Identity, Language‐activation Training and Conservation

Abstract

The relation between (non-) conservation responses and the reasons given for these reactions was investigated among 80 6-year-old children. It was found that partial conservers gave perceptual reasons for their non-conservation responses and identity arguments for their conservation reactions. Language-activation training promoted both the acquisition of the conservation response and the giving of an adequate reason for this response by those children who were partial conservers and already on the border line of conservation. The role played by the identity concept in conservation-acquisition was stressed in interpreting these results.

The Anticipation of Conservation Phenomenon: Conservation or Pseudoconservation

“…The observations of Acredolo and Acredolo lend support not only to Bruner's model of conservation development but also to the models of several other researchers (e.g., Gelman 1969;Gelman & Weinberg 1972;Gibson 1969;Hamel & Riksen 1973;Hamel, Van der Veer, & Westerhof 1972;Larsen & Flavell 1970;Mehler & Bever 1967, 1968). These individuals have suggested and provided evidence that conservation development may be mediated, in part, by the child's capacity to recognize the maintenance of qualitative identity (i.e., it is the same substance) and/or quantitative identity (i.e., it is the same amount-none of the substance has been added or taken away).…”

Acquisition of conservation through cognitive dissonance.

“…The issue of whether nonconservers were simply parroting the conservation pretense as the reason on the posttests is not clear because practically the only conservation reason (viz., identity) given later by the initial nonconservers was one that occurred in the dissonance treatment; but it was also the one the natural conservers gave spontaneously. Indeed, there is evidence that the identity reason is common in beginning conservers (Botvin & Murray, 1975;Hamel, Van der Veer, & Westerhof, 1972;Murray, 1972). The conservation reason consisted of an identity component and a "nothing was added or subtracted" reason component.…”

Acquisition of Conservation: a Clarification of Piagetian Terminology, Some Recent Findings, and an Alternative Formulation

“…Note that identity theory explains the prevalence of identity explanations among early conservers and among stage 2 transitional conservers (Hamel et al, 1972). The theory also explains how children might jump from empirical return to inversion.…”

“…One frequently proposed alternative route toward the acquisition of con servation centers on the child's early capacity to recognize the maintenance of identity, either qualitative the absence of any change in material substance -(e g., Bruner, 1966;Hamel, 1971;Hamel et al, 1972), or quantitative -the absence of an addition or subtraction of substance -(e.g., Gelman, 1969;Mehler and Bever, 1967;Smedslund, 1961;Wohlwill and Lowe, 1962), or both. Piaget (1965;see also Wallach, 1969) has dispelled the identity argument on the logical grounds that if identity were playing a causal role there would be a better correlation between the recognition of identity and conservation.…”