THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH 26 SUPERIOR COURT AND COUNTY COURT JUDGES IN HEAVILY URBANIZED AREAS OF NEW JERSEY. ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RESPONSES, THE JUDGES ARE DIVIDED INTO FOUR ATTITUDINAL CATEGORIES: GAME, PROGRAM, STATUS, AND OBLIGATION. GAME JUDGES DERIVE EMOTIONAL SATISFACTION FROM APPLYING AND EXHIBITING THEIR SKILLS IN A STRUCTURED, CHALLENGING, AND COMPETITIVE SITUATION. THEY PERCEIVE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AS A KIND OF COMPLEX GAME. PROGRAM JUDGES ENJOY THEIR POSITIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE TO WORK ON AND SOLVE CHALLENGING PROBLEMS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. STATUS JUDGES ARE INTERESTED IN DEMONSTRATING THEIR ADEQUACY AND TEND TO BE CYNICAL ABOUT THE MOTIVES AND BEHAVIOR OF OTHER JUDGES. THE OBLIGATION JUDGE DESIRES TO FULFILL A SOCIAL OBLIGATION AND VIEWS PUBLIC LIFE AS A WAY OF RELIEVING FEELINGS OF GUILT. OBLIGATION JUDGES TEND TO EMPHASIZE STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE. A COMPARISON OF THE JUDGES' INCENTIVES WITH THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE INDEPENDENCE OF TRIAL JUDGES FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES REVEALS THAT OBLIGATION AND STATUS JUDGES TEND TO BE TRADITIONAL IN THEIR ATTITUDES ABOUT JUDICIAL AUTONOMY, GAME JUDGES LESS TRADITIONAL, AND PROGRAM JUDGES MORE WILLING TO ADOPT A MODERNISTIC APPROACH, I.E., TO ACCEPT SOME ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL DISCRETION AT THE TRIAL LEVEL. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORTING DATA, INCLUDING TABLES COMPARING BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS WITH INCENTIVES AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORIENTATIONS, ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)