ピアジェの保全タスクとタスクの要求の影響
View the full transcript and gain access to JoVE Science Education videos
Q1: What is Piaget's conservation task and why did he develop it?
Piaget's conservation task is a measure designed to evaluate children's logic and reasoning abilities during cognitive development. In this task, children observe two identical objects or sets of objects, confirm they are the same on a key property like number or length, then watch one object transform in appearance while the key property remains unchanged. Children are then asked if the objects are still equivalent, revealing whether they possess the mental operators—logical rules—needed to reason about relationships between properties.
Q2: Why do preoperational children typically fail conservation tasks?
Piaget attributed children's failures in the preoperational stage (ages 2-7) to their focus on irrelevant, visible changes rather than the unchanged key property. For example, when melted chocolate appears wider, children say it has more chocolate because they concentrate on shape instead of mass. However, critics argue that poor performance may stem from task demands—children's assumptions about the experimenter's goals and expectations when questions are repeated, rather than lacking logical reasoning abilities.
Q3: How does the McGarrigle and Donaldson modification change the conservation task?
McGarrigle and Donaldson introduced a teddy bear as a 'rogue' agent that accidentally manipulates objects instead of the researcher intentionally doing so. This modification removes focus from the experimenter, reducing task demands and children's assumptions about the researcher's goals. By shifting responsibility to the stuffed animal, children remain focused on the key property being tested rather than interpreting the repeated question as a signal that their initial answer was wrong.
Q4: What are the key differences between intentional and accidental conditions in this experiment?
In the intentional condition, the researcher directly manipulates tokens or strings, which may trigger task demands as children wonder why the experimenter changed something. In the accidental condition, a teddy bear performs the same manipulation, presenting it as unintentional interference. Research shows children in the accidental group more often correctly judge that the key property remains unchanged, suggesting that removing the appearance of intentional researcher action improves children's conservation reasoning performance.
Q5: How can task demands affect children's responses in research beyond conservation tasks?
Task demands influence children across many research contexts. If a researcher repeatedly asks about a picture's meaning, children may change their answer thinking the researcher wanted a different response initially. Similarly, children may alter responses based on perceived experimenter expectations rather than their actual abilities. Awareness of these effects has prompted researchers to use multiple methods to measure children's skills, ensuring that apparent weaknesses reflect true limitations rather than confounding factors like motor skill demands or misinterpreted researcher intentions.
Q6: What dependent variables are measured in the number and length conservation tasks?
For both tasks, the dependent variable is the percentage of correct post-transformation responses where children accurately judge that the key property remains the same after transformation. In the number task, children must recognize that token count is unchanged despite spacing differences. In the length task, children must identify that string length is conserved despite shape changes. Children who answered initial judgment questions incorrectly are excluded, as this indicates difficulty gauging property equivalence.
Q7: Why is it important to use multiple methods when assessing children's cognitive abilities?
Using multiple assessment methods prevents underestimating children's true abilities when task demands or confounding factors interfere with performance. For example, assessing spatial abilities through physical block manipulation may underestimate skills in children with motor difficulties. An alternative method—showing pictures of block arrangements and asking if images match—removes the motor skill confound and provides a clearer measure of spatial reasoning. This approach ensures that apparent weaknesses reflect genuine cognitive limitations rather than task-related obstacles.