Extinction of Liquid Conservation by Modeling: Three Indicators of Its Artificiality

Observational learning of conservation: Its independence from social influence

“…On the whole, if observationally induced extinction of conservation appears to be artificial (Robert & Charbonneau, 1978), the present results indicate that authenticity characterizes acquisition of modelled conservation. Immediate and delayed success was not affected by social influence variables; it was even noticeable in tasks that were more complex than the modelled one and in which reliance on sheer mimicking would have been of no help; and, finally, it did not correlate with propensity to yield to the model's opinion on non-objective matters, while such a propensity was more responsive to the model's presence than to his or her absence.…”

“…The opinion tusk had been designed by Robert & Charbonneau (1978). It had no objective right answers and comprised two sets of seven questions (with two choices) that referred respectively to the child's preference (for example, 'Which fruits are the best tasting, strawberries or oranges?')…”

“…Non-observational control groups were excluded from the present design. Indeed, in reference to the opinion task, the Robert and Charbonneau (1978) study had examined a control group which was post-tested 3-5 dajjs after the pre-test, without any opinion modelling: on the post-test, the group produced a mean number of opinion changes that was considerably inferior to mean numbers recorded in groups who had been exposed to a model's (whether present or absent) opinions. In reference to conservation, groups of nonconservers, to whom conservation had not been modelled, had failed to conserve in previous studies: in one case (Charbonneau et al, 1976), delayed post-testing was administered 3 months after the pre-test and in the other (Robert & Fortin, 1981), subjects whose cognitive preparation was high still adhered to non-conservation after 9 weeks.…”

“…Indeed, some extinction of conservation has been registered under the presence of an adult non-conserving model during both modelling (presented through videotape) and post-testing, whereas observation of an absent adult and that of a peer who was either present or absent was not followed by regression . Furthermore, evidence of the artificiality of the extinction thus provoked indicated that social pressure had altered only the overt or public behaviour of the child (Robert & Charbonneau, 1978). The evidence was threefold: (1) after live modelling, some extinction was obtained only if the model did not depart and continued to generate an implicit invitation to conformity, (2) regression generalized only to tasks closely similar to the modelled ones and (3) such generalization correlated positively with acceptance of the model's opinion that had opposed the child's view in a task having no objectively correct answer.…”

“…Concerning the social control that the model's presence exerts, schoolchildren have been reported to match an adult's arbitrary motor responses only in the model's presence (Peterson & Whitehurst, 1971). In an instrumental setting, they relinquished a monetary reward (Oliver & Hoppe, 1974) or attractive trinkets (Robert & Charbonneau, 1978) in order to copy the model's errors in the latter's presence: the reinforced response was performed in the model's absence. As mentioned earlier, the former conserver similarly adopted, to some degree, a non-conserving model's responses only in the latter's presence , 1978.…”