The present study was undertaken to explore age differences in relativistic and dialectical thought, and to determine whether formal operations are necessary but not sufficient for these forms of thought. Sixty young (mean = 19.65 years), middle-aged (mean = 46.15 years), and older (mean = 68.50 years) adults, half of whom were male and half of whom were female, were presented with four formal operational tasks and two life-like dilemmas designed to assess relativistic and dialectical assumptions. Four-way analyses of variance with age (3), gender (2), dilemma (2), and thought level (4) with repeated measures on the last two factors were conducted on the relativism and dialecticism measures. In general, older adults showed significantly less rejection and more acceptance of relativistic and dialectical assumptions than young and middle-aged adults (p < 0.01), although on one measure this pattern varied by gender and dilemma (p < 0.01). Guttman scale analyses showed that formal operations were necessary but not sufficient for the acceptance of contradiction and its integration into the dialectical whole, but that awareness of relativity was necessary but not sufficient for formal operations. These findings support the position that relativistic and dialectical thought may increase in later life, and that dialectical but not relativistic thought is postformal operational.

Keywords:
Age differences, Cognitive development, Dialecticism, Logical reasoning, Postformal operations, Relativism
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1986 S. Karger AG, Basel
1986
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.