Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A cross-cultural comparison of weight and number conservation Storm, Jill Christine 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A8 S8.pdf [ 5.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104632.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104632-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104632-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104632-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104632-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104632-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104632-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104632-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104632.ris

Full Text

A  C R O S S - C U L T U R A L COMPARISON OF WEIGHT NUMBER CONSERVATION  AND  by  B.A.,  A THESIS THE  J I L L C H R I S T I N E STORM U n i v e r s i t y of Auckland,  SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  t h e Department of Psychology  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s required standards  THE  1961  UNIVERSITY  as c o n f o r m i n g  OF B R I T I S H  April,  1967  to the  COLUMBIA  In p r e s e n t i n g the  this thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t t h e  British  Columbia, I agree t h a t the  a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  University  of  L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y I f u r t h e r agree t h a t  permission  f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may g r a n t e d by  the  Head o f my  It i s understood t h a t f i n a n c i a l gain  Department  representatives.  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r  s h a l l not  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  of  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 3, Canada. Date  Department o r by h i s  be  OufjU At  Columbia,  11  written  permission.  i ABSTRACT This the  study  was  g e n e r a l i t y of  in  a  of  cognitive  compared tion  on  white  two  related and  matched  sample  of  schooling. were  in  lected  tasks ship in  total  Indians  to  one  results  of  weight of  (with  sample  Indians  of  determinants  cf  the  at  higher  when  of both  in  was  tested.  10  two  years  and  in  age.  age  with  grade  and  development, very  few  the sefive  consistent* age,  on  but  both  The  relation-  was  significant  whites  group  They  from  were  levels.  of  whites,  Conservation  and  years  including  76  increased  cultural  a  of  sample,  Indians  a l l but  and  samples  grade  each  sex  ranging  number  conserva-  whites  Indians and  were  initial  second  67  Columbia  An  to  significance.  were  taken  com-  separate-  conservation cases,  of  before  weight;  importantly, exception)  and  the  provide,  namely,  grade,  number  sequential  attained,  6  four  conservation  terms  one  of  and  In  Most  to  weight.  34  age,  A  from  ly).  conservation  about  tasks,  of  and  from  to  (nonsignificant for  was  of  four.  bined  number  and  British  Piagetian  basis  increased  between  c h i l d r e n of  consisted  point  also  the  one  The  the  information  ranged  grades  Conservation to  34  the  sample, from  cross-culturally,  sequences  conservation  A l l 5s  eleven.  not  on  grades  matched  some  and  number  was  explore,  development.  of  Matching  to  developmental  t e n t a t i v e way,  Indian  to  designed  whites.  the  overall  no  significant  The  exception  results  demonstrated  differences was  on  between  conservation  of  ii weight i n t h e t o t a l sample where s i g n i f i c a n t l y more Indian than white 5s conserved. Next, e x t i n c t i o n procedures were c a r r i e d out an 12 Indians and 12 whites who had p r e v i o u s l y demonstrated cons e r v a t i o n of number and weight.  E x t i n c t i o n occurred r a p i d l y  ( w i t h i n t h r e e t r i a l s ) f o r most Ss i n both c u l t u r a l groups* These r e s u l t s are i n disagreement w i t h those obtained by Smedslund ( 1 9 6 l c ) and w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of P i a g e t , An attempt was made t o t r a i n f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n of weight using Smedslund's (196lb) method of d i r e c t e x t e r n a l r e i n forcement and a method c a l l e d r e v e r s e e x t e r n a l r e i n f o r c e ment.  Reinforcement i n both t r a i n i n g methods i n v o l v e d  a l l o w i n g 5 t o r e t u r n t h e o b j e c t s t o t h e s c a l e s a f t e r he had made a judgment conserning e x t e r n a l reinforcement  their relative equality.  c o n s i s t e d i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n of two  s i m i l a r o b j e c t s and t h e subsequent deformation the o b j e c t s .  Direct  Reverse e x t e r n a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t  of one of  consisted i n  the p r e s e n t a t i o n of two d i s s i m i l a r o b j e c t s and the subsequent deformation other o b j e c t .  of one of t h e o b j e c t s t o resemble the  _N was 10 i n each e t h n i c group f o r d i r e c t  external reinforcement; nal reinforcement.  4 i n each group f o r r e v e r s e e x t e r -  A c o n t r o l group of 23 Ss was used t o  c o n t r o l f o r spontaneous a c q u i s i t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i o n between o r i g i n a l t e s t i n g and p o s t t e s t f o l l o w i n g two t r a i n i n g sessions.  N e i t h e r t r a i n i n g method was s u c c e s s f u l i n com-  p a r i s o n w i t h the c o n t r o l group.  There was an i n c r e a s e  i i i in  number o f 5s c o n s e r v i n g  groups.  from  pre- to posttest  in a l l  T h e r e w e r e no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n I n d i a n s  and  whites. These terms  results  of their  studies  were  the f i r s t  relationship to Piaget's  on t h e a t t a i n m e n t  number.  Secondly,  cultural  testing  discussed.  discussed,in  place, i n  studies  of conservation  of weight  the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the area  f a r Piaget's  and  developmental  other and  of cross-  stages  were  T A B L E OF CONTENTS CHAPTER  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION . Piaget's Theory c f I n t e l l e c t u a l Development Age o f A t t a i n m e n t o f C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number a n d W e i g h t C r o s s - c u l t u r a l Comparisons Training . . . . . . . . . . . . .  p  1 2 6 16 23  I I METHODS AND R E S U L T S C o n s e r v a t i o n o f W e i g h t and Number. . Matched Sample: S u b j e c t s Procedure Results . . . . . . T o t a l Sample: Subjects . . . . . . Pr cedure . . . . . Results • Resistance t o Extinction of Conserv a t i o n o f W e i g h t a n d Number Subjects Procedure Results . . . . . . T r a i n i n g Methods • Subjects Procedure Results  40 40 40 41 46 52 53 53  CHAPTER  I I I DISCUSSION  86  CHAPTER  IV  65 65 65 69 73 74 78 82  SUMMARY  103  REFERENCES  107  APPENDIX 1  113  V  LIST TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  1.  2.  3.  4»  5.  6,  7.  8.  9.  OF T A B L E S  D  Page  Matched Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e Ss  of Weight  Matched Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n by Age a n d G r a d e f o r I n d i a n s Combined  e f Weight and W h i t e s .»  ........  47  47  Matched Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight by Age a n d G r a d e f o r I n d i a n a n d W h i t e Groups ........  49  Matched Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e Ss  o f Number 49  Notched Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n by A g e a n d G r a d e f o r I n d i a n s Combined  o f Number and W h i t e s  .».»...»  49  M a t c h e d S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by Age a n d G r a d e f>~r I n d i a n o n d W h i t e Groups  49  Matched 5ample: C o m p a r a t i v e P e r f o r m a n c e o f I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n Tasks ........  51  Matched Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p between Age a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h T a s k s a n d G r a d e a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h T a s k s f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined  51  Matched Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p between Age a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B r t h T a s k s a n d G r a d e a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h T a s k s f o r I n d i a n and White Groups  51  10. T o t a l Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n f o r I n d i a n ond W h i t e 5 s .  o f Weight 54  11. T o t a l 5ample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight b y Age f o r I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s Combined  54  12; T o t a l Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight b y Age f o r I n d i a n a n d W h i t e G r o u p s  54  13. T o t a l Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight by G r a d e f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined 14. T o t a l Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight by G r a d e f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e G r o u p s  ........  56  56  vi TABLE  15, T o t a l for  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  . . . . . . o . 56  Ss  1 7 . T t a l S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by Age f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e G r o u p s  57  1 8 . T o t a l S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by G r a d e f o r I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s Combined 19. T o t a l  Sample:  Grade  Conservation  f o r Indian  Conservation  21. T o t a l  Conservation  Sample:  Groups  Sample:  59  ........  59  .  59  Responses  Resp-nses  Weight  22. Matched  .  o f Number  and W h i t e  20. T o t a l Sample: f o r Number  for TABLE  and W h i t e  o f Number  57  for TABLE  Indian  Conservation  1 6 . T o t a l S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number b y Age f o r I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s Combined  by TABLE  Sample:  . 61 Conservation  Responses  Weight  ........  61  23. T o t a l Sample: C o m p a r a t i v e P e r f o r m a n c e o f I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s on B o t h C o n s e r vation Tasks  61  24. T o t a l Sample: R c l a t i o m s h i p between P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s a n d Age f o r I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s Combined  63  25, T o t a l Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p between P e r f o r m o n c e on B " t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s and Age f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e G r o u p s  63  26. T o t a l Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p between G r a d e a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s fi-^r I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s Combined  .63  2 7 , T o t a l Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p between G r a d e a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B " t h T a s k s f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e Groups  64  2 8 . C o m p a r i s o n o f Age a n d G r a d e f o r White and I n d i a n Ss  66  Level  29. Comparison o f R e s i s t a n c e t o E x t i n c t i o n o f Number a n d W e i g h t f o r I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s Combined  72  vii TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  TABLE  30.  31.  32.  33.  34.  35,  Direct External Reinforcement: C o m p a r i s o n o f Age a n d G r a d e L e v e l f o r W h i t e a n d I n d i a n Ss C o n t r o l G r o u p : C o m p a r i s o n o f Age G r a d e f o r W h i t e a n d I n d i a n S_s.  . • • . . . .»  75  and  R e s u l t s o f T r a i n i n g on D i r e c t R e i n f o r c e m e n t : I n d i a n 5s  External  R e s u l t s o f T r a i n i n g on D i r e c t R e i n f o r c e m e n t : W h i t e Ss  External  77  .........  83  .»  83  C o n t r o l Group: C o n s e r v a t i o n of Weight on t h e P o s t t e s t f o r M a t c h e d Indian, M a t c h e d W h i t e and Nonmatched W h i t e  85  R e s u l t s o f T r a i n i n g on R e v e r s e E x t e r n a l R e i n f o r c e m e n t ? I n d i a n a n d W h i t e Ss.  85  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The Dr.  advice  D. K e n n y  acknowledged. considerable Fung  was  of Dr. E l i n o r  and D r . J . P a s c u a l - L e o n e I am a l s o advice,  and P a t Waldron  principles study  and g u i d a n c e  support  are gratefully  t o my  husband  and p a t i e n c e ;  f o rtheir  and t e a c h e r s conducted.  grateful  expert  of the schools  Ames,  for his  Christine  typing;  and t h e  i n which t h e  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION Cross-cultural serve  two  mental tural  purposes:  sequences group;  two  many  performance more  of  is  relevant  on  ion  i s strong  not  depend  which  white  i f two that  purpose  children  task,  of  this  the  do on  cul-  some  development. differing  environment,  differ  in  in  suggestion i s that  not the  differ,  they  one  differ  significantthe  cognitive  suggest-  task  does  environmental variables  in British  was  to  compare  Columbia  on  two  tasks  originate  i n the  work  ators  and  tion  but  More  study  and  are  (Piaget,  to  age,  performance.  the  number  and  cognitive  which  performance on  way,  on  groups  of  effects  of  develop-  a single  in a tentative  cultural  such  with  of  can  on  differ.  conservation  ment  established  cognitive  importantly  they The  and  development  generality  environmental variables  to the  perhaps,  the  chronological  a cognitive  the  ly,  extend  determinants  same  home  cognitive  provide,  the  the  aspects of  or  they  about  groups,  they  of  previously  and  information If  studies  of  relevant 1952).  extinction  compare,  i n the  by  Indian  to A  of  Jean  second  purpose  method, white -  1  Ss. -  on the  related  and  his  to  collaber-  stability  A subsidiary  develop-  determine  conservation  the  Both  intellectual was  and  tasks,  of weight.  Piaget  h i s theory of  procedures  this and  conservation  Indian  the  responses,  of conservapurpose  was  - 2 to  explore  training not  and compare t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f two methods of  i n producing  initially  of Piaget's  be p r e s e n t e d ,  when c o n s e r v a t i o n the  with  be  reviewed.  on  Piagetian tasks,  on  conservation  1)  Piaqets  According  particular  be  to Piaget  first  i s the principle  principle  of organization.  development  Adaptation  i n an i n c r e a s e which  volved  i n adaptation  adjust  incorporated tion  into  requires  Every  principles i t s  There  course.  the second the  occurs  "when t h e o r -  a n d when t h i s  varia-  between t h e  to i t s  preserva-  a r e two p r o c e s s e s i n -  - a s s i m i l a t i o n and accommodation. of the organism  i n i t s environment  process  to the specific  assimilate.  of performance  so t h a t  nature  whereby t h e organism of the object  a s s i m i l a t i o n o f an o b j e c t  an a c c o m m o d a t i o n  of the organism  t o change  i t becomes  the s t r u c t u r e of the organism.  i s the converse  itself  will  are favourable  refers to the a b i l i t y  the object  conservation  i n the interchanges  ( P i a g e t , 1 9 5 2 , p. 5 ) .  or  with  throughout  by t h e e n v i r o n m e n t  and i t s e l f  concerned  a r e two  of adaptation,  tion."  Assimilation  studies  Development  (1952) t h e r e  The  environment  on t h e p e r i o d  of the effects of training  of Intell ectual  i s transformed  development  reviewed.  intellectual  results  Next,  and s t u d i e s  will  emphasis  cross-cultural studies  governing  tion  i n S s who did  of i n t e l l e c t u a l  o f number and w e i g h t  Finally,  Theory  theory  i s attained.  age o f a t t a i n m e n t  ganism  responses  conserve.  A review will  conservation  Accommodaadjusts  i ti s trying t o an  to  organism  to the object.  An  adaptive  a c t always  Piaget's  second  The to  specific period  the  the  of  Piaget  that  from  period  intelligence  of a very  not depend  educational  general  exclusively,  experiences  varied  also  of  and d e -  interactions  with  that  intelligence  does not  or mediation  of language,  but  on t h e same  manifests  considers  to Piaget  volved  i n the development  volves  a stage  succeed  each  dividual which  development  itself  i n the  are diagnostic  other  that  of cog-  particular  of specific  periods  around  development  the sixth  twelfth  period  of concrete  year.  operational  study  of concrete year  I t i s preceded  thinking  Each  sequence,  period i n -  i s Piaget's  The  allowing  of attainment.  operational  or seventh  characterized  periods i n -  and one o f a t t a i n m e n t .  i n t h e ages  to this  are three  of intelligence.  i n an i n v a r i a n t  differences  period  '(1952), t h e r e  of formation  i s relevant  The  or  differs  development. According  the  does  b u t on many  depends  organization that  experiences  I t appears  use o f language  tasks  organization,  functioning.  the development  on f o r m a l  on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  nitive  organization  development  instruction,  environment.  depend  makes  on e n v i r o n m e n t a l  primarily,  liberate  of i n t e l l e c t u a l  of t h i s  theory  Cognitive  even  an u n d e r l y i n g  i n development.  dependent  or  principle  nature  Piaget's  nature.  presupposes  The  second  periods  for i n period  period  -  thinking.  operational  thinking  and e x t e n d s  to the  by an i n t r o d u c t o r y  by p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l  thinking.  depends,  to Piaget  according  begins eleventh  subConcrete (1950),  upon  the a p p l i c a t i o n  nitive  structures,  mental  transformations  to concrete  known  situations  as " s c h e m a t a "  of stable  on w h i c h  c a n be p e r f o r m e d .  cog-  various  Concrete  thinking  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l o n g p r o c e s s o f e l a b o r a t i o n o f m e n t a l o p e r a t i o n s . The p r o c e s s i s c o m p l e t e d by a b o u t t h e a g e o f s e v e n a n d i s t h e n f o l l o w e d by an equally long period of s t r u c t u r a t i o n . During t h e i r elaboration, concrete thought processes are i r r e v e r s i b l e . We o b s e r v e how t h e y g r a d u a l l y b e c o m e reversible. With r e v e r s i b i l i t y , they form a system of concrete operations. ( I n h e l d e r , 1962, p. 2 5 ) . Central child's  t o t h e development  understanding  Conservation cular face  dimension  of the p r i n c i p l e of the a b i l i t y  o f an o b j e c t  o f i r r e l e v a n t changes  A  typical  a  child  of  implies  Piaget-type  two b a l l s  the b a l l s  asking  into  increased,  the  At a c e r t a i n  reliance  lead  him t o s t a t e  in  shape,  infers  from  addition changes  also  remain  i n other  conservation. that  invariant  dimensions task  i n front  i s the  would  a  parti-  i n the  of the  or remained  weight,  age t h e c h i l d  on i m m e d i a t e that  differ  perceptual  and  learns  to free  s t i m u l i which  the former  equality  or s u b t r a c t i o n i n one d i m e n s i o n  At t h i s  (e.g.width),  to  himself would  differing  the lack  and t h e f a c t may  has  age, t h e c h i l d  of the b a l l s ,  of p l a s t i c i n e ,  now  one  then  i n comparison  the p l a s t i c i n e objects, i n weight.  giving  rolling  of the c h i l d ,  t h e same  object.  involve  of the p l a s t i c i n e i n the sausage  decreased,  from  may  conservation  a sausage  thinking  to recognize  of p l a s t i c i n e of equal  i f the weight  ball.  of concrete  of  that  compensate f o r  changes the  in  another  objects  may  5  -  dimension  differ  in  (e.g.  shape,  length),  they  that  even  though  the  same  in  remain  weight. In given  seeking  child,  to  assess  Piaget's  the  method  intellectual  development  is essentially  one  of  of  a  clinical  examination. For Piaget the goal i s to diagnose the i n t e l l e c t u a l processes a v a i l a b l e to the subject. F l e x i b i l i t y i n the experimental procedures f a c i l i t a t e s the d i a g n o s i s by p e r m i t t i n g an i n q u i r y i n t o t h e reasons for a response, an i n q u i r y t a b o o i n a standardized procedure. Similarly, a d i a g n o s i s i s more e a s i l y and more v i v i d l y supported with d e t a i l e d illustrations t h a n w i t h s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a and n o r m s . ( B r a i n e , 1962, p. 4 2 ) . Recently, ments  similar  controls  and  analysis. Wallach ties  tality,  (1963)  of  factors ent  irrelevant  area,  the  to  has  amount,  number  sequential  and  before  are  more  by  more  are  in  Piaget  weight, have  first task  rigorous statistical  of  volume, Most  studies  weight  at  exhibited,  have  on  1963), before  to  which e.g.  complexity,  a  horizon-  (Wallach,  attempted  ages  for  conservation  and  by  proper-  demonstrated  weight,  experi-  presented  Conservation been  of  thorough  studies  absolute  sex,  reports  duration.  studies  the  of  using  invariance  postulated  factors,  but  (1963).  e.g.  affect  number  these  changes  conservation  linguistic  data  of  a d d i t i o n , some may  a  Piaget,  the  i s conserved  which of  of  Flavell  dimensions  In  types  gence,  and  dimensions,  amount  volume.  those  been  summaries  length,  different  have  subjecting  demonstrated  e.g.  to  Good  across  number  there  examine differintelli-  etc.  2) A q e  of Attainment  Conservation nize  that  number  transformation. ability face  seven to  picks  taneously in  one  other used  glass  pearls  Then longer  from  glass.  t h e new  ferred  t h e two  i n each  glasses  This  glass  with  spatial  of course, remains  arrangements  found  with  identical  hand  until  or s h o r t e r  and d r o p s  have  o f 90 S w i s s  simul-  the pearl i n the  into  t h e new  there the  not been  that  i s the pearls transi s  t h e number  changes  Piaget  are  and t h e  Conservation  despite  The  introduced  (comparing  by t h e a s s e r t i o n  of i t s elements.  a sample  i s  as t o w h e t h e r  which  o f num-  them  and w i d e r )  glasses).  invariant  1963).  a l l the pearls  are transferred  glasses  nine  glasses.  the pearl  the pearls  f r o m Qae o f t h e f o r m e r  collection  and G r e c o ,  o f a d i f f e r e n t shape  i n both  around  on c o n s e r v a t i o n  two  conser-  around  putting  questioned  of pearls  of weight  putting  hand  and t h i n n e r ,  that  (one hand  i s continued  a glass  states  i n the  of children  Inhelder  into  one o f t h e g l a s s e s  demonstrated,  1963)  one p e a r l  T h e 5_ i s t h e n  same number  the  pearls  and t h e o t h e r  glass).  (either  in  up  Piaget,  recog-  to the  invariant  Piaget  i n the majority  to  of certain  refers  remains  e x p e r i m e n t .by P i a g e t  putting  into  up.  occurs  i n the face  of weight  weight  and Weiqht  to the a b i l i t y  invariant  that  (Oleron,  typical  involves  child  remains  refers  o f Number  o f age, and c o n s e r v a t i o n  ten years.  ber  o f number  transformations.  o f number  A  of Conservation  to recognize  years  -  Conservation  of certain  vation  6  i n the  (Oleron  children,  of  that  et a l . , at  five  years,  seven  These  74%  results  collections  of  does  by c o u n t i n g ,  of  this  I960;  postulates  conservation  o f a number  support  1962; W o h l w i l l ,  by s e v e n  which  not n e c e s s a r i l y g i v e  studies  Piaget  number  a three-stage  at  the  years  of age.  the a b i l i t y a l l Ss were  evidence  o f an  o r o f number  finding  Dodwell,  while  Therefore,  i n addition, that  of the concept  Additional Lowe,  conserve  indicate,  enumerate  standing  non-conservers,  o f t h e Ss c o n s e r v e d .  of children  doing,  -  85$ o f t h e 5s were  years,  majority  7  to capable  under-  conservation.,  (e.g. Wohlwill  and  1960). development  to explain  number.  In s t a g e I " A b s e n c e o f C o n s e r v a t i o n " t h e q u a n t i t y o f an a g g r e g a t e t e n d s t o be e s t i m a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f a s p e c t s o f t h e perceptual s i t u a t i o n that are i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e number o f i t e m s . T h e number o f i t e m s i s j u d g e d t o change as t h e i r spat i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n changes. According to Piaget, the c h i l d i n the f i r s t stage of r e a s o n i n g i s e g o c e n t r i c a n d j u d g e s on t h e basis of g l o b a l p r o p e r t i e s or centers u p o n one a s p e c t o f a p r o b l e m a t a t i m e . In s t a g e I I " B e g i n n i n g o f C o n s t r u c t i o n o f Permanent S e t , " t h e r e i s a v a c i l l a t i n g bel i e f that a l t e r a t i o n of the s p a t i a l arrangement o f t h e items does not a l t e r t h e i r number o r q u a n t i t y . The c h i l d beg i n s t o show a w a r e n e s s o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s of r e v e r s i b i l i t y , i d e n t i t y , and compensated r e l a t i o n s , p r i n c i p l e s which a r e necessary f o r the understanding of conservation. In s t a g e I I I , " C o n s e r v a t i o n and Q u a n t i f y i n g C o o r d i n a t i o n , " t h e c h i l d understands the concept of c o n s e r v a t i o n . His c o g n i t i v e f i e l d has become a c o h e r e n t o r g a n i z e d w h o l e f r o m w h i c h he c a n a b s t r a c t . (Feigenbaum, 1963, pp. 423-424.) A number the  of studies  development  although  he  does  have  supported  of conservation not present  Piaget's  o f number.  details  theory  Smedslund  i n h i s study  of (1964),  concerning  the  ages  "The  75  of  percent  8 years" almost es,  acquisition  (p.  the  found  23).  same that  47% c o n s e r v e d 65  -  74  Feigenbaum's and  ployed dence was of  two  steady  stage  (stage  5_s  conservation  For to  has  in  example, test  showed age. 72% o f  of  been  for  the  weight  et  year  by  percent and  of  87  months. drawn  from  for He e m -  correspon-  analyzed  in  terms  to  I  8% a t  years  and s e v e n  five  year  (non-conservastage  were  III  all  there  is  cona  conserving. that  Piaget  using  to  175  plasticine  balls  at  eleven  old year  years. studies.  Swiss  that  year  believes  ten  Geneva  found  96% o f  between  objects  four  a number o f  seven  months,  of  weight,  of  54  sets  around nine  al.(1963),  with  olds  8.0  five  develops  conservation  Twenty-four  -  to  glass-  tested  the  stage and  indicated  demonstrated Oleron  at  5  in  children.  of  At t h e  children  statement  (1962)  were  (transition)  -  a one-to-one  one  5_s w e r e  Between  -  children  Results  7.1  45  90  before  between  beads  75  U.5.  that  technique  between  which  of  56% c o n s e r v e d  English  theory.  a  with  states  ages  between  Hood  126 for  number o f  conservation  nine  II  III).  A previous  This  schools.  objects  28% o f  of  the  using  months,  consisted  three-stage  growth  64  91% c o n s e r v e d  of  (conservation). servers  -  re-arranged.  64% a t  (1963)  conserved  established  level,  between  experiment  number w i t h  sets  Piaget's  tion),  55  elementary of  reached  children  and  had been  age  is  number c o n s e r v a t i o n ,  Piaget's  between  spatially  old  as  sample  conservation  of  -  Feigenbaum  no  months  nursery  level  8  no  five Ss  children, children years  of  conserved,  olds.  The  same  type  of  Lovell  (1961)  school  children.  had  judge  to  scales  as  They  found  conserve, By  the  20%  third  year  (9-10  in transition (10-11 and  dren  of  that  technique  than  Mass.  on  trials. then Two  formed weigh  showed  conservation.  essentially  again  using  to  i f one the  5 was  were  presented  on  his satisfaction asked ball  ball same,  S_ t o  was  into do  rolled a  they  At  not  the  fourth  13%  were  Lovell's  data  assessed  by  more  predict,  trial  and  in  seems  his  British  chil-  standardin  Newton,  three  then  judge,  responses.  S_ h a d  to  balls  weighed  the  relative  weights  of  a sausage. asked the  confirmed.  conserved.  4%  children  both  the  (non-  and  5_ r e c e i v e d  to  each  and  have  again  non-conservation  into  sausage both  Each  that  predict  Piaget  f o r the  175  asked  h i s c o n s e r v a t i o n or  balls  by  or  did  procedures  c o n s e r v a t i o n of weight.  hands  and  standardized question-  later  Piaget's, tested  trial  plasticine  conserve,  a  British  non-conservers,  weight,  children.  each  were  d i d not  c o n s e r v a t i o n of  of  stage  by  years)  conserved.-  Geneva  E_ t h e n  the  4B%  f o r the  those  determine  balls  and  32%  slightly  explain  same.  transition  used 364  their  (7-8  13%  (1961b)  of  proposed  Ss  occurs  For  clay  year  years)  -  on  c o n s e r v a t i o n ) were  -  Elkind  balls  years)  measurement  than  ized  74%  stages  first  i n the  indicate  naire  of  were  level  method  91%  two  was  (1961)  heavier using  The  transition,  experiment  Ogilvie  shown  the  wished.  that  transition to  was  ball  and  5_s w e r e  5%  were  grade  Lovell  which  conservation,  -  plasticine  and  they  9  "Do  same  Then they  amount  the  E_ t r a n s both of  weight?"  Finally,  S_ was  question.  The  mulation,  that  Twenty-one olds  and  the  to  results  of  of  ten  Elkind  in  his  five  agreement  olds  in  interchangeably  distinguished four  conservation example said  of  so".  cause  (e.g. the  romancing An  "no  (e.g.  "you  matter  weight").  with  age then  agreement  of Two  were  Piaget's  development A major attainment  of  on  in  would  or  take  make  age.  of  These of  the  age.  nine  year  25  at  each  age  Piaget,  explanations of  could  were  non-  perceptual. because be  -  my  (An uncle  " i t ' s more  explanations away")  and  i t won't  explanations  increased results  that  conservation. Two  i t into  perceptual  theory  (to are  three-stage  -  general change decreased  nine in  be-  years)  basic  growth  in  quantity.  comparing  Piagetian  any  with  of  with  conservation  explanations  concepts  problem  " i t s more  you  and  l e v e l e d o f f with with  add  shape  specific  -  and  for-  73% =  signs  romancing be  didn't  what  and  latter  Piaget's  explanations.  perceptual  Romancing  while  -  would  example  of  (N  agreement  equivalent  types  explanations  i t ' s longer".)  specific  as  the  increased  versus  conserved  found,  to  with  responses  year  olds  answer  c h i l d r e n ' s p r e d i c t i o n s , judgments  He  of  were  (196lb)  used  the  explain  year  be  and  -  i s , conservation  percent  84%  level).  asked  10  tasks  studies i s noted  i n v o l v i n g the by  Goodnow  p.20). ' i t makes l i t t l e s e n s e t o compare a g e s o f attainment u n l e s s the c r i t e r i a are the same, b u t t h e c r i t e r i o n i n t h e G e n e v a s t u dies i s often d i f f i c u l t to determine. What d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s u l t s s h o u l d there b e , f o r e x a m p l e , b e f o r e we t a l k a b o u t mast e r y a t an e i g h t - y e a r l e v e l : some e i g h t y e a r o l d s , h a l f o f them, most o f them,  ages  (1962,  - l i ar  a l l of  are  we  but  easily  that  his  particular what  or  group  a  of  "clinical those  full  the  and  could  between  these  second  stage  i s perhaps  method" who  i s designed an  he  It also the  by  that  means  seems  that  shaken  of  clear  cannot  be  Piaget's  identify  easily  he  means  child  and  to  overstated.  when  assessed  response  have  little  level,  i s that  conserving  children  age  criteria.  mastery  a  studies that  conservation, and  by  a  correct  a  particular  procedures  out  a  Piaget's  show  means  -  achieved.  from  at  what  or  There  years  position  clear  age  shaken  eliminate  of  be  (1962)  Piaget  particular  gap  never  mastery  of  easily  grasp,  achievements,  fairly  about  a  important,  mastery  understanding?  75%  that  by  shaken  be  Goodnow's  talks  mean  easily might  seems  to  More  sturdy two  It  them?  and  grasp  of  conservation. Braine  and  Shanks  colleagues  and  the  results  Geneva  other  (in press)  investigators  have  used  conservation.  According  this  does  he  technique  i s supposed  jects  (that  perties Shanks  jects.  (1965)  a  manner,  judgment  Using  this  and  one  and  the  looks  real  weigh  the  or  as  whether  the  to  same"  assess  in  the  be  the  Braine  ability  phrased that  to  To  p r o p e r t i e s of  are  assess  ob-  phenomenal  the  necessary  criterion  to  (in press), child  the  his  extending  technique  heavier).  phanomenal  or  p r o p e r t i e s of  i s defined  questions  Piaget,  5hanks to  is, heavier)  i t i s only  "they  ambiguous  Braine  to  conservation real  an  that  replicating  make t i c l e a r  one  If conservation  conserver.  to  respond  i s , which  between  ambiguous make  not  i s , which  (that  tinguish  to  argue  a  proand  to  the  disob-  less  child  can  considered  conservation,  a  Braine  (1959,  shown  that  years  earlier  1964)  they  and  can  than  12 Braine  produce the  -  age  and  Shanks  conservation reported  by  (in press) i n Ss  Piaget  at  have  least  (Oleron  two  et a l .  1963). Gruen ment  between  1961b)  and  Bruner, nature which  of  Braine  the  an  processes theory  only  reversibility,  a  that  with  e x p l o r a t i o n of  of  two  of  (1966)  to  assess  notions  in conservation  conservation. of  the  necessary  care  to  by us  978).  assertion  be  a  Smock,  that  use  of  by  differences be  in  taken  the  coordi-  rather  of  those  1966,  p.  these  162).  different  different  theore-  psychological pro-  (1966)  criteria, in  of  questions  therefore, different Gruen's  can  "The  complex,  justification  underlying  but  underlying  evaluated  reflects  can  ( i n terms  preselected  the  To  he  necessity).  Piaget)  very with  same,  the  and  of  the  weigh  to  to  p.  Sinclair  the  (e.g.  when  logical  child's  and,  1966,  Smedslund,  conserver  for this  answers  should  a  objects  Regardless  interpretation that  (Gruen,  conservation  concerning  supporters  concepts  properly  considers  (e.g.  u n d e r l i e the  defined  the  disagree-  about  or  be  the  disagreement  i s only  ( I n h e l d e r , Bovet,  Gruen  cesses  a  appears  cannot  investigation  tical  his  deals".  summary  criteria  and  s t r u c t u r e (as  system  answers."  1964)  compensation  nated  no  supporters  explanation  concepts  that  his  which  the  conservation  suggested  and  child  that  adequate  operational  (1950)  (1959,  (1961b),  not  recently  is "basically  Piaget's  assert  has  Piaget  1964)  Smedslund  give  (1966)  any  definitions suggested  i t seems  study  to  specify  clearly and, of  what  this  criterion  It  a  seems  tion  to of  tests and  open  the age  have  on  the  on The  uous  materials  some  problems  can  conservation,  underlie be  drawn  the  use  between  that  on  the  weight.  on  of  sequences  continuous that  substance that  out  of  154  Ss  at  theory,  direct  test  is  conservain  infrequently before  showed  before  ac-  they  have  He  found,  conservation  discontinuous  materials, which  a l -  (196lf),  materials. S_s  conserved  i s not  a l l conserved  discontinuous  for Piaget's  is  discontinuous  very  materials  is  still  between  with  Ss  materials any  No  Smedslund  discontinuous  five  weight  child.  However,  found  on  before  the  weight  This  relationship  continuous  only  fact  although  individual  done  number.  of  on  still  postulates  continraises an  in-  sequence.  Almy,  Chittenden,  longitudinal to  sequential tasks  volving  notions  of  children,  materials  that  substance  through  the  conservation  materials.  two  and  conservation  variant  assess  conservation  conservation  conservation  example,  that  possibility  been  number  acquired for  to  comparisons  clear  f o r most  continuous  quire  of  than  invariant for  known  theoretical  that  fairly  later  later  ways  used  studies.  attained leaves  so  -  i s being  i f p o s s i b l e , what  different  at  criterion  13  studies  the  middle  and  to of  development, i n v o l v i n g the  conservation  of  Miller  date, the  (1965),  followed second  through  in  grade.  conservation  of  an  liquid.  of  of  kindergarten  semi-annual  amount  one  They  the  children  examined  interviews,  number,  few  and  They  one found  on in-  that  most  children  developmental or  liquid,  and  year  olds.  ages  of  report could  volume.  solve  solving (Sigel  servation  using tion  the was  social  test  and  The  have  the  smaller  was  produced.  different  they out  could  also  solve  in  one  solve  is  that  use  the  of  and  they  those those  weight."  age by  at  the  which  con-  complexity  different  (Feigenbaum,  groups  the the  was  conservation  glasses  number  group,  but  i.e.  in  child  substance,  affected  for  of  differential  and  any  nine  11).  the  into  three  The  tasks,  "that  order,  24  types  of  1963;  1964).  glass so  the  to  affected  which  I.  varied.  the  beads  by  were  conservation  perceptual  the  age,  was  assess  affected by  for  conservation  glasses  less  not  the  number, Conserva-  matched  in  into  used  that was  Ss,  beads  of  of  experiment,  of  glasses  Conservation  glasses,  of  three  substance  p.  tested  beads in  and  the  find  conservation.  between  placed  was  for  (1963)  size  difference  task  on  tasks  also  Uzgiris,  class.  originally  did  demonstrated  assessed  and  conservation  indicated  typical  substance,  found  could  Feigenbaum  of  and  were  studies  1961a;  Sigel  quantity  individual differences  instance  test  of  and  1965,  to  number.  24  expected  conservation  conservation  were  the  olds  of  conservation  Elkind,  of  showed  six-year  weight,  be  all no  Mermelstein,  can  materials  is,  for  5s  conservation  volume, and  the  no  solving  Three  of  The  Although  in  at  conservation  attainment  children  that  (1965)' t e s t e d  that  -  changed  sequence,  without  Mermelstein weight  who  14  distortion  the  number  of  use  of  beads.  -  15  -  The evidence gives t e n t a t i v e support to a view t h a t the c o m p l e x i t y of the s t i m u l i presented affected 5s'frequency of s u c c e s s i n case of incomp l e t e a s s i m i l a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e o f o n e - t o - o n e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and to a view t h a t the c r u c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n f o r young c h i l d r e n regarding enumeration or l o g i c a l derivatives o f a number s o r t o c c u r s i n t h e first few n u m b e r s o f t h e s y s t e m . ( F e i g e n b a u m , 1963, p. 431). Both  Elkind  differential of  material  using  four  metal  nuts,  of  results used.  wire  in  the  materials,  of  p.  first  grade  level  first  grade  conserved  sticks  and  vation  task  one  row  no  on  Beads  servation  of The  generalize  of  fact  across  grade  attainment  levels"  conserved  across  (Uzgiris,  weight  20%  vari-  of  Ss  at  the  in  the  number  using  cons e r v a t i o n  into  materials  that  balls,  "considerable  whereas  glasses out  in  of  was  rows  an on  easier the  conser-  table,  with  other. that  care  specifying  the  the  of  on  indicate  number,  effects  (plasticine on  type  (1961a)  the  type  the  the  Elkind  beyond  the  to  plasticine balls.  extended  in  reported  conserve'weight'  children  laid  purposes,  who  p l a s t i c wire  findings  results  examined  reported  certain  sticks  comparison  ployed.  Ss  have  according  materials  She  than  These  task,  on  (1964)  p l a s t i c wire)  of  at  e.g.  beads.  of  weight.  especially  similar  (1964)  and  percentage  836-837)  Uzgiris  conservation  types  coils  1964,  reports  on  and  Uzgiris  different  conservation  ation  (1961a)  used,  number  and,  of  conservation  a l l situations  the  must  be  exact  taken, nature  for of  in  testing  for  beads,  sticks,  etc.  does  supports  not  the conem-  necessarily  Piaget's  conclu-  sion a  that  "success  certain  all  type  materials" In  years  of  tion,  they  that  age  to  to  determine  children  appear  all  conducted  been  concerned cultural 3)  an  p.  type  around the  assess  of to  42).  studies  nine  support number  to  ten  can  conserve.  However,  on  subjects.  these  In  addithe  type  criteria  ages  at  studies  The  in  seven  task,  the  the  Piaget's  around  the  and  affect  Piaget  years.  of  conservation,  a p p l i c a t i o n of  quantity  necessarily generalize  complexity  Western  of  next  which have  section  theory  to  is  other  groups.  C r o s s - c u l t u r a l Comparisons It  the to  with  not  conservation  to  given  c h i l d r e n conserve  weight  used  a  validation  most  and  did  1961a,  i n d i c a t e that  material  used  material  the  -  comparing  (Elkind,  general,  indicating  of  of  in  16  seems  worthwhile  attainment extend  about the  the  which  of  A.  periods  of  to  see  groups of  Chinese tasks  and from  order to  whether  differ  may  in  which can  the  differences in the  first  generalizations  be  applied,  environmental  affect  place,  the  ages  and,  (1962)  tested  between  the  little  no  or  of  reasoning, Among  to  approximately  ages  volume).  tests  of  attain-  the  10  and  different  500 13  on  conservation Chinese  schooling  to  boys  full  European four of  in  v a r i a b l e s on  development.  (combinatorial  weight, varied  boys  cultural  periods  A p p l i c a t i o n of P i a g e t i a n c u l t u r a l groups. Goodnow  in  population  developmental  place,  cultural  examine  conservation,  range  Piaget's  second  ment  of  to  and  Piaget  space,  education  schooling.  In  the  conservation  variations no  very  ent  nationality  the  best  boys  close  On  had r e c e i v e d tasks,  from  task,  Goodnow  (1962)  class  Chinese  boys  schooling A  results  a very boys  groups tasks  group  full  schooling)  groups. that  On  the European  indicates a fair  showed  status  with  of Chinese school.  middle-class backgrounds  were  slightly  and  middle-  t o the low-income,  (1962)  differ-  the combinatorial  semi-schooling  o f Goodnow's  real  were t h e  i n primary from  made  of  who  low s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  superior  and low i n c o m e ,  comparison  Geneva  found  were  of Chinese  from  three  was  among  on t h e t h r e e  course  that  and s c h o o l i n g  The t h r e e  no s c i e n c e  received  t o t h e above  was  a low s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  t h e group  having  result  There  and t h e s p e c i a l  and t h e g r o u p  groups  inferior  status  i n performance  performance  o r no s c h o o l i n g ,  backgrounds  social  and e d u c a t i o n .  the Chinese  a l lthree  (both  similarity  overall  who  striking  difference to success.  and  Europeans,  -  t h e most  in nationality,  essential  little  tasks,  17  Chinese  results  replication,  groups.  with with  full  the some e x -  ceptions . On t h e c o m b i n a t o r i a l t a s k , t h e r e i s a c l o s e r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t i e between age and s u c c e s s . On t h e p e r c e p t u a l tasks (conservation t a s k s ) , the order of d i f f i c u l t y f o r w e i g h t and volume i s an p r e d i c t e d , b u t b o t h t h e s p a c e and v o l u m e t a s k a p p e a r as more d i f f i c u l t than t h e Geneva r e s u l t s imply. (Goodnow, 1 9 6 2 , p. 1 9 ) . Except pared  f o r t h e volume favorably  with  Price-Williams African  task,  the quality  t h e Genevan (1961)  tested  c h i l d r e n of the T i v tribe  of reasoning  com-  studies. illiterate  bush  on c o n s e r v a t i o n  West of  both  continuous  and  an  example  of  of  discontinuous  progression European raised  of  continuous  the  the  the  quantities.  quantity  quantity. idea  other  about  account  discontinuous  in  and  -  18  The  of  results  children,  age  difficulty  nuts  conservation  Western  actual  and  of  of  Earth as  an  used  as  example  i n d i c a t e d the  same  as  in  that  although  attainment  obtaining  was  of  the  found  some  doubt  is  conservation  ages  of  the  on  chil-  dren . Other formance Western of  studies  of  (mostly 6-8 same  Piagetian  cultural  Piaget's  number  of  age,  general  Piaget's  tasks  and  in  subjects.  Almy  et  a l . (1965)  studies, dergarten with  of  liquid.  all dren  this  number The  tasks,  conserved.  than  was  In  to  of  one  the  whereas,  and  to  one,  the  middle  Two  tasks  only  29%  by  the  Rican with  of  an  kin-  the  conser-  of  the  lower  class  of  the  c h i l d r e n conserved of  grade  amount  middle  41  previous  second  involved  the  subjects.  following  of  as  generally  York  most  the  changes  Puerto  i n New  contrast  class  children,  showed  non-European Negro  non-  Europeans  subjects  conservation  middle  school  per-  battery  of  developmental  the  i n d i c a t e d that  the  groups  European  24  or  large  subjects  a longitudinal  interviews. and  The  neighborhood  children.  results 76%  the  to  a  Somali  and  compared  c h i l d r e n through  grade, three  level  income  study  semi-annual  vation  cond  higher  white  Aden.  However,  a low  and  inferior  minority  gave  tasks  responses  a  class  (1959)  living  on  middle  Hyde  Indian  of  generally  cultural  Arabs,  types  from  in  quantity  performed  children  indicated a  groups.  British),  years  have  se-  on chil-  Vernon battery  to  England  and  West  (1965a, 100 to  Indian  trasted  would only  number  Piaget a in  of  The entirely  school  tasks  of  of  were  the There  of  theory  However,  while  minority  and  Indian  of  on  significant  the  sequence  of  groups  may  of  on  length on  of  indicated  deficiencies five  tasks, of differ-  amount  of  between tasks.  comparisons in general,  are  not  support-  development.  indicated  conserve  of  the  negligible  cognitive  have  A  conservation  on the P i a g e t  have,  non-Western  upwards.  differences  studies  studies  often  scores  conservation  cross-cultural  of  who  - conservation  The  a number  tasks  were  small  i n tine t e s t  occurred  There  rural  Jamaicans  greatest  tasks  con-  following  performance  The  boys  The  urban,  years  test  in  five  the  boy  included  i n performance  these  consistent.  Piaget's  no  ten  a l l the  area.  from  isolated  of p l a s t i c i n e ,  West  groups  were  sub-cultures results  from  conservation  two  ten  selected  conservation  English  and  of  Jamaican  retardation.  the  i n Jamaica.  represent  the  test  o l d boys  poorer-class  were  amount  median  lengths  between  Jamaican  the  with  of which  that  Combining  degree  plasticine.  ed  Piaget  area.  rod  to  average  attends  liquid,  comparison  ences  tha  age  extensive  year  p l a n t a t i o n and  considered to  an  eleven  i n groups  chosen  sugar-cane  battery,  volume,  the  drawn  schools,  of  of  moderate  three  wore  of  including several  volume and  boys  superior  battery,  rods  same  irregularly  large  of  50  I t was  be  gave  b e t t e r - c l a s s urban,  town,  holding.  1965c) to  primary  country,  1965b,  -  ten-and-a-half  boys  sub-cultures:  19  later  that than  European have ent in  found tasks  white  no to  American  assess to  duce  at  apply  specific  differences  tested,  differences.  c o n s e r v a t i o n , and  made c o m p a r i s o n s  look  children  cross-cultural  attempting  have to  and  -  20  the  same  difficult.  groups  studies  use  of  problems of  achievement,  variables  in  ages  of  differ-  involved  It i s desirable,  environmental  between  The  the  criteria  other  which  therefore, may  pro-  attainment  of  conservation. B.  Environmental variables groups differ. Non-western  differ  from  imposed and  on  the  instability. have  taken  might  studies, and  any  on  Piaget's and  of  hod  Several  tasks  at  any  and  family  studies  which  environmental  performance have  addition had  on  concluded  classroom  s i x and  schools  look  cultural  obvious  do  not  that  virtually  relevant  Mermelstein  children year  the  amount  account.  tasks.  Most  to  the  (1965)  solution  performance compared  i n P r i n c e Edward  o l d Negro  children  formal  had  been  closed  to  were  used  involving  education,  prevent  school  conservation of  County,  in  rural-urban difference, no  variable  of s c h o o l i n g  appreciably affect  and  nine to  Piagetian  training  o l d Negro  mer  socio-economic, education  often  handicaps  s c h o o l i n g i s an  year  In  to  of  may  into  5igel  Chicago.  poor  i n terms  defective  tasks.  with  public  of  minorities  factors  problems  Virginia  child  cultural  environmental  affect  nine  group  result  which  cultural  white  It i s relevant  specific  Piagetian  a  and  environment,  however,  of  six  as  these  Amount which  Western  them  linguistic  children  on  the  since  for-  the  integration, discon-  tinuous  and  non-verbal was  continuous in  given.  cant  Hyde  any  perience  training  and  the  directly  number.  with  He  related  the  Vernon  to  docs  the  class  there  were  age  was  no  signifi-  schooled  groups.  groups.  1965b,  Goodnow  1965c)  formal  task  did  not  school  ex-  conservation. consider  were  exposed  t r a n s f e r r e d to that  tasks  inclusion  and  between  (1965a,  of  not  subjects  noted  a  non-schooled were  development  the  addition  of  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  (I960),  which  One  indicate that  found  and  significant  been  fectly  were  (1959)  Wohlwill  of  In  d i f f e r e n c e s between  (1962),  have  results  that  -  quantities.  character.  The  Differences  find  21  grades  performance.  his in  He  that to  task  school  any in  on  school  could  conservation  were  concludes,  specific  very  in  imper-  agreement  Piaget: "In other words, very g e n e r a l experience, a s s i m i l a t e d and t r a n s f o r m e d i n the course o f d e v e l o p m e n t , can t o a l a r g e e x t e n t , r e p l a c e more s p e c i f i c p r a c t i c e as a c o n d i t i o n of l e a r n i n g . A p p l i e d t o our study, t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would a t t r i b u t e the change u n d e r l y i n g a c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s from the f i r s t to the second, or from the second t o the t h i r d phase, not i n terms of p r a c t i c e i n c o u n t i n g , or e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c o n s e r v a t i o n o f number, but r a t h e r i n t e r m s of immediate e x p e r i e n c e i n the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f n u m b e r , and i n the a b s t r a c t i o n of i n v a r i a n t p r o p e r t i e s from changing s t i m u l u s complexes." ( W o h l w i l l , I 9 6 0 , p. 372). Most  tween et  studies  intelligence  a l . , 1965;  1963; ample,  have  Hood, found  test  Dodwell, 1962 a  and  indicated a performance I960,  and  relation  1964). between  relationship  conservation  E l k i n d , 1961;  Smedslund,  positive  positive  be-  (Almy  Feigenbaum,  Feigenbaum, I.Q.  (as  for  ex-  measured  by  the  Each  Stanford-Binet)  of  assess  these  studies  intelligence,  and  intellectual  abilities.  e.g.  Indian,  Maori,  dard  into H i  basis  of  groups group. ship ive  than and  mere study  and  by  from  their  one  to  to  number.  of  standard  teachers,  a lower  to  of  5_s '  minorities,  score  on  stan-  counterpart Therefore,  on  the  would  expect  subcultural  the  dominant  cultural  failing  (measured  ability  of  methods  cultural  1965).  than  date  thc  European  Storm,  poorly  and  administrations  generally receive  intelligence  Matrices)  tests  ordering,  v a r i a b l e alone,  only  between  from  Children  Cameron  perform  The  rank  sts  this  to  to  in conservation  different  ranging  tests  I960;  -  success  used  intelligence  (Ausubel,  22  to  by  conserve  find  the  any  relation-  Raven's  Progress-  i s Goodnow's  (1962)  study. Performance a p p e a r s t o be q u i t e u n a f f e c t e d by w i d e d i f f e r e n c e s i n m a t r i c e s s c o r e s , and t o be s e n s i t i v e i n s t e a d t o a combination o f a g e a n d some s o r t o f p e r sonal maturity. M a t r i c e s scores appear t o be a m o r e ~ t h a n - f a i r i n d e x o f g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e (Goodnow, 1962, p. 8). It  i s this  sizes come  personal  brought Chinese  up  maturity  the  boys.  E_ e l i m i n a t e d  viously  leaned  was  more  on  seekers'  had  most  the  (Goodnow, on  the  a  boys  we  in  assurance  1962,  in  p.  conservation  11).  of  this  else  this  may  Goodnow  (1962)  have and  f o r help  ended  "In up  enabled  Goodnow  who  low  spurious copied  (this  of  these  the  inmatrices  or  ob-  of  behavior  kind  eliminating  with  independence  This  tasks.  group  group).  hypothe-  semi-schooled,  protection against  someone  prevelant  'advice  performance As  scores,  that  these  subjects  who  judgment." boys  (1962) d i d  to  find,  da  well  however,  that  performance  related  better  that  scares  v a r i a b l e may  combinatorial  of  Goodnow's  on t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n  temperamental  -  on t h e P i a g e t  to matrices  The f a c t  23  task  was  closely  intelligence. ( 1 9 6 2 ) more m a t u r e Ss  tasks  suggests  be i n v o l v e d  that  succeeded  some  kind  i n conservation  of  per-  formance. It  i s s u r p r i s i n g i n view  variables a  i n which  disadvantage,  cultural  that  o f t h e number o f  minority  greater  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l comparisons.  4)  Training  question  has r e c e n t l y been c e n t e r e d  o f how  a p p e a r t o be a t  d i f f e r e n c e s have not been  in  Attention  groups  environmental  children acquire  found  on t h e s p e c i f i c  conservation.  A l t h o u g h P i a g e t h a s d e s c r i b e d some o f the precursors of t h i s notion of cons e r v a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n who h a v e n o t y e t a t t a i n e d t h i s l e v e l , l i t t l e i s known t h u s f a r a b o u t t h e s p e c i f i c ways i n which t h e t r a n s i t i o n from l a c k of conservation t o the presence of conservat i o n takes place. I t i s apparent, h o w e v e r , t h a t an a d e q u a t e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s problem u l t i m a t e l y r e q u i r e s a clearer understanding of the psychol o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s a t work i n t h i s t r a n s i t i o n p h a s e ( W o h l w i l l and Lowe, 1 9 6 2 , p. 1 5 3 ) . According and of  plausible explanations conservation.  (196la) that as  t o Smedslund  calls  direct  demonstration  a r e two  which  explanation,  of f a i r l y  Smedslund would  specific  external reinforcement,  of conservation  possible  f o r the development  explanation,  i s the result  of either direct  there  t o account  a "learning theory"  conservation  a result  The f i r s t  (196la)  state  learning, or the  or r e v e r s i b i l i t y .  The  second state  explanation, that  already  out  at the c h i l d ' s of a very  t h e gaps  structures first  and l e a d  intelligence,  to a complete  two  of  age.  the second  weight  (1961c)  activity  serve  and  to bring mental  of t h e growth  explanation  The of  i s a discontin-  experience  c h i l d r e n h a d n o t shown after  two  of conservation  sisted  i n allowing  scales  after  h a d made  and n o t e  shapes,  consisted  he  still  that,  weighed  object.  t h e c h i l d r e n who  ing  extinguished,  had  acquired  conservation  their balls,  Extinction  three  some  whereas  reinforcecon-  to the relative i n two  differ-  procedures  of the  plasticine  extinction trials, a l l  conservation  s i x out of t h i r t e e n normally  through  reinforcement  the balls  t h e two  years  i n a p r e t e s t , but  external  about  removing  had a c q u i r e d  whereas  on  to return  After  to seven  conservation  External  t h e same.  of s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y  the deformed  five  by a p r e t e s t )  sessions  in fact,  suggest  of extinction  from  a judgment  to  the effects  conservation  of weight.  the child  seems  developmental  (demonstrated  training  of e x t i n c t i o n  on i n i t i a l  c h i l d r e n had a c q u i r e d  eleven  weights,  i n a pretest  of c h i l d r e n ranging  Thirteen  conserved  on t h e e f f e c t s  compared  life  of  attainments  reorganization.  theory  o f p r a c t i c e depend  Smedslund groups  work  normal  from  which  inner  i s a continuous  (1961c)  the effects  on  ent  nature  with  would  theory.  level.  ment  theory",  on ihe c o n c e p t u a l  disposal together  children conserving  that  "equilibration  depends  general  whereas  Smed'slund's on  -  and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e c h i l d ' s  explanation  uous  labelled  conservation  experience  24  resisted  through  train-  children extinction.  who  These r e s u l t s give theory  as  opposed  to  25  -  tentative  the  support  learning  to  the  equilibration  theory i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  "Dn t h e b a s i s o f l e a r n i n g t h e o r y one may expect the n o t i o n of conservation c a n a l w a y s be e x t i n g u i s h e d , regardless o f w h e t h e r i t has b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d i n the l a b o r a t o r y or i n normal l i f e . This f o l l o w s from the assumption t h a t notions of c o n s e r v a t i o n a r e d e p e n d e n t on external reinforcement. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t f o l l o w s from e q u i l i b r a t i o n theory that a genuine p r i n c i p l e of c o n s e r v a t i o n s h o u l d be p r a c t i c a l l y impossible t o e x t i n g u i s h , s i n c e i t r e f l e c t s an inner 'logical' necessity." (Smedslund, 1 9 5 1 c , pp. 8 5 - 8 6 . ) Smcdslund's a  direct test  opposed  to  question.  a  of  most  to  In  thc  of  suppose  to  that  of  a l l learning variety  of  the  terms  first  of  applied  learning  i s being is a single  producing  tested.  prediction  about  or  comes a b o u t  has  provided.  theories lend  operations  or  a  an  naturally  task  any  explanaanalysis  in theoretically The  the  single  that  a much m o r e t h o r o u g h  criteria  the  seems  venture  the  of  It  would  without  serious  c l e a r which  learning  theory  as  i s open t o  conservation  way•conservation  relevant  i s not  the  sort  have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y been itself  of  such,  i t i s c l e a r l y a challenge of  approach  providing  theory"  upon,  does not  shows a l a c k  "learning  i t i s not  terms  it  the  r e s u l t s as  agree  Smedslund  and  place,  his  t h e o r i s t s would  s i t u a t i o n and  which  a  theory  of  the  conservation  than  of  there  e f f e c t i v e method  single tion  merits  theories extont  interpretation that  the  non-learning  many l e a r n i n g naive  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  employed  awareness  of  r e a d i l y to in learning to the  learning  analysis  in  studies.  As  theories,  but  s u b t l e t i e s of  prediction  and  interpretation  particularly and to  forcement is  those  cue-producing suppose, to  assume  and  between 'the  the  the  the  dency  and  there  when  the  This or  is  Piaget's  learning theory  not  suggests,  to  the  responses  that  approaches,  the  does  at  the  this  reason,  or  not,in  phenomena.  writer, that lead  least,  to  the  and  very  in  procedures  great  like  establishing  the  not the  long In  pose  be  Piaget's  firmly  Smedslund's  the  reversed.  problem  turn  out  learning to  be  defense,  i t  theory  strongly  extinction,  established. extinction  characteristics  for  conservation  position in  ten-  phenomena,  learning  difficulties are  are  any  that  assump-  readily  Smedslund's  general  to  positive  conventional  run,  expectation  that  cognitive operations  a  and  tion  that  the  these  that  contingencies  by  punishing  Given  the  to  presented  be  not  approach.  discrepancy  suppose  would  rein-  seems  negative  to  appears  extinction,  a  stimuli  such  reason  imply  extinguished  once  important  of  case.  may  to  method  reinforcing.  the  f o r these  seem,  be  be  mediating  external  discrepancy  reinforcement  to  approaches  orientation could  to  theory  direct  capable,  Smedslund  recognize  f i n d i n g s g e n e r a l l y , do  inadequate does  this  i s no  reversed  as  resistant  and  pattern  conserving  out  his  child  positively  make  turns  of  of  some l e a r n i n g t h e o r y  the  that  to  This  suppose,  prediction and  number  reinforcements,  to  concepts  to  conservation  that  verbal  i t s absence  tions,  failure  the  external reinforcement  require  his  l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s are  employ  damaging  demonstration  him,  that  produce  example,  which  responses,  that  particularly  For  of  -  26  of  are  For very  conservation  ana  other  whatever  Piagetian the  garten  theoretical  that  cn  and  Lcwe  age  five  (mean  subgroups  thc  assigned  to  four  received  an  individual pretest  matching-from-somplc verbal  test  of  ceived  a different  and  nonverbal  ing  the  posttest.  inquiry  made  question.  practice and  in in  after  tended mains The  to  invariant  the  group  of  helping were ir,  of  the the  added  child or  numerical  learning  to  set.  the  to  you  rows  child's was,  by  counting  face  of  of  did.,  of  in  subtracted,  the  was  could  The t h i r d  group  was  the  irrelevant  this  reinforced  method  before  was  in-  number  re-  changes.  practice  along  addition the  intended  there  further  matching-from-  that  then  dissociate  to  perceptual  that  answer-  No  that  change  inference  verbal  elements  reinforced  fact,  technique  make  idea  seeing  a  following  given  of  irrelevant  similar  I?"  This  the  by  re-  involved  again,  rearrangement.  a  Piaget-type  response  sets  (  chips.  was  children  subgroup  or  of  kinder-  All  followed  One s u b g r o u p  experience  This  value.  two  posttest  received  elements  Each  was  were  each.  posttest  chips,  of  months)  conventional  number.  acceptance  the  additional  subtraction value  in  and  number  a nonverbal  experience  one  conservation spatial  ten  both  of  Seventy-two  children  on  more  pretest.  facilitate  18  of  concerning  the  their  second  with  on  Thu n o n v e r b a l  s a m p l e . as  years,  The v e r b a l  "Who h a s  produced  explanation,  development  (1962).  technique)  training  distortions was  of  conservation  question  require  approach.  study  by W o h l w i l l  children  -  phenomena  A well-designed conducted  27  if  not  given  dimension  and  numerical  as  a means  no be  of  elements any  change  practice (length)  in  from a in  the  given  dimension number  length.  of  In  of  condition,  children  of  numbers  varying  spatial  control  results group)  in  group  but  given  practice  objects  to  form rows  served  always  in  as  a  see  that  varying  control  counting  presented  did  not  reach  out  One o f  that  Wohlwill  of  study,  48  There  were  tests  for  training  of  by  five  to  three  work  Lowe  seven  conservation  in  the  the  row  same  training  on  conservation  trials.  been  deformed,  cing  the  also  received  two  back  reinforced  produced  the by  could on  groups  on  on thc  operations  of  the  subtracof  any  the  group.  training  has  196lf,  similar  pre  to  (1961b)  and  acted  a  no  received  reinforced  trials  ball  prediction  post-  as  each  plasticine his  non-  participated.  two  scale.  practice  effects  the  the  in  W cl s  group  test  and  196lo,  One  one  to  terms  receiving  given  the  demonstrated  Smedslund's  children  was  after  of  196ld,  In  other  group  child  objects  noticing  The  In  s t u d i CS  group  was  changes  (1961b,  old  pre-test  addition  effects  weight.  weight:  the  the  each  One  in  few  (1961b)  year  group.  of  very  on  (including  improvement  (1962).  of  from  significance.  were  groups,  control  more  Smedslund  and  groups  experience  Smedslund's  32  of  there  body  all  significantly  had  main  carried  that  Slightly  post-test,  objects  were of  allowed  to  which  had  1962).  terms  made  group  that  this  The been  be  finol  improved  post-test.  verbal  could  indicated  verbal  tion  T h e 5 was  arrangement.  The  the  -  number.  units  the  28  had  by  pla-  The s e c o n d  group  scale,  in  relative addition  but  weights and  bf  the  subtraction  of  small  pieces  Smedslund ested  in  (1961b) whether  subtraction) (1961b) ficant with  of  and  A  Wohlwill  exercise aid  by  training  group  tion  group.  ence  in  one  and  a  those  of  s i m i l a r to  Wohlwill  the  conservation. and  from  Smedslund  unreliability  of  Smedslund's  pre-  Lowe's  children  inter-  Lowe  (196ld)  and  Both  (addition-  between-group  by  noticing  schema  groups  old  objects.  (1962) were  Wohlwill  significant  six-year  the  Lowe  acquiring  experiment  Eleven  of  related  a l l three  statistically further  of  in  parallel  improvement  no  -  p l a s t i c i n e to  would  results  29  to  -  signi-  posttest,  differences. involved  (1962)  were  given  perceptual  a  dissociaexperi-  size  cues.  I t was attempted to e x t i n g u i s h the v i s u a l c u e s t o w e i g h t by m a k i n g t h e m artificially unreliable. T h i s p r o c e d u r e was expected t o make t h e s u b j e c t s s e a r c h f o r m o r e r e l i a b l e cues to the l e v e l of s y m b o l i c repres e n t a t i o n o f p a s t e v e n t s , and t h e r e b y l e a d to conservation. (Smedslund, 196ld, p.153). In  three  12-trial  sessions,  notice  that  larger  weight  than  smaller  no  traces  of  of  conservation  in  children  similar 196ld) ing.  to  to  77  in  first  (1964)  months) were  the  opportunity  necessarily of  the  pretest  told  S_s to  to  heavier  changed a  also  number  stable  in  from notion  and  two  (reduction drop  beads  to  methods  Smedslund's  (1961b,  dissociation  (varying in  attempted  using  t r a i n i n g and  placed  to  have  (1962)  children  t r a i n i n g group and  of  Lowe's  kindergarten  blindfolded  the  had  posttest.  addition-subtraction  months  were  in  Sulken  and  not  None  conservation  Wohlwill  Fifty  the  the  and in  were  objects.  conservation  Feigenbaum train  objects  children  in  age  groups. of  from The  irrelevant  into  two  train61  children stimuli)  glasses  by  provoked glass; the  correspondence  one  bead  contents  of  conservation fold, The  the  E  to  then  If  of  which  asked  vant  to  after  which  may  conservation to  or  he  (1963)  tunity  by  the  gives  to  to  responded  the  not  training in  of  attend  who to  i n terms  of  him.  of  bead.  had  changed. 5_  irrele-  between  training method,  method.  No  succeeded  explanation for  results.  of  a  number on  this  when  way,  Children  of  what  at  the  E  blindfolded  and  been  to  this  d i d not  dimension,  (e.g.  dimension Zimiles'  (1964)  have  p e r c e p t u a l dimension,  are  items  Applying  Sulkir'o  pre-  manipulated  rearranges  response.  Feigenbaum  dimensions  has  i s drawn  numerical  conserva-  conservation level  depending  the  conservapile  Any  difference  first  an  attention  the  !5 a  and  method.  anyone  were  blocks.  for  beads  of  blind-  addition  f o r r e d u c t i o n of  training  offered  to  of  pour  addition-subtraction.  the  a non-conservation  Ss  number  transitional  child's  wooden  E_ s u b t r a c t e d a  which  the  to  without  showing  a n s w e r , JL t o l d  these  In  with  involved  from  first  has  or  E_.  performed  a significant  the  interpretation  results,  or  trained  numerical)  suggested  spatially, and  level  for transfer  first  Questions  tests  training  respond  perceptual,  a smaller glass*  test  the  told  standard  or  explain  were  f o l l o w e d by  in favor  (1963)  Ss  into  on  after  after  bead  practice  right  then  second  glass).  subtraction  the  one  received  E added,  groups,  the  likely  and  was  failed  To  group  conserve  Zimiles tion  into  r e s u l t s ' showed  treatment S_s who  glass  items,  give  stimuli The  second  S_ w h e t h e r  5_ d i d n o t  failing  the  o p e r a t i o n s were  Addition  beads  -  ( f o r example,  asked;  training  sub-traction tion.  one  were  same  second  into  30  an  oppor-  therefore, and  by  so  they  31 doing, is  increased  concerned  sults  in  with  terms  improvement  their  chances  of  conserving,  explaining Wohlwill  of  such  occurred  an  in  Lowe's  I t was  analysis.  the  and  c o n t r o l and  Zimiles  (1963)  (1962)  noted  that  remost  addition-subtraction  conditions. T h e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n was the only one of the four t r a i n i n g periods i n which no s p a t i a l r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h c t e s t o b j e c t s took p l a c e . The numerical^ r a t h e r t h a n t h e p e r c e p t u a l cue was manipulated. F o r t h e a d d i t i o n and subtraction conditions, thc length o f t h e row was v a r i e d , but t h i s was probably obscured by t h e n o v e l t y o f a d d i n g o r s u b t r a c t i n g an o b j e c t twot h i r d s of the t r i a l s , once a g a i n s u p p o r t i n g a n u m e r i c a l r a t h e r than a s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n , ( Z i m i l e s , 1963, p. 694). In  the  other  two  conditions  practice)  Ss  they  supposed  were  were  not  given  to  tended  to  inhibit  It  should  ba  noted  Zimiles  used  as  a  (1963)  in  ages  et  a l . 1963)  the  of  child  lution  of  attempt relevant more but  for  possible  i s not tha  told  to the  the  the  Using  shows  of of  the  Braine's  to  dimension  these  number  could  In  Piaget's  (Oleron procedures  to  the  procedures  an  procedures,  necessary  be  obtained  Piaget  concentrate  at  offered  also  i s relevant  con-  set.  explanation  between  conservation the  a  in Braine's  child  what  differences  1964).  dimension  whereas  demonstrate child  for  of  reinforced  therefore,  results  conservation (1959,  force  kind  training  which  problem,  dimension,  whether  of  and  adoption  explanation  Braine  i s mode t o  likely  that  and  indication  to,  the  the  attainment and  any  respond  ditions  by  (dissociation  an  on  the  the child  earlier  underlying  so-  is  age, thought  -  32  processes  which  principle  of conservation  With the  to Piaget  outlined  (196le;  view  the essential  conservation conflict asserts his  from  that  ment,  another of and  conflict  reinforcement  leads  conflict  unsuccessful.  come  around  to the  i s a state Piaget's  forces  of cognitive  model  t h e S_ t o which  Smedslund  not  i n terms  which reorganize  reorganization does  leads  to  consider  of feedback  about t h e  In S m e d s l u n d ' s  induced  of  experi-  by s i m u l t a n e o u s  defor-  and a d d i t i o n s  to or subtractions  from  object.  means  that  t h e two  schemata  and a d d i t i o n / s u b t r a c t i o n  come  into  o r t h e same  deformation  was  using  f o r the development  to conservation.  o f an o b j e c t  perhaps  supports  Furthermore,  cognitive  mation  condition  This  at t r a i n i n g  generally  has r e c e n t l y  and i t i s t h i s  external  response  been  of the  clear.  the attempts  no c o n s e r v a t i o n ,  cognitive  conserva t i o n .  Ss  196lf)  i n t h e 5_.  thinking  that  i s not  have  Smedslund that  i n d i c a t e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  a few e x c e p t i o n s ,  methods  -  This  conflict.  M o r e c o n c r e t e l y , t h e s u b j e c t s who t h i n k t h a t w e i g h t i s c h a n g e d when t h e b a l l i s changed i n t o a s a u s a g e , have t o combine t h e i r impression o f t h i s change i n weight with the observation that a piece i s t a k e n away f r o m t h e o t h e r b a l l . If they think that the deformation i n t o a s a u s a g e h a s made a b j e c t A h e a v i e r , this i s i n agreement with t h e knowledge t h a t o b j e c t B has become l i g h t e r ( s i n c e a p i e c e h a s b e e n t a k e n away) a n d t h e r e i s r e a l l y no c o n f l i c t ; object A i s judged heavier. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f t h e d e formation of object A i n t o a sausage i s seen as making o b j e c t A l i g h t e r , there w i l l be r e a l c o n f l i c t , s i n c e o b j e c t B has a l s o become l i g h t e r . The c h i l d has t o r e a c h a d e c i s i o n as t o t h e r e l a t i v e s i z e o f t h e two c h a n g e s , a n d t h e s t a t e  contact  -  33  -  o f i n n e r c o n f l i c t and u n c e r t a i n t y p r e c e d i n g t h i s d e c i s i o n may w e l l h a v e the e f f e c t of i n d u c i n g pronounced c o g n i t i v e changes." (Smedslund, 1 9 6 1 c , p. 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 ) . By  means  (196le)  derives  involving item  13  One  the  again  by  subtraction was  true  followed  five  schema  the  tion  a pretest  a  group,  result  support  of  thesis.  The  groups  to  of  was  ignored eight  posttest. and  tend  the  S_s ,  small  either  both  more  to  not  Four  out  by  was  than  either the  and  addition/  no  a  reverse  Ss  conserva-  absence  of  group.  as  substantial the  results  same  discontinuous or  a  conserved  of  an  a no-training  cognitive conflict the  who  logical  S_s who very  The  (196lf) with  continuous  control  the  results  five  from  However,  essentially  continuous on  provide  his  the  including  Smedslund  support  followed  The  of  question.  addition/  deformation.  s m a l l JN,  theory.  plasticine  out;  noticed  of  Every  subtraction  the  question.  number  study  conservation  carried  the  The  does  training  trained  improved  of  conservation  experiment  group  use  standard  a  group.  a d d i t i o n or  consistently  and  training  control  the  Ss  f o r Smedslund's  additional  one  Smedslund  in  identical  a d d i t i o n / s u b t r a c t i o n changed  r a t i o n a l e in the control  the  control  two  conservation  other  noticed in  by  and  procedure,  hypothesis  no  of  defbrmatidh  standard  f o r the  was  transformation  the  that  for his  There  deformation,  or  the  indicated  support  training  presentation  reverse  subtraction  complicated  some  the  performed  Next,  a  children.  involved  objects. was  of  except  hypofor  materials.  discontinuous  The  materials  -  fact  This  training  that  actual  Zimiles the  (1963)  fact  ditions  cept  some  and  tion  involved  reversibility  o f t h e same  means  that  added  and t h e n  one p i e c e  tracted cantly found  E_ t o o k  that  children  by g i v i n g  rearrangements. Ss'  coming  account Although  one p i e c e  them  involved  of these  addition  from  the  o f 48 was  Wallach  with  pile.  of a This  o f 48 E_ t h e n  and t h e n  t o be  sub-  signifi(1964)  in first  also  grade  the r e v e r s i b i l i t y  (1964) c o n s i d e r  of conservation have  subsequent  pile  and S p r o t t  be i n d u c e d  addi-  piece).  squares  found  of  principle  and a  the l e f t  to the l e f t  and S p r o t t  quantity  types  o f t h e same  experience  studies  of  by an a d d i t i o n  of the p o s s i b i l i t y  f o r attainment  supports  the understanding  of a piece  pile  could  Wallach  to think  most  away  item.  con-  the con-  that  of d i f f e r e n t  subtraction  conservation  then  on d i s c o n t i n u o u s  followed  Conservation  to this  these  t o respond i n  data  requires  one i t e m  to the right  one p i e c e . related  of items  one p i e c e added  them  of the operations  piece,  and a s u b s e q u e n t  under  to  on t h e n u m e r i c a l d i -  obtained  (the subtraction  piece  squares  trained  I n an e x p e r i m e n t  only  b u t , as  us t o b e l i e v e ,  i s the case  conservation  a number  to the  superfluous.  has a l s o  and s u b t r a c t i o n ,  addition  is  induced,  lead  f. w a n t e d  If this  reversibility  subtraction.  which  of  that  i t ssuccess  was  focussed  that  conflict  (1962)  theory  a complete  conflict  of the subjects  dimension.  Smedslund  of  n o t owe  attention  of cognitive  Piaget's  may  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would  and c o n s i d e r e d  of this  -  cognitive  had t h e i r  mension, terms  that  method  34  that  of the  of r e v e r s a l  may  i n previous  studies.  not provided  training  35 on  reversibility  who  knew  into  about  groups  itself  tions.  Any  attention In children vation  which  recent were  correct  reinforcement e.g.  "You  number) of  the  as  this  rule  arrangement was  group)  of  It  the  more  of  attempted. to  training  the It  periods  the  the  Ss  cases  where  possibility for  with  expected  out  the  retested  or  conser-  transforma-  to  increase  on  which rule  and  in  than  the  to  reach  first  each  some  (or  statement  instance  of  from  an  spatial A  ( i n c l u d i n g the  control control  pre-  to  improved  group.  general which  to is  conclusions  have  a l l , that  attention  of  attribute,  same l e n g t h  i n s t r u c t i o n group  non-conservers  i f their  orientation  conservation  control  of  verbal  transformation).  in  methods  length notified  relevant  the  conser-  (S_ was  i n s t r u c t i o n (a  A l l groups  rule  and  e q u i l i b r a t i o n (the  underwent  improved  several  number  the  is  kindergarten  on  tokens),  problem  verbal  170  reinforcement  response)  from  lead  take i t  testing  (1965),  training  buzzer  training  change  be  and  verbal  to  seems,  5_ by  to  to  experience  may  Beilin  included.  Only  apply  o r i e n t a t i o n to  objects  is possible  efficacy  a  one"),  significantly  significantly  by  figure  trial  also  posttest.  likely  by  applied  unsuccessful  group  to  life  words,  the  some  trained  (verbal  have  to  nonverbal  response  also  might  transformations.  received  using  which  ordinary  other  training  study  5_s  In  involves  tested,  tasks.  in  presented  possible  conservation a  be  given  would  used.  extensive  to  a  This  were  r e v e r s a l may  vation  was  reversibility  consideration.  control of  experience  -  so  far  children  to  the  been are  conservers drawn  on  the  more  during  the  relevant  36 dimension,  rather  mension  notice.  to  successes tion  vant  and  stimuli  and  method,  are  could  Smedslund's  Feigenbaum  method,  i f they  This  Wohlwill  method,  method,  ty  of  than  help  Lowe's (196le,  Sulkin's  Wallach  Beilin's  (1965)  Secondly,  i t seems  clear  to  about  explain  addition  196lf)  cognitive  statement  the  subtrac-  conflict of  (1964) of  di-  relative  and  reduction  Sprott's  which  the  (1962)  (1964)  and  and  doubtful  irrele-  reversibiliverbal  rule  method.  been  totally  periods  are  ineffective,  acquisition cognitive very  of  can  certain  e.g.  the  and  dimensions  grasps  the  on  cognitive  his  (1964)  (as  up and  of  because,  that  as  depends  the  the  other  by  on  the the  hand, the  in  between  "Detroit  training  child's  i t may  be  child's  that  the well  depend  ability  change  Beginning  and  this  child  and  "bright"  a  conservation  Feigenbaum to  of  attention  to  Whether  the  initial  environment  p r i n c i p l e s may  However,  has  indicates,  principles relevant  these  method  short  Piaget  drawing  difference  after training by  be  training  reversibility.  level.  little  measured  gence  of  importance  found  servation  On  speeded  principle  may  no  i n t e r a c t i o n s with  nature. be  It  conservation  level  general  process to  successful.  that  Sulkin to  "dull"  First-Grade  con-  children Intelli-  Test"). The  conflicting  r e s u l t s obtained  cultural  testing  Piaget's  the  of  area  acquisition  for  inquiry of  into  the  conservation  from  the  developmental processes  have  at  stages  werk  determined  area  the  in  of and  crossfrom  the  direction  of  37 this the  study. range  The  of  white  tasks,  The  those  their pose two  i s to  for  has  the  shown in  a  general,  Indian in  accepted fathers  in  and  population terms  of  conservation the  effect  of  increase,  rapidly  than  livelihood a  their  can  local  support."  result  that  Indians  of  Indian  are  and  (Hawthorne, size  and  children receive  become p.  widely  21).  The  during  the  unskilled  rising  rates  numbers  a l . 1966,  instability, less  generally  majority  traditional  et  and  or  increasing in and  et a l .  economically  periods  high  resources  family  concept.  "the  a l . , 1966,  semi-  by  Columbia,  have  only  pur-  Hawthorne  group  that  for long  natural  by  of  different  the  environment:  unemployed  extremely  of  this  weight  s u b c u l t u r a l groups,  usually  to  of  British  are  "Owing  of  Indians  standards  obtain  by  subsidiary  et  employed,  compare,  of  number  and  (Hawthorne  when  and  A third  constitutes a  the  weight  to  of  effects  stability  acquisition  unstable  the  the  for  many  Piagetian  of  Indians  like  of  and  Indian  conservation  determine  terms  Canadian  the  two  and  Canada"  positions.  likely  i s to  on  extend about  comparing  in  and  As  weight  assess  the  of  that  deprived  depressed  to  on  survey  by  Columbia  of  i s to  generalizations  conservation  train  order  training  recent  in  year,  in  study  conservation  whites  to  this  applied  responses.  attempt  of  Canada  live of  procedures  methods,  (1966) of  purpose  conservation  A  be  second  and  of  which  conservation  Indians  methods  can  c h i l d r e n with  method,  to  children in British  extinction on  stages  namely,  number.  purpose  population  developmental and  main  of  more means  p.  22).  i t seems  attention  from  of  38 adults  than  marriages level,  white  more  more  adults  play  materials to  are  the  Indian presumably home,  and  perhaps  ment  as  low  perform  poorly  (1965),  in  B.C.  the  likely,  a  typical  Indian  differing to  (Cameron  from  part  of  does  white  however,  the not  to  development  vironment  in  and  velopment  in  Piaget's  of  reflected i n  that  that  of  from  should  sense. number  a  of  to may  conventional  Cameron type  of  and experi-  motivational  fac-  age,  subgroup.  conIt  motivational account  and  for  a  classroom. Piaget's  verbally affect  theory  of  impoverished  intellectual  Environmental and  in  families.  comparable the  This  education,  on  formation  the  the  and  1965).  addition  fallow  itself  the  school  showed  in  skills.^"  interaction  unstable  variables  retardation  intellectual  parental  Storm,  in  cognitive  seem  of  performance  and  homes.  verbal  children  lowest  activities  to  of  concept  that  intellectual  sort  and  the  smaller,  interactions  around  language  and  in  children  inferior  factors,  large  at  in  level  children  tests  white  level  usually  children's  relevance  retarded  lower the  in  are  even  revolve  direct  extent  a  to  of  It  the  Indian  effects  emotional large  The  are  families  employment,  the  tributed seems  and  have  reflecting  with  tors,  which same  whose  likely  children  achievement Storm  less  reflects  the  Indian  stable,  permanent.  with  skills  children  variety  differences of  endeof  manipulative  "'"This g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e a u t h o r ' s observation and p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h Joan Ryan, c o - a u t h o r of t h e s e c t i o n on e d u c a t i o n t o a p p e a r i n t h e s e c o n d v o l u m e of Hawthorne et a l . A Survey of the Contemporary I n d i a n s of Canada.  39 toys  might,  point  on t h e o t h e r  of view,  structures. the  natural  necessary and  that  to affect  This  t h e added  there  white  Canadian  studies  vious in  and  have  a l l the  be  that  experiences of  conservation,  of the white  supported  Canadian  I f the l a t t e r  en-  i s the  Indian  o f number  on  both  one w o u l d o f number  conservation  the g e n e r a l i t y of  Therefore,  one w o u l d  conservation  conservation  of cognitive  I t might  d i f f e r e n c e s between  conservation  studies,  specifically,  be no  sequence.  before  clear.  of concepts  complexities  a Piagetian  and  children.  conservation  groups  provides  from  of development  no f u r t h e r b e n e f i t .  should  developmental that  the rate  t o the development  case,  be e x p e c t e d ,  i s not e n t i r e l y  environment  vironment provide  Most  hand  will  i t i s t o be  expected  demonstrated  in  of weight.  expect tasks expect  appears  of weight  be  On  to find  with  around  3  the basis  a general  both of  pre-  increase  i n c r e a s i n g age, and,  to find  around  Piaget's  nine  i n the white seven  years  to ten  5_s t h a t  o f age  years.  CHAPTER METHODS Conservation Smedslund's i n order  number.  They  criminate carried This  sample  Testing white from  on  then  matched  way,  to  might  of  to  as  a larger sample,  is called  Matched  they  and the  group which  the  and  reduced  appear  Testing  Indian  were  of weight  not  Ss.  throughout  larger  sample,  procedures  because  Indian  sample  extended This  Number  1962)  primarily  the  a matched  and  for conservation  in this  against  children. the  196lf,  test  i s referred  was  RE5ULTS  of Weight  chosen  and,  unduly  out  to  were  verbalization,  AND  (1961b,  selected  II  to  dis-  was  first  white  children.  matched  sample.  of  Indian  includes  total  and  the  5_s  sample.  Sample  Subjects Thirty-four selected age,  f o r the  grade,  between  sex  matched  ranged  from  Indian  sample  sample  was  to  four.  Ss  from  grade  and Ss  was  95.85 There  each  S_s a n d  study.  s i x to  three;  children  Indian  Ss  years  were  of  schooling.  never  more  ten  years  of age.  95.94  months;  months.  Ss  11  Ss  i n grade  and  Ss from  from  two; each  grade  -  40  than  the  were  from  group 4  matched  was  were  selected  thirty-four  one  -  white  on  the  The three  The mean  selected  each  group  14  _5s f r o m  were  basis  age  of  difference  months.  mean age  Ss  age  f o r the  f o r the from  white  grades  i n grade each  Ss  one  one;  group  in  group  i n grade  four.  A l l  were  in their  first  year  5  of  school;  a l l children  11  children  from  grade  third  year  of school,  group  were  i n their  four  were The  Vancouver their  An a t t e m p t  teachers of  provided that  the Indian  workers the of  The  to  the  white  sons could  appeared  More  favored  from  grade  very  and u n s t a b l e  often  vague.  This  from t h e  the occupations could  n o t be  I t appeared  t o be u n e m p l o y e d ,  e t a l . (1966)  i n North  information  regarding  positions.  seasonal  i s consistent  on t h e e c o n o m i c  a provincial  fathers collar  and s k i l l e d  i t seems  and t h a t skill,  less  children.  status  school,  of the white  t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y  of the white  be made,  training,  i n each  According to  broken  information  tended  i n white  of socio-economic  existed  in their  three  day s c h o o l .  s o u r c e s , o r was  5s a t t e n d e d  Vancouver.  fathers  year;  with status  reserves.  be e m p l o y e d  There  grade  a l l children  to obtain  This  fathers  were  on t h e C a p i l a n o R e s e r v e  themselves  o f Hawthorne  I n d i a n s on  from  second  year.  made  or i n u n s k i l l e d  report  North  was  fathers.  by t h e s e  group  I n d i a n s came f r o m  and c h i l d r e n  the Indian  year;  to a Catholic  many  two i n t h e i r  i n each  3 children  fourth  a n d went  grade  three  S_s l i v e d  teachers,  homes.  from  fourth  i n their Indian  41 -  While  f o r Indian  of s t a b i l i t y  and p r e s t i g e ,  children  appeared  positions.  unemployment no e x a c t and w h i t e  reasonably certain  i n terms  also i n  that  among comparigroups  differences  o f employment,  the comparisons  would  income have  the whites.  Procedure Each  _5 was  tested  individually  i n a small  room  i nh i s  own  school.  testing  S  and  E_ w e r e  materials following  42  were  -  seated  placed.  at The  in  the  1)  demonstration  2)  test  for  conservation  of  weight  3)  test  for  conservation  of  number  1)  Demonstration  with  the  they  were  all  Ss  wide  equal  of  weighing  objects  on  a  given  some  on  a  of  two  objects  in  with  in  The  scales  "This  is  S  "No,"  E  _E s a i d  E, p r o d u c e d  at each  the the a  metal.  They  beam  end,  when  was  indicated more  equal-arm  eight  the  at  inches its  beam;  from  the  labora-  pans  the  brown  pointer  was  relative  paper.  at  zero  of  fulcrum. weights  d e t a i l e d markincs  adhesive  the  to  that  the  suspended  angles  scale,  physics'  long,  equidistant  the  of  feet  unfamiliar  ensure  were  introductory  pointer  piece  to  respect.  right  pans,  practice  two  be  balance  this  an  The  two  were a  demonstrated  balance.  said "Well,  "O.K. let's  objects,  a  equal  here,  ball-bearing  heavy  Do Then  approximately a  included,  had  A  heavy  and  the  equilibrium.  saying  "Yes",  at  indicated  was  of in  high.  where  covered  said  used  in  approximately  hung  place  beam  type  made  knife-edge  the  line  were  feet  weight  black  preliminary  comparable  were  two  the  scales  process  At  been  of  might  be  which  order:  Ss  They  centre  procedure  Because  scales  and  on  scales.  (beam) b a l a n c e tory.  table  of  would  The  a  size,  go  you  to  a l l Ss.  know  I ' l l show through  and  said  i t works?"  you."  i t just  ball-bearing and  how  E_ b e g a n  "Now  a marble  and  If to  S  I've which  got  two  isn't  If  said  make  a marble  by  sure."  of objects as  heavy is  as  the  as  other  the  side  made  and  was  ball-bearing  balance,  much  said  S_ p i c k e d  ball-bearing  heavy  a  and  take  the  Let's  happens.  in  the  put this  have  (E_ drew  a  the  put  what  look." the  to  the  pointer  scales)  "goes  to  the  other  bearing  in  pan,  what  prediction. and this  said  E  "You  side  do  the  other  the  l i g h t e r side  heavier  direction.  JE p r o d u c e d  up  in  the  (Mow  i f I  and  the  got  goes two  two up  the  The  heavy  the  happen?"  of  the  than the side  of  the  pointer always  what  pointer," the  put  pan  E  the  the  two  another,  see  the  marble  the  to  know.  ball-  in  another objects down  other  on  side.  i t pulls goes  goes  off down  the in and  up."  marbles marbles  and  goes  and  on  than  5_ made  happen?"  positions  side  and  middle  off  the  as  "You  more  side  pointer  on  _S p i c k e d  weighs  the  down  weigh  will  JL s a i d  side,  more  of  ball-bearing  and  weighs  side  the  pulls  object  them  the  this  placed  this  will  pan  think  ball-bearing  pan  pick  think  take  this  this  the  one  You  you  on  I  that  not  side.  other  "If  doesn't  see,  now,  I've  the  reversed  Whenever  "Now,  on  which  did  ball-bearing on  see  he  scale.  attention  this  you  that E  down  pan  i t in  and  indicated  pan  which  do  pan  the  and  this  marble,  the  off  up  E_ c o n t i n u e d  and  on  them  objects  indicated  pans  Because i t pulls  or  pick  i t in  balance,  the  marble,  You  heavier.  and  prediction  marble  up  ball-bearing, of  "O.K.  -  ball-bearing.  heavier."  the  S  the  43  see  marbles  how and  of here  i d e n t i c a l weight. which  they agreed  both  both that  weigh  weigh they  the felt  JE s a i d the  same.  same." as  though  they  weighed  JE c o n t i n u e d in  the  pan  predicted pan  of  the  same.  "O.K.  Now,  at  each  the  the  stays  straight,  right  in  same.  the  right  2)  Test  of  three  on  for  and  the  trials  weight  and  which to  both  make s u r e  balls the  on  weigh table,  same."  and  said  JE d e f o r m e d  one  conversation the  same  same.as, was  asked  of  "Do  less  "Why  the  do  you  on  the  black  the  the  5>  the  each top  line  objects  same,  one  in  at  same  This  weigh  the  pointer  procedure.  green  were  test  Let's  put  them  both  weigh  the  same."  E. s a i d  "You  balls. always think  the  see,  That's  inches  the  the  the  weighs  here,  balance  both  ball  putting  S_' s  equal  JE p u t  balls  E_ a s k e d  After  first  two  the  because  Then  so?"  of  pointer  make t h i s  ball?"  think  on  to  cup  the  plasticine  the  plasticine  going  On  approximately of  the  consisted  plasticine  balls  you  one  arm  both  point.)  happen?"  the  stays  of  have  I'm  than  will  marbles,  weight.  middle.  the  this  balance,  two  question,  order, or  of  E_ p l a c e d "Now  see,  on  line."  same.  the  the  think  the  weigh  balls  "I  they  in  you  on  because  balls  The  scales,  line  the  two  the  that  the  black  black  E_ s a i d  weigh  do  That's  disagreed  them  "You  objects  volume.  diameter.  put  pointer  following  E_ p r e s e n t e d  ever  JE p l a c e d  conservation  trial,  in  S  what  the  two  (No  said  middle.  Whenever  stays  end,  and  -  i f I  outcome.  scales  44  the stays  on  balls  back  on  into  the  a  cup".  standard  alternatives in  5_ had  answer  more,  or  replied, was  the he  recorded  verbatim. Each stimulus  trial  involved  materials  were  a  different  weighed  on  transformation.  every  trial.  The  - 45 The  trials  were  follows:  Trial  I:  Trial  I I : Two  Trial  I I I : Two y e l l o w cress.  3) T e s t volved equal the  Two  as  green blue  balls,  three  trials.  collections  kind  of  discs  to  show  used discs  discs  i n each  make t h i s  then  asked  more  discs,  pile?"  Each  there's  pile  and s a i d  into  t h e same  with  "You  number  number  h i s answer involved  materials.  trials  pile.  Now,  or l e s s  E_ a s k e d  "Why  number pile  You  a r e 25  the  discs I'm  going  one p i l e  you t h i n k  of discs,  of  JE c o u n t e d  the ring  discs  than  and has the  do y o u t h i n k s o ? "  verbatim. a different  arrangement  stimulus  materials  were  follows:  as  were  every  trial.  Trial  I  Trial  II :  two was  p i l e s of yellow p l a s t i c discs, changed i n t o a t r i a n g l e .  Trial  III:  two was  p i l e s of blue p l a s t i c discs, changed i n t o a c r o s s .  :  The  The  "Do  piles  i n each.  see there  were  i n each  t o check."  a  two  discs  t h e same  the discs  ring.  into  two  JE r e - a r r a n g e d  question:  a  also i n -  The  " I have  i n each  a ring."  5_ h a d r e s p o n d e d ,  trial  me  a cup.  Z produced  discs.  number  into  test  trial,  to count  t h e same  and c o u n t  pile,  pile  going  the standard  recorded  stimulus  I'm  Each  into  changed  This  red plastic  - t h e same  After  was  has e x a c t l y  carefully  to  the f i r s t  changed  here.  watch  pile  one b a l l  o f number.  On  o f 25  was  changed  E_ s a i d  you t h a t  each  one b a l l  was  i n tiddlywinks.  in i t .  in  one b a l l  balls,  f o r conservation  plastic  and  balls,  two p i l e s o f r e d p l a s t i c changed i n t o a r i n g .  discs,  of the counted  one p i l e  one  one  was  pile  pile  on  In tion  and  positively  a neutral  15-20  -  conservation tests,  questions  never in  the  46  his  or  answers  e x p l a n a t i o n s of  negatively  voice.  S_'s  The  total  to  the  conversa-  h i s answers  were  reinforced.  _E a s k e d  testing  was  time  questions  approximately  minutes.  Results 1)  Conservation  servation  was  three  trials.  Table  Thirteen  out  of  of  The weight  conservation  of  were  year  o l d s were older  serve  more  Thus,  30%  44%  than  one  in  tended  conserve  more  tendency, second year  the  In  graders)  olds  were  (or the  seven  and  ten  higher  order  s i x and  nine  to  seven  third  and  and  three and  thirteen  two  conservation  of  grade  and  A l l s i x and  seven  year  nine  There  ten  year  ( s i x and  and  olds)  seven  year  year  olds  conserved.  year  fourth  the  olds). whereas In  and  of  (or the  first  eight,  nine  graders).  con-  grades  significance  olds  with  three  i n lower  tendency to  conserved,  (grades  ten  is a  olds  the  out  groups.  year  test  whites.  between  children  compared  the  four.  grades  than  and  a l l eight,  and  children  s i x and  children  two).  and  of  con-  c o n s e r v a t i o n of  between  two;  three  (eight,  same way, to  showed  age  out  for  for Indians  relationship  and  younger  the  adopted  (36.1%)  (Table 2).  nine  and  the  the  grade  children  of  between  as  i n grades  whites  difference  weight  in  criterion  results  Indians  eight,  one  of  no  same  olds  for  was  relationship  i s the  the  thirty-four (36.1%)  There  The  conservation responses  I presents  thirty-four  weight.  of Weiqht.  the  four) (grades  this and and  ten  However,  the  -  Matched  47  -  TABLE  1  Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n of f o r I n d i a n a n d W h i t e S.s.  Weight  Group  IMonconservation  Conservation  Indian  21  (63.9)  13  (36.1)  34  White  21  (63.9)  13  (36.1)  34  Total  42  (61.8)  26  (38.2)  6B  a  a  A l l numbers i n b r a c k e t s r e f e r t o p e r c e n t a g e s t h i s t a b l e and i n s u c c e e d i n g tables  TABLE  Total  in  2  M a t c h e d S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f W e i g h t by Age and G r a d e f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined Age 6  Grade  Conservation  Total  7  1  and  2  22  (70)  10  (30)  32  and  3  and  4  20  (56)  16  (44)  36  42  (61.8)  26  (38.2)  68  and  8,9 10  IMonconservation  Total  - 48 relationship was  between  not s i g n i f i c a n t  ship  was  group  seven  year  taken olds  and  second  the  Indians  (.df  = 1,  graders was  trials.  number  age  .00  relation-  or for'the  Comparing  and t e n y e a r  s i x and  olds  (or f i r s t X? f o r 1.31  responses  X  2  =  d i d not appear significantly I t was values  3) C o m p a r a t i v e tasks. number  tendency  olds  (_df = 1, either  5).  olds  There  at t h e upper  and  significant. second  (or t h i r d  and  N.S.). Indians  i n conservation  with  or whites i n increasing  age  a OC" s i n c e t h e  too low.  performance  of Indian  number  i s not  not p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e  were  a n d 26  of  (Table  (or f i r s t  and t e n y e a r  that  three  significantly.  Ss t o c o n s e r v e  year  that  age and c o n s e r v a t i o n o f  but t h i s  .292  conservation  i s t h e same  f o r more  of  Indians  d i d not d i f f e r  a n d number  eight, nine  graders)  6):  showed  of weight,  out of a t o t a l  o u t o f 34  between  levels,  f o r conservation  as f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n  s i x and s e v e n with  The c r i t a r i o n  groups  a tendency  graders)  expected  3).  This  and f o u r t h g r a d e r s )  (82.4%)  relationship  Comparing  The  t h e same  T h e two  and g r a d e  (Table  o f number.  and grade  creased  group  grade  IM. 5. ) a n d f o r t h e w h i t e s  ( d f = 1,  conservation  4).  It  (Table  third  o u t o f 34 w h i t e s  again  fourth  with  N.5.).  f o r the Indian  eight, nine  Twenty-eight  The  is  was  three  (Table  .753, _df = 1,  and  N .5 . ) .  number  (76.5%)  and age and w e i g h t  separately  with  2) C o n s e r v a t i o n  is,  (3C? =  not s i g n i f i c a n t  white  of  weight  of Indians  and w h i t e  and w h i t e s  children  showing  on  both  conservation  - 49 -  TABLE Matched and  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f W e i g h t by Age Grade f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e Groups  Age  Grade  6  1  and 7  8,9 a n d 10  3  Nonconservation Indian White  Conservation Indian White  Total Indian White  and  2  10(62.5)  12(75)  6(37.5)  4(25)  16  16  3 and  4  11(61.1)  9(50)  7(38.9)  9(50)  18  18  13(38.2)  34  34  Total  21(61.8)  21(61.8)  TABLE Matched  13(38.2)  4  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e Ss  Group  Nonconservation  Conservation  Total  Indian  6  (17.6)  28  (82.4)  34  White  8  (23.5)  26  (76.5)  34  Total  14  (20.6)  54  (79.4)  68  TABLE  5  M a t c h e d S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by Age a n d Grade f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined Age  Grade  6  1 and 2  8  3 and 4  6  (16.6)  30  (83.3)  36  14  (20.6)  54  (79.4)  68  and 7  B, 9 a n d 10 Total  Nonconservation (25)  TABLE Matched  Conservation 24  Total  (75)  32  6  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by Age a n d Grade f o r I n d i a n and White Groups Total Indian White  Age  Grade  Nonconservation Indian White  Conservation Indian White  6  and 7  1 and 2  3(18.8)  5(31.3)  13(81.2)  11(68.7)  16  16  8,9 a n d 10  3 and 4  3(16.7)  3(16.7)  15(83.3)  15(83.3)  18  18  6(17.6)  8(23.5)  28(82.4)  26(76.5)  34  34  Total  on  neither  and  task,  showed out  conservation  dicated  number  conserved  significant  on  30  that  children  were  neither was  on o n e t a s k  tasks  i s shown  weight  o r number.  on o n e t a s k .  both  conserved weight  was  before  on t h i s  task,  on  a slight  type  one t a s k , tendency  o r on b o t h  f o r Indians  Thirteen children  number.  Twenty-five  There  is,  29  This i n -  were  and w h i t e s  (that  other,  on w h i c h  weight.  and number.  of scale  7.  Thirty  The one t a s k  c h i l d r e n conserved was  but not the  i n Table  d i f f e r e n c e s between I n d i a n s  arranged  there  on b o t h  d i d not conserve  of these  -  conservation  conservation  children  50  no  when  they  conservation  tasks), t o show  although more  conser-  2 vation (df  than  - 2,  both  same  relationship  tasks 8).  fourth  graders)  not  year  reach  Indians  Eight,  nine  tended  olds  (or f i r s t  significance  nor whites  PC  = 1.94,  2  significantly  way  for  task 9).  this  was  was  1.27  2  the whites  1.31  (or t h i r d  often  than  2,  improved  tasks  and s i x and  but t h i s d i d  N.S.).  Neither  i n performance  of the small  Ns, t h e  by c o m p a r i n g  conservation  on  with  f o r the Indians was  on b o t h  graders),  df =  performance  Because  o r on o n e t a s k X  olds  more  and s e c o n d  only  to test  and p e r f o r m a n c e  to conserve  i n c r e a s i n g age o r g r a d e .  (Table  and w h i t e s  between age and  and t e n y e a r  with  neither  Indians  held  as b e t w e e n g r a d e  (Table  seven  "XT b e t w e e n  N.S. ) .  The on  whites.  conservation  was  (df_ = 1,  .01  N.S.).  on b o t h  (df_ = 1,  N.S.)  tasks and  -  51  -  TABLE  7  Matched Sample: Comparative Performance of I n d i a n s a n d W h i t e s on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s No on  Group  conservation e i t h e r task  on  Conservation both tasks  on  Total  Indian  5  (14.7)  17  (50)  12  (35.3)  34  White  8  (23.5)  13  (38.2)  13  (38.2)  34  Total  13  (19.1)  30  (44.1)  25  (36.8)  68  TABLE Matched  Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p B o t h T a s k s and G r a d e Tasks f o r Indians  Age  Grade  6  Conservation one t a s k  and  b e t w e e n Age a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h and W h i t e s Combined  conservation either task  Conservation one t a s k  and  2  7  (21.9)  16  (50)  3 and  4  6  (16.7)  14  13  (19.1)  30  7 1  8, 9 and 10  No on  8  Total  TABLE  on  Conservation both tasks  on  Total  9  (28.1)  32  (38.9)  16  (44.4)  36  (44.1)  25  (36.8)  68  9  M a t c h e d S a m p l e : R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Age a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h T a s k s a n d G r a d e a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h T a s k s f o r I n d i a n and W h i t e Groups No c o n s e r v a t i o n on e i t h e r task or cons e r v a t i o n on one t a s k Indian White  Grade  6  and  Total  on  Indian  White  Total  Indian  White  and  2  11(68.8)  12(75)  5(31.3)  4(25)  16  16  3 and  4  11(61.1)  9(50)  7(38.9)  9(50)  18  18  34  34  7 1  8,9 a n d 10  Conservation both tasks  22(64.7)  21(61.8)  12(35.3)  13(38.2)  -  5 2  Total  -  Sample  5ub jects In  order  testing  differences  possibility of  to increase  that  t h e groups  Indians and  results ing  The present  This  S s who  I t was  were  children shows and  had  been  of a l l Indian that  children testing  to eleven years of  a l l the white  children i n  T h e r e f o r e , an a t t e m p t  was made t o  as t i m e  p e r m i t t e d who  o f age and g r a d e  Ss were  from  approxi-  r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e  grades  one t h r o u g h  f o u r and  s i x and t e n y e a r s o l d . as t o whether  reprasentative  difference  untested white Table  significant  to test  includ-  sample.  consisted  a s many w h i t e s  i n the f i r s t  nificant.  o f weight  and w h i t e s ,  five  question arises  that  of Indians  i n t h e matched  four.  33  p r e s e n t t h e p r o c e d u r e and  from  A l l white  was  f o r conservation  I n d i a n Ss r a n g e d  the distribution  whites  sample  an a d d i t i o n a l  on t h e d a y s  and t e s t  The  tested will  not p o s s i b l e  between  drawn,  of the  be u n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  four  select  were  were  might  one t h r o u g h  one t h r o u g h  Indians.  i t was  o f Ss a v a i l a b l e f o r  and i n view  sample  I n d i a n sample  grades  mated  which  section  i n grades  place.  age.  from  total  groups  t h e matched  f o r the total  those  took  between  a n d 42 w h i t e s  number.  t h e number  four  grades.  between  children  a t each  back  between  grade shows  sample o f of white  1 i n the appendix  of tested  t h e number  a n d t h e number  total  population  Table  t h e ages  2 i n the appendix  difference  held  of the t o t a l  this  level that  white  Ss  was n o t s i g -  t h e r e was no  of tested  5s who  of untested children  who  had  been  that  held  the  back.  white  population school,  of  There  sample whites  although  53  was in  the  t  was  no  strong  evidence,  unrepresentative  the  first  tests  at  four  of  the  grades  grades  one  therefore, total  as  and  this  four  approached  significance. Procedure The tested  procedure  was  exactly  for  the  a d d i t i o n a l whites  the  same  as  for  and  Indians  the  matched  sample.  Twenty-two  (28.9%)  out  Results 1)  Conservation  whites  and  (Table  10).  whites  (X  The  31  =  2  to  supported  the  for  age, 4,  but  of  Significantly  more  Indians  conserved  that  3.87,  .02 c p  age  =  1,  Ss  in  both  i s presented  relationship matched  tendency did  groups  sample  reach  showing  i n Table  between  towards  not  <:.05).  age  alone,  more  11.  The  and  that  conservation  conservation i s , there  conservation  significance  results  (X.  with =  was  of a  increasing  4.51,  df  =  N.S.).  of the  and  the  each  NIs.  year  olds  The in  group  omitted  sample  from  conservation would  not  five-year olds  between  i s shown  were  inclusion  four  the  relationship  olds  between  Their  obtained.  eleven-year The  eleven  relationship  small  results  for  weight  this  Five sis  conserved  df  of  76  Indians  of  out  of  67  the  consistent  weight.  (46.3%)  number  according  weight  of  did age  i n Table  not and  12.  this  and  age  have  and  conserve  because  altered  the  the  two  weight.  conservation Although  analy-  of  there  weight i s a trend  -  54  TABLE Total  -  10  Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n of Weight I n d i a n and W h i t e Ss Nonconserv.  Group  for  Total  Conserv.  Indian  36  (53.7)  31  (46.3)  67  White  54  (71.1)  22  (28.9)  76  Total  90  (62.9)  53  (37.1)  143  TABLE Total  11  Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f W e i g h t by I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined  Conserv.  Nonconserv.  Age  Age f o r  Total  6  19  (73.1)  7  (26.9)  26  7  21  (65.6)  11  (34.4)  32  8  22  (62.9)  13  (37.1)  35  9  14  (51.9)  13  (48.1)  27  10  8  (47.1)  9  (52/9)  17  B4  (61.3)  53  (38.7)  137  Total  TABLE Total  Sample: C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight I n d i a n and W h i t e G r o u p s  Age  Nonconserv. Indian  6  &  8,9  12  "White  by  Age f o r  Conserv. Indian  Total  White  Indian  White  7  15(55.6)  25(80.6)  12(44.4)  6(19.4)  27  31  &. 10  15(44.1)  29(64.4)  19(55.9)  16(35.6)  34  45  30(49.2)  54(71.1)  31(50.8)  22(28.9)  61  76  Total  in  the  expected  increase paring year the  in  o l d s , X~ whites The  weight for  was  a  S_s  f o r the 1.62  Indians  of  Indians  whites  in  the  .05''. p  <.10).  X"  f o r the  second  graders  with  1,  p.>.20),  op T . 1 0 ) . appeared  and  The to  f o r the  a  little  significant  increased.  eight,  grade  nine  ( d f =• 1,  and  Com-  and  ten  N.S.)  and  conservation  combined  i s shown  for  and  (JC  alone,  fourth  whites  14.  between  7.06.  was  grade  f o r the  for df  was  2.89  more  =  3,  first  1.29  (df =  and  13,  There  comparing  graders  alone  stronger  =  2  of  in Table  significance,  grades  Indians  relationship  be  a  separately in Table  higher  third  age  .40  approaching  conserve  showed  N . S .) .  Whites  tendency,  2  1,  as  with was  between  and  and  weight  olds  ( df_ =  Indians  -  n e i t h e r group  year  relationship  strong  to  seven  was  for  and  direction  conservation  s i x and  55  and  (df  1,  =  .05  conservation  whites  than  for  the  Indians. 2)  Conservation  whites  and  (Table  15).  whites  (X  The is  shown  17  for  2  51  (76.1%) There  =  number. out  was  .04, j d f . =  relationship in Table  Indians  were  again  olds  did  not  either  16  and  omitted  Conservation age,  of  67  difference  1,  N.5.).  f o r both  from  f o r both  the  (78,9%)  no  whites  not  of  between  conserve, did  Sixty  age  the while  Indians  and  and  eleven  The  four  eleven-year  in  Table olds  five-year olds  groups  Indians  for  number  year  with  or  and  of  increase significantly combined  76 number  Indians  combined  Five  two  the  conservation  analysis. the  of  conserved  between  and  groups  alone.  out  did.  increasing and  -  56  TABLE Total  13  S a m p l e ; C o n s e r v a t i o n o f W e i g h t by I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined Nonconsa rv .  Grade  Grade f o r  Conserv.  Total  1  33  ( 7 6 . 7)  10  ( 2 3 . 3)  43  2  15  ( 6 5 . 2)  8  ( 3 4 . 8)  23  3  30  ( 5 8 . 8)  21  ( 4 1 . 2)  51  4  12  ( 4 6 . 2)  14  ( 5 3 . 8)  Total  90  ( 6 2 . 9)  53  ( 3 7 . 1)  TABLE Total  Sample:  Grade  26 143  14  Conservation o f W e i g h t by I n d i a n and W h i t e G r o u p s Nonconserv. Indian  .  White  Grade f o r  Conserv. Indian  White  Total Indian  White  1  &. 2  20(62.5)  28 ( 8 2 . 4 )  1 2 ( 3 7 . 5)  6 (17.6)  32  34  3  L 4  16(45.7)  26(61.9)  19(54.3)16(38.1)  35  42  36(53.7)  54(71.1)  31(46.3)22(28.9)  67  76  Total  TABLE Total  Group  \  15  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number f o r I n d i a n a n d W h i t e S_s Nonconserv.  Conserv.  Total  Indian  16  (23.9)  51  (76.1)  67  White  16  (21.1)  60  (78.9)  76  Total  32  (22.4)  111  (77.6)  143  -  57 -  TABLE Total  16  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by A g e f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined  Age  Conserv.  Nonconserv,  Total  6  7  (26.9)  19  (73.1)  26  7  8  (25.0)  24  (75.0)  32  8  5  (14.3)  30  (85.7)  35  9  6  (22,2)  21  (77.8)  27  10  2  (11.8)  15  (88.2)  17  28  (20.4)  109  (79.6)  137  Total  TABLE Total  17  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number I n d i a n and White Groups  by Age f o r  Age  Nonconserv. Indian White  6 &. 7  6(22.2)  9(29.0)  21(77.8)  22(71.0)  27  31  8,9  6(17.6)  7(15.6)  28(82.4)  38(84.4)  34  45  12(19.7)16(21.1)  49(80.3)  60(78.9)  61  76  &. 10  Total  Conserv. Indian White  Total Indian White  - 58 whites 2.73  taken  2 X- f o r b o t h  separately.  (_df = 4,  N.S. ) ; c o m p a r i n g  groups  was  combined  s i x and seven  year  olds  2 with  eight,  nine  .02  (d_f = 1,  and t e n y e a r  N.S.),  o l d s , X.  f o r the Indians  and f o r t h e w h i t e s  was  1.27  was  (.df =  1,  N.S. ) . A each  comparison  grade  level  of the t o t a l (Table  18)  number  showed  o f 5s c o n s e r v i n g  that  more  5_s  at  conserved  2 in  the higher  df  =  and  3,  .05 < p  grade  Neither fourth  grades <. 1 0 ) .  f o r each  group grade  than The  ethnic  conserved than  i n the lower  grades  relationship sample  between  i s presented  significantly  the f i r s t  (X  = 7... 33, conservation  i n Table  19.  more  i n t h e t h i r d and 2 g r a d e (X f o r the  and s e c o n d  2 Indians  was  df  N.S.)..  - 1,  3) E f f e c t s An  on  of using  attempt  servation ent  .97, _df = 1,  was  of weight  criterion the basis  responses.  N..5..  OC.  a different  f o r the whites  criterion  made t o s e e w h e t h e r a n d number  would  f o r conservation o f t h e number  of c o r r e c t  the r e s u l t s  used.  (i.e.  Scores,  therefore,  ranged  conservation  task.  The s c o r e s  f o r Indians  conservation  o f number  either  o f t h e two  vation  responses  was  still  no  are presented  alternative o r two  o r more  significant  from  f o r con-  i f a  differ-  Ss were  scored  conservation)  0 - 3 on  each  and w h i t e s f o r  i n Table  criteria  1,75  f o r conservation.  be t h e same  had been  was  20.  Using  - one o r more  conservation  d i f f e r e n c e between  conser-  responses Indians  -there  and  2 whites sponses  ('X'. was  for a criterion 1.64,  d f = 1,  o f one N.S.;  o r more  conservation r e -  for a criterion  d f two  c  or  more  conservation  responses  was  ...11 , d f = 1,  N.5.)  -  59 -  TABLE Total  18  S a m p l e : C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined  Grade f o r  Nonconserv.  Conserv.  1  15  (34.9)  28  (65.1)  43  2  5  (21.7)  18  (78.3)  23  3  10  (19.6)  41  (80.4)  51  4  2  (  24  (92.3)  26  111  (77.6)  143  Grade  Total  •32  7.7)  (22.4)  TABLE Total  Sample:  Total  19  C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Number by G r a d e f o r I n d i a n and White Groups  Grade  Nonconserv.  Conserv*  Total  Indian  White  Indian  & 2  10(31.3)  10(29.4)  22(68.7)  24(70,6)  32  34  3 &. 4  6(17.1)  6(14.3)  29(82.9)  36(85,7)  35  42  16(23.9)  16(21.1)  51(76,1)  60(78.9)  67  76  1  Total  TABLE Total Group  Sample:  Conservation  Number  White  Indian  White  20 Responses  of Conservation  f o r Number  Responses  Total  0  1  2  3  Indian  3(4.5)  9(13.4)  4(6.0)  51(76.1)  67  White  9(11.8)  2(2.6)  5(6.6)  60(78.9)  76  11(7.8)  9(6.3)  111(77.6)  143  Total  12(8.4)  This  indicated that  conservation, whites  was  The weight  and  maintained  level more  o f d i f f e r e n c e between  f o r Indians  that  became  was  more  i n Table  21.  adopted f o r  Indians  significant  f o r conservation  Using  responses  between  2  (X  was  any l e s s  t h e .02  of  stringent Indians  and  for a criterion  4.96,  and  number.  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between  significant  conservation  of  and w h i t e s  f o r conservation,  whites  of the c r i t e r i o n  f o r conservation  are presented  criterion  -  regardless  the lack  scores  60  .05  o f two o r  v..02;  d_f = 1, p_ =  2 -X,  for a criterion  8.92, a  comparison  Table of  d_f = 1, p_ =  22  that  This  d i f f e r e n c e only  changing  sample  o r more  response  alone  sample.  f o r conservation  d i d not l e a d  Indians  conservation  was  appeared i n  i n the t o t a l  the c r i t e r i o n  d i f f e r e n c e between o f two  conservation  and w h i t e s  f a r t h e matched  significant criterion  <.01).  of Indians  shows  weight  o f o n e o r more  t o any 2 (-X. f o r a  and w h i t e s responses  was  .00,  2 df  =1,  N.S.;  responses  \X.  was  for a criterion  . 2 6 1 , d_f = 1,  4) C o m p a r a t i v e  performance  tasks.  The  vation,  conservation  tasks  i s presented  conserved in  weight  servation  Arranging on  on  of Indians  23.  number.  few c a s e s , S s on t h i s  d i f f e r e n c e between  conservation  and W h i t e s  and w h i t e  one t a s k ,  i n Table  one t a s k  o r more  N.S.).  of Indian  without  a l l but a very  weight.  no  number  o f one  on  Ss s h o w i n g  and c o n s e r v a t i o n Only  four  This  number three  on  value,  Indians  in their  both 5s that  before  s c a l e , with  a s an i n t e r m e d i a t e and w h i t e s  conser-  indicated  conserved  point  no  o u t o f 143  again  was  both  there  conwas  performance  -  61  -  TABLE Total  Sample:  21  Conservation  Responses  of Conservation 1 2  f o r Weight  Group  Number 0  Indian  14(20.9)  14(20.9)  8(11.9)  31(46.3)  67  White  35(46.1)  12(15.8)  7( 9.2)  22(28.9)  76  Total  49(34.3)  26(18.2)  15(10.5)  53(37.1)  143  TABLE Matched  Sample:  Responses 3  ..Total  22  Conservation  Responses  of Conservation 1 2  f o r Weight  Group  Number 0  Indian  10(29.4)  6(17.6)  5(14.7)  13(38.2)  34  White  13(38.2)  4(11.8)  4(11.8)  13(38.2)  34  Total  23(33.8)  10(14.7)  9(13.2)  26(38.2)  68  TABLE  Responses 3  Total  23  Total Sample: C o m p a r a t i v e P e r f o r m a n c e o f I n d i a n s and W h i t e s on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s Group  No c o n s e r v . on e i t h e r task  C o n s e r v . on one t a s k  C o n s e r v . on both tasks  Total  Indian  13(19.4)  26(38.8)  28(41.8)  67  White  15(19.7)  40(52.6)  21(27.6)  76  Total  28(19.6)  66(46.2)  49(34.3)  143  on  both The  and  Table  24. and  tasks did  age  ten  and  year than  reach  separately with not  between  olds  both  nine  and  whites  =  comparing year  reaching significance  (X  omitted.  in Eight,  conserve  on  o l d 5_s  (25.8%),  but  _d_f =  s i x and  f o r the  and  seven  showed  the  Indians  both this  l\l. S . ) .  2,  Indians  olds  i s shown  to  4.3,  for  both c o n s e r v a t i o n  combined  likely  year  (X  on  o l d 5_s w e r e  more  tasks  ten  (M.S.).  2,  performance  seven  significance on  =  year  were  (Table 25),  eight,  and  eleven  s i x and  Performance  -  df  f o r Indians  Five  (43%)  not  3.56,  relationship  tasks  nine  (CX? =  tasks.  62  whites year same was  taken  olds trend,  1.78,  but  djp =  2 2,  N . S . ; .X. The  tasks and  f o r the  relationship  i s shown  i n Table  vation  on  grades,  and  grades Indians  not  was  one  and  were  the  higher  2,  N . S . ) .  6,  two  5.59,  grades  2  =  (.X?  on df  performance and  whites  on  f o r the  i n the  Indians  White  5s  tasks  both  combined  separately.  increased  both  N.5.).  2,  Conserhigher and  whites  in  grades  than  whites  =  2,  .lD>n  as  white  5s  to  i n the  lower  grades  likely  than  and  p_>.10).  more  (X.  df_ =  whites  consistently  df_ -  as  grade  and  conserved  not  3.78,  f o r Indians  significantly  9.93,  four  26  f o r Indians tasks  was  between  i n Table  27  both  but  combined three  whites  >.D5).  conserve CX.  in  =  more  3.0,  in  df. =  -  63  -  TABLE  24  Total Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s a n d Age f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined Age  No c o n s e r v . on either task  6 &  7  12  (20.7)  8,9  &. 10  12  (15.2)  24  (17.5)  Total  Conserv. one  on  task  31  (53.4)  33  (41.8)  64  (46.7)  TABLE  C o n s e r v . on both Tasks  Total  15  (25.9)  58  34  (43.0)  79  49  (35.8)  137  25  Total Sample: R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n P e r f o r m a n c e on B o t h C o n s e r v a t i o n T a s k s a n d Age f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e G r o u p s Age  6  C o n s e r v . on one t a s k Indian White  No c o n s e r v . on either task Indian White  C o n s e r v . on both tasks Indian White  Total Indian  White  &  7  4(14.8)  8(25.8)  13(48.1)  18(58.1)  10(37.0)  5(16.1)  27  31  8,9 10  &  5(14.7)  7(15.6)  11(32.4)  22(48.9)  18(52.9)  16(35.6)  34  45  9(14.8)  15(19.7)  24(39.3)  40(52.6)  28(45.9)  21(27.6)  61  76  Total  TABLE  26  Total Sample:R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n G r a d e a n d P e r f o r m a n c e on Both Conservation Tasks f o r Indians and W h i t e s Combined Grade  No c o n s e r v . on e i t h e r task  C o n s e r v . on one t a s k  C o n s e r v . on both tasks  Total  1  13  (30.2)  22  (51.2)  8  (18.6)  43  2  4  (17.4)  12  (52.2)  7  (30.4)  23  3  9  (17.6)  22  (43.1)  20  (39.2)  51  4  2  (  7.7)  10  (38.5)  14  (53.8)  26  (19.6)  66  (46.2)  49  (34.3)  143  Total  28  -  64  -  TABLE  27  T o t a l Sample: Relationship Between Grade and P e r f o r m a n c e Both Tasks f o r Indian and W h i t e G r o u p s Grade  1  &. 2  3 &  4  Total  No  c o n s e r v . on e i t h e r task Indian White  C o n s e r v . on one t a s k Indian White  on  C o n s e r v . on both tasks Indian White  Total Indian  White  8(25.0)  9(26.5)  14(43.8)  20(58.8)  10(31.3)  5(14.7)  32  34  5(14.3)  6(14.3)  12(34.3)  20(47.6)  18(51.4)  16(38.1)  35  42  15(19.7)  26(38.8)  40(52.6)  28(41.8)  21(27.6)  67  76  13(19.4)  Resistance  to  Extinction and  It  was  decided  to  tinction  procedures,  children  who  would  be  amount  and  in  Conservation  in  the on  the  first  both  second  resistance to  Weight  Number  d i f f e r e n c e s between  of  of  d u p l i c a t e Smedslund's  conserved  extinction,  of  place  tasks place  the  to  woula to  two  see  (196lc)  see be  ex-  whether resistant  whether  conservation  to  there tasks  in  extinction.  Subjects Twelve extinction testing, attempt and  was  grade  Indian  after  half  for  or  tance  of to  and  Ss.  weight  a  and  of  ware  shown, and  in  the  the initial  number.  approximated  the  An  same  age  had  p r e v i o u s l y been  of  two  a  weeks ; I n d i a n s  Testing half  tested  or  for  four  and  a  after  original  they  for  and  six  r e s i s t a n c e to  were  tested  to  half  Ss,  tested  a  resistance  f o r white the  as  for  and  testing extincresis-  number.  Procedure Testing were  the  same  conditions as  those  and used  .  28)  weeks  before  selected for  weight  who  testing  a half  s i x days  extinction  Ss  were had  whites.  three  A l l Ss  Ss  period  original  seven  Indian  tion  the  (Table  before  occurred  S^s  white  over  Ss  conserve  select  and  tested  white  A l l 24  distribution  were  weeks  12  could  made t o  extinction  a  they  conservation  group  and  procedures.  that  Both for  Indian  materials during  the  used  during  original  extinction  testing.  -  66  TABLE  -  28  C o m p a r i s o n o f Age a n d G r a d e L e v e l f o r W h i t e and I n d i a n S s . Grade 6 Indian 1  White  2  2  2  Age 7 Indian White  9 Indian  1 3  4  3  1  4 Total  2 2  2  10 Indian White  White  4  4  3  2 1  3  3  3 3  3  S  a n d E_ w e r e  stimulus  again  seated  materials  procedure  consisted  were  of three  parts:  a brief  2)  e x t i n c t i o n of weight  3)  e x t i n c t i o n o f number  1)  Demonstration  be  demonstration  how  briefly  learned  the scales  the scales  remember.  E. c o n t i n u e d  same,  these  on  like  each  correct on  line  exactly  work.  E. a g a i n weight two  "Whenever  does  placed the both  identical  scales  right,  because  they  should  already A l l 5_s  which  did  weigh t h e  i n t h e pans,  go?"  The f i r s t  one  A l l 5 s made t h e the pointer  t h e two  stays weigh  o f green  On t h e f i r s t  goes  objects  here  that  t h e same."  both  t o make  i n the middle  of the extinction  conservation  plasticine,  trial  on t h e s c a l e s .  and p l a c e d  stage  to the original  on t h e b a l a n c e  i n t h e pans  balls  that  "You've  are placed  "That's  two b a l l s  of plasticine  pointer  felt  two o b j e c t s  the pointer  E_ s a i d  a n y o f t h e 5s h a d  t h e same."  and v o l u m e .  p u t them  The e x t i n c t i o n  Do y o u r e m e m b e r ? "  i n the middle,  presented  balls  Let's  was  i t was E said  again.  E x t i n c t i o n of weiqht.  procedure  the  where  on w h i c h t h e  placed.  In c a s e  worked,  two m a r b l e s ,  prediction.  the black  weigh 2)  side,  table  of the scales  of the scales.  demonstrated  how  at a small  and s c a l e s  1)  forgotten  67 -  "now  weigh  t h e same.  sure."  on t h e b l a c k  on t h e t a b l e  equal  E_ s a i d  were  i n front  I've got  The b a l l s  JE c o n t i n u e d  The b a l l s  of  test.  were  "You s e e ,  line, removed o f 5_.  because from E, s a i d  "Now  I'm  going  deformation, than,  E. a s k e d  t h e same  E_ a s k e d down  "Why  -  the b a l l  "Do  turned check  you t h i n k  as, or l e s s  do y o u t h i n k  than  After the  t h e cup w e i g h s  more  After  5_'s e x p l a n a t i o n s  equivalence  o u t t o be t h e c a s e by p u t t i n g  with  the balls  5s  answer,  were w r i t t e n  took  a piece  before  placing the b a l l  Then  E said  "Why  explanation Most cedure. testing  was  At t h i s  of plasticine  away  and t h e cup back than  "Let's point  from t h e  on t h e  scales.  the b a l l ? "  S_'s  noted.  trials  three  5_ d i d n o t a s s e r t the scales.  trials  as t h o s e  of weight.  equivalence,  On  i n the  any t r i a l  the objects  I f an 5_ a s s e r t e d  trial,  f o l l o w i n g t h e same  w e r e t h e same  f o r conservation  third  (which  a l l 5_s) , E s u g g e s t e d  i s t h e cup l i g h t e r  5s r e c e i v e d These  of weight  on t h e s c a l e s . "  cup,  the  a cup."  the b a l l ? "  so?"  5_ h a d a s s e r t e d  surreptitiously  to  into  verbatim. After  E  t o make  68  original  when  an  were n o t r e t u r n e d  equivalence  b u t n o t on t h e s e c o n d ,  pro-  of weight  a fourth  on  trial  was  given. The  four  trials  were:  Trial  1:  two  Trial  2:  two b l u e  Trial  3:  two y e l l o w  Trial  4:  two r e d b a l l s , triangle.  3) two  Extinction equal  "Each  green  balls, balls,  one b a l l one b a l l  balls,  was  one b a l l  one b a l l  changed  was  into into  changed  changed  into  _E  c o l l e c t i o n s - o f 25 r e d p l a s t i c  discs,  and  has e x a c t l y  t h e same  a cup. a  into  trial,  two p i l e s  On  was  changed  the f i r s t  of these  o f number.  was  ring. a cross.  a  presented said  number o f  - 69 plastic  discs  in i t .  and  watch  carefully  you  don't each a  make a pile,  ring."  you of  the  discs,  down  or  E  counted  All as  has  "Why  one  of  mora  do  you  count, 5_'s  "Why  had  the  to  piles,  think  so?"  she  and  one  After  there less  that  I  discs  in  pile  into  asked  the  same  then  "Do number  5_'s  wrote  equivalence.  counting  palmed  the  sure  Following  asserted by  see  then  discs,  pile?"  a l l 5s  to  make t h i s  the  noticing. are  me  t o make  counted  plastic  than  just  with  going  " L e t ' s check  to  E_ a s k e d  E  I'm  Again,  without  them  of  the  the  again." discs  discs  from  had  p i e c e s i n the  been  ring,  pile?"  5_s w e r e those  those  trials  discs  were  The  "Now,  them  count  After  discs  E_ s a i d  i n the  same  less  began  ring,  than  ring  answer.  Therefore,  the  said  E_ a s k e d s  Before  and  E_ r e - a r r a n g e d  think  answer,  I ' l l count  mistake."  she  -  given  three t r i a l s .  i n the  test  i n which  an  not  The  trials  f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n of S  d i d not  assert  were  the  number.  On  equivalence,  the  recounted.  three t r i a l s  were:  Trial  1:  two  red  piles,  Trial  2:  two y e l l o w triangle.  Trial  3:  two  blue  one  piles,  piles,  p i l e was one  one  pile  pile  changed was  was  into  changed  changed  a  ring.  into  into  a  a  cross.  Results 1)  Resistance to  5_s c o n s e r v e d Indians the  and  second  on  extinction the  eight trial,  first  out that  of  of  c o n s e r v a t i o n of  trial. twelve  i s , after  Eight whites one  out  of  showed  trial  weight.  A l l  twelve extinction  i n which  the  on  two  plnsticine  not  weigh  showed to  the  objocts, same.  extinction  differential  and  one  white  conservation the  fourth  trial, final  white  There  was  and  the  weights  on  the  third of  third One  conserved S_ s h o w e d  on  no  on  the  and  the  one  after  two  exposures  I n d i a n 5. reasserted  extinguished  and  on  fourth  after  extinction.  occurred rapidly  No  again  the  on  second  trial.  three  difference  did  S  trial,  S_ e x t i n g u i s h e d third  scales  white  One  second  and  extinction  to  on  objects.  significant  Extinction  back  trial,  trial,  the  in resistance  apparent.  the  white  no  placed  I n d i a n Ss  S_ e x t i n g u i s h e d  clearly  whites  -  when  £hree  on  trial.  then  70  The  trials.  between trends  f o r most  Indian were  5_s i n  both  groups. The  majority  accounted  f o r the  jects  by  (e.g.  "this  sought  one  to  has  therefore to  the  (9  out  observed  resorting  thinner, reacted  o f S_s  o f 12  differential  been  spread  i t weighs  extinction  out  procedure  the  difference  taken  some  away.  One  5_ i n e a c h  types  of  of  the  ob-  as  Two with  therefore S_s i n e a c h puzzlement  a result  group  i t is  of  combined  group or  E_'s  having  these  two  explanations.  Resistance to  extinction  Again,  A l l Ss  eleven  white  Ss  and  exposure  to  unequal  discs.  weights  more,  less").  explain  one  group)  non-conservotion-type explanations  to  2)  5_s i n e a c h  Seven  conserved  out  of  no  on  of the  conservation first  I n d i a n Ss numbers  trial.  showed i n each  eleven Indians  of  and  number.  Two  out  extinction group  of  of  after  plastic  s i x whites  did  not  conserve  on  the t h i r d  unequal  numbers.  trials,  extinguished  the  fourth  One  trial.  extinction  71  after  -  trial  white on  after  §_ c o n s e r v e d  the third  Four  three t r i a l s .  tendency  f o r I n d i a n 5_s t o r e s i s t  Indians  responses  groups  unequal  numbers  must  s i x whites  have  E. t a k e  both  four  ( e . g . "you need and  saw  and  kinds  and  taken one of  some  Two  again  on  showed  no sig-  there i s a  longer  than  number.  showed  and was  discontinuous numbers than  appeared whereas  weights  Table  of weight  29  by t h e  said  one w h i t e  shows  weight  on  group. on  (e.g.  that  she  combined  in extinction o f Ss  resistance  f o r weight. exposure  Ss  extinction  showed  exposure  to  trials  different  of weight,  fewer  resorted  o f number, i n each  S_s a p p e a r e d to a  to of  unequal  i n the face  numbers  to  Most  the f i r s t  In e x t i n c t i o n  quickly  conservation  continued to conserve  a l lextinction  puzzled to find  explanation.  Ss  of  that  than  the second  More  evidence.  the majority  on  w h e r e a s most  quantity  i n each  contradictory  5 ever  and  Seven  explanation  to extinction  s t r o n g e r f a r number  extinction  differential  one  a pile.").  surprised  external  Only  i n t h e two  explanations.  weiqht  extinction  non-conservation-  t o make  Indians  of  tion  two  t h e r e i s no  numbers  p u z z l e d and  away.  away).  used  were  sought  one  Ss  chips  of r e s i s t a n c e  and  whites  extinction  more  Comparison  ber  the f i r s t  and w h i t e s ,  the unequal  3)  Ss  Indians  white  to explain  Indians  Z  two  to  5s. Two  type  between  on  Although  difference  exposures  and c o n s e r v e d  I n d i a n s and  nificant  white  two  numof  m o s t S_s group; puzzled  non-conserva-  -  72 -  TABLE  29  C o m p a r i s o n o f R e s i s t a n c e t o E x t i n c t i o n o f Number and W e i g h t f o r I n d i a n s and W h i t e s Combined Resistance 2 t r i a l s to extinction More t h a n trials Total  2  Weight  Number  Total  16  2  18  8  20  28  24  22  46  -  73  Training One out  two  of  tha  training  tion.  method  method  which  method  but  of  was  which  reducing  seemed  irrelevant  original  available not on  conserve this  for  training  but  servation clearly not  make  cither of  not  was  to  make  methods  weight.  The  results  weight  that  number  was  conserved  i t seem  task  likely  would  be  that  (1961b)  receptive  who  was  of  effective  Ss  of  who  few  Ss  could  weight. not  train to  try  conserve for  con-  indicated  This  conserve  for  could  eligible  testing  training  to  decided  described  could  on  children  group  thu  tested  attempt  i t was  before  to  more  N  to  previously  Ss  be  Too  The  those  and  Smedslund's  Smedslund's  limited.  number  conserva-  another  number  weight.  wore  try  with  large  Therefore, of  to  cues.  i t practical  task.  induce  i t might  the  quite  was  compare  to  fairly  of  did on  conservation  weight. There  of  though  a  to  to  similar  tasks,  for conservation  these  number  as  study  reinforcement  perceptual  training  conservation  training  ways  this  attempt  decided  although  number  of  external  conservation  for  an  i t was  many  Unfortunately, the  in  direct in  Methods  purposes  methods  Specifically,  (1961b)  in  original  -  the  absent small group,  were  original  only  21  group  'when t r a i n i n g JM and  because  i t was  (1961b) method  conserving procedures  i t seemed  decided of  Indians  to  direct  available for number  but  began).  In  necessary  concentrate  on  to  training  not  weight  view have  of  were  this  a control  repeating  extsrnal roinforcomont,  (two  Smedslund's using  a  control the  group,  other  with  method  a s many S s a s p o s s i b l e , a n d t o t r y o u t  on t h e f e w r e m a i n i n g  Smedslund's  (1961b) method  put  t h e two p l a s t i c i n e  had  made  The  S_, s e e i n g  scale,  just  only  that  made  training  Ss i n e a c h  it  This  i n that  presented  on t h e s c a l e their  both  weighed,  he  weights.  t h e same on t h e made  the right  h a d an e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l  method group)  method  attempted was c a l l e d  differed  t h e two p l a s t i c i n e  were  method  attempted  after  relative  weighed  made  might  to look  (with  i f he  unfortunate-  "reverse  from  objects  t o t h e S, i n two d i s s i m i l a r  this  t h e S_ t o  t h e wrong p r e d i c t i o n .  second four  (196lb)  that  the objects  and p r e s u m a b l y  reinforcement."  being  back  allowing  was r e i n f o r c e d i f he h a d p r e v i o u s l y  The ly  objects  Ss.  involved  h i s p r e d i c t i o n concerning  prediction, had  74 -  Smedslund's were  shapes,  t h e same.  external  initially  which, I t was  after thought  a i d i n acquiring conservation  t o demonstrate  because  the irrelevance of perceptual  cues . Sub  jects Ten  Indians  were  selected  for training  ternal  reinforcement  of conservation  Indian  c h i l d r e n were  distributed  the as  age and g r a d e closely  Indian  Ss.  criteria for  range.  as p o s s i b l e Matching  could  Table  as p o s s i b l e  30 s h o w s  when  over  matched  and s e x w i t h  f o r s e x was s a c r i f i c e d  ex-  These  c h i l d r e n were  f o r age, grade  n o t be met.  age and g r a d e .  of weight.  as e v e n l y  Ten white  by d i r e c t  theten  a l l three '  the matching  -  75  -  TABLE Direct  E x t e r n a l Reinforcement: Comparison and G r a d e L e v e l f o r W h i t e a n d I n d i a n Ss  Grade  6  8  7 Wht.  2  Ind.  Age  Wht.  Ind.  10 Wht.  Ind.  11 Wht.  Ind.  2  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  4 Total  of  Age  Ind. 1  30  1 2  2  3  2  3  4  2 1  1 2  1  Wht.  Therefore, by  direct  there  external  session.  One  session.  N  Indian  10 S^s i n e a c h  was  absent  f o r the posttest  o f 9 5 s who  1  had  white  were  -  reinforcement  sisting 5_ who  76  only  Ss were  training  f o r the second  training  f o r the Indians  present  one  two  was  training  training  f o r both  for training  f o r the f i r s t  had r e c e i v e d  received  group  10,  s e s s i o n s and  session.  training  con-  A l l 10  sessions  «nd  post-  test. The white  four  Ss  and  remaining  Indian  t r a i n e d f o r two  reinforcement  of conservation  sessions  followed  were  The  training  nate  days  week  before  after for  the  a period  Indians.  was  how  original  and  posttest  Training  were  Whites  external  training  occurred  held  were  10  and  on  alter-  tested  o r 11  f o r the Indians  t o have  a c o n t r o l group  sessions,  but only  the posttest.  to c o n t r o l f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y to conserve  testing  and  weight  training  a  weeks  6 or 7  and m a t c h e d w i t h  same  criteria  f o r matching  more  white  5 s who  original  children was  were  had  tested  on  (Table  conserved  conservation included  seven  that  weeks  tests,  5s  day  group  Ss  had  Indian using  Because  there  but not weight  nine  a d d i t i o n a l white  f o r both  5_s  the  number  i n the c o n t r o l group.  t h e same  received  between  Seven  white  31).  which This  i n the period attempts.  selected  group  Two  four  a posttest.  were  the  reverse  of weight.  o f a week.  testing  on  necessary  included  learned  sessions  matched with  whites.  training  was  sessions  the o r i g i n a l  It no  over  by  Ss were  were on  The c o n t r o l  Indians  and  - 77 -  TABLE Control  G r o u p : C o m p a r i s o n o f Age a n d f o r W h i t e and I n d i a n S s .  Grado  7  8 Wht.  2  Ind.  9 Wht.  Ind.  10 Wht.  Ind.  Wht.  2  2  1  2  3  2  1  1  1  4 Total  Grade  Age Ind.  1  31  3  4  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  whites*  The t e s t  testing  procedures  procedure  and s t i m u l u s  a brief  2)  training external  3)  posttest  1)  Demonstration  learned  indicated  objects  are  placed  original  f o r the  whites.  which  were  to the original  The t e s t i n g  t h e same.  The  condiprocedures  of the scales  work?  weigh  S made  goes  the  two o b j e c t s  However,  line  weigh  these  A l l Ss  E said  "Whenever  two  s i d e , where  marbles, does t h e  "That's  i n the middle,  t h e same".  Most  i f an j5 s e e m e d  p r e d i c t i o n , E_ e x p l a i n e d two o b j e c t s  like  o n e on e a c h  exactly  already  E. c o n t i n u e d ,  a prediction.  weigh  "You've  Do y o u r e m e m b e r ? "  t h e same,  on t h e b l a c k  prediction.  E, s a i d  d i d remember.  i n t h e pans,  pointer  whenever  of weight.  of the scales.  they  the  wrong  i n m :ny w a y s  parts:  the scales  go?"  the  after  on d i r e c t e x t e r n a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t or reverse reinforcement o f c o n s e r v a t i o n of weight*  that  two  correct  similar  materials  demonstration  how  pointer  were  of three  1)  in  and 7 o r 8 weeks  f o r conservation  consisted  the  10 o r 11 w e e k s  Procedures  The  tions  occurred  f o r the Indians  Training  78 -  i n greater  t h e same  right, because  S s made t h e  unsure  o r made  detail  that  the pointer  always  goes  middle,  2) Training (a) The  direct  trials  appendix balls  external  f o r this  (Table  3).  reinforcement  training  method  On t h e f i r s t  of red p l a s t i c i n e ,  of conservation are presented  trial,  t h e same w e i g h t  of weight.  i n the  E produced and volume.  two E  said  "Now,  I've  the  samei  weigh  E. p l a c e d  the  both  weigh  line  in  on  the  the of  a  the  same,  in  into  as,  put  less  "Well,  let's  back  on  the  scales."  explain  his  prediction.  was  agreement  in  Each there  in  5_ h a d  were  16  check.  with two  with  four  (or  some  cases,  sented. Within pair  Each each  was  original  the  pair,  for  the  next  On  half  servation making  group  After  its  and  of  two  pair  deformed  shapes.  The  shape,  a  of  trials,  different  that  p a i r was  In  ball  S_,  to con-  prediction  back  on  four  group,  in  into  the  into  three  object  object  session  objects  other  i t matched placed  more, E  the  ask  each  each  times, the  answer  nor  divided  In  an  shape  indicated.  were  the  make  weighs  and  his  plasticine  from  them  reinforcement  whether  group.  deformation so  external  scales  J5' s  black  to  the  sausage  on,  sessions.  sets)  four  four  each  the  in  differed of  comment  trials  placed  in  the  they  the  was  sausage  the  on  ball  the  see  sure,"  going  put  5_ t o  make  I'm  You  Direct  both  "Now  think  not  that  see,  1  and  After  training  trials  the  to  stays  ball?"  what  trials.  "You  the  did  allowing  groups in  E  you  said  balls  E, s a i d  here  scales  pointer the  When  than  the  and  the  5_.  "Do  said  solely  on  E. r e m o v e d of  plasticine  scales  because  _E a s k e d ,  sisted  of  them  sausage;"  or  -  balls  the  front  a  sausage, same  on  middle,"  table  ball  two  Let's  balls  the  the  got  79  was  were  pre-  same different  returned  other the  pair  pairs.  the  four  a  member  scales  to of  again  trial. of  the  trials,  inequality.  learning  too  easy.  the  objects  This  was  In  this  involved  introduced case,  the  to two  the  con-  avoid objects  80  did  not weigh  On  these  got  two  them  trials, objects  This  one  this  one.  heavy down,"  but goes  The r e s t  (b)  Reverse  The  trials  (Table  presented  over  for this On two  sausage  the "You  the f i r s t  objects  both  stays  on t h e b l a c k  jects  from  formed  into  don't  weigh  on t h e  t h e same.  weighs  doesn't  more  stay  than  i n the  d i r e c t i o n from the  was  object  t h e same  on i t g o e s  as t h a t f o r  training  a red ball  weigh  weigh line  E said,  because  I'm  the sausage pointing  E said,  t h e same.  i n the middle."  After  consisted "Now  and a r e d s a u s a g e .  they  on t h e s c a l e s  "Now  a  t h e same.  shapes.  you t h a t  t h e same,  and s a i d  o n e made i n t o  therefore,  exactly  t o show  s e s s i o n , E,  weighed  in dissimilar  the objects  a ball." a ball,  objects method,  of weight.  i n the appendix  of the f i r s t  Both  here,  the scales  of conservation  of red p l a s t i c i n e ,  a sausage.  E_ p l a c e d  into  the objects  a r e shown  trial  the objects  see, they  sausage  put  has t h e heavy  procedure  on t h e s c a l e s  same."  Let's  i n the opposite  and t h e b a l l  p u t them  t h e same.  the pointer  reinforcement  objects  one i n t o  g o t two  I've  E placed  of the procedure  other.  of e q u a l i t y .  presenting  The to  because  the  "Now,  t o one o f t h e o b j e c t s )  variation i n this  I've  than  by E s a y i n g  weigh  "You s e e , t h e y  external  4).  heavier  began  don't  and t h e pan t h a t  conservation  ball,  said  That's  object  that  to see."  (pointing  middle,  in  here  and t h e n  one b e i n g  the procedure  on t h e s c a l e s  scales  The  t h e same,  -  I'm both  going weigh  and s a i d  the pointer  E, r e m o v e d going  the ob-  t o make  had been  at the b a l l  this  transwhich  had  - 81 formerly to  be  the  been  the  same  asked the  the  sausage. as,  or  objects Each  had  each  session.  four  trials  one  varied,  of  object  two  e.g.  and  on  the the  tion  from  ....,« as  goes  i n both  objects which  heavy  down."  training  approximately  half  and  "You  of  ......  of  more,  putting  trials of  was  other  always  On  prea red  two  the  out  other  object  was  p r o c e d u r e was Half  of  with  trials,  while the  other  same  in  trials  to resemble  the  foltrials  of  inequality.  JE p r e f a c e d  the  on  these t r i a l s  by  "Now,  weigh put  they  but  don't  goes  on  the  with  the  the  weigh  i n the  pan  saying  same,  because  and-the of  the them  the  rest  scales  the  the  pointer  opposite the  p r o c e d u r e was  hour.  f o r both  training  to  same,  direc-  heavy the  same  equality.  session an  used  not  by  pancake.  sessions.  see,  middle,  The  was  presentation,  the  The  don't  than  ball  red  Let's  E_ s a i d  that  weighs  of f o u r  same,  a red  order  ball.  the  for conservation Each  1-4  16  groups  group  the  trials  i n the  the  each  always  i n the  i s heavier stay  On  with  four  two  objects  doesn't  were  other  I've  5  t o check  sessions  changed  of the  the  was  the  ball  boll?"  told  was  presentation  Then  but  ball  scales.  conservation  than  other  ball  involved  check."  this  red cake  again  heavier  that  there  with,  for a l l trials  is  think this  in trials  lowed  two  i s the  group.  to resemble  got  this  training  red snake, trials  changed  the  object  together  four  on  i n each  plasticine  sausage,  than  Again,  one  you  "Now  h i s answer,  back  5  Do  less  to explain  sented  sausage.  methods  took  3)  Posttest.  The  original  test  trials.  On  of  weight  equal  scales moved of  to  the  for conservation  each  the  balls.  trial, and  1)  Two  green  2)  Two  blue  3)  Two  yellow  This as  balls,  one one  balls,  the  5s  ball ball  one  p o s t t e s t was  to  the  prediction  balls,  two  balls of  was was  ball  were  a  was  to  the three  plasticine on  They  the  were on  reone  conservation to  into into  changed  training  of  placed  asked  changed  was  were  deformation  changed  administered  i n both  balls  standard and  There  weight.  JE p e r f o r m e d  asked  were:  The  administering  weight.  equivalence  JE t h e n  The  well  volume.  and  S_ made, a  of  E_ p r e s e n t e d  scales  question. trials  -  p o s t t e s t c o n s i s t e d of  demonstrate  from  82  a  cup.  a  ring.  into  the  explain i t .  a  cross.  control  group  as  groups.  Results 1)  Direct  sions Indian  on  the  direct  Ss  posttest of  external reinforcement.  and  conserved. before for  to  ing  the  32  had  and  33).  not  training less  on  ( f o r example,  of  of  the  14  shown  Ss  white  out  of  beg  later by  the  20  on  Ss  from  Ss  Indian than  of  first each  in Ss,  they  conserved,  of  the  session, five  group weight  Ss  selected testing.  fact,  had  on  the  first  and  on  the trial  earlier in  ses-  ten  in  conserved  fourth t r i a l  training  the  lthough  trials  training  s i x out  conservation  Indians  two  conserved  However,  procedures,  two  second  10  s e s s i o n , seven  procedures  session, only  trial  out  training  training  conserve  trial  eight  Therefore,  training  During  external reinforcement,  (Tables  first  After  the  the  Indians  tended first trainfourth conserved).  -  83 -  TABLE Results  Trials  of Training  32  on D i r e c t E x t e r n a l I n d i a n Ss  Training Session I (N = 1 0 ) Conserv. Nonconserv.  Reinforcement:  Training Session II Posttest (N = 9 ) (N = 1 0 ) Conserv. Nonconserv. Conserv. Nonconserv,  1  7  (70)  3  (30)  5  (55.6)  4  (44.4)  2  4  (40)  6  (60)  4  (44.4)  5  (55.6)  3  4  (40)  6  (60)  4  (44.4)  5  (55.6)  4  2  (20)  8  (80)  5  (55.6)  4  (44.4)  TABLE Results  Trials  of T r a i n i n g  (60)  4  (40)  33  on D i r e c t White Ss  Training Session I (N = 1 0 ) Conserv. Nonconserv,  6  External  Reinforcement:  T r a i n i n g 5ession II (N = 1 0 ) Conserv. Nonconserv.  Posttest (N = 1 0 ) Conserv. Nonconserv 8  1  7  (70)  3  (30)  9  (90)  1  (10)  2  6  (60)  4  (40)  8  (80)  2  (20)  3  7  (70)  3  (30)  6  (60)  4  (40)  4  6  (60)  4  (40)  8  (B0)  2  (20)  (80)  2  (20)  White  Ss  tended  training ample, first  to  session  session  remain  as  s i x whites  84  -  the  they  had  conserved  and  eight  same on  on  on  the the  on  the  of  seven  later  trials  of  first  trial  (for  fourth  trial  of  fourth  trial  of  the ex-  the  the  second  session). Moreover., seven  white  without group  control  2)  i n the  white  group,  (Table  external  external  limited  by  the  Indians  like  all  four  whites  had  begun  and  seems  four  two  one  Indian  clear  that  have  increased  been  in  of  additional  the  were  matched  given  a  s i x Ss  conserved  results  for  in  training JM i n  four  each  whites  sessions  on  the  conserved the  on  difficult  first  procedures the  apparently  conservation  shown  trial  responses the  to  also  trial makes  effects  of  the  within  i t difficult the  did  training  training  not group.  procedure  to  spontaneous  training to  the  trial.  controls.  the  of  However,  control  the  out  on  before  over  by  One  35).  trial  with  are  conserved  the  training  comparison  group.  (Table  first  the  proceudres  conservation  from  to  of  Any  training  instability  changes  included  the  any  of  any  In  for  acquisition  S_s  out  conserved  It  the  34).  sessions,  s i x out  conservation  c o n t r o l group,  small  training  conservation  of  not  reinforcement.  increase  have  the  reinforcement  and  after  would  were  and  showed  (Table  training  extremely  posttest  It  who  S_s  34).  reverse  four  sessions  any  Indian  c o n t r o l group  Ss  but,  without  Reverse  out  training  nine  posttest weight  S_s  any  of  five  The sessions  attribute  procedures.  -  85  TABLE Control  Group: C o n s e r v a t i o n of Weight I n d i a n , Matched f o r Matched and Nonmatched W h i t e  on t h e P o s t t e s t White  Total  Subj ects  Conserv.  Nonconserv >  Indian  5  (71.4)  2  (28.6)  7  6  (85.7)  1  (14.3)  7  6  (66.7)  3  (33.3)  9  17  (73.9)  6  (26.1)  23  Matched  White  Non-matched  White  Total  TABLE Results  Trials  34  35  o f T r a i n i n g on R e v e r s e E x t e r n a l R e i n f o r c e m e n t : I n d i a n a n d W h i t e Ss  Training Session I Conserv. Nonconserv. I n d . Wht. I n d . Wht.  T r a i n i n g Session II Posttest Conserv. Nonconserv. Conserv. Nonconserv. I n d . WhI n d . Wht. I n d . Wht. I n d . Wht.  1  1  4  3  0  0  4  4  0  2  2  3  2  1  0  4  4  Q  3  1  2  3  2  0  3  4  1  4  •  1  4  3  1  2  3  2  1  4  3  0  CHAPTER I I I DISCU55I0N In that  general,  the r e s u l t s  conservation  increased  with  of both  from  t h e matched  sults  from  the t o t a l  weight  This The  relationship relationship  total of  Indians  very  ten  (especially  for this  years  study,  except  appearance  grade sample  In terms was  with  both  f o r each  sequential  attained,  of weight.  f o r the f a i l u r e  of conservation  i n a l l but These hypotheses  to find  o f number  of weight  i n the  conservation  when  of  sample.  5_ s )  and  the o r i g i n a l  o f age and c o n s e r v a t i o n  levels.  of weight  (nonsignificant  o f number  agreement  Conservation  f o r the white  between  separately).  the r e -  i n t h e matched  i n the t o t a l  conservation  pronounced  around  a  around nine to  years.  one  Indian tion  taken  with  and c o n s e r v a t i o n  were combined  are i n basic  Most with  grade  The r e -  at h i g h e r grade  not s i g n i f i c a n t  between  showed  consistently  respect.  increased  significant  group  advanced  seven  in this  few c a s e s , b e f o r e c o n s e r v a t i o n  results  more  a n d number  were c o n s i s t e n t  The r e l a t i o n s h i p  was  development, a  was  and w h i t e s  cultural  also  significance  sample.  number  sample  sample  a n d number  approached  weight  age, a l t h o u g h not s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  sults  of  of the present study  importantly, exception,  and w h i t e  of weight  Indians The  than  the overall  no s i g n i f i c a n t  children.  The  on t h e t o t a l  white  results  5s  from  results  differences  exception  sample  demonstrated,  was  between on c o n s e r v a -  where s i g n i f i c a n t l y  more  conserved. the e x t i n c t i o n -  86  -  procedures  indicated  87  -  fairly  rapid  number.  The  parison  with  These in  terms  other and  training a  of  tween  the be  the  results  of  Smedslund's  will  results  weight  area  be  extinction  and  of  developmental  the  place,  studies  conservation  comparisons  Finally,  com-  first  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the  Thirdly,  study.  i n the  Piaget's  for Piaget's  from  in  and  group.  discussed,  attainment  weight  unsuccessful  control  to  of  of  periods drawn  be-  procedures of  training  discussed.  The  present  et  196lf), vation  the  testing  present  be  conservation  were  relationship  discussed.  the  (Almy  will  Secondly,  cultural be  will  on  both  methods  training  their  number.  will  no  results  studies  cross  and  e x t i n c t i o n on  -  in  a l . , 1965;  Sigel  demonstrated  the  on  different  (Wallach, quential present  study,  1963).  and  These on  with  most  Mermelstein,  sequential  dimensions  development study  agreement  1965;  invariance  postulated  by  other  studies  other  conservation  indicated that  number  have  was  other  studies  5medslund, in  conser-  Piaget  examined tasks.  conserved  seThe  before  weight. The and  relationship  number  Piaget  was  (Oleron  Feigenbaum, Ogilvie, grade  approached  et  1963;  1961;  and  not  as  between strong  al.)  and  Hood,  as  on  significance.  The  tasks  If this  conservation demonstrated  studies  Lowell,  1964). both  and  that  other  1962;  5medslund,  conservation  age  (Elkind,  1961;  Lovell  relationship in  the  finding  total  could  be  of  weight  by 1961b, and between sample  replicated be  viewed  may of  be  i n another as  cognitive  structures  relationship  and  number  age  and  of  between  not  as  the  ten  et  73%  year  a l . , 1963).  of  the  nine  nine  olds  52%  year  and  weight.  Conversely,  olds  76%  and  (Oleron  et  number. in  olds  as  data  could  i n that  defined in age.  grade  terms  However,  c o n s e r v a t i o n of  weight  Piaget's relationship  conserved  served  number and  that and  eight  weight  and  year  between  (196lb)  found  84%  the  ten  year  only  48%  of  of  ten  year  olds  found  that  84%  olds  did  olds  results  Piaget  the  of  found  to  74%  was  75% 91% Hood  at  no  the  s i x year  that  the  seven  year  was  year  s i x and  a  (1962)  found  that  In  the  and  present  level.  In  of  six  and  the  six  at the  year  Feigenbaum  year  a l l S_s  present  steady 15%  olds.  half  a  from  between  the  conserved.  year  olds  i n the  there  seven  difference  six  f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n of  c o n s e r v a t i o n , 73%  of of  the  the  conserve  conserve hold  olds  conserved  d i d not  of  not  and  Elkind  the  73%  olds  conservation  study,  Only  of  nine  present  year  i n number and  the  s u b j e c t s c o n s e r v i n g number  there  olds  found  of  level  study,  year  of  seven  example,  year  olds  Piaget  kinds  of  showed  the  year  number  (1963)  seven  the  same  For  five  seven  of  seven  The  present  and  Similarly,  a l . , 1963).  the  study.  the  age  chronological  72%  year  In  growth  present  for Piaget  mental  grade  olds  weight.  of  of  strong  conserved  65%  the  support  than  Piaget's studies,  (Oleron that  was  then  conservation.  In 76%  some  indication  the  -  study,  offering  a better  88  olds  con-  between  study,  77%  con-  served  at  conserved that, the  the  nine  number.  supporting 1962),  older  children It  and  these  of  take  at  the  samples  of  previous  Piaget  true  why  could  say  that  (Ola'ron  sults  1963;  of  the  differences the  between combined  the  at  Each  these  level,  indicate  and  and  1963;  fewer  of  discrepancies own  value  in  and  the  no  are  or  and  One  the  populations  possibilities  reported  could  be  essentially will  be  the  the  re-  kinds  is  in  of  that  some  way  i s that differences studies  are  of  a greatly  other  account  by  1961b,  case,  possibility  previous  level  children.  estimates  Two  Another  age  Indian  (Elkind,  i s the  criteria  results.  be  figures  reported.  populations could  each  are  particularly  the  unstable  that  white,  at  of  could  d i s c r e p a n c i e s between  offered.  of  of  others  I f such  studies  be  and  One  i t is  so  percentage  1962)  reveal  be  between  percentage  conclude  Indian  although  should  the  ard.Indian  or  our  children,  this  procedure  i n the  nature  study  represented.  face  tested,  populations  lectual  year  a l . , 1963)  children  these  level  estimates.  might  white  et  ten  1961b;' F e i g e n b a u m ,  and  a l . , 1963)  various  in  present  (Oleron  the  c o g n i t i v e development  differences in  Differences  of  age  Hood,  might  explanations  for  et  population N  the  explain  results  samples see  increased  to  in  to  Feigenbaum,  from  younger  Canadian  than  one  at  (Elkind,  results  heterogeneous  Or  88%  Piaget  the  each  more  difficult  and  conserved.  other's  conserving  simply  with  is difficult  Piaget's  data  studies  more  -  level  The  i n comparison  Hood,  5s  year  89  and  the  responsible. of  a  purely  intel-  non-intellectual.  considered  in  turn.  It  seems  results  and  unlikely  Piaget's  90  -  that  and  the  d i f f e r e n c e s between  other's  are  attributable  to  differences in testing  procedures.  in  this  based  present  196lf,  1962)  (1964)  results  ages  at  ber.  of  are  for  true  assessing  of  for  to  child  on  three  asked not  to  to  explain as  that  state  two  trials  taken  mean  with  the  fied  conservers  include plain  why  levels, age  in  a  why  be  of  this  weigh  or  groups.  fewer  an  at  same"  were  would the  5_  was were  might  unable  As  a  to  conse-  been  classi-  (1961b)  would  help  ex-  younger  c h i l d r e n conserved  when  objects  This  Smedslund This  sufficient  Although  have  the  a  justifications  might  one  adequate  the  conservation.  Piaget  num-  state  plasticine  conservers  study  the  verbal  I t was  for conservation.  underlying  and  considered  conserver.  as  to  ( f o r example,  study.  verbal  as  uses  S_ must  terms  shaped  c h i l d r e n conserved  not  to  "they  judgement,  then  Piaget  at  to age the  older  levels. The  study  called  conservation  but  response  children in  more  in  Smedslund's  Piaget, The  order  in this  classified  principle  more  as  used  criteria  quence,  in  criteria  a  be  like  used  (196lb,  f o r weight  conservation  differently  his  some S_s  any  not  make  with  conservation.  Verbal  were  confronted  (1961b)  underlying  justification  procedure.  is attained  solely  procedure  Smedslund's  agreement  reversibility)  conserver.  the  basic  Smedslund  principles  principle  in  on  testing  conservation  However,  the  was  standardized  which  criteria  study  The  these  was  criterion the  same  for as  conservation that  used  by  used Frank  in  the  present  (in Bruner,  1964)  and a  Braine  child  and  Shanks  i s u s u a l l y asked question,  basis  response  of  the  and  his  basis  Braine  tion  and  younger  1963),  1964)  child  cues.  In  jects.  In  amined  the  by  hand,  more  length.  tion  and  was  results  and  two  in  In  was  in  groups  Braine  five  terms  year  in  old  5_s w e r e  number  of  and  "Are  corks  in  both  terms  were  more rows,  or  his Frank  the  of  some  which  taught in  more  two  corks  ob-  employed. ex-  criteria on  the  other).  pre-training always  always  this  dis-  number,  which  that  were  the  was  the  verbal  Ss  criterion  of  on  force  1964)  supporters  "more",  corks  to  (in  perceptual  different  given  "longer"  they  there  two  and  et a l , ,  1961a,  make  size  the  1964)  phenomenal  experiment,  and  not  Frank  pre-training  the  Shanks  Therefore,  question  of  and  number,  and  conservation  (Piaget  the  and  eliminate  although  on  and  ( i n Bruner,  phenomenal  such  the  conserva-  (Oleron  i n l e a r n i n g to  no  for  Elkind,  real  to  on  ( i n Bruner,  designed  Frank's  (1965)  study  question  (1965)  the  to  conserver  Piaget (e.g.  given  and  used,  the  norms  procedures  study,  a  by  between  real  response a  age  Shanks  Shanks'  d i s c r i m i n a t e between  meant in  obtain  testing  present  (1965)  these  Forty-five to  the  the  too,  Frank  others  objects.  and  between  Gruen  one  Braine  pre-training  conservation  used  and  procedures,  conservation  reinforced pre-training  tinction  his  i s deemed  obtained  (1964)  Braine  he  (1965)  those  the  their  justify  the  distinguish  of  experiment,  but  In  justification.  employ  to  properties  for  than  to  to  Shanks  However,  Bruner,  given  his  Smedslund  1961b).  the  of  -  (1965).  conservation  on  91  meant  the row, in  more  conservathe  that  same row?"  only An  meant  more  additional  verbal tion  problems  responses  Frank  is  37  of  Shanks'  verbal  used  responses to  which  the  were  to  the  criteria  Braine  and  Shanks  training almost  is  the  given, same  used  by  the  number  responses.  criteria  conservation  of  This in  (1965)  sig-  being  Piaget's  using Ss  the  who  that  to  of  of  the accord-  1964)  and  verbal  pre-  results  classified  in as  differences  studies  and  the  accord-  responses  that  the  23%  responses 25%  of  verbal  comparable  criteria  suggests  classified  receive  i f no  either  conserved.  examination  ( i n Bruner,  responses  by  group  whereas  Therefore,  use of  Frank  non-  Smedslund's  an  conservation  the  revealed  were  indicates  criteria,  of  employed  made by  conservation  as  (1965).  conservation for  as  classified  to  not  group.  and  conservers  did  conserva-  criteria  that  were  given  analysis  Shanks  therefore, study)  (1961b)  an  However,  was,  classified  first  according  which  present  Smedslund's  responses  group  the  criteria  responses  criteria  not  trained  and  length.  six  of  as  in  given  pre-training  reclassified  (1965)  the  (and  were  44  were  the  Braine  pretraining.  of  in  the  age  (1961b)  the  verbal  not  that  between using  and  were  showed  responses  and  same  training  and  because  pre-training  ing  1964) inthe  and  the  Smedslund's  Ss  responses  sample  the  more  received  ing  of  number  groups  results  non-conservation  Braine  Beth  However,  criteria  in  of  differences  (in Bruner,  (196lb)  the  terms  groups.  nificantly This  children  (1965)  in  same  following  significant  trained  as  45  the  pre-training.  Gruen's  no  or  -  92  the  in  present being  study  the  explanation 5s  in  the  data.  I f the  should  conserve  Piaget's tion to  age  should  explain  more  account  at  younger  dependent  advanced. older  The  there  i s the  led  once  conservation  can  such  servation  only  of  with  any  tion  tended by  be  great  E.  is  to  i t should  obvious  fairly  in  anxious to  by  Piaget,  response  who  to  in-  the  since  on  E, p o i n t e d  did  Ss  any out  Piaget,  in  most  both  con-  either  the  not  so  this  do  popula-  conclusions that  to  extinc-  However,  conserve  that  consis-  possible  suggests  unquestioningly when  are  be  rapidly  This  did or  not  cheating.  number.  conviction,  Therefore,  more  responsive  conclusion  extinguished  Ss  Piaget.  Piaget's  were  According  by  accept  group  variation  why  a non-intellec-  and  more  not  with  e x t i n c t i o n procedures  i s an  those  but  help  level.  acquired  and  conserva-  children tested  accomplished  weight that  the  greater  a  and  interpretation.  This  study  possibility  drawn  an  i t .  this  to  than  f r o m the  with  5s  present  experimenter  intellectual  tent  the  as  with  of  comparison that  Ss  children  r e t a r d a t i o n might  possibility  i f our  cues  comparison  Mental  in  f i t the  fewer  c h i l d r e n conserved,  differentiates  results  extinguish  of  c h i l d r e n conserved,  of  retarded  to  attainment  fewer  have  seem  age  situational  might  mentally  not  the  adult  general  does  and  the  in  discrepancies  retardation  in  to  please  intellectual  level,  example,  5s  particular  age  For  tion  the  each  more  why  of  study  were  samples.  this  for  terms  present  norms, be  factor  in  sample  Finally, tual  not  -  discussed. An  of  do  93  the  two  - 94 plasticine  objects  d i d not weigh  spicuously  removed  a piece  objects)  or that  t h e two  contained  t h e same  disregard  h i s own  Thc  above  combined. in  and w h i t e s  tion  of weight  significantly  of t h i s  criterion  i n the t o t a l more  difference  sample than  trials,  tion  responses  out of t h r e e  trials.  dren  on  o f any c r i t e r i o n  a l l three  whom P i a g e t  consorvcrs. dicating there  an  might  servers  calls  Because  already  study  Piaget  the  rate  of formal  of truancy  both  of P i a g e t ' s  signifi-  different  o r more  conserva-  o r more  conserva-  reclassifying  conservation the  with  chil-  the  study that  as  higher  environmental differ  are not  of a grasp  had a p p r o x i m a t e l y  among  con-  conservers.  thc  e t h n i c groups  groups  h i s 5s  transitional  s c h o o l i n g i n terms  i s much  Indians  The  conservers  c o n t r i b u t o r s t o the development  amount  the  than  important  same  f o r conserva-  However,  on w h i c h  Although  differ-  a  o r two  variables  conservation.  whites  r e q u i r e s a verbal response i n -  to indicate two  to  superiority  i n v o l v e s grouping  i n the present  these  no  o f c o n s e r v a t i o n from  be some  seems  obtained  other  transitional  understanding  classified  This  trials,  longer  and  significant  a s , one  out of t h r e e  responses  Indians  the whites.  responses  no  a tendency  i s i n c r e a s e d by u s i n g  f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n , such  on t h e b a s i s  discs  i n which  tion  5s  one o f t h e  indicated  the only was  incon-  t o E_'s p o s i t i o n .  t o both  consistently  Indians  between  cance  refers  In f a c t ,  from  S_ s h o w e d  and s w i t c h  group,  ence  donserved  discussion  (E_ h a v i n g  of p l a s t i c  of discs,  judgment  Thc r e s u l t s  the white  of p l a s t i c i n e  groups  number  t h e same  of grade the  Indian  of the  placement,  children(Kee, instruction this  way,  reached and  1966).  by  It  differed  the  in  present  other  95  i s also favor  study  studies  Mermelstein,  1965;  Wohlwill,  I960)  that  classroom  training  -  amount not  appear  that  school  to  conserve.  Indians  level  white  a lower  (Cameron  and  Family affect large as  marital to  white  smaller speech to  agrees cess  of  1964).  a  much  families  vocabularies 1966).  produce with  i s not  ordinarily These  and  inferior  the  use  ability  to  on  the  do  in  same  not  of school  age  seem  conditions,  and  to  families  are such  drunkenness  Indian  are  than  v e r b a l l y spontaneous,  have  a l . 1966).  of  grammatically verbal  performance  postulate  dependent  in  less  lack  not  indication perform  a  families  et  less  to  i t does  Indian  family  extent  This  Piaget's  size  unemployment,  c h i l d r e n are  (Kee,  family  (Hawthorne  specific  1966).  Unstable  greater  and  good  c h i l d r e n of  and  Sigel  t  typically  Kee,  1959;  1965b, 1965c;  addition,  is a  In  conclusions  contributors  conservation.  instability,  underlies  ability  1965;  instability  Indian  seem  Storm,  (Cameron,  In  performance  than  attainment  present in  conservation.  of  children.  Hyde,  schooling  important  quality  the  1962;  1965a,  of  that  white  with  (Goodnow,  of  at  the  agrees  development  ability  of  Vsrnon,  are  likely  that  on a  language  facility  does  conservation.  complex  conserve,  complex  but  though  that  development,  This pro-  this though  c o r r e l a t e d with i t . results,  then,  are  consistent  with  not  Piaget's  - 96 view  that  conservation  of  very  general  a  action  involves  particularly, vironmental existence  tural  groups  in  of  Piaget's  have  It  not  development cross  of  and  extent  in  by  Almy  1965b,  seem can  found  no  tasks. et  West  significant  obtained  d i f f e r e n c e s between  in  of  English  between  socio-economic  these  West  these  for  and  enwhose  of i n v a r i a n t  present  these  in  a l l cul-  attainment  agreement (1961)  It  They  of  amount  of  Hyde clear  studies  the  (1959), why  and  these  cultural  schooling  groups.  or  economic  i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s between  Vernon  (1961)  (1965a,  English  and  found of  West no  study  in-  Goodnow amount  1965b,  of  1965c)  Indian  boys  significant  different  Procedural and  suggest-  with  d i f f e r e n c e s between  Indians  in  performance  African children.  but  the  studies  disagree  i s not  these  with  f a c t o r s on  a l . (1965),  boys,  levels.  cross-cultural  of  Presumably,  Price-Williams'  performance.  the  number.  cultural  for  studies.  inter-  environment,  Both  conservation  general  that  account  (1962)  and  the  d i f f e r e n c e s between  i l l i t e r a t e bush  differences  environmental  operations.  1965).  likely  experience  cognitive structures  Price-Williams  volved  favor  on  necessary  concrete  obtained  and  general  i n t e r a c t i o n s are  conservation  cultural  education  and  i n f l u e n c e of  (1965a,  does  weight  the  obtained  studies  environmental  operations  produce  f i n d i n g s are  lack  Vernon  to  (1962)  results  as  period  These  This  i n the  environmental  Piaget's  on  i n t e r a c t i o n s with, p e e r s .  such  of  a  repeated  experiences  kinds  ing  nature.  is reflected  quantities  Goodnow  depends  educational  differences  differences in  between  criteria  for A  conservation  possible  could  be  familiar  to  he  the  used Ss.  for  I t may  between  to  conservation.  for  The appear  results  to  found  pretest  did  parison  with  initial  pretest,  that  not  direct  S_s  extinguished  to  e.g.  seems  Smedslund  (1961c)  the  On  the  test  and  one  didn't that  add  these  (1961b)  any,  has  added an  or  of  the  weight  24  a principle therefore would  of  Ss  which  explicitly  away,  reference  or to  which  gave  most  although  on  be  data the  were  five  verbal  re-  conservation  the  classified  necessity"  training  these  weight  any  an  study  number  state  com-  number.  underlying  in  of  responses and  a  in on  tasks,  for  i t must be  on  weight  present  verbal  the  procedures  sessions  "symbolic-logical", that  taken  explicit  of  responses  as  two  conservation  Indian)  r e f e r r e d to  of  objects  conservation  stronger  the  found  Smedslund  d i f f e r e n c e s between  study,  for  study.  conservation  e x t i n c t i o n was  explanations  contain  both  have  conservation  show  In  presumably  extinction  (1961c)  after  results  plasticine  the  reinforcement.  symbolic been  of  nuts)  would  showed  conserved  on  he  difficult.  (1961)  and  used  not  conservation  which  "You  did  examine  studies  conservation  for  white  sponses  on  test  examined.  It  but  rapidly  Smedslund's  (four  he  c h i l d r e n who  external  order  original  had  extinguish  resistance to  and  that  effects  c h i l d r e n who  on  In  the  be  (earth  c o n t r a d i c t Smedslund's  (1961c)  the  groups  of  between  Pr.ice-Williams'  materials  differences test  -  make c o m p a r i s o n s  explanation  that  97  same." by  i s ," a l l that  nothing  other  way  (Smedslund,  1961b,  p. 7 4 ) .  Smedslund's planations events for  which  "they  a r e both  explanations  gories,  indirectly situation under  This  was  to observable  which  196lb,  category  many  were  and I t h i n k i t f o r example,  under  that  includes  three  and a t h i r d  cate-  one -  directly  of the present  p. 7 4 ) .  I t was  hard  o f t h e Ss w o u l d  made  referring  p. 7 4 ) ,  features  so i n t h e case  structure often  previous  "ambiguous"  be s u b s u m e d  categories  to  1961b,  category,  category  cannot  (Smedslund,  i f they  be  of the Indian  i t extremely  to a past  or  t o de-  subsumed. Ss w h o s e  difficult  event  or the pre-  situation. In  states  that  answers (they  Smedslund's  and e x p l a n a t i o n s  weigh  symbolic (1961c) vation  t h e same  description  explanations.  a l l t h e S s who  they  196lc,  experiment  "gave  weighed  p.86).  from  explanations  However,  slightly  had been  three  trained  state  less  i n the  these  are  Smedslund's  had a c q u i r e d  symbolic  he  correct  t h e same  Presumably  t h e S s who  after  only  to the i n i t i a l  I t i s not c l e a r  S_s d i d n o t e x t i n g u i s h  whereas  trained  referring  whether  give  extinction  were  because  explanations.  'normally'  logical  (1961c)  t h e 11 S_s who  beginning)"(Smedslund,  these  before,  i s , " a l l explanations  especially  grammatical tell  that  refer "  cide  sent  which  This  t h e two p r e c e d i n g  "perceptual",  to  t h e same  i s " a l l ex-  refer  (Smedslund,  o r i n h i s "ambiguous" heavy."  that  or i n d i r e c t l y  item"  " i t weighed  does,"  all  directly  to fall in  o f t h e Ss a p p e a r e d  "symbolic-category",  i n t h e same t e s t  still  -  The r e m a i n d e r  (1961b)  example,  98  or  conser-  symbolic-  than  extinction  half  of  trials  did extinguish.  It  should  bo  noted  conservation through  vation  this  the f i v e  However, tions  white  S_s g i v i n g  on  one  after  no  gave  conservation planations  Ss  s i x Ss  three  the second  o f number,  the to  number  responses  four  or t h i r d  Indian  in this  did.  On  lower  level  appears  than  hand  maintained  interesting  explanations  level  classification,  the other  resulting from  some  acquired  Ss  there  from  the t e s t  conser-  e x t i n c t i o n of 5_ was  Ss  trials.  gave  and  The  i n the  five  Ss  two  symbolic  task.  No  gave  two  original ex-  Indian  i n the i n i t i a l  white  one  explana-  Indians  conserva-  symbolic-  extinguished  on  the  ). study  do  not  seem  Although  of explanation, d i d not who  were  gave  the test  no  to  ex-  some  of  according  extinguish,  others  explanations  resistance to extinction.  that  be  explanation.  the e x t i n c t i o n r e s u l t s .  g i v i n g the highest  Smedslund's  number  extinction trial  adequately  Ss  five  of these  explanations  cannot  This  four  conservation  whereas  (three  conservation  In r e s i s t a n c e t o  three  task  plain  trials.  trial.  tion  Verbal  show  symbolic-logical explanations The  acquired  symbolic-logical  extinction after  task.  had  acquired  had  logical  symbolic-logical explanations  second  who  S_ d i d n o t  gave  logical  had  (1961c) r e s u l t s  giving  i n the o r i g i n a l  on  ( 1 3 5_s who  5s who  a symbolic  four  Ns  extinguish.  of c o n s e r v a t i o n  showed Ss  only  of weight  extinguished  whites  Only  d i d not  the other  extinction  11  Smedslund's  study,  conservation  to small and  conclusive.  'normally'  In  due  'normally'  training),  considered  of  that  99 -  at a  It also  mare s y m b o l i c - l o g i c a l  of conservation  of conservation  of weight.  of Chil-  - 100 dren  who  even  i f they  able  to offer  of  grasp  number  precedes  the p r i n c i p l e  cannot  an a d e q u a t e  since  conservation  conserve  for  the invariance t o be  i t adequately,  explanation  i t i s assumed t h a t  who  have  explain  of the invariance  both  of weight.  weight  o f number  stated.  On  hand,  children  cannot  external  v e r b a l i z a t i o n s , and y e t t h e y  of  produce  conservation.  validity  of verbal  criterion facile  minority  more  this  appeared  case  throughout  likely  children.  groups. to give  the t o t a l  the Indian  i f any  explanations  group  showed  as t h e s o l e  the white  childrsn  verbal  general  white  explanations  observation  sample)  than  c h i l d r e n were  resistant  slight  or t h e major verbally  superior  interpretation  of the r e s u l t s proposed  (and  t o be t h e  the  Indian  no more  judgments  likely about  to extinction.  superiority  A  been  of  i n less  i t appeared  has a l r e a d y  i n terms  the  to extinction,  procedures  that  about  resistance possible  mean  the question  that  no m o r e  i t does not  the idea  c h i l d r e n t o make c o r r e c t  and were  reason  grasp  particularly  the white  the  that  i t may  I t seems  t o t h e E_ f r o m  children  still  explanations  However,  conservation, fact,  raises  f o r conservation,  were  than  adequate  This  that  i s so o b v i o u s ,  the other  be  conservation  be t h a t  assume  still  the invariance  type.of  I t may  a n d number  should  about  this  of weight,  i n regards  t o be t h e I n d i a n  In to group.  of the e x t i n c t i o n  i n terms  of a  tempera-  mental v a r i a b l e . Training in  terms  parison  procedures  of changing with  in this  study,  non-conservers  the c o n t r o l group.  were  not s u c c e s s f u l  to conservers  This  i n com-  generalization i s  - 101 limited,  however,  by t h e v e r y  training  methods,  particularly  ternal the  reinforcement,  5s showed  small  fJ e m p l o y e d  i n t h e method  a n d by t h e f a c t  conservation  training  had begun  selected  f o r the t r a i n i n g  that  on t h e f i r s t  , e.g. 70% o f both method  i n both  of reverse ex-'  a great  trial,  before  Indians  of direct  many o f any  and w h i t e s  external  rein-  forcement . There conserved be  that  test  Indian  to  be a  number  s i x or seven  that  weeks  period.  period  after  period  that  after  neutrally  began  However,  spontaneously  testing;  was  i t seems i m -  relatively would  grasped  otherwise,  Indians  and w h i t e s  between  conservation  and f o r  the principle  in a  hypothesis  conserva-  f o r white  testing  grasp  of  also  within  there  resulting testing  lead asix  should from and t h e  f o r Indians.  explanation  indicate that  constituted  and t h e o n s e t  initial  weeks.  could  between t h e  t o produce  Training  conservation  initial  of time  of training A second  would  sufficient  In a d d i t i o n , t h i s  a d i f f e r e n c e between longer  of weight  s o many S s  explanation  had e l a p s e d  c h i l d r e n should  of weight  the conclusion  onset  which  was  f o r why  The f i r s t  o f Ss.  s o many  conservation  week  of time  c h i l d r e n ten or eleven  plausible  short  trial.  procedures  i n a large  children  explanations  f o r conservation  training  tion  of  on t h e f i r s t  the period  initial the  a r e two p o s s i b l e  appears  the i n i t i a l  a learning  testing  experience.  to a l l responses  made  more  acceptable.  This  f o r conservation  Although  t h e E_ r e a c t e d  by t h e 5_, c o r r e c t o r  - 102 incorrect, certain a  i t i s hard  change  correct  i n tone  response,  when  t h e _5 made t h e  some  clue  expected of  to of  having  him.  More  the  child's  may  have  started  the  task.  understanding may  It  seems  of  talked  likely  that  receiving  f o r these  E_ was  on  eager  to  several that  the  part  slight  about  of  the  F. when  indication  response the  kind  may of  drawn  S_ t h i n k i n g thought  principle about the  children  to  the  of  about of  have  what  was  i t and  more  to  of  from  of  thought  occasions told  by  the  an  parents.  being the  and  teachers experiment  in  himself,  and  constituted  the  was  fact  involved  came  his peers  absent  enjoyed  the  which  operations of  worthy  children  furnished  response  experience  attention,  S_ made  disappointment  c o n s e r v a t i o n by  i t with  being  the  A  questioning procedure,  about  actual  involved  participate.  neutrality*  i m p o r t a n t l y , however,  individual  event  schools  the  which  a  the  complete  f o l l o w e d by  have  have  experiment, and  the  may  on  attention  counting  He  maintain  incorrect  child  and  he  or  the  weighing  or  to  in  an  classroom a  significant  discussion. in  both  and  were  CHAPTER  IV  SUMMARY This the  study  generality  in  a tentative  of  cognitive  logical  age,  cultural task,  the  suggestion  on  which  and  way,  of  information  but  i n many  differing  differ  which  they  However,  depend they  on  about  groups,  chrono-  aspects of  home  and  more  groups  performance the  white  children  two  .'..slated  tasks,  cf weight.  Piaget  and  the  Both  tasks  i n conserved  age  and  around  nine  to  ten  I n d i a n s matched  with  34  whites,  There  weight  and  i n age  ihtellectual  years from  of  not  cognitive differ,  cognitive  the  task  variables  6-10  and  no  differences  attainment  of  conservation.  between  103  around years. on  was  i n grade  -  i n the  are  seven An  relevant  the  one  I n d i a n s and  of weight.  Accord-  years  initial basis  tested.  from  number  (1952).  C o n s e r v a t i o n of  before conservation  -  and  were  of  originate  development  schooling,  were  demonstrated  environmental  Columbia  his collaborators  number  ranged  the  cognitive  the  conservation  to Piaget,  grade  on  to do  of B r i t i s h  ing  sex,  a  environmental  h i s theory of  34  on  of the  i s relevant  on  determinants same  to  of  the  provide,  the  or  such  to  differ.  and  Jean  one  i f two  importantly  and  i n performance  differ  that  cross-culturally,  sequences  I f two  conservation  work  some  i s strong  Indian compared  of developmental  suggestion i s that on  explore,  development.  performance.  not  designed to  environment,  variables  does  was  of sample  of  age,  A l l S_s to  four.  whites number  in was  Although  there  was  an  with and  increase  grade, grade  second 67  the  and  eleven.  relationship  76  whites,  firmed.  On  Indians  and  the the  matched whole  whites  significantly  more  tent  for  tendency  to  increase  of  consorvation  again  second  effects  in  to  in  Indians  of  and  sample,  consisted  grades  one  to  were, no  in  The  before  of  between  was  a  and  sequential  conservation  of  con-  weight  number  A  The  main,  There  both  and  to  four.  the  consorvation  of  five  differences  conserved.  age  significance.  from  grade.  number  roach  with  conservation  age  conservation age  and  in  were  on  tasks  age  matched  sample  except  of  purpose  12  of  by  Indian  and  white  Ss.  nonconservation i n which  plasticine  from  weight)  a  discs  either  could  that  on the  Twelve had  one  plastic  with  of  conserve  where consis-  weight  development  of  weight  disc  was  of  number).  Piaget  conservation  and  determine  responses,  stability  consorvation  Indian  of  S_s w e r e in  compared  previous  and  weight.  after  one  or  removed  one  of  a  balls the  two  piece  cf  (conservation  piles  of  results  were  Smedslund  (1961c)  and  wore  less  Most extinction  These  responses  the  conservation  plasticine from  to  number  responses  the  was  demonstrated  S_ i n c o n s p i c u o u s l y  (consorvation  disagreement  S_s,  A l l Ss  5s  cr  study  method,  white  that  trials  they  this  testing made  this  e x t i n c t i o n procedures  compare,  the  with  with  not  ranging  there  both  demonstrated, A  and  did  A l l c h i l d r e n were from  in  between  i n c l u d i n g the  and  results  -  conservation  conservation  sample,  Indians  in  104  stable  of  plastic in indicate in  the  population greater rapid  tested  acceptance  extinction  between A  or  Indian  and  subsidiary  effectiveness servation weight.  of  of  methods  was  very  a  compared  external  ceiving  =  4  see  A  in  or  ethnic  objects  performing  a  Again,  S_ r e t u r n e d  information  control  tional ceive in  any  in  about  group was  7  did  not  groups  to  the  produce  objects  Indians,  The  from  control  his  pre-test  previous  a  the then  in  scales  shape.  tc  receive  weights.  whites  and  9  group  did  not  addire-  unsuccessful  was to  re-  reinforcement,  Indian  there  group,  his  presenting  were  group.  Although  responses the  control  methods  control  in  relative  7 matched  Training the  their  of  objects  initially,  the  an  correct.  similarity  to  cf  the  solely  in  after  inequality  was  of  and  method  method,  external  consisted  judgment  differ.  and  judgment  reverse  conserve  (196lb)  or  con-  Indians  return  consisted  included.  with  conservation  training  of  to  d i s s i m i l a r shapes  his  training*  comparison  children  in  equality  the  producing  Ten  this  fairly  explore  initially  By  his  group)  to  small.  allowed  the  e.g.  differences  was  disconfirmation  deformation  whites  thc  is  method,  plasticine  the  he  no  Smedslund's  reinforcement  second  each  to  whether  confirmation  judgment.  A  as  p l a s t i c i n e objects to  not  reinforcement.  judgment  scales  using  for  training in  N  made  Direct  of  were  study  Unfortunately,  external  the  this  did  direct  (N  purpose  who  cf  to  Ss.  There  Ss  were  the  Ss.  differences,  accounted  in  whites  has  temperamental  white  responses  -  authority,  most  two  10  S  that  of  of  105  and an  white increase  posttest  large  in  number  both of  - 106 5s  gave  The  conservation  results  acquired It's  seemed  in  the  experience  for  5_,  of  weighing  of  conservation  and  and  white any  that  children  less  tween not  Indians  either  or  and  ences  the  between  portant In  part  in  support  of  there  increase  age, as  the  strong  results  Piaget  to  is in  of  the  principle  interaction  before  find  the  groups  found.  with  do  the  age  and  was on  although  findings  determinants  play of  developmental weight  be-  environmental not  differim-  an  conservation.  sequence  confirmed. both  than  were  some,  These  no  later  differences  acquisition  conservation  between  a  g ave  responses  studies.  that  study  c... n s e r v a t i o n  concerning  the the  this  agreement  cultural  has  learning  operations  through  conservation  suggest  in  been  parents.  theories  number  relationship as  of  their  Piaget,  of  an  understanding  determining  conservation was  an  and  had  constituted a  or  trial.  posttest.  the  cress-cultural  two  and  a t t e n t i o n to  failure  They  the  conservation  children attain  whites  training  his  main  that  first  pre-test  pre-test  to  peers  implications for  conservation.  the  independently  This  a l l , previous  have  the  leading  stable.  between  drawing  Indian  on  i n d i c a t e that  that  conclusion,  evidence  of  to  d i s c u s s i o n with In  responses  interval  hypothesized  -  tests  conservation  of Although  with was  not  REFERENCES Almy,  M., C h i t t e n d e n , E . , &. M i l l e r , P» Young c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of the principle of conservation. Unpublished paper presented at Soc. Res. C h i l d . Develpm., 1965.  Ausubal,  D.P. ence.  A c c u l t u r a t i v e s t r e s s i n modern M a o r i C h i l d D e v e l p m . , 1 9 6 0 , _31, 6 1 7 - 6 3 1 .  Braine,  M.D.S. P i a g e t on r e a s o n i n g : a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l crit i q u e and a l t e r n a t i v e p r o p o s a l s . Monoqr. S o c . R e s . C h i l d D e v e l p m . , 1 9 6 2 , 8 3 , 27 ( 2 ) , 4 1 - 6 1 .  Braine,  M.D.S. Development o f a grasp l e n g t h : a r e p l y t o Smedslund. 1964, 35, 799-810.  Braine,  M.D.S. The ontogeny o f c e r t a i n l o g i c a l operations: P i a g e t ' s f o r m u l a t i o n e x a m i n e d by n o n v e r b a l methods. P s y c h o l . M o n o q r . . 1 9 5 9 , 1 3 , No. 4 ( W h o l e No. 4 7 5 ) .  Braine,  M.D.S. & S h a n k s , B . L . T h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f a s h a p e p r o p e r t y and a p r o p o s a l about t h e o r i g i n o f t h e conservations. Canad. J . P s y c h o l . , 1965, 1 9 ( 3 ) . 197-207.  Braine,  M.D.S. &, S h a n k s , B . L . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t tion of size. J . verb. Learning verb. press.  of conservaBehav.. i n  Bruner,  J . S . The c o u r s e o f c o g n i t i v e growth. l o g i s t . 1964, 19, 1-15.  Amer.  Cameron,  Ann. D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n c e n t i v e s between I n d i a n and w h i t e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . M.A. t h e s i s , Dept. o f Psychology, University of British Columbia, 1964.  Cameron,  A n n . &. S t o r m , T . Achievement m o t i v a t i o n i n CanadianI n d i a n , M i d d l e - and w o r k i n g - c l a s s children. fl§XcJl._Jl£P« » 1 9 6 5 , 1 6 , 4 5 9 - 4 6 3 .  Dodwell,  P.C. Children's understanding o f number a n d r e l a t e d concepts-. C a n a d . J . P s y c h o l . . 1960, 14, 191-203.  Elkind,  D. The development o f q u a n t i t a t i v e t h i n k i n g ; a s y s t e m a t i c r e p l i c a t i o n o f P i a g e t ' s s t u d i e s . J.. G e n e t . P s y c h o l . , 1961a, £ 8 , 37-46. -  107 -  adoles-  of t r a n s i t i v i t y of Child Develpm.,  Psycho-  -  Elkind,  108  -  D. Children's discovery m a s s , w e i g h t and v o l u m e : II. J . Genet. P s y c h o l . ,  of the Piaget 1961b,  conservation of replication study 98, 219-227.  F e i g e n b a u m , K.D. Task c o m p l e x i t y and I.Q. P i a g e t ' s problem of c o n s e r v a t i o n . 1963, 34. 4 2 3 - 4 3 2 .  as v a r i a b l e s i n C h i l d Develpm.,  F e i g e n b a u m , K.D. &. S u l k e n , H. P i a g e t ' s problem of conservat i o n of d i s c o n t i n u o u s q u a n t i t i e s : a t e a c h i n g experience. J . G e n e t . P s y c h o l . , 1964, 105_, 91-97. Flavell,  J.H. The Princeton,  Goodnow,  Jacqueline. A t e s t o f m i l i e u e f f e c t s w i t h some Piaget's tasks. P s y c h o l . Monoqr., 1962, 76(36), ( W h o l e No. 555) .  Gruen,  Developmental Psychology of Jean New J e r s e y : Van N o s t r a n d , 1963.  Piaget.  G.E. N o t e on c o n s e r v a t i o n : m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and definitional considerations. C h i l d Develpm., 37, 977-983.  of  1966,  H a w t h o r n e , H.B., T r e m b l a y , M.A., C a i r n s , A.C., Jamieson, 5. M., V ' . l l e e , F.G. &. R y a n , J o a n . A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada, 1966. Hood,  B.  An e x p e r i m e n t a l study of P i a g e t ' s d e v e l o p m e n t o f number i n c h i l d r e n . 1962, 5J3 , 3 , 2 7 3 - 2 8 6 .  Hyde,  D.M. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f P i a g e t ' s t h e o r i e s o f development of the concept o f number. Ph.D. U n i v e r s i t y of London, 1959.  Inhelder, Barbel. Some c o n c e p t s of P i a g e t ' s approach to c o g n i t i o n . Monoqr. Soc. D e v e l p m . , 1962, 83 , . 2 7 ( 2 ) , 1 9 - 3 4 .  theory of the Brit. J. Psychol..  the thesis.  genetic Res. Child  I n h e l d e r , B a r b e l , B o v e t , M., S i n c l a i r , H. &. Smock, C D . On c o g n i t i v e development. Amer. P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, 21, 1 6 0 - 1 6 4 . Kee,  H.  R e v e r s a l a n d n o n r e v e r s a l s h i f t s i n I n d i a n and children; M.A. t h e s i s , Dept. of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966.  white  Lovell,  K. The Growth o f B a s i c M a t h e m a t i c a l Concepts i n C h i l d r e n . London: Univ. Press, 1962.  and Scientific of London  Lovell,  K. &. O g i l v i e , E . A study of the c o n s e r v a t i o n of weight i n the j u n i o r s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . Brit. J. P s y c h o l . , 1961, 31, 1 3 8 - 1 4 4 .  -  109 -  Oleron,  P., P i a g e t , J . , I n h e l d e r , B., &. G r e c o , P. Traite de P s y c h o l o g i c E x p e r i m e n t a l e , VII L ' I n t e l l i g e n c e . P a r i s ; P r e s s e s U n i v . de F r a n c e , 1 9 6 3 .  Piaget,  J . The O r i g i n s o f I n t e l l i g e n c e i n C h i l d r e n . York: I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s , 1952.  Piaget,  J . The P s y c h o l o g y of Intelligence . Harcourt,Brace, 1950.  New  New  York:  P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , D.R. A study concerning concepts of conserv a t i o n o f q u a n t i t i e s among p r i m i t i v e c h i l d r e n * A c t a . P s y c h o l . , 1961, I B , 297-305. Sigel,  J . E . &. M e r m e l s t e i n , E. E f f e c t s o f n o n s c h o o l i n g on Piagetian tasks of conservation. Presented at A.P.A., S e p t . , 1 9 6 5 .  Smedslund, J . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e and w e i g h t i n c h i l d r e n . I . I n t r o d u c t i o n . Scand. J . P s y c h o l . . 1 9 6 1 a , 2, 1 1 - 2 0 . Smedslund, J . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n . II. External reinforcement of conservation of w e i g h t and o f t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f a d d i t i o n and s u b traction. S c a n d . J . P s y c h o l . , 1 9 6 l b , 2, 71-84. Smedslund, J . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e and w e i g h t i n children. I I I . E x t i n c t i o n of a conservation of w e i g h t a c q u i r e d ' n o r m a l l y ' a n d by means o f e m p i r i c a l c o n t r o l s on a b a l a n c e . Scand. J . P s y c h o l . , 1961c, 2, 8 5 - 8 7 . Smedslund, J . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e and w e i g h t i n c h i l d r e n . IV. A t t e m p t s.t e x t i n c t i o n of t h e v i s u a l components o f t h e weight concept. S c a n d . J . P s y c h o l . , 1 9 6 l d , 2, 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 . S m e d s l u n d , J . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e and w e i g h t i n c h i l d r e n . V. Practice in conflict s i t u a t i o n s without external reinforcement. Scand. J . P s y c h o l . , 1 9 6 l e , 2, 1 5 6 - 1 6 0 . S m e d s l u n d , J . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e and w e i g h t i n c h i l d r e n . V I . P r a c t i c e on c o n t i n u o u s vs. d i s c o n t i n u o u s m a t e r i a l i n problem s i t u a t i o n s without external reinforcement. Scand. J . Psychol., 1 9 6 l f , 2, 2 0 3 - 2 1 0 .  -  Smedslund, J . The and w e i g h t continuous and t a k i n g  110  -  a c q u i s i t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i o n of substance in children. VII. C o n s e r v a t i o n of d i s q u a n t i t y and t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f adding away. S c a n d . J . P s y c h o l . . 1 9 6 2 , _3, 6 9 - 7 7 .  Smedslund, J . C o n c r e t e r e a s o n i n g ;a s t u d y o f i n t e l l e c t u a l development. Monoqr. 5oc. Res. C h i l d Develpm., 1964, 93, 29(2"), 3-39. Vzgiris,  I. S i t u a t i o n a l g e n e r a l i t y of D e v e l p m . , 1964, 3_5, 8 3 1 - 8 4 1 .  Vernon,  P.E. Environmental h a n d i c a p s and intellectual development; P a r t I. B r i t . J . Educ. P s y c h o l . , 35(1), 9-20.  Vernon,  conservation.  Child  1965a,  P.E. Environmental h a n d i c a p s and intellectual development: Part I I . B r i t . J . Educ. P s y c h o l . , 35.(2), 1 1 7 - 1 2 6 .  1965b,  Vernon,  P.E. A b i l i t y f a c t o r s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l Amer. P s y c h o l . , 1 9 6 5 c , 2 0 ( 9 ) , 723-733.  influences.  W a l l ach,  M.A. R e s e a r c h on second Yearbook of of E d u c a t i o n , P a r t 236-276.'  Wallach,  L . &. S p r o t t , R.L. I n d u c i n g number c o n s e r v a t i o n i n children. C h i l d . D e v e l p m . , 1964, 3_5, 1 0 5 7 - 1 0 7 1 .  children's thinking. Sixty— the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study I. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,1963  W o h l w i l l , J.E. A study of the development c o n c e p t by s c a l o g r a m analysis. J. I960, £ 7 , 345-377.  of the Genet.  number Psychol.,  W o h l w i l l , J . E . &. Lowe, R.L. Experimental a n a l y s i s of the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f number. Child D e v e l p m . , 1962, 33., 1 5 3 - 1 6 7 . Zimiles,  H. A n o t e on P i a g e t ' s c o n c e p t of C h i l d D e v e l p m . . 1964, 34, 691-695.  conservation.  -  I l l -  APPENDIX  TABLE Age  N  and U n t e s t e d Grade L e v e l  Tested Children SD x(mths)  N  White  Untested Children 5D x(mths)  t  P  1  22  81.45  3.81  16  79.13  3.54  1.91  2  12  92.83  5.90  25  95.00  4 .18  1.29  N.S.  3  30  106.33  5.44  9  105.11  4.17  .62  N.S.  4  12  119.83  5.24  26  116.42  5.22  1.87  TABLE  at  1  Comparison of Tested C h i l d r e n at Each  Grade  I  2  Number o f T e s t e d a n d U n t e s t e d W h i t e C h i l d r e n E a c h G r a d e L e v e l who h a d R e p e a t e d o n e o r more G r a d e s Grade  Tested  Children  Untested  Children  1  1/22  0/16  2  3/12  4/25  3  5/30  1/9  4  1/12  3/27  >.05  >.05  Appendix  1  Trials  Trials  1 - 4 : 2  red balls, into:  5 - 8 : 2  13-16:  Session  pancake  no, 8  d)  weight;  b) 4 b a l l s  changed  pancake The  c) no, 8  same  was  d) 2  weight*  One  c) b a l l  d)  heaviest  balls  snake  was  sausage  b) 4 b a l l s  c) snake  d)  sausage  II  1 - 4 :  2 blue sausages, d i f f e r e n t weight. l i g h t e s t s a u s a g e was c h a n g e d into:  5 - 8 :  cake  9 -12:  13-16:  b) 4 b a l l s  c) 2 b a l l s  The  d) n o . 8  2 g r o u p s o f 2 g r e e n b a l l s , same w e i g h t . g r o u p o f b a l l s was c h a n g e d into: b)  cake  c) no. 8  2 yellow pancakes, d i f f e r e n t h e a v i e s t p a n c a k e was c h a n g e d a)  Trials  ball  c) cake  b) s n a k e  pancake  a) b a l l Trials  One  2 groups o f 2 green b a l l s , d i f f e r e n t weight. T h e l i g h t e s t g r o u p o f b a l l s was c h a n g e d into:  a) Trials  b) s n a k e  9 -12: 2 y e l l o w s n a k e s , changed into:  a)  Trials  sausage  same w e i g h t ,  blue cakes, d i f f e r e n t c a k e was c h a n g e d into:  a) Trials  3  I  a) Trials  TABLE  f o r Direct External Reinforcement of C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight  a) Trials  -  (cont'd) •  Session  112  2 balls  b) c a k e  c) b a l l  2 r e d n o . 8 s , same w e i g h t . changed into: a) s n a k e  b) b a l l  c) pancake  d) 4  balls  weight. into: d) 4 One  d)  The  balls  n o . 8 was  sausage  One  Appendix  1  113  (cont'd) TABLE  Trials  Session  -  4  f o r Reverse External Reinforcement of C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Weight I  Trial  1:  o n e r e d b a l l , o n e r e d s a u s a g e , same w e i g h t . s a u s a g e was c h a n g e d i n t o a b a l l .  Trial  2: o n e r e d b a l l , o n e r e d s n a k e , was c h a n g e d i n t o a s n a k e .  Trial  3: o n e r e d b a l l , o n e r e d c a k e , was c h a n g e d i n t o a b a l l .  Trial  4:  Trial  5: o n e b l u e c a k e , o n e h e a v i e r b l u e p a n c a k e . p a n c a k e was c h a n g e d i n t o a c o k e .  Trial  6:  o n e b l u e c a k e , one h e a v i e r changed i n t o a snake.  blue  snake.  The cake  Trial  7:  o o e b l u e c a k e , one h e a v i e r was c h a n g e d i n t o a c a k e .  blue  n o . 8.  The no, 8  Trial  8:  o n e b l u e c a k e , two h e a v i e r was c h a n g e d i n t o 2 b a l l s .  blue  balls.  The  Trial  9:  one y e l l o w s n a k e , one y e l l o w n o . 8, same T h e n o . 8 was c h a n g e d i n t o a s n a k e .  Trial  1 0 : o n e y e l l o w s n a k e , 4 y e l l o w b a l l s , same T h e s n a k e was c h a n g e d i n t o 4 b a l l s .  Trial  1 1 : one y e l l o w s n a k e , one y e l l o w b a l l , T h e b a l l was c h a n g e d i n t o n s n a k e .  Trial  1 2 : one y e l l o w s n a k e , o n e y e l l o w s a u s a g e , T h e s n a k e was c h a n g e d i n t o a s a u s a g e .  Trial  1 3 : two b r o w n b a l l s , o n e l i g h t e r b r o w n p a n c a k e was c h a n g e d i n t o 2 b a l l s .  Trial  1 4 : two b r o w n b a l l s were  Trial  1 5 : two b r o w n b a l l s , s n a k e was c h a n g e d  Trial  1 6 : two b r o w n b a l l s were  same w e i g h t .  The  same w e i g h t .  o n e r e d b a l l , o n e r e d p a n c a k e , same b a l l was c h a n g e d i n t o a p a n c a k e .  b a l l s , 4 l i g h t e r brown changed i n t o 4 b a l l s .  b a l l s , one l i g h t e r b r o w n changed i n t o a sausage.  ball  The cake  weight.  The  The  was  cake  weight.  weight.  same  weight.  same  pancake.  balls.  one l i g h t e r b r o w n into 2 bolls.  The  weight.  The  The 2  snake.  sausage.  The  The  -  114  -  Appendix 1 (cont'd) Tabic 4 (cont'd) 5ession  II  Trial  1:  o n e b l u e s a u s a g e , one l i g h t e r was c h a n g e d i n t o a s a u s a g e .  blue  cake.  The  cake  Trial  2:  one b l u e s a u s a g e , 4 l i g h t e r was c h a n g e d i n t o 4 b a l l s .  Trial  3;  one b l u e s a u s a g e , wore changed i n t o  Trial  4:  o n e b l u e s a u s a g e , one l i g h t e r b l u e s a u s a g e was c h a n g e d i n t o a n o . 8.  Trial  5: two o r a n g e b a l l s , o n e o r a n g e b a l l , same T h e b a l l was c h a n g e d i n t o 2 b a l l s .  weight.  Trial  6:  weight.  Trial  7: two o r a n g e b a l l s , o n e o r a n g e n o . B, same T h e n o . 8 was c h a n g e d i n t o 2 b a l l s .  Trial  8:  two o r a n g e b a l l s , 4 o r a n g e b a l l s , same The 2 b a l l s were changed i n t o 4 b a l l s .  Trial  9:  o n e y e l l o w p a n c a k e , two h e a v i e r y e l l o w b a l l s . two b a l l s w e r e c h a n g e d i n t o a p a n c a k e .  Trial  10: one y e l l o w p a n c a k e was  p a n c a k e , one h e a v i e r y e l l o w changed i n t o a cake.  cake.  The  Trial  1 1 : one y e l l o w p a n c a k e , one h e a v i e r y e l l o w b a l l was c h a n g e d i n t o a p a n c a k e .  ball.  The  Trial  12; one y e l l o w p a n c a k e , pancake was c h a n g e d  Trial  1 3 : o n e r e d n o . 8, o n e r e d s n a k e , same w e i g h t . s n a k e was c h a n g e d i n t o a n o . 8.  Trial  1 4 : o n e r e d n o . 8, o n e r e d b a l l , same n o . 8 was c h a n g e d i n t o a b a l l .  Trial  1 5 : o n e r e d n o . 8, one r e d p a n c a k e , same p a n c a k e was c h a n g e d i n t o a n o * 8.  weight.  The  Trial  1 6 : o n e r e d n o . B, o n e r e d s a u s a g e , same w e i g h t . n o . 8 was c h a n g e d i n t o a s a u s a g e .  The  blue  balls.  The  sausage  2 l i g h t e r blue a sausage.  balls.  The  balls  n o . 8.  two o r n n g e b a l l s , one o r a n g e c a k e , same The 2 b a l l s were c h a n g e d i n t o a c a k e .  4 heavier yellow into 4 balls.  The  weight.  weight.  balls.  weight;  The  The  The  The  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104632/manifest

Comment

Related Items