Forty-five undergraduates discussed a moral issue with a confederate who had the same opinion (no controversy) or opposite opinion (controversy). Subjects in the controversy conditions discussed within either a cooperative or a competitive context. Subjects in the controversy conditions indicated more conceptual conflict or uncertainty, engaged in more information-seeking behavior, and were more accurate in taking the cognitive perspective of the confederate than were subjects in the no-controversy conditions. These results support Piaget's and Kohlberg's views of the role of controversy in perspective-taking and cognitive development and Berlyne's theory of conceptual conflict and epistemic curiosity. Subjects in the competitive-context conditions experienced more uncertainty, engaged in more information-seeking behavior, and were more accurate in cognitive perspective-taking than were subjects in the cooperative-context condition. Subjects in the competitive-context condition also experienced more cognitive dissonance, derogated the confederate and the confederate's position and arguments to a greater extent, and indicated greater closed-mindedness in responding to the confederate and the confederate's arguments. (Author)