Aim: To challenge Piaget’s findings
by altering the method used by
Piaget on the conservation task.
Participants
252 boys and girls between the ages of 5
and 8.5 from schools and playgroups in and
around Crediton, Devon. They were divided
into four age groups of 63 children.
5 years 3 months/
6 years 3 months/
7 years 3 months/
8 years 3 months/
The 4 age groups were divided
into 3 conditions.
1) Standard
(Piagetian): The
traditional two
question conservation
task by Piaget. The
child is asked about
the size of the object
before and after the
shape was changed.
2) One
Judgement: The
child is only
asked once about
the size of the
object after the
transformation
has taken place.
3) Fixed Array: The
child saw no
transformation and only
after they had been
changed. The purpose
was to check that
children who answered
the question correctly in
the other two conditions
did so by bringing over
information from the
pre-transformation
display.
Materials
Volume
The children were shown two identical glasses with
the same amount of liquid. Then the liquid from
one glass was poured into a narrower one.
Mass
Children were first shown two identical
Play-doh shapes. One of the shapes was
squashed into a sausage shape. They
were asked to compare the two shapes.
Number
Children were shown two rows of six counters
of equal length arranged side by side. One
row was then spread out.
DV= the number of errors made. IVs= three
conditions,four age groups, three materials.
Evaluation
Strengths
High Controls– e.g. 4 attempts at each task which eliminates
chance of extraneous factors affecting the results.
Supports nature side of the nature/nurture debate.
Weaknesses
High accuracy on numbers could be due to the counting of counters.
Use of children
easily led, demand characteristics, can't give consent.
Lack of consent from parents of participants.
Sample isn't generalisable- only one area in Britain [Crediton, Devon].
Results
The children
made fewer errors
on the number
task compared
with the other two
tasks.
children found the one
judgement task significantly
easier than the standard
conservation task and the
fixed-array control for all three
types of material.
There was a significant
difference between the age
groups, with older groups doing
consistently better than the
younger.
Findings
They believe that the
pre-transformation question is
unwittingly forcing the child to
give the wrong answer by asking
the same question twice (they
call this the extraneous reason
hypothesis).
They concluded that
children who do not
demonstrate the ability to
conserve have simply not
acquired the strategies for
this skill or are not
applying the skill correctly.
Samuel and Bryant demonstrated two findings which support Piaget.
Firstly, older children did do significantly better than younger children
on the conservation tasks: 8 year olds did significantly better than 5
year olds. Secondly, they found, like Piaget, that children could
conserve number before they could conserve mass and volume tasks.
Background
Swiss psychologist: Jean Piaget
thought that intellectual development
happened in stages, and that a child
would only go on to the next stage once
it had completely mastered the first one.
Individual children might go through the
stages at a different speed but they
would always go through the stages in
the same order.
4. Formal operational stage (12 years +). This
stage is mainly governed by formal logic and is
the most sophisticated stage of thinking.
3. Concrete operational stage (7-12 years). The child is
able to use more sophisticated mental operations. They
are able to take account of more than one aspect of a
situation (decentring). The child is still limited.
2. Pre-operational stage (18 months-7 years). The child
becomes able to represent objects by symbols or signs.
They can now use language and express ideas and is
developing some general rules about mental operations.
1. Sensory motor stage (0-18 months). The
child gains understanding of its environment
by using senses and movement.