ABSTRACT
The data that were reported in the previous chapter are not typical of those in the developmental literature. Thus, at first glance, they would appear to constitute a rather strong confirmation of the neo-Piagetian theory by which they were predicted, and to argue against the view that knowledge acquisition follows a unique developmental course in each domain. In fact, however, there exists a straightforward counter-interpretation that leaves the domain-specific position on development unscathed. This argument holds that the real reason no décalage was found was not that all the tasks make a common demand on the child’s general system, but rather that all the task-specific performance variables responsible for décalages were held constant across tasks, while at the same time certain of these same variables were systematically manipulated across age levels. The variables that were held constant across tasks were:
Background experience. Massive experience had clearly been provided by the culture for the two social tasks. It was also ensured for the two physical tasks, by the warm-up play period and the practice trials.
Stimulus arrays. In each case two clear “sides” were present in the array, each of which contained two sets of countable objects.
Type of operation. The operation required by the tasks (counting) was identical.
Operational difficulty. The difficulty of executing the counting operation was also controlled by using the same number of objects for each variable and for each trial, across the four tasks.
Question format. In each case the question format was similar, namely: “Will this side have the larger X (tilt, shadow, degree of happiness, number of candies) or will this side, or will they be the same?”
Response format. In each case the response format was identical: Children simply had to pick one of the three alternatives posed by the question, and then provide a simple quantitative justification.
Instruction. In no case were the children provided with any direct instruction on any of the tasks in question.
