from the bed and either the row of beds or the row of ... bed The idea rvas that rhe children rvould learn re- ...... Wilcox, S. A. The development of thee spatial.
OF HANDBOOK
CHILD PSYCHOLOGY 'S FormerlyCARMICHAET MANUAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
PAULH. MUSSENBntron FOURTHEDITION
VolumeIII
DEVELOPMENT COGNITIVE John H. Flavell/Ellen M. Markman VOLUME EDITORS
JOHNWILEY & SONS NEW YORK CHICHESTERBRISBANE TORONTO SINGAPORE
Wiley & Sons' Inc' Copyright 1946@ 1954, 1970, 1983 by John in Canada' All-rights reserved.Publishedsimultaneously Reproduction or translation of any part of thii work beyond that permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the 1976 United StatesCopyright Act without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful' Requestsfor permission to or further information should be addressed & Sons' Wiley John Department, Permissions the Data Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication M a i n e n t r Yu n d e r t i t l e : Cognitive develoPment. ( H a n d b o o k o f c h i l d p s y c h o l o g yv; ' 3 ) l n c l u d e si n d e x ' H' l . C o g n i t i o ni n c h i l d r e n l ' F l a v e l l ' J o h n l' Child s e r i e s l l l M . I D N L M : E l l e n ll. Markiran, psychologY'WS 105 H23541
vol.3 1554s [15s4'13] 83-3468 sitzt.ii+z 1983 lBF723.C5l rsBN0471-09064-6 Printed in the United Statesof America
1098765432r
A R E V I E WO F S O M EP I A G E T I A N CONCEPTS-
3
R O C H E L G E L M A N , U t t i v a r s i ho' f P e t r n s t l r a r t i a RENEE BAILLARGEON. Urrivcrsin' of Pennstlt'ania
CHAPTER CONTENTS OVERVIEW 167 A S S E S S M E NO T F T H E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I OONF C O N C R E T E O P E R A T I O N SI 6 8 A r e T h e r eS t r u c t u r e sd ' E n s e m b l e ? 168 D o M u l t i p l eC o r r e l a t i o nO s btain'l 168 Are Sequences as Predicted? I 69 Test of the Logicomathematical Model 170 A r e W i t h i n - D o m a i nR e l a r i o n as s Predicted? 170 l s P r e o p e r a t i o n aTlh o u g h tR e a l l y PreoDerational? 172 I n d u c i n gS u c c e s so n C o n c r e t e - O p e r a t i o n a l Tasks 115 A C L O S E RL O O KA T T H E D E V E L O P M E NO TF S O M EC O N C R E T E - O P E R A T I O N A L CONCEPTS T79 ConservationD s u r i n gM i d d l eC h i l d h o o d 179 N u m b e rC o n c e p t s l8l AbstractioV n e r s u sR e a s o n i n g l 8 l Countingin Preschoolers? l8l An InteractionBetweenNumber Abstractorsand ReasoningPrinciples 182
S o n r eI n r p l i c i tK n o w l c d- e l cD o c s N o t I m p l r F u l l o r E x o l i c i tK n o w i e d s e 84 C o n t i n u o u sQ u a n t i t yC o n c e p t s 189 Conservation 189 O t h e rC o n c e p t so f C o n t i n u o u sQ u a n r i t \ , l 9 l C l a s s iifc a t i o n I93 Background 193 C l a s s i f i c a t i oann d B a s i cC a t c g o r i e s 1 9 6 Primacyof BasicCategorization 197 C l a s s i f i c a t i oann d H i e r a r c h i eos f C l a s s e s 1 9 9 C l a s sl n c l u s i o nR e v i s i t e d 2 0 8 M o r eo n t h e S a m eT h e m e s 210
OVERVIEW
theoryas well asour own views on the cunentstatus of the theory.The resultis a review that is critical. yet in agreementwith someof the fundarnentaltenets of the theory.Thus, we acceptthe positionthat thereis much tclbe leamedabout cognitivedevelopas mentby studyingthe acquisitionof suchconcepts number,space,time, andcausality.We alsohaveno quanel with the idea that cognitioninvolresstructures that assimilateand accommodateto the environment;indeed,we do not see how it could be otherwise However, we do questionthe notionof chartherebeingbroadstagesofdevelopment.eac-h acterizedby qualitativelydistinctstructuresAs we will see,the experimentalevidenceavailabletodai no longersupportsthe hypothesisof a majoi qualitative shift from preoperationalto concrete-operationalthought.Instead,we arguefor domain-specific descriptionsof the nature as weli as the developmentof cognitiveabilities. Our reviewof Piagetianconceptsstarts\\ ith mattercof structureand endswith mattersof funt'tion, or developmentproper. That is, we take up frrst the
Our task was to examinePiagetianconceptsin light of recentresearchand theory on cognitive development.This breathtakingassignmentwas made somewhat easier by the fact that elseuhere in the Handbook there are discussionsof the first (sensorimotor intelligence)and last (formal operations) of Piaget'sproposedstagesof development.This allowed us to focus on Piaget'stwo intermediary sta-ees of development,those of preoperationaland concrete-operational thought. But we still had to makechoices.In the end, we tried to put togethera review that would reflect the impact of Piaeetian
*Supported in pan by NSF grants to Rochel Gelman and fellosships to RendeBaillargeon from the NSERC of Canadaand The Quebec Depanment of Education We thank our edi(ors and K C h e n g .C R C a l l i s t e l .R C o l i n k o f f . J M a n d l e r .m d F . t r ' l u n a v for their careful readingsof an earlier draft o[ this chapterand E M e c k f o r k e e p i n gu s o n t a s k A l l n e w t r a n s l a t i o n s ot fh eF r e n c ha r e d u e t o R e n d eB a i l l a r g e o n
S U M M I N GU P ZI3 Structuresof Thought? 213 S t a g e so f C o g n i t i v eD e v e l o p m e n t ? I l l H o w D o e s D e v e l o p m e nH t appen? 2l-5 Whence Come Structures? 211 A C o n c l u d i n gR e m a r k 720 NOTES
220
REFERENCES 221
168
R O C H E LG E L M A NA N D R E N E EB A I L L A R G E O N
)f'ftrrland then the how ol cognitivedevelopment We beginby exanriningsomeof Piaget'sideasabout the nature of preoperationaland concrete-operational thought,We then review in some detail the research thathasbeenconductedin severalcognitire domains includingnumericaland quantitativereas o n i n ga n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o nI n t h e f i n a l s e c t i o n $, e examinePiaget'sideasaboutthe sourcesof cognitive structures and the processes-assimilation. accommodation,equilibration.and so on-that accountfor their development.
spectivetakrng)is indeedrelated Anotherhasbeen to explorethe preschoolchild's alle,eed intellectual incompetence relativeto the older child. Still anotherline ofevaluation,closelyrelatedto the third, hasbeento devisetrainingstudiesthatmightbrin_e to the fore unsuspected competenciesIn the next sections. we rerierv some of the rvork that has been donealons eachof theselines
Are There Structuresd'Ensemble? Do Multiple Correlations Obtain?
Many studieshave been conductedto compare children'sabilityto classify,seriate,conserve,measure.give predictionsand explanations. assumeanWhen testedon the standardPiagetiantasksin other'svisualor socialperspective, andso on. Most thestandardway, preschoolchildrentypicallyen in such studieshave failed to show high interconelatheir responses. Thus, when askedwhethera boutions betrveenthe various abilities tested (e.g., quet composedof six rosesand four tulipscontains B e r z o n s k yl.9 7 l ; D i m i t r o v s k y& A l m y . 1 9 7 5J; a m more rosesor more flowers, they quite invariably ison, 1977: Tomlinson-Keasey,Eisert. Kahle, answermore roses Similarly, when presented with Hardy-Brorvn, & Keasey, 1979; Tuddenham, rvith two evenrowsof chipsandasked,afterwatchingthe l97l). Suchfindingsarenot reallyinconsistent experimenter spreadone row. whetherthe two ros's Piagetiantheory.Piagetneverreallyclaimed( I ) that still containthe samenumberof chips,preschoolers all ioncrete-operationalabilitiesarebasedon, or are typicallvrespondthat the longerrow hasmore. derivedfrom. a sin-eleunderlyingstructure;or (2) No oneseriouslyquestionsthereliabilityof these abilitiesemergein a that all concrete-operational (and other similar) observations,which have all strictly parallel, perfectly synchronousfashion (Vyuk, 198l). To thecontrary,Piaget'srvritingsare beenwidely replicatedWhat is very muchat issue, however.is how preschoolers' theorderof failure on the stanclaimsconcerning filled with theoretical dard Piaeetiantasksshouldbe interpretedThe fact emergencervithineachdevelopmental stageof disthat childrenlessthan 6 yearsof age typicallyfail tinct co-enitiveabilities, with the earlier abilities thesetasksand thatchildren6 yearsof ageandolder viewed as precursorsof, or as prerequisitesfor, the typicallvsucceedon thesetaskssuggeststhatthere Iaterabilities.For example,Piaget(1952a)argued are imponantdifferencesin their cognitivecapacithat numericalreasoningis the productof the joint ties.The questionis, How shouldthesedifferences developmentof the child's classification and seriabe characrerized? tion abilities.In addition.Piagetoften notedin his Piaget's account of the differencesinvolved empiricals,ritingsthat cognitiveabilities,once acgrantinethe olcierchild reversiblestructures, quired,are not alwaysapplieduniformli'in all conor operations.while limiting the youneer child to inetexts.Instead,cosnitiveabilitiesare frequentlyaPversiblestructures: hencethe useof thetermsoperaplied in one context at a time, rvith considerable tional and preoperational to describethe co_enitire ddcalagesbetrveensuccessiveapplications.Thus, capacities of the olderand rheyoungerchild respecPiaget( I 962) reportedthatchildrendo not conserve tively Piagetbelievedthat children's(at first connumberbeforetheageof6 or 7: mass,beforethease creteandlaterfomral)operationsareorganizedinto of 8: rvei-sht. beforethe age of l0; anciso on. r,vell-integrated sets,or structuredwholes. and he All.of thesetheoreticaland empiricalclaimsoband his colleaguesdevelopedlogicomathematical viously mitigateagainstthe possibilitl'of anyone modelsto characterizetheservholes.(The reader finding high correlations betweenchildren'sperfor*,ho is not familiar wirh thesemodelsis refenedto manceon man-vor all of the concrete-operational F l a v e l l . 1 9 6 3 ;C r u b e r a n d V o n t c h e . I 9 l 7 : a n d tasks.Contraryto what is sometimesheld to be the P i a g e t .1 9 4 2 ,l 9 - s 7 ) case.investigators' repeatedfailureto find high corEvalLirtionof rhc theory of concreteoperarions rclationsacrosstasksdoesrrotconstitute definiteevh a sp r o c e e d eadl o n gs c v e r al i n e s .O n e h a sb e e nt o idcnceagainstthe notion of a concrete-operational a s s c s rsr h e r h esr u c c e s os n d i f f e r e n P t i a e e t i atna s k s nrentalityin the (relativelydiffuse)senseintended ( e q . , c o n s c r v a t i o nc.l a s s i f i c a t i o ns.e r i a t i o n p. e r b y t h e t h e o n ' S t i l l . s u c hc o n s i s t e n t lnyc g a t i v er e A S S E S S M E NO TFTHECHARACTERIZATIO ONF CONCRETE OPERATIONS
A R E V I E WO F S O M EP I A G E T I A N CONCEPTS sults do raisedifficultieswhen it comesto the interpretation ofcertainstudies.Psycholoeists andeducatorsoften attempt to relate children's performance on a given task to their Ievel of cognitive (e g., preoperational. developnrent concrete-operatronal)as assessed by any of the standardPiagetian tasks.\\rereit the casethat perfornrance on all standardPiagetian taskswas highlyconelated,then,obviousll'.any taskwould be asgood asany otheras a test of rhildren's masteryof concrete-operational thought But aswe just saw, thatis far from thecase. For this reason,studiesthat reportrelationships between, say, children'sability to use metamemorial strategies andchildren'sabilityto conserve(takento demonstrate theirentryinto theconcrete-operational stage)are difficult, if not impossible,to interpret vis-d-visPiagetiantheory Are Sequencesas Predicted? The studieswe discussedin the previoussection testedfor the synchronousremergence of different abilities during the concrete-operational period. Other studieshavetestedwhetherthe order in which abilitiesdevelopwithin thatperiodis aspredictedby Piagetiantheory.Severalinvestigators havefocused on the developmentof numerical reasoningin the child. As mentionedearlier, Piager(1952a)maintained that the conceptof number developsfrom the coordination of classification and seriation structures. According to Piaget(1952a),rheconstruction of number consistsin the equatingof differences,i.e., in writing in a single operation the class and the symmetricalrelationship.The elementsin question arethen both equivalentto one another,thus participatingof the class,and differentfrom one anotherby theirpositionin theenumeration, thus participatingof the asymmetricalrelationship. (p 95) Piagetiantheory generally assumesthat success on standardnumber-conservation tasksindexesa true understanding of number and that successon standardclass-inclusion tasksindexesa true understandingof classification.If Piagets (1952a) account of the developmentof the conceptof number was correct,one shouldnot find childrenwho pass standard nunrber-conservationtasks well before they passstandardclass-inclusion tasks.As Brainerd (1978a)recentlypointedout, hori,ever,exactly the oppostiesequence obtains.The vastmajorityof childrenconservenumberby age6 or 7; but it is not until age9 or I 0 thatthey truly undersland theprinci-
169
p l e o f c l a s s i n c l u s i o n( s e e a l s o N , 1 a r k . r a nl g. l S : W i n e r , 1 9 8 0 ) .S u c h f a c t sc l e a r l yc a l l i n i . rq u e s r r o n the claim thatnumericalreasoningis th: oroducrtrf thejoint development of classification::.ldseriaricrn abilities. Additional evidence againsrihis claini c o m e sf r o m a s t u d yb y H a m e l ( 1 9 7 4 ) H a m e l( 1 9 7 4 )a n a l v z e d P i a g e r ' s( t 9 - i i a )a c c o u n r of numberand concludedthat it predi.-isa strong r e l a t i o n s h ibpe t w e e n(:l ) n u n t b e rc o n s e n a t i o nt :l ) provokedcorrespondence; (3) sponranerrus, tharis. unprovokedcorrespondence; (4) seriatiern: (5) cardination-ordinationl and (6) class inclusion The conelationsbetweenthe variousnumberiests\\ere si_snificant and quite high ( 50 to 80r Likewise. correlations benveen the multiple-classification tasksand the various number subtasks*,ere also significant, ranging from .45 to 66 Howerer. therewere no significantrelationshipsberrveen rhe class-inclusion taskandany of the other rasksDodwell (1962)reportedsimilar results. There are other studiesthat fail to observesome of thebetween-taskpredictionsderivedfiom the theo r y ( e . g . , B r a i n e r d ,1 9 7 8 a ;K o f s k y . 1 9 6 6 ;L i t r l e . 1912).Thereareeven studiesthat fail to observerhe same sequenceof developmentacrosschildrenwhetheror not the sequence is predictedbr the theory. Forexample,in a longitudinalstudy.TomlinsonKeasey,et al. (1979) found that i3 of 18 subjects passeda class-inclusion task beforethe\ conser\ed amount, 12 passedit after, and l3 passedit at the sametlme. What shouldwe makeof investieatorsfailurero confirm the between-taskssequencespredictedbi' the theory?Should we take it to su_egesr rhatPiaget was wrong in claiming that the concrete-operational stageis characterizedby the coordinatedemergence of superficially disparate but structuraliv related cognitiveabilities?Not necessarily.It ceruldbe argued that to do so would be to confuserheissueoi whetheror not specific abilities develop in the order predictedby Piagetiantheorywith the moieqeneral issueofwhetheror not abilitiesfrom diffeientcognitive domainsdevelopin a well-inte-erated. coordinatedfashion.Pia_eetian theorycouldbe nghtin sup portingthe generalissueand still be rvronsin an1,oi its specificpredictions.Piaget's(l952at 3;countoi the developmentof the child's unders::ndingof numbercouldbe wrong-and as we will see.Piaset (1915a. 1977)himself later abandonedhis earlier account-but the generalhypothesisth:i developnlentin otherdomainscontributesto theenergenc'e of thechild's conceptof numbercould st!::be right Thereobviouslyis no rebuttalto this :igumenr A s t h e s a y i n , e g o et sh .e p r o o fi s i n t h e p u d d : n gW h a t
170
R O C H E LG E L M A NA N D R E N E EB A I L L A R G E O N
[ ) i u ' ' c . c ( itahnc o r yn ] u s tp r o v i c l ei s a s a t i s f a c t o r - r ' a c c o L r l to f n L r n r c r i c(aol r c a u s a l o . r s p a t i a lo. r l o e i c i l l . c t c ) d c v c l r r p n r c rni r a p t o s i t sr e a l n o n t r i v i ai ln t e r a c t i o n sb e t r i ' e e d n o n r a i n sT o t h e e x t e n t h a t s u c ha n ilcc(lunt cirnbe proVi dcd, thento thesanreextentrvill t h c n o t i o no f a s t a g eo f c o n c r e t co p e r a t i o nbse r e i n f o r c e d ( A s r v er v i l i s c cb e l o r v ,h o r r e v e rr.h et r e n di n recent)/earshasbeento move arvarfronrstage-like. accounts of developactoss-the-cognitive-board appearto focus nrcnt N'lorcand nrore,investiqators o n t h e p o s s i b i l i t lo, f p a r a l l e l ,d o m a i n - s p e c i fliicn e s o f d e v e l o p n i e n) t lest of the LogicomathematicalN{odel Ir is sonretinres arguedthat thc reasonrvhy investisatorshavefailedto find high correlations benveen variousconcrete-operational abilitiesor have failed to confimr the order in rvhichtheirabilitiesdevelop has to do u,jth the rvay in rvhichabilitiesare meas u r e d( s e eF l a v e l l ,1 9 7 2 ;J a m i s o n& D a n s k y ,1 9 7 9 ; Tuddenhanr,l97l). Different investigators usedifferenltasks,Further,it is not als,aysclearwhether the tasks used provide a good test of the abilities i:nderstudy ln addition, therearestatisticalnightrnares Ho\v doesone estimatemeasurement effor? Is it constantacrosstasks?And rvhatif one finds only one child whose performancecontradictsthe expectedpattem-should the theory be rejected? One rvayto get aroundsomeof thesedifficulties is to u'ork directly from the logicomathematical rnodelof concreteoperarionsPiagetand his collaborators proposed Osherson(1974), for instance, usedGrize's (1963) axiomatizationof theseoperations.The choiceof this axiomatization *,asbasedin Iargepart on Piaget's(i967) endorsement of it Further.Crize's axiomsareeasilyinrerpreted into sratenrentsaboutclassesand relations. To start,Osherson(1974) deriveda set of theorenrsthatfollowedfrom Grize's( 1963)axioms.He thentranslateda subsetof the theoremsinto a setof l e n g t h - i n c l u s i oann d c l a s s - i n c l u s i ot an s k sd e s i g n e d to embodl'thederivedtheoremsand,thus,providea t e s t o f c h i l d r e n ' sa b i l i t y t o u s e t h e m F i n a l l y .h e madepredictionsaboutthe patternsof successes and failures that should obtain Thar is, he specified rvhichtaskschildrenshould passor fail, given thar thcy,had passedor failed certainother tasks.The predictionswere basedon the anall,sis of which and horv rnanvaxiomsa particulartheoremrvasderived 'lo froru. illustrate.assunreTheoremsI and 2 rvere d c r i v c df r o n rA x i o n r sI a n d2 , r e s p e c t i v e al yn dT h e orcrn7 q'asderivedfrom Axionrs I and 2. The child u,ho passcdthe task dcsigncdto testfor Theorenr7 l i k c r v i s eh a v e p a s s e dt h e t a s k sd e s i g n e d shoLrld to t e s t ' l - h e o r c n Ir sa n d 2 b y l l i e n r s e l v e s
O s l r c r s o n( 1 9 7 + )t o u n d t h a t d e s p i t ea n o v e r a l l c o n r p a r a b sl eu c c c srsa t co n t h e I c n e l h - i n c l u s i oann d c l a s s - i n c l u s i ot ans k s t, h c p a t t e r n o s f e n o r s m a d ei n the t\\,o setsof tasks\\'cfc nor comparable.These f i n d i n g ss u s s e srt h a tt h e l o g i c o m a t h e m a r i csar lr u c turesproposedbv Piagerand his collaboratorsare not appropriatefor modelineperformancein these t r v ot a s kd o n r a i n si n d e e d .o n e m i g h rt a k et h e s er e s u l t st o c a l li n t oq u e s t i o tnh ei d e at h a tt h es a n r es t r u c t u r e su n d e r l i ec h i l d r e n ' sa b i l i t y t o s o l v e I e n g t h - i n c l u s i o na n d c l a s s - i n c l u s i op nr o b l e n r s . A t t h i s p o i n t .h o w e v e r o. n e m i g h rp o i n to u t r h a t Osherson'sfindings need no longer be taken into accoulttas there have been chan-ges in the formal theory of concrete-operarional thought, as well as furtherdevelopments in theeffortsto axiomatizethe t h e o r y( P i a g e t ,1 9 7 7 ;W e r m u s ,1 9 7l ) . I n a d d i t i o n , one could argue(as before)that even if Piagerian theory, in spiteof its recentrevisions,still fails to providean adequateformal descriptionfor the logicomathematical structuresunderlyingconcreteoperations,one neednot concludethat no suchstructures exist: perhapsone has not )e( succeededin finding their propercharacterization Whether or not the revised Piagetian model servesas a bettermodel has yet to be determined. But as Sheppard(1978)pointedout, it is not clear thatthe more recentaxiomatizations are all thatdifferentfrom the originalones Are Within-Domain Relations as Predicted? Investigators'repeatedfailure to verify the developmentalsequences describedby Piagetiantheohas led manv authors to doubt (he claim that ry cognitiveabilitiesemergein a coordinated,orderly fashion acrossdomains Perhapsfor this reason, someauthorshavesoughtto test the developmental predictedby the theory rvitftindomains sequences ratherthanacrossdomains.lf one interpretsPiagetian theory to mean that performancewithin each thatareorganizedinto domainis basedon opera(ions a rvell-integrated,reversible strllcture, then one might expectto find relativelyhigh conelationsbetween taskstestingabilitiesassumedto be derived frorn thatsamestructureHowever,attemptsto verify this particularhypothesishave not faired rvell C o n s i d e rf,o r i n s t a n c et .h e w o r k o f H o o p e r ,S i p p l e , G o l d m a n .a n d S u i n t o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) a n d K o f s k y ( 1 9 6 6 ) .r v h ot e s t e dI n h e l d e a r n d P i a g e t ' s( 1 9 6 4 )d e s c r i p t i o no f t h c d e v e l o p m e notf c l a s s i f i c a t i oanb r l i t i e s K o f s k y ( 1 9 6 6 )f o u n d t h a t a l t h o u g hs h ec o u l d discerna rarrkorder of difficultt' for her differenr c l a s s i f i c a t r ot an s k s o, n l r 2 7 c / co f h e r s u b j e c t fsi t t h i s p a t t c r n H o o p c ra n d h i s c o l l e a g u e(sI 9 7 9 ) l a t c rr e p l i c a t c dK o i s k r 's o v c r a l ld c v c l o p n r e n t asle q u e n c e
A R E V I E WO F S O M EP I A G E T I A N CONCEPTS Sonreof their findingsalso led thenrto doubt that of only the development this sequencerepresented strLlctureFor instance, one comnronclassificatory Hooperet al foundthatthe abilityto multiplyclassrnatrixtaskdoesnol in a cross-class es as assessed problems. predictthc abilityto solveclass-inclusion l n d e e d , t h e r ' . l i k e m a n y o t h e r s( e . g , B r a i n e r d , 1 9 7 8 aD ; i m i t r o v s k y& A l m y . I 9 7 5 :D o d w e l l ,1 9 6 2 ; H a m e l , 1 9 7 4 ;K o f s k y , 1 9 6 6 1T u d d e n h a m ,l 9 7 l ; tasks are Winer, 1980) found that class-inclusion much more difficult-and are accordingly solved much later-than are other concrete-operational tasks.They concludedthat somefour separatefacoI classificatory tors contributeto the development abilities. of orderStudiesthatexaminedthedevelopment ing abilitieshave yielded comparableresults(Di; u d d e n h a m1,9 7l ) . T u d m i t r o v s k y& A l m y , 1 9 7 5 T correlation denhamreporteda .28 (nonsignificant) betweenthe ability to seriateand solvea transitive inferencetask. Dimitrovsky and AImy compared children'sabilityto seriateandreorder.thatis, place backin orderstimulithataremixedup beforethem. Of the 408 childrentested,134passedthe seriation task;in contrast,only 4l passedthereorderingtask Attempts to confirm Piaget's(1952a, l9'15a, pre1977)predictionthat the ability to compensate cedesor co-occurswith the ability to conservehave According to Piaget, the also been unsuccessful. thattheamountof liquid child who truly understands in a glassis conservedwhen it is pouredinto a container of different dimensionsalso understandsthe principle of compensation:"conservation. . . involves quantitiesthat are not perceptive,but haveto be constructedby compensationbetweentwo different dimensions"(Piaget,1967a,p.533).In his first presentationof this position Piaget (1952a) preliquid would dictedthat all childrenwho conserved reveal an understandingof compensation. This task meantthat a child could passa compensation and fail a conservationtask but not the reverse.In a subsequentpresentationof the argument, Piaget consideredthe kinds of predictionschildren at different stages in the developmentof conservation shouldmake beforethe transformdtionphaseof both tasks(e.g., Inthe conservationand compensation & 1966;Piaget& Smock, helder, Bovet, Sinclair, Inhelder, 1974). At an initial stage.the nonconservershouldpredictthattherewill be conservation after the transformationand that the rvaterlevel in thenerv beakerwill not change. At thesecondstage. shouldpredictthattherewill not be thenonconserver and the waterlevelwi1lchange.Finalconservation ly, the true conservershouldpredictthat the water l e v e lw i l l c h a n g ea r r dt h a tc o n s e r v a t i owni l l o b t a i ni n
171
the faceof this perceptualchan_qcIn eitherversion of the conservation account,oneshouldnot observc a child who passesthe conservation task and. nevertheless,fails the compensationtask Piagetand Inhelder( I 963) reportedthat all but 57oof children rvho conservedwere able to anticipatethe level of water that would be reachedif the contentsof a standardbeakerrverepouredinto a beakerof different dimensions.Althoughdetailsof the dataarenot presented, Piaget(1952a)notedthatalmostall children who conservedpasseda compensation testthat requiredchildrento pour asmuchwaterinto anempty beakeras there was in a standardbeakerof differe n t d i m e n s i o n sP i a g e ta n dI n h e l d e(r1 9 7 1 )a l s or e porteda studyof the abilityto passconservation and compensationtasks in supportof their accountof conservation However, thereare now many studies that do not supporttheir account. but Acker (1968)found children*'ho conserved failedthe anticipationtaskusedby PiagetandInheld e r ( i 9 6 3 ) . L e e ( 1 9 7 1 )f o u n d t h a t w h e n c h i l d r e n were requiredto passboth testsof conservationand in orderto bejudgedtrueconservers. compensation the proportionofconserversfell from I I of i5 to 6 of 15.Gelmanand Weinberg( 1972)reportedthat llVo of their subjectswho conservedfailed to compensate,that is, failed to match the waterlevel of the standardwhen pouring the "same amount" lnto a beakerof different dimensions. More recently, Acredelo and Acredelo(1979) testedthe extendedversionof Piaget'saccountof the relationshipbetweenthe abilitiesto conserve,compensate,and anticipateconservationor compensation. They reported that3'7 57o of their samplerevealedsuccessand failure patternsnot predictedby Piagetiantheory. Thesedisconfirmingpatternswere expected with their alternative identity theory of conservationhowever. This altemative theory allows children to conserveeven if they fail to comp€nsate.Such children are viewed as being in an early stage of conservation;they focus on the absenceof an addition/subtractionoperationor the irrelevanceof displacementtransformationsand pay little attentionto the perceptualconflictthatobtains afterthe transformation.Children thengo on to learn . of conservation is a consequence thatcompensation This fits with GelmanandWeinberg's(1972)obserof the comPensation vation that the understanding conprinciple,as manifestedin verbalstatements, tinues to develop well after the age at which the child's ability to conservcliquid may be takenfor granted.Further, it removesthe puzzleof ho* a *'ithout prechild could understandcompensation relation-as Piagetwould supposingan equivalence havethem do
172
R O C I . I EG L E L M , AA N N D F E N E EB A I L L A R G E O N
I r r s t l t t . L ' \c n \ \ ' l t c n\ \ c i l s s c s lsl t c P n t g iei l i n l r c a i l r r s cl r cl c c l sn od c s i r cl o i r r l l u c n cI tci :l i s l c n ctt) o ; ( c g c l t r s s i l - r u : r t i o r rt o t c l l h i n r i r r l rt l r i r r r :n: ( ) i u n l i k c u c c r ( : r i nt r , I t co. i e o u n tr v i t h r ni l s i n c l cr l o n t a i n s c r r : r t i ocr o r ,l t s c r \ / i l t i o tnh)c. r c s u l tcsl on o tl c n t sl t r p ( l l l l \ \ l n gt ( ) ( ) nc] o n V c r s i r i i o\ \nh L - r c \ c r v o n ct l r l k s 'l'hc p o rt t L rt l r ct l t c o r r i d c ut h i r ct o n c r c t c - o p r . r a t i o n i l l l l - x ) r lrltl n t s c l l - a nndo c r n cI i s t c r r s("P i l e c t .1 9 5 9 . 1r t h o u ! h t i s n o t d c p e r t c l c notn o n c o r c v c n : a \ a t i r l l)) s t r u c t r . nd c s' c n s c n r b l ci s p r o b l b l vr c i a r . - tdo r h ct u n t D o r o u n r ct i r i l d r errct a . l lbr c l i c v ct h a tl n o b s c r v c r r i \ \ i l \ t r o n t l ) i u g c t ' ss t i l s ct l t c o n ( c g B r l r i t r c r r i . s t l l r r ( i i nign l d i l ' t c r c n lto c u t i o nt h u r rt h e i r ss c c st h . I 9 7 S i r 1. 9 7 8 b F : c l d r n a nl.9 S 0 :F i s c h c r l.9 E 0 :F l r s l r n c t h i n g t l r e t 's c cI R e c c n t\ \ o r k b , r '\ l a s a n _ q k a r v c l l I 9 8 2 : S i c g l c r ,1 9 8l : b u r s e c r L l s oD i i r i s o r r . \ . l c C I u s k c r i' \. l c l n r _l er . S i r r r s - K r r i g l \r'tl.u g h n . a n c i K i n c . K i t c h c n e r& . P a r k c r .1 9 8 0 ) E v i d c n c ct h i r r F l i r v e l(l 1 9 7 - l a ) n db r L c n r p c r sF. l r r v c i la. n d F l a v c l l p r e o p c r a t i o n at hl o u S h tn t a Yn o r b e o r c o p e r a t i o n a l ( 1 9 7 7 )i n d i c a t c st h x t t h c : r r s \ \ ' c r o t h i s q u e s r i o ni s r n a k e si t c v c n h a r d e rt o n t a i n t a i n t h e s t a q ca c c o u r t t n c g a t i \ ; el n t h c s t u d \ b r \ l a s a n e k a yc r a l . a c a r , l r r i t h d i f f e r e n tp i c t u r e so n c a c l rs i d c r v a sh c l d v e r t i c i r l l ri n f r o r r to f c h i l d r c nr v h or r , e r ca s k e d :" \ V h a r l s P r e o p e r a t i o n aTl h o u g h tR e a l l y d t tr o r r s c c l " n n d ' \ \ / h a rc l o/ s e e l ' A i l o f r h e 3 Preoperation? al v e a r - o l d sa n d h a l f o f r h e 2 - v e a r - o l d st e s t c d r e T o s a yo f a i h i l d t h a th er sp r c o p c r a r i o ni as rl o s a y sponcled correcrl), In rhe studv bv Lenrperset ai . r n o r ct h a n t h a t h e h a s n o c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n sP, r e c h i l d r e nI t o 3 r , e a r o s f a g er rc r es i v e nh o l l o r rc u b e s o p e r a t i o n atlh o u g h ri s n o t d e f i n e d( o r e x p l a i n c d ) r l i t h a p h o t o g r a p o hf a f a n r i l i a o r b j e c re l u e dr o r h e s o l c l v i n t e r n t so f * , h a t i r l a c k s li t i s a l s o s l i d t o bottorn o f t h ei n s i d e C h i l d r e n ' st a s kr v a sr o s h o r vt h e p o s s c ssse v e r adl o n r i n a nct h a r a c t c r i s t i cAsc. c o r d i n g p h o t o g r a p hi n s i d et h e c u b e t o a n o b s c r v e rs i t t i n s to Piagetiantheory,.the preoperarional iltild is egoacrossfront thenr Lentperset al foundthatvirtuallt' c e n t r i co r ( t o u s et h em o r er e c c n lta b e i c) e n t e r e dH i s a l l c h i l d r e n2 r , e a r sa n do l d e rr u r n e dt h ec u b eo p e n r e a s o n l npgr o c e s s easr ep e r c e p t i obno u n d h : e i se a s i ing arrnr Ji'ont tltcmsehrs to face the obsen,er I y d i s t r a c t ebdy t h ep e r c e p t u ao lr s p a t i apl f o p e n i cosf T h e s er e s u l t si n d i c a t et h a rr h e1 ' o u n g c h i l di s n o t s o objectsand. for thisreason.oftenfailsro detectmore ego!'entric as to believeothersseervhatet'er /rc sees a b s t r a c ti n . v a r i a n rt e l a t i o n a s m o n go b j e c t sl n a d d i W h a tt l r e nc o u l d b e r h es o u r c eo f r h ey o u n gc h i l d ' s t i o n . t h e p r e o p e r a t i o n ac lh i l d i s u s u a l l yu n a b l et o d i t f i c u l t lo, r r P i a s c ta n d l n h e l d c r ' s( I 9 5 6 ) n r o u n t a i n c o o r d i n a t ei n f o r n r a t i o na b o u t s t a t e s a n d t r a n s t a s kl fomrations F l a v e l l( 1 9 7 4 )d i s t i n g u i s h ebde t r v e etnh e c h i l d ' s Are preschooiers rruly preoperational'? A hostof identificationof v,lnt object anotherseesand the r e c e nitn v e s t i s a t i o nhsa v er a i s e dq u e s r i o nasb o u t h e morecornplexconceptof /rorl rheobjectis seen.The v a l i d i t yo f t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i oInn. _ q e n e r at lh, e s e findinesof Masan*tkay et al ( I 974), Lemperset al studiesshorv that under certainconditions.even ( 1 9 7 7 ) .a n d o t h e r s( e g , C o i c , C o n s t a n z o&. F a r younepreschoolers behavein a nonegocentric mann i l l . 1 9 7 3 )i n d i c a t et h a t t h e r u d i m e n t a na, b i l i t y t o ner. isnoremisleadingperceptual cues.integrare indetermineu,hatanotherpersonseesis presentby aee formationabourstatesand transformations, and so 2 The ability to recognizehorvan objector a scene on. appearsto another person developsmuch more Consider the claim that preschoolers are egos l o u , l r 'B . o r k e( 1 9 7 5 )s h o r v e dt h a tt h ea s e a t w h i c h centric ln the perspective-taking raskdesignedby children denronstratenonegocentricperspectiveP i a g e ta n d I n h e l d e r( 1 9 5 6 ) .c h i l d r e na r e s h o \ \ , na takineability is heavily,influencedby suchtaskvarimodelof threemountains.A doll is placedar various ablesasthe natureof the testdisplaysandthe typeof positionsaroundthe modelandchildrenareaskedto r e s p o n s ree q u i r e d B o r k e ' s ( 1 9 7 5 )p r o c e d u r ew a s indrcatehoq, the mountainslook to rhe doll from t h es a m ea s t h a ro f P i a _ e a en t d I n h e l d e(r I 9 5 6 ) , r v i t h e a c ho f t h e p o s i t i o n s C . h i l d r e nl e s st h a n6 1 , e a rosf t\\o importantexceptions First. trvo of the three age tend to choosea pictureor snrall replicathat displals Borke used\\'erescenescontainingfanriliar d e p i c t st h e i r o * , n v i e w r a r h e rt h a nr h ed o l l ' s r i e u . to1'objects Displal,I consisced of a snraillake with A c c o r d i n gt o P i a g e a t n d l n h e l d e (r 1 9 5 6 ) ,r h ev o u n _ q a t o 1 s, a i l b o a ta, r n o d e o l f a hodsea , n da n r i n i a t u r e c h i l d i s " r o o t e d t o h i s o r v n v i e r v p o i nirn t h e n a r h o r s ea n dc o r v D i s p l a 12. c o h t a i n ed i f f e r e ngt r o u p r o r r e sat n dm o s tr e s t r i c t efda s h i o ns. o t h a rh ec a n l l o t i n _ eosf n r i n i a l u r ep e o p l ea n d a n i n r a l isn n a r u r a sl e t i n r a e i naen ) ,p e r s p e c t i vbeu th i so u , n ' '( p 2 4 2 ) S i n r t i n s s( e g . a d o g a n d d o g h o u s c )D i s p l a r ' 3* ' a s a i l a r l r . r v h e n a s k e dl o d e s c r i b er h e * o r k i n e s o [ a r c p l i c ao f P r a _ q ae nl d I n h e l d e r ' s( 1 9 5 6 )t h r e em o u n \ \ , a t erra po r t o r e p e a t o a n o r h ecr h i l da s t o n , h eh a s t a i n s S e c o n d .l l o r k e a s k e dh e r s u b j e c t iso i n d i c a t e -lhis b e c nt o l d . t h c 1 , o u n ec h i l d d o e sr c r r i b l r ' . r sb c t h c d o l l ' s p c r s l ) c c t i vbc 1 'r o t a r i n gd u p l i c a t e os f t h c
CONCEPTS A R E V I E WO F S O M EP I A G E T I A N l a ti d i s p l a v sO n D i s p l a y sI r r n t 2j . I J o r k cI ' o u n ct h a n d4 - 1 , c a- or l dc l r i l d r c rcro l l c c t l \r t s s c s s ct ldt cd o l l ' s I ) e r s p c c r j vico r a l l t h r c e p o s i t i o n st c s t c db e t r v c c n on Pilget ancl 19% irnd9i9l oithe tinre In contl'ust. s rve 42% rncl -1l n h e l d e rs d i s p l a l ' .3 - y c a r - o l d g ) , c a r - o l d6s7 % c o r r e c rt e s p o n s cl sb r t h e t h r e ep o s i t h a th e r r c s u l t s" t a i s c c o n t i o n s B o r k ec o n c l u d e d s i d e r a b ldeo u b ta b o u t h ev a l i d i t to' f P i a g e t ' cs o r t c l u and childrenareprintarilvegocentric sionthat1,oung i n c a p a b loef t a k i n gt h ev i e up o i n to f a n o t h epr e r s o n , with tasksthatareare appropriate. When presented perceptual cven vetJ, roung subjectsdenronstratc p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i nagb i l i t y ' ' ( p 2 4 3 ) , A d d i t i o n a l supponfor Borke'sconclusioncontesfl'onra recelit study by Flavell. Flavell. Green, and Wilcox ( ' 1 9 8l ) F i a r e l l a n d h i s c o l l e a - g u feosu n d t h a t p r e schoolersunderstandthat objects with dift'erent sides (e -e,. a house)look differentfrom different perspectives.whereasobjectsrvilh identicalsides ( e . g . , a b a l l ) l o o k t h c s a n l ef r o m a l l p e r s p e c t i v e s the resultsof Borke ( 1975)and Taken to-eether, Flavellet al . ( I 98 I ) clearlyindicatethatchildrenas young as 3 yearsof age (l) are awarethat an individual looking at a display (e.9., a house)frorn a positionother than their orvn will have a different view of the display;and (2) areableto computehow the displaylooksto this individualundercertainoptimal cohditions.With time. childrenbecomemore and more proficientat identifyinghow a displayappearsto anotherindividual It shouldbe notedthat this abilitycontinuesto developwell into the school years.Huttenlocherand Presson(1973, 1978),for childrendo better example,found that school-aged tasks if they are allowed to on perspective-taking walk aroundthe covereddisplaybeforegiving their response. resultshavebeenobtained Similarnonegocentric in other t1,pes of perspective tasks. Markman (19'73a)found that preschoolerscolrectly predicted that 2-year-oldswould fail on a memory task but on a motoric would achievesomedegreeof success task.ShatzandGelman( I 973) reponedthat4-yearolds used shorterand simpler utteranceswhen talking to a 2-i'ear-old than when talking to peers or typicallyinvolved adults.Speechto the 2-year-olds remarks aimed at obtaining and maintainingthe child's auentionas well as show-and-telltalk. ln speechusually inmarked contrast,adult-directed volved commentsabout the child's own thoughts or supand requestsfor information.classification, port. Speechto the adults also includedhed-qes, which arecommonlyassumedto markthe speaker's recognition that the listener is better infornred. older, and so on (Gelman& Shatz.1978) Maratsos
173
( 1 9 7 - l )r c p o r t c ct lh a t - l - a n c l- 1 - r ' c a r - o lpdos i n t c dr o i n c i i c a t ct h c p o s i t i o n so i t o r s t o a s i - s h t c ud d u l r W l r e n t h c s a r n ca d u l tc r t r c r c dh c r - c r c s .h t l r v c r c r . c h i l d r c nt r i c c l - a s b c s t a s t h . ' r c o u l t l - t o d c s c r i b c rn. the tovs lcspcctivcposition,
