• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

When do Children really understand conservation?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

When do Children really understand conservation? McGarrigle, J. and Donaldson, M. (1974) Altaf Korimbocus This study was done to see if young children really understood number conservation. This was based on a study carried out by Piaget, where children were presented with some counters that were separated and than with the same amount of counters but this time they were pushed together, and asked if there were less counters than before. McGarrigle and Donaldson thought that children did know that there was the same amount of counters but in Piagets' experiment the children may have thought that Piaget wanted them to say that there were less counters. To solve this McGarrigle and Donaldson made it seem that the counters were pushed together accidentally rather than on purpose. In the control condition 80 children were used, using the Piagets' method, where the experimenter pushed the counters together. The same children were used in the experimental condition where the children were presented with two rows of counters but this time the participants were told that a 'naughty teddy' had ran across the table and pushed the counters together. ...read more.

Middle

finally the research method was not known and so cannot be evaluated fully. Ethically the experiment was not excellent and some points were neglected, one is that the children were told what they were doing and they were not briefed, also if the participant did not get the answer right they may be made to fell 'stupid', they should have been reassured even if they did not get the answer correct. When do babies really acquire an understanding of object permanence? Baillargeon and DeVos Altaf Korimbocus This experiment was carried out to see if babies understand object permanence. This again is based on one of Piaget's theories that babies will not pursue an object once it is out of sight, meaning they do not have an understanding of object permanence. But this may not be the reason that they did not pursue the object it could be that the just did not have the coordination to do so. ...read more.

Conclusion

The sample was of an unknown number of three month old babies. By only using three month old babies it made the experiment lack generalisability other age groups could have been used which would have improve the experiment also the gender of the babies was not known. This experiment was not repeated but could have and so it would have improved the reliability of the results. The validity of the results is quite good because the risk of demand characteristics is minimal because the experimenter was just merely observing the baby and did not have much contact with it. There was a set way to do the experiment so this would also reduce experimenter bias, this could not influence what the baby looked at. Ethically this experiment is hard to say if it was ethically correct because babies were used and couldn't be briefed etc. However the babies were not put though and discomfort, however the fact the carrot the carrot just disappeared could have confused the baby. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Developmental Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work