1. Samuel & Bryant Developmental Psychology The Core Studies

2. Background

3. Aim The aim of Samuel and Bryant’s study was to challenge Piaget's findings by altering the method used by Piaget.

4. Sample The participants were 252 boys and girls between the ages of 5 and 8.5. They were all in schools and playgroups in and around Crediton, Devon. They were divided into four age groups of 63 children, whose mean ages were: 5 years 3 months 6 years 3 months 7 years 3 months 8 years 3 months

5. Method Lab experiment Snapshot study Observation (slightly) IV: The three conditions, the four age groups and the three kinds of materials used. DV: The dependent variable was the number of errors made by the children Controls: Every child did every condition, same materials

6. Procedure

9. Results 5 year olds made the most errors whereas the 8 year olds made the least errors Fixed array produced the most errors whereas one question produces the least errors Volume produced the most errors whereas number produced the least errors

10. Conclusions Age has a large impact on our ability to conserve, and the study did prove that children under 7 have difficulties especially when conserving. The ability to conserve is affected by the way we are asked (whether twice or once) Our ability to conserve is affected by material (number can be seen as easier) Our ability to conserve is affected by seeing the transformation or not Piaget’s conclusion that our cognitive abilities develop with age was proved as the 8 year olds did perform better in conservation tasks than the 5 year olds Piaget said that children in the pre-operational stage of cognitive development can’t conserve however in the study we see that children as young as 5 can.

11. Strengths of the study Very large sample so very generalizable to how all children go through the stages of cognitive development and their abilities of conservation The main strength of Samuel and Bryant’s experiment was the amount of control they had over possible confounding variables. The children had to do four attempts at each conservation task which eliminates the possibility that the children answered incorrectly or correctly by chance, and order effects were controlled for by varying the order of the tasks.

12. Weaknesses of the study Ecological validity is low because of the controlled conditions in the laboratory set environment Demand characteristics or prompting could have occurred when children were asked the conservation question twice. The child may have thought that they were asked a second time because the first answer was not correct, decreasing the validity of results The sample is ethonocentric

13. Evaluation of sample Very large sample (252) which means that it can be seen as generalizable to children in the Devonshire area especially Children of various ages were used which means that researchers were able to note how different conservation skills develop with age Although a large sample was used, it is ethnocentric, making it less generalizable and representative of children’s conservation abilities anywhere else

14. Evaluation of method Lots of high control because of it being a lab experiment, which means that extraneous and confounding variables are eliminated Cause and effect can therefore be established A weakness is that it is low in ecological validity

15. Changes to the study Make the study less ethnocentric by taking a sample from schools all over the country Make the study high in ecological validity by conducting it at home (think about parents leading questions)