Boys (N = 70) in Grades 1 and 2 were preselected for verbal ability and given measures of conservation and negation. Of 59 boys who gave at least one logical justification on the conservation tasks, where the probing consisted of one question, only 5 boys used justifications of negation. Users of negation were matched with nonusers and retested using probing with as many as five questions. The users needed significantly fewer questions per task to elicit such justifications than nonusers and each was operational on the negation measure. Negation may be more relevant for the acquisition of conservation by users than by the majority of these children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BotvinA.MurrayF.The efficacy of peer modeling and social conflict in the acquisition of conservation. Child Development, 1975, 46, 796–799.
2.
BrainerdC.Judgments and explanations as criteria for the presence of cognitive structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 172–179.
3.
BrainerdC.AllenT.Experimental inductions of the conservation of “first-order” quantitative invariants. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 128–144.
4.
BrekkeB.WilliamsJ.Reversibility preceding conservation and reading readiness. Journal of Psychology, 1975, 90, 191–196.
5.
BrunerJ.OlverR.GreenfieldP. (Eds.) Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 1966.
6.
CathcartW.The relationship between primary students' rationalizations of conservation and their mathematical achievement. Child Development, 1971, 42, 755–765.
DunnL.Expanded manual for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1965.
9.
GentileT.MpianguB.GentileP.Conservation of liquids and compensation of relations: Processes and arguments. Child Study Journal, 1972, 2, 157–174.
10.
GladstoneR.PalazzoR.Empirical evidence for reversibility by inversion. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 942–948.
11.
GoldschmidM.BentlerP.Conservation Concept Diagnostic Kit: Manual and keys. San Diego: Educational & Industrial Testing Service, 1968.
12.
GoodnowJ.Compensation arguments on conservation tasks. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 8, 140.
13.
GruenG.VoreD.Development of conservation in normal and retarded children. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 145–157.
14.
InhelderB.PiagetJ.La genèse des structures logiques élementaires. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959.
15.
InhelderB.SinclairH.Learning cognitive structures. In MussenP.LangerJ.CovingtonM. (Eds.), Trends and issues in developmental psychology. Toronto: Holt, 1969. Pp. 2–21.
16.
LovellK.OgilvieE.A study of the conservation of substance in the junior school child. British Journal of Educational Research, 1960, 30, 109–118.
17.
MurrayJ.Social learning and cognitive development: Modelling effects on children's understanding of conservation. British Journal of Psychology, 1974, 65, 151–160.
18.
O'BryanR.MacarthurR.Reversibility, intelligence and creativity in nine-year-old boys. Child Development, 1969, 40, 33–45.
19.
PiagetJ.The child's conception of number. New York: Norton, 1965. (Originally published, 1941)
20.
PiagetJ.Cognitions and conservations: Two views. [Review of Studies in cognitive growth by BrunerJ.OlverR.GreenfieldP, (Eds.)] Contemporary Psychology, 1967, 12, 532–533.
21.
SheppardJ.Compensation and combinatorial systems in the acquisition and generalization of conservation. Child Development, 1974, 45, 717–730.
22.
SoenstroemA.On the conservation of solids. In BrunerJ.OlverR.GreenfieldP. (Eds.), Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 1966. Pp. 208–224.
23.
YoungG.The use of negation, identity, and reciprocity justifications on conservation tasks. Unpublished Master's thesis, Univer. of Western Ontario, 1971.
24.
ZimmermanB.RosenthalT.Conserving and retaining equalities and inequalities through observation and correction. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 260–268.
