the Califorma Achievement Tests or the age of the subjects is unknown However, significant relations m the 2O's and 30's between total I and report-card grades were agam obtamed m each of these upper grades In a nmth-grade sample used m another study, the achievement-test readmg, language, anthmetic, and total test scores of the boys (but not the girls) were predicted from their I-f scores (correlations mdie 5O's) 107

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston (1962) found IAK scores rekted to other kmds of achievement behaviors m first-, second-, and third-grade boys Total I scores (subscale scores were not used) were highly associate with the amount of tune the boys chose to spend m intellectual activities dunng free play ( 70) and the mtensity with which they were stnvmg m these activities ( 66) The correlabons between I scores and these vanables were not significant for the girls m that study In general, the IAR has predicted best to young girls' standardized achievement-test performances and to those of older boys It has predicted better to young boys' mtellectual acbvibes m free play than to those of young girls Its most consistent predicbon has been to report-card grades The scale, then, predicts differently for the two sexes at different age levels It seems probable that a belief m self-r^iponsibihty consbtutes a motrvabonal mfluence upon achievement performance and thus should predict behavior on tasks where mobvabonal factors account for a relabvely large proporbon of the vanance over and above abihty or acquired knowledge The child who feels responsible for his successes and failures should show greater mitiabve m seekmg rewards and greater persistence in the face of difficulty. This hypothesis seems consistent with the data currently available oa the IAR (thie data reported above) That is, it may be this mobvabonal factor which accounts for the better predicbon foimd to boys' parbcipabon and mtensity of stnvmg m mtellectual acbvibes of their own choosmg than to achievement-test scores It may also account for the consistent, although low, predicbon to report-card grades, smce many teachers grade partially on the eSort the child seems to display In conclusion, die associabons found here to demographic vanables and achievement behaviors lend some addibonal support to the construct vahdity of children's behefs m their control of reinforcements, as well as provuLng evidence for the utihty of measurmg this construct with the present instnimoit It is evident, however, from the lnconsistraicies and small magmtude of many of the relabons found that the scale is m need of further refinement Item analyses would provide a basis for ebminatmg non-discrmunatmg items and lmprovmg the mtemal consistency of tiie two subscales In addibon, further research seems warranted relatmg IAR scores to achievement behaviors such as task persistence and stnvmg, where mobvabonal factors may be pnmary detennmants
REFERENCES * Battle, Esther, and Rotter, J CSuldren's feelnigs of personal control as rdated to social da8S and ethnic group / Pers, 1963, 31,482-490 J Bial^, I Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded and nonaal chddren / Ters, 1 ^ 1 , 29, 303-^20 Bradd)i}I, Yvonne, and O'Hara, J The relabve effectiveness of reward and punish-

108

CRANDALL, KATKOVSKY, AND CRANDALL ment for discnmination leammg m children / comp physiol Fsychol, 1958, 51, 747-751 Crandall, Virginia C The reinforcement effects of adtilt reactions and non-reactions on children's achievement expectations Child Deodpm, 1963, 34, 335-354 CrandaD, Virginia C , Crandall, V J, and Katkovsky, W A Children's Social Desirability Questionnaire / consult Fsychol, 1^4, m press Crandall, Virgima C , Good, Suzanne, and Crandall, V The reinforcement effects of adult reactions and non-reactions on children's achievement expectations a rephcation study Chdd Develpm, 1964, m press Crandall, V , Katkov^, W , and Preston, Anne Motivational and abihty determinants of young chddren's intellectual achievement behaviors Child Develpm , 1962, 33, 643-661 Cromwell, R, Rosenthal, D , Shakow, D , and ICahn, T Reaction time, locus of control, choice hehavior and descnptions of parental behavior m schizophremc and normal subjects 1 Pets, 1961, 29, 363-380 Crowne, D , and Liverant, S Conformity under varying conditions of personal commitment / abnorm soc Psychol, 1963, 66, 547-555 Core, Mayo, and Rotter, J A personahty correlate of social action / Fers, 1963, 31,58-^ Holden, K Attitude toward external versus mtemal control of remforcement learmng of reinforcement sequences Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State Umver, 1958 Holhngshead, A The two factor mdex of social position New Haven Privately printed, 1957 Hollingshead, A, and Redlich, F Social dass and menial illness New York John Wiley, 1958 James, W Internal versus external control of reinforcements as a basic variable m ^ leammg theory Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Umver, 1957 Liverant, S, and Scodel, A Internal and external control as determinants of d e c i - ^ sion makmg under conditions of nsk Fsychol Reps, 1960, 7, 59-67 Meyer, W J, and Offenbadi, S I Effectiveness of reward and punishment as a function of task complexity / comp physiol Fsychol, 1962, 55, 532-534 Odell, Mmam PersonaLty correlates of independence and conformity U n p u b - / hshed master's thesis, Ohio State Univer, 1959 Phares, E Changes m expectancy m skill and chance situations Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Umver, 1955 Phares, E Expectancy changes in skill and chance situations / abnorm soc Fsychd, 1957, 54, 339-342 Rott, J., Seeman, M, and Liverant, S Internal versus external control of reinforcement A major variable m behavior theory In N F Washbume (Ed ), ^ Decisions, values and groups Vol 2. London Pergamon Press, 1962 Seenum, M, and Evans, J Ahenation and leanung m a ho^ital settmg Attier sodol Rev, 1963, 69, 270-284 Simmons, W Personality correlates oi tbe James-I^iares scale Unpubli^ed master's thesis, Ohio State Umver, 1959 Sullivan, P W The effect of verbal reward and verbal punishment on concept ehcitation m children Amer Fsychdogist, 1960, 15,401

109