86:I[871206,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15"],"IconMark"] 87:I[196793,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"Gingerbread"] 89:"RecordResourceResume" 8a:I[647935,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"$89"] 8b:I[473028,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"RecordTopicView"] 8c:"FlashcardAccessBranch" 8d:I[830476,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"$8c"] 8e:"TopicFlashcardRunner" 8f:I[315438,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"$8e"] 74:null 7a:[["$","title","0",{"children":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) - Flashcards | MathsGenie"}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Revise 2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) with free resources on MathsGenie."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"application-name","content":"MathsGenie"}],["$","meta","3",{"name":"robots","content":"index, follow"}],["$","link","4",{"rel":"canonical","href":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/gcse/psychology/ocr/2-2-5-cognitive-development-research-study-piaget-1952/flashcards"}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:title","content":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) - Flashcards"}],["$","meta","6",{"property":"og:description","content":"Revise 2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) with free resources on MathsGenie."}],["$","meta","7",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/gcse/psychology/ocr/2-2-5-cognitive-development-research-study-piaget-1952/flashcards"}],["$","meta","8",{"property":"og:site_name","content":"MathsGenie"}],["$","meta","9",{"property":"og:locale","content":"en_GB"}],["$","meta","10",{"property":"og:image","content":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/api/og?title=2.2.5%20Cognitive%20Development%20research%20study%3A%20Piaget%20(1952)%20-%20Flashcards"}],["$","meta","11",{"property":"og:image:width","content":"1200"}],["$","meta","12",{"property":"og:image:height","content":"630"}],["$","meta","13",{"property":"og:image:alt","content":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) - Flashcards"}],["$","meta","14",{"property":"og:type","content":"website"}],["$","meta","15",{"name":"twitter:card","content":"summary_large_image"}],["$","meta","16",{"name":"twitter:title","content":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) - Flashcards"}],["$","meta","17",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Revise 2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) with free resources on MathsGenie."}],["$","meta","18",{"name":"twitter:image","content":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/api/og?title=2.2.5%20Cognitive%20Development%20research%20study%3A%20Piaget%20(1952)%20-%20Flashcards"}],["$","link","19",{"rel":"icon","href":"/favicon.ico?favicon.2j0dv-gmf2vmi.ico?dpl=nogit-1793874494","sizes":"256x256","type":"image/x-icon"}],["$","link","20",{"rel":"icon","href":"/icon.svg?icon.0odudpcuyu_1t.svg?dpl=nogit-1793874494","sizes":"any","type":"image/svg+xml"}],["$","link","21",{"rel":"apple-touch-icon","href":"/apple-icon.png?apple-icon.3cq-u4n9i7l9o.png?dpl=nogit-1793874494","sizes":"180x180","type":"image/png"}],["$","$L86","22",{}]] 71:[["$","$L87",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L88",["$","$L8a",null,{"href":"/gcse/psychology/ocr/2-2-5-cognitive-development-research-study-piaget-1952/flashcards","label":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952)","subjectCode":"gcse_psychology__ocr","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L8b",null,{"kind":"flashcards","topicId":"6cc59627-0640-4ebb-a52d-5c1d62353f4e"}],["$","$L8d",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L8f",null,{"decks":[{"id":"d13ed2fa-0173-4830-a532-bb5234903f3b","title":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) Flashcards","topicId":"6cc59627-0640-4ebb-a52d-5c1d62353f4e","topicSlug":"2-2-5-cognitive-development-research-study-piaget-1952","cards":[{"id":"ae57a11f-fe28-463e-b729-35a5425e834e","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What was Piaget's independent variable?","back":"Age of the children.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Age of the children.","correct":true,"explanation":"Age was the independent variable because Piaget compared children from different age groups. It was the factor that naturally differed between groups and was used to investigate changes in conservation ability."},{"text":"Number of counters.","correct":false,"explanation":"The number of counters was kept matched between rows, so it was controlled rather than manipulated. The independent variable was the children’s age, which Piaget compared across separate groups."},{"text":"Length of the rows.","correct":false,"explanation":"The row length was changed during the conservation task, making it part of the procedure rather than the independent variable. Piaget’s independent variable was the children’s age."},{"text":"Whether the child conserved number.","correct":false,"explanation":"The child’s conservation response was the outcome measured in the study, so it was the dependent variable. Age was the independent variable because different age groups were compared."}]},{"id":"4bf8cae4-dc13-445a-bea9-4da9bc530987","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What was Piaget's dependent variable?","back":"Whether the child could conserve number.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Whether the child could conserve number.","correct":true,"explanation":"Piaget measured whether each child recognised that the number of counters stayed constant after one row was spread out. This measured response was the dependent variable."},{"text":"Age of the children.","correct":false,"explanation":"Age was the factor used to compare groups, so it was the independent variable. The dependent variable was each child’s response about whether the number of counters had changed."},{"text":"Distance between the counters.","correct":false,"explanation":"The spacing was deliberately altered as part of the task, rather than measured as the study’s outcome. Piaget measured whether children conserved number after this visual change."},{"text":"Length of the table.","correct":false,"explanation":"The table’s length was irrelevant to the measured outcome and was not used to assess cognitive development. The dependent variable was the child’s conservation judgement."}]},{"id":"d523cb14-5d24-4117-8dc7-35b097253291","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why was Piaget's study a natural experiment?","back":"Natural experiment, because age could not be manipulated.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Natural experiment, because age could not be manipulated.","correct":true,"explanation":"Age already existed as a participant characteristic and could not ethically or practically be assigned by the researcher. Piaget therefore compared naturally occurring age groups."},{"text":"Laboratory experiment, because the counters were controlled.","correct":false,"explanation":"Using standardised counters does not make a study a laboratory experiment. The crucial point is that age was not manipulated; it was a naturally occurring independent variable."},{"text":"Field experiment, because children were tested at school.","correct":false,"explanation":"A field experiment requires the researcher to manipulate an independent variable in a natural setting. Piaget could not manipulate age, so the study was a natural experiment."},{"text":"Quasi-experiment, because children gave verbal answers.","correct":false,"explanation":"Giving verbal answers does not determine the experimental type. The study is classified as natural because the researcher compared existing age groups without manipulating their ages."}]},{"id":"12ce911c-24ef-47d6-8cb1-00983aa436ec","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What experimental design did Piaget use?","back":"Independent measures, because separate age groups were compared.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Independent measures, because separate age groups were compared.","correct":true,"explanation":"Different children took part in the different age groups, so each participant experienced only one level of the age variable. This is an independent-measures design."},{"text":"Repeated measures, because every child saw two rows.","correct":false,"explanation":"Seeing two rows describes the task, not the experimental design. Repeated measures would require the same children to take part in different age conditions, which is impossible here."},{"text":"Matched pairs, because children were matched by age.","correct":false,"explanation":"Matched pairs requires participants to be paired on relevant characteristics before receiving different conditions. Piaget compared separate age groups rather than creating matched participant pairs."},{"text":"Covert observation, because children were unaware of the aim.","correct":false,"explanation":"Covert observation is a way of collecting behavioural data, not the design used to compare groups. Piaget used independent measures with different children in each age group."}]},{"id":"b30ca13a-9b04-4abd-a346-84c1845d1855","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What does conservation of number allow a child to recognise?","back":"Conservation of number means recognising that the number stays the same when appearance changes.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Conservation of number means recognising that the number stays the same when appearance changes.","correct":true,"explanation":"Conservation means understanding that quantity remains constant despite a change in visual appearance. Spreading the counters apart changes their arrangement, not how many counters there are."},{"text":"Conservation of number means recognising that the number increases when objects are spread out.","correct":false,"explanation":"Spreading objects apart changes their spacing but does not add objects. Conservation requires recognising that the quantity remains unchanged, despite the altered appearance."},{"text":"Conservation of number means recognising that objects become smaller when appearance changes.","correct":false,"explanation":"Conservation concerns quantity, not the physical size of objects. A visual change can make a row look different, but the number remains constant unless objects are added or removed."},{"text":"Conservation of number means recognising that the longer row contains fewer objects.","correct":false,"explanation":"The length of a row does not determine how many counters it contains. Conservation is the recognition that the number stays the same after the arrangement changes."}]},{"id":"443e99d5-ba82-4c47-9e2b-65c32f0809b3","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What materials were used in Piaget's conservation task?","back":"Two identical parallel rows of counters, matched in one-to-one correspondence.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Two identical parallel rows of counters, matched in one-to-one correspondence.","correct":true,"explanation":"Two equal rows allowed Piaget to establish that the counters initially matched one-to-one. He could then spread one row out and test whether children understood that quantity was unchanged."},{"text":"Two unequal parallel rows of counters, matched in one-to-one correspondence.","correct":false,"explanation":"The rows needed to begin with equal quantities so that conservation could be tested fairly. Starting with unequal rows would make a later judgement about equality ambiguous."},{"text":"One circular row of counters, arranged at random.","correct":false,"explanation":"The task used two parallel rows to provide a clear initial comparison. A single random arrangement would not establish the matched starting point needed to test conservation."},{"text":"Two identical piles of counters, matched by colour.","correct":false,"explanation":"The important matching was one-to-one correspondence in parallel rows, not colour matching in piles. The rows made the effect of spreading one arrangement visually clear."}]},{"id":"9acacd53-284b-479d-a258-f36ee11c7986","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"How was each child tested?","back":"Individually, so children could not be influenced by another child's answer.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Individually, so children could not be influenced by another child's answer.","correct":true,"explanation":"Testing children separately prevented peer answers from influencing their judgements. This made each response a more direct measure of the child’s own understanding of conservation."},{"text":"In pairs, so children could compare their answers.","correct":false,"explanation":"Pair testing could introduce conformity or imitation, allowing one child’s answer to influence another. Piaget tested children individually to avoid this source of bias."},{"text":"In groups, so the task could be completed more quickly.","correct":false,"explanation":"Group testing would make children’s answers less independent because they could hear or observe peers. The procedure tested each child separately to avoid social influence."},{"text":"By questionnaire, so answers could be collected anonymously.","correct":false,"explanation":"A questionnaire was not the method used for this practical conservation task. Piaget presented the counters to each child individually and recorded the child’s response."}]},{"id":"7beb0ef9-2a11-46ad-b0dd-257787d58521","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What question was first asked about the two rows?","back":"The child was shown two matched rows and asked whether they contained the same number.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The child was shown two matched rows and asked whether they contained the same number.","correct":true,"explanation":"The initial question checked that the child recognised the two rows contained equal quantities before one row was altered. This established a baseline for the conservation test."},{"text":"The child was shown two matched rows and asked whether they contained different colours.","correct":false,"explanation":"Colour was not the quantity being tested in this task. The child was first asked whether the matched rows contained the same number of counters."},{"text":"The child was shown two matched rows and asked whether they contained the same length.","correct":false,"explanation":"The task focused on the number of counters, not whether the rows had equal physical length. The initial question established that the quantities appeared equal."},{"text":"The child was shown two matched rows and asked whether they contained more space.","correct":false,"explanation":"The amount of space occupied was changed later to create the visual illusion. The first question asked children to compare the number of counters in the matched rows."}]},{"id":"88fb6a1e-eabc-47d0-927e-e69d5817615d","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What change was made to one row of counters?","back":"One row was spread out so it stretched further across the table.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"One row was spread out so it stretched further across the table.","correct":true,"explanation":"Spreading one row increased the distance between its counters and made that row look longer. No counters were added or removed, allowing conservation of number to be tested."},{"text":"One row was shortened so it occupied less space on the table.","correct":false,"explanation":"The key manipulation made one row longer, not shorter. Reducing its length would reverse the visual change used to test whether children relied on appearance."},{"text":"One row was rotated so it pointed across the table.","correct":false,"explanation":"The counters stayed in parallel rows; their orientation was not the critical change. One row was spread out to alter its apparent length without changing quantity."},{"text":"One row was increased by adding more counters to the table.","correct":false,"explanation":"Adding counters would genuinely change the quantity and would not test conservation fairly. Piaget only changed the spacing, leaving the number of counters constant."}]},{"id":"05a86023-6122-42a8-bb9c-3a8ee961887b","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What important step followed spreading out one row?","back":"The same question was asked again after one row was spread out.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The same question was asked again after one row was spread out.","correct":true,"explanation":"Repeating the quantity question after altering the spacing tested whether the child understood that appearance had changed while the number remained constant."},{"text":"A different question was asked about the colour of the counters.","correct":false,"explanation":"Changing the question would prevent a direct comparison of the child’s judgements before and after the arrangement changed. The same question about quantity was repeated."},{"text":"The counters were removed before the child answered again.","correct":false,"explanation":"Removing counters would alter the actual quantity and undermine the conservation test. The counters remained present while the same question was asked after spreading one row."},{"text":"The rows were matched again before the child answered again.","correct":false,"explanation":"The purpose was to assess the child’s response while the rows looked different. The same question followed the spreading of one row, before the rows were returned."}]},{"id":"1f269074-6cb0-47fc-82b2-1eda1b7849d8","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did three- and four-year-olds say after one row was spread out?","back":"They said the spread-out row had more counters.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They said the spread-out row had more counters.","correct":true,"explanation":"Younger children often centred on the longer visual row and judged it to contain more counters. This shows difficulty understanding that spacing does not alter quantity."},{"text":"They said the shorter row had more counters.","correct":false,"explanation":"The common error was to choose the visually longer row, not the shorter one. The spread-out row appeared larger and was therefore judged to have more counters."},{"text":"They said the two rows had equal counters.","correct":false,"explanation":"Recognising equality after spreading shows conservation, which was generally not yet secure in three- and four-year-olds. They typically judged the longer-looking row to contain more."},{"text":"They said the counters had disappeared.","correct":false,"explanation":"The counters remained visible throughout the task, so disappearance was not the typical response. Younger children were misled by the longer appearance and selected that row as having more."}]},{"id":"5b31fafa-54bb-4e62-8922-3f984c3654af","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What did five- and six-year-olds typically say after the row was spread out?","back":"They often recognised the number was unchanged, but could not justify their reasoning.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They often recognised the number was unchanged, but could not justify their reasoning.","correct":true,"explanation":"Children of this age could often give the conserved answer, yet their explanations were not consistently logical or reversible. Their understanding was therefore developing rather than fully secure."},{"text":"They usually decided the spread-out row had more counters, and justified this by its length.","correct":false,"explanation":"This appearance-based error is more typical of the youngest children. Five- and six-year-olds often recognised that the quantity was unchanged, even when they struggled to explain why."},{"text":"They recognised the number was unchanged, and always explained the reversal correctly.","correct":false,"explanation":"Consistent, logically justified explanations are associated with more developed conservation. Children aged five and six often reached the right judgement without being able to justify it."},{"text":"They thought the number was reduced, because the counters were farther apart.","correct":false,"explanation":"Spacing the counters apart does not remove any counters, so reduction is not the typical conservation response. This age group often understood that the number remained unchanged."}]},{"id":"18b428ff-ffbf-4074-94a5-76ec8e92edb8","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What did children aged seven and above say after one row was spread out?","back":"They recognised the rows were equal and could explain why.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They recognised the rows were equal and could explain why.","correct":true,"explanation":"By around seven years, children typically understood that spreading the counters changed only their arrangement. They could justify equality by recognising that no counters had been added or removed."},{"text":"They recognised the rows were unequal because one was longer.","correct":false,"explanation":"Judging quantity from row length is the centration error seen in younger children. Older children generally recognised that the rows remained equal despite the visual difference."},{"text":"They thought the rows were equal but could not explain why.","correct":false,"explanation":"Giving the correct judgement without a justification is more characteristic of the transitional five- and six-year-old group. Children aged seven and above could usually explain their reasoning."},{"text":"They recognised the rows were different and could explain why.","correct":false,"explanation":"The visual arrangement was different, but the number of counters was not. Older children distinguished appearance from quantity and explained why the rows remained equal."}]},{"id":"68a16350-dc2c-46dd-8dc3-e7ca74d27a88","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What is centration, and how does it cause younger children to fail this task?","back":"The child focuses on one feature of a display, such as the row's length.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The child focuses on one feature of a display, such as the row's length.","correct":true,"explanation":"Centration involves attending to one noticeable aspect while ignoring other relevant information. Here, focusing on length makes the child overlook that the number of counters has not changed."},{"text":"The child focuses on every feature of a display equally, such as length and number.","correct":false,"explanation":"Considering several relevant features would reduce the error rather than cause it. Centration means concentrating on one salient feature, such as length, while ignoring quantity."},{"text":"The child focuses on the change being reversible rather than the row's length.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reversibility is a separate cognitive ability concerning mentally undoing a transformation. Centration specifically explains why attention to one feature can dominate the child’s judgement."},{"text":"The child focuses on the researcher’s instructions instead of the display.","correct":false,"explanation":"Centration concerns selective attention to a feature of the display, not confusion about instructions. The younger child typically notices the longer row and mistakes appearance for quantity."}]},{"id":"de7131b0-ae5d-4ff1-b4e7-7967032f912b","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What does a lack of reversibility mean in the conservation task?","back":"The child cannot mentally reverse the change made to the display.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The child cannot mentally reverse the change made to the display.","correct":true,"explanation":"Lack of reversibility means the child cannot imagine returning the spread-out row to its original arrangement. Without this mental operation, the child may judge the longer-looking row as larger."},{"text":"The child can mentally reverse the change made to the display.","correct":false,"explanation":"Being able to imagine the original arrangement demonstrates reversibility rather than a lack of it. The difficulty described is the inability to mentally undo the transformation."},{"text":"The child cannot physically move the counters back to their original positions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reversibility refers to a mental operation, not physical ability or motor control. The child may be able to move counters but still fail to understand that the quantity remains unchanged."},{"text":"The child cannot mentally count the counters in the new arrangement.","correct":false,"explanation":"Counting ability is different from reversibility. The concept concerns mentally undoing the change in arrangement and recognising that this would restore the original appearance without changing quantity."}]},{"id":"e4c8228b-b479-435b-b40d-6cb1e89dfd5a","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did Piaget conclude about when conservation of number develops?","back":"Conservation of number appears with the concrete-operational stage at around seven years.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Conservation of number appears with the concrete-operational stage at around seven years.","correct":true,"explanation":"Piaget linked successful conservation to the concrete-operational stage, which begins at approximately seven years. Children then become able to decentre and mentally reverse transformations."},{"text":"Conservation of number appears during the sensorimotor stage at around two years.","correct":false,"explanation":"The sensorimotor stage occurs much earlier and involves learning through physical interaction, not mature conservation reasoning. Piaget placed conservation of number in the concrete-operational stage."},{"text":"Conservation of number appears with the pre-operational stage at around four years.","correct":false,"explanation":"Pre-operational children commonly rely on appearance and fail conservation tasks. Piaget associated reliable conservation with the later concrete-operational stage, beginning at about seven."},{"text":"Conservation of number appears during the formal-operational stage at around eleven years.","correct":false,"explanation":"Formal operations develop later and involve abstract reasoning. Piaget argued that number conservation develops earlier, with concrete operations at around seven years."}]},{"id":"4ddd97b1-fee4-41c4-89f5-30186727ac60","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is the study's procedure a strength?","back":"

Simple and standardised procedure.
Easy to repeat and check.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Simple and standardised procedure.
Easy to repeat and check.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Standardised instructions make the procedure replicable, allowing other researchers to repeat the counters task and check whether they obtain similar findings."},{"text":"

Natural and realistic procedure.
Easy to generalise to daily life.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The counters task was artificial rather than a natural everyday activity. Its strength was that the simple, standardised procedure was easy to repeat and check."},{"text":"

Flexible and unstructured procedure.
Easy to adapt for each child.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Adapting the procedure for individual children would reduce standardisation and make replication harder. The procedure was strong because it was simple, standardised and easy to repeat."},{"text":"

Double-blind and controlled procedure.
Free from researcher expectations.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The study was not double-blind, and Piaget’s expectations could have influenced questioning or interpretation. Its procedural strength was simplicity and standardisation, which supported replication."}]},{"id":"775072aa-8d2a-4a34-b933-435ec3350cec","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why might Piaget's sample not represent children in general?","back":"The sample was small and culturally biased, consisting only of Swiss children and including Piaget's own children.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The sample was small and culturally biased, consisting only of Swiss children and including Piaget's own children.","correct":true,"explanation":"A small sample from one national culture, partly drawn from Piaget’s own family, cannot reliably represent the experiences and development of children generally."},{"text":"The sample was large and culturally diverse, consisting of children from several countries and excluding Piaget's own children.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the sample’s characteristics: it was small, included only Swiss children and contained Piaget’s own children, limiting generalisability to children in other populations."},{"text":"The sample was random and nationally representative, consisting of Swiss children from every social group and including equal age groups.","correct":false,"explanation":"Piaget did not use a random, nationally representative sample covering all social and age groups. The small, culturally narrow sample included his own children and may be biased."},{"text":"The sample was large but gender biased, consisting only of Swiss boys and including children from unrelated families.","correct":false,"explanation":"The principal limitation was not a large all-male sample. It was a small, culturally biased group of Swiss children that also included Piaget’s own children."}]},{"id":"a2c0025e-30bf-4945-b6fb-717195469c8a","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why might the counters task have low validity?","back":"The task was artificial, so children might conserve on a more meaningful task.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The task was artificial, so children might conserve on a more meaningful task.","correct":true,"explanation":"Arranging counters in rows is an artificial test of conservation. Children who fail it might demonstrate conservation when quantities are presented in a familiar, meaningful context."},{"text":"The task was too realistic, so children might conserve only in the laboratory.","correct":false,"explanation":"The counters activity was artificial, not excessively realistic. Its low validity arises because children might succeed on a more familiar and meaningful conservation task."},{"text":"The task was too difficult, so children might conserve after receiving more biological maturation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Difficulty alone does not identify the validity problem, and maturation cannot be received as assistance. The concern is that the artificial task may underestimate conservation shown meaningfully elsewhere."},{"text":"The task was unstandardised, so children might conserve when every researcher used different instructions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Different instructions would make results less comparable, not improve children’s conservation. The procedure was standardised; validity was limited because the counters task was artificial and lacked meaning."}]},{"id":"a783af6f-9ae1-43ba-bf59-6d2fd50346a3","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why does the study have low construct validity?","back":"The task has low construct validity because conservation was measured in only one narrow way.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The task has low construct validity because conservation was measured in only one narrow way.","correct":true,"explanation":"Conservation is a broad cognitive ability, but Piaget operationalised it through one narrow counters task. That measure may not fully capture the intended psychological construct."},{"text":"The task has low ecological validity because conservation was measured through several realistic activities.","correct":false,"explanation":"Several realistic activities would tend to improve ecological validity. The study has low construct validity because one narrow task may not capture the broader ability to conserve."},{"text":"The task has low population validity because conservation was measured using children from many different cultures.","correct":false,"explanation":"A culturally diverse sample would improve population validity, although Piaget’s sample was not diverse. Low construct validity specifically results from measuring conservation in only one narrow way."},{"text":"The task has low concurrent validity because conservation was measured against several established tests.","correct":false,"explanation":"Agreement with several established tests would support concurrent validity. The relevant weakness is low construct validity because a single narrow counters task represented the whole conservation construct."}]},{"id":"f4f5bd35-08f7-464d-ac3a-580712d04972","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"How does the reductionism and holism debate criticise Piaget's theory?","back":"Teachers, parents, friends and culture may shape thinking, but the theory focuses on fixed biological maturation.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Teachers, parents, friends and culture may shape thinking, but the theory focuses on fixed biological maturation.","correct":true,"explanation":"Piaget’s account is reductionist because it emphasises biologically determined stages while underestimating the holistic contribution of social relationships, teaching and cultural experience to cognitive development."},{"text":"Genes, hormones, neurons and reflexes may shape thinking, but the theory focuses entirely on social learning.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the criticism: Piaget emphasises biological maturation rather than explaining development entirely through social learning. A holistic account would also consider teachers, parents, friends and culture."},{"text":"Memory, language, attention and perception may shape thinking, but the theory rejects all biological maturation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Piaget does not reject biological maturation; fixed maturation underpins his stages. The reductionism criticism is that this emphasis neglects broader social and cultural influences on thinking."},{"text":"Teachers, parents, friends and culture may shape thinking, and the theory fully explains each of these influences.","correct":false,"explanation":"Piaget’s theory does not fully explain these social and cultural influences. Its focus on fixed biological maturation is criticised as reductionist for overlooking their combined effects."}]},{"id":"0f384c4f-9c58-44da-b89b-06b890d93a9e","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Piaget predicted that [ ] children would conserve number.","back":"Piaget predicted that concrete-operational children would conserve number.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"concrete-operational","correct":true,"explanation":"Children in Piaget’s concrete-operational stage can mentally reverse transformations and decentre, enabling them to understand that number remains constant when the spacing of counters changes."},{"text":"pre-operational","correct":false,"explanation":"Pre-operational children were predicted not to conserve because they centre on the row’s changed length. Piaget predicted that concrete-operational children would conserve number."},{"text":"formal-operational","correct":false,"explanation":"Formal-operational adolescents can conserve, but this is not the developmental stage identified by the prediction. Conservation of number is expected to emerge during the concrete-operational stage."},{"text":"sensorimotor","correct":false,"explanation":"Sensorimotor infants have not yet developed the operational thinking needed for conservation tasks. Piaget predicted number conservation among children in the concrete-operational stage."}]},{"id":"b6151e25-686d-4b90-a41d-6ddbb4b2e2fd","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Piaget predicted that [ ] children would not conserve number.","back":"Piaget predicted that pre-operational children would not conserve number.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"pre-operational","correct":true,"explanation":"Piaget predicted that pre-operational children would focus on the altered length of one row and therefore judge that its number of counters had changed."},{"text":"concrete-operational","correct":false,"explanation":"Concrete-operational children can decentre and mentally reverse the transformation, so Piaget expected them to conserve. He predicted that pre-operational children would not conserve number."},{"text":"formal-operational","correct":false,"explanation":"Formal-operational children have reasoning abilities beyond those needed for number conservation and should succeed. Piaget expected failure from younger, pre-operational children."},{"text":"post-operational","correct":false,"explanation":"Post-operational is not one of Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development. He predicted that children in the pre-operational stage would not conserve number."}]},{"id":"622df153-81b1-48bc-a353-26d21e055d1d","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The younger children's error was explained by [ ] on the length of the row.","back":"The younger children's error was explained by centration on the length of the row.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"centration","correct":true,"explanation":"Centration makes pre-operational children focus on one noticeable feature, such as row length, while ignoring spacing and the unchanged number of counters."},{"text":"decentration","correct":false,"explanation":"Decentration involves considering multiple relevant features and supports successful conservation. The younger children’s error was attributed to centration on the most noticeable feature, row length."},{"text":"object permanence","correct":false,"explanation":"Object permanence is understanding that hidden objects continue to exist, not focusing on row length. Piaget explained the conservation error through centration."},{"text":"reversibility","correct":false,"explanation":"Reversibility would help children imagine restoring the original arrangement and answer correctly. Their error instead reflected centration on the changed length of the row."}]},{"id":"2e925239-1af3-4423-b067-97f7f0e3ae1e","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The procedure's possible weakness was asking the [ ].","back":"The procedure's possible weakness was asking the same question twice.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"same question twice","correct":true,"explanation":"Repeating the same question may imply that the child’s first answer was wrong, encouraging them to change it even when their original judgement was accurate."},{"text":"same child once","correct":false,"explanation":"Testing a child once does not create the specific demand characteristic identified here. The weakness was repeating the same question, which could suggest the first response was wrong."},{"text":"different question twice","correct":false,"explanation":"Asking different questions does not produce the same pressure to revise one answer. Repeating the same question could make children assume their initial response was incorrect."},{"text":"same question silently","correct":false,"explanation":"A question cannot meaningfully be asked silently in this procedure. The methodological concern was asking the same question twice, potentially prompting children to change their answer."}]},{"id":"aca4114a-2f72-4d4f-adff-cf21023af398","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Piaget's theory proposes that cognitive development follows biological maturation in a [ ].","back":"Piaget's theory proposes that cognitive development follows biological maturation in a fixed order.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"fixed order","correct":true,"explanation":"Piaget proposed an invariant stage sequence: biological maturation enables children to progress through the same stages in a fixed order, although the timing may vary."},{"text":"random order","correct":false,"explanation":"Piaget did not claim that children move unpredictably between stages. His stage theory proposes that cognitive development follows biological maturation in a fixed order."},{"text":"reversible order","correct":false,"explanation":"A reversible order would allow children to move backwards through the stage sequence. Piaget proposed an invariant, fixed order linked to biological maturation."},{"text":"cultural order","correct":false,"explanation":"A culturally determined order would conflict with Piaget’s emphasis on universal biological maturation. He proposed that cognitive stages occur in a fixed order across children."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-10","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952)","title":"2.2.5 Cognitive Development research study: Piaget (1952) Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/gcse/psychology/ocr/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L90"}]}],"topicId":"6cc59627-0640-4ebb-a52d-5c1d62353f4e","walled":"$L91"}],"$L92","$L93"]