See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/342466678

Notes on Piaget & Inhelder's Formal Operational Stage as a "Messianic Stage"

Research · June 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 8,057

1 author:

Jens Rogmann
University of Hamburg
15 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teacher Training View project

Fostering Critical Thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jens Rogmann on 27 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Notes on Piaget & Inhelder’s Formal Operational Stage as a „Messianic Stage“
Jens J. Rogmann,
University of Hamburg,
Faculty for Education,
Educational Psychology (Oct 2021, work in progress)

Abstract: This paper (work in progess) tries to summarize conceptual ideas and research findings
pertaining to the idea that certain features of Piaget & Inhelder's Formal Operational developmental
stage can also be understood as a "messianic stage". Here, the stage model is used to explain why, in
late adolescence and early adulthood, many young people are prone to adopt idealistic and utopian
social and political ideas which they reassert with an almost zealous vigor. Yet, at the same time, and
probably due to a lack of experience and an egocentric tendency, they tend to underestimate the
difficulties and the ramifications of attempts to implement their ideals in complex, real-world
settings.

Piaget & Inhelder’s Cognitive Developmental Theory posits different developmental stages (i.e.
sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational, formal operational). On the formal operational
stage, reasoning becomes hypothetico-deductive and, thus, more abstract and idealistic as it also
involves counterfactual imaginative situations and environments.

Previously, “possibility was simply an extension of reality”, but now, “reality … becomes one sub-set
of N possible sets” (Kalyan-Masih, 1973, p. 44), carrying the possibility to invent or subscribe to new
“theories to reform the world” (ibid.). As Kalyan-Masih (1973) explains, a

“lack of differentiation between possibilities engendered by thought, and limitations

imposed by reality” (p. 44) leads to metaphysical egocentricity: “The messianic zeal to
save humanity, to reform the world, and to change the establishment all stem from ...
[this] cognitive mode of thought which transcends reality to the endless realm of
possibilities” (ibid.).

Piaget (1958) views this form of egocentrism as “one of the most enduring features of adolescence”
(p. 343). He notes that the adolescent

…“not only tries to adapt his ego to the social environment but, just as emphatically, tries
to adjust the environment to his ego. In other words, when he begins to think about the
society in which he is looking for a place, he has to think about his own future activity and
about how he himself might transform this society. The result is a relative failure to
distinguish between his own point of view as an individual called upon to organize a life
program and the point of view of the group which he hopes to reform.

In more concrete terms, the adolescent's egocentrism comes out in a sort of Messianic
form such that the theories used to represent the world center on the role of reformer
that the adolescent feels himself called upon to play in the future” (pp. 343-344).

Jordan Peterson (2016) thus refers to this stage as “messianic stage” as in late adolescence and early
adulthood, many people become concerned “about the state of the world and their role in
determining that state” (e.g. 2016, Jan 21, 5min:02sec) and become politically and socially compelled
in the above mentioned sense, while – at the same time – their ideas entail “programs of action
whose ambitiousness and naïveté are usually immoderate” (Piaget, 1958, p. 344)
Piaget (1958) notes that, in addition to emerging formal operational thought capabilities, two
important transformations affect social adjustment.

On the one hand, “feelings relative to ideals” (p. 348) are added to the spectrum of psycho-social
emotions, like notions of humanity, freedom of conscience, civic courage, nationality or social justice
(e.g. in contrast to feelings of inter-individual justice on the concrete operational stage). In an
ancilliary sentence, Piaget adds drily that it also remains a problem “to find out whether the idea is
an object of affectivity because of the person or the person because of the idea” (p. 349) which is
interestingly a thought previously expressed by Carl Gustav Jung (1969/1934) who maintained that
“…people ‘have complexes’. What is not so well known, … is that complexes can have us” (par. 200).

On the other hand, exchanges with close interlocutors or with the physical environment become less
important. Rather, adolescents develop in relation to social roles and relative to given tasks (ibid.)
through interactions with unfamiliar social function owners, institutions and cultural norms and
patterns.

Drawing on Piaget’s theory of equilibrium (1975/1985), Kesselring & Müller (2011, pp. 335f.)
reconceptualize formal-operational egocentrism in terms of three substages or phases:

() Strict Egocentrism, “in which the adolescent or young adult does not consider different
perspectives or relations whatsoever” and in which cognitive reactions towards challenges are
characterized by neglect, repression, or refusal. On this substage, adolescents do not have any
realistic plans for their own future. They tend to overvalue their own significance, and the “extension
of the powers of thought made possible by the new instruments of propositional logic” makes “the
dream of … transforming the world through Ideas … “ seem “… an effective action which in itself
modifies the empirical world” (Piaget, 1958, p. 346).

() Broader Egocentrism, in which subjects start to distinguish between perspectives and between
cognition and reality. For example, with the ability to focus on values that have long-term
implications rather than those that emphasize immediate gratification and goal satisfaction, young
adults start to “enthusiastically promote socially important goals, such as justice, protection of the
environment … [while] at the same time, their behavior is often inconsistent with these goals”
(Kesselring & Müller, 2011, p. 343). This means that difference perspectives cannot be coordinated,
and “confronting challenges are neither systematic nor completely successful” (p. 336).

() The Complete Decentration phase is marked by the coordination of perspectives, i.e. “the subject
puts relations into relation with each other. In the decentration process, this corresponds to the
ability to coordinate perspectives and integrate them into the given cognitive system” (ibid.).

Finally, “equilibrium is attained when the adolescent understands that the proper function of
reflection is not to contradict but to predict and interpret experience” (Piaget, 1967, p.64) and new
levels of “consistency between one’s thoughts and actions” (Kesselring & Müller, 2011, p. 342) are
reached.

“Decentering” thought processes help overcome egocentrism (Piaget, 1958, p. 343). Decentering
takes place when individuals come to recognize the “limitations of practical considerations of reality
impose on the theoretical possibilities” (Kalyan-Masih, 1973, p. 44). Piaget thought that, in time, and
with the adoption of adult roles and the incorporation of real-world experiences (especially: through
getting and retaining a job with some degree of responsibility), young adults will refocus their
perspectives. He writes:

“…the focal point of the decentering process is the entrance into the occupational world
or the beginning of serious professional training. The adolescent becomes an adult when
 he undertakes a real job. It is then that he is transformed from an idealistic reformer into
an achiever. In other words, the job leads thinking away from the dangers of formalism
back into reality” (1958, p. 346)

According to Piaget, the egocentric tendencies are eventually disciplined by a further-developed

personality that embodies “an ideal … but which goes beyond it and subordinates it”, leading to “the
eventual adoption of a social role, not ready-made in the sense of an administrative function but a
role which the individual will create in filling it” (1958, p. 349).

More recently, various theorists and researchers have put forward the idea that cognitive
development may continue beyond formal operations (for overviews cf. e.g. Commons et al., 1984;
Marchand, 2002). In turn, the description of post-formal modes and processes of thinking may also
further the understanding of the ideosyncracies and limitations of formal thought.

For example, many post-formal theories view formal operational thought as essentially focusing on
developing solutions modelled to known or defined problems within a “closed system” (Basseches,
1984; Lemieux, 2012), and as absolute or non-relative (Sinnott, 1984), meaning that problems are
not conceptualized in fundamentally or paradigmatic different ways simultaneously (Basseches,
1984). This may also imply that individuals on the formal stage may not (yet) have “the ability to
think flexibly in terms of multiple frames within self-constructed … [or] open systems” (Yan & Arlin,
1995, p. 228).

The prevalence of the adoption of idealistic and utopian social and political ideas and fervent
partisanship for these causes may thus wane as individuals gain experience in encountering and
dealing with evolving, contradictory, and ill-defined problems, paradoxical issues and dilemmas or
even multiple goals and trade-offs.

Here, basic trust, tolerance of ambiguity, and openness to experience may be useful traits in
individuals that are also thought to be characteristics of general wisdom (cf. Staudinger & Glück,
2011).

In line with this notion, some theorists and thinkers relate even seem to posit that post-formal styles
of thinking and reasoning are required to cognitively deal appropriately with today’s complex
(Sinnott, 2021), charged or polarized (Cavanaugh & Cavanaugh, 2021) and volatile or exponentially
changing (Gidley, 2021) political issues.
References

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex.

Cavanaugh J.C. & Cavanaugh C.K. (2021). Understanding Polarization Through a Cognitive-
Developmental Lens. In: In: J. D. Sinnott and J. S. Rabin (eds.), The Psychology of Political Behavior in
a Time of Change (pp. 195-214) New York: Springer.

Commons, M. L. , Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (eds.) (1984). Beyond Formal Operations: Late
Adolescent and Adult Cognitive Development. New York: Praeger.

Gidley, J. M. (2021). Postformal Psychology: The New “Normal” in Times of Exponential Change.
In: The Psychology of Political Behavior in a Time of Change (pp. 215-234). Springer, Cham.

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1978). Adolescent Thinking. In: J. K. Gardner (ed.), Readings in
Delevopmental Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 375-382). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Jung, C. G. (1969/1934). A review of the complex theory. In: H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, and
W. McGuire (1969), The Collected Works of C. G. Jung Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the
Psyche (2nd ed., translated by R. F. C. Hull). Princeton, NJ, USA: PUP. (Originally published 1934 as
Allgemeines zur Komplextheorie, Kultur- und Staatswissenschaftliche Schriften der Eidgenössischen
Technischen Hochschule, 12.).

Kalyan-Masih, V. (1973). Cognitive Egocentricity of the Child Within Piagetian Developmental

Theory. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies, 379. (Also:
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Paper No. 3664, 35-47.
[Link]

Kesselring, T. & Müller, U. (2011). The concept of egocentrism in the context of Piaget’s theory.
New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 327–345. [Link]

Lemieux, A. (2012). Post-formal thought in gerontagogy or beyond Piaget. Journal of Behavioral

and Brain Science, 2, 399-406. [Link]

Marchand, H. (2002). Some reflections on postformal stage. Behavioral Development Bulletin,

11, 39-46. [Link]

Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic
Books.

Piaget, J. (1967). Six psychological studies. New York: Random House.

Peterson, J. B. (2016, Jan 21). Personality Lecture 04: Piaget Constructivism.

[Link]

Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage. In M. L. Commons, F. A.

Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond Formal Operations: Late Adolescent and Adult Cognitive
Development (pp. 298-325). New York: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (2021). Psychology, Politics, and Complex Thought: A Time for Postformal Thought
in Politics. In: J. D. Sinnott and J. S. Rabin (eds.), The Psychology of Political Behavior in a Time of
Change (pp. 147-176) New York: Springer.

Yan, B. & Arlin, P.K. (1995). Nonabsolute/relativistic thinking: A common factor underlying
models of postformal reasoning? Journal of Adult Development, 2, 223-240.
[Link]
 Cite as: Rogmann, J. J. (2021). Notes on Piaget & Inhelder’s Formal Operational Stage as a ”Messianic
Stage“ (Research Report, updated 2021). Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg, Faculty of
Education, Department of Educational Psychology. DOI: see RG

Comments welcome.
Please send to [Link]@[Link]
Thank you!

View publication stats