British Joiirnal of Developmental Psychology (1998), 16, 175-181

0 1998 The British Psychological Society

Printed in Greai Britain

175

The effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical

social interaction on childrens logical inferences
Antonio Roazzi
Universiande Federal de Pmambuco, Mesirado em Psicologia, CFCH 8 ananr, Ciande Universitliria, Riia
Acadhico Helio Ramos, sln, 50670-901, Recife-PE, Brazil.

Peter Bryant
Dtpariment of Experimental Psychology, O x f r d University, UK

We report an intervention experiment on the effects of social interaction on 4- and

5-year-old childrens performance in a simple logical, inferential task. We found that
children performing badly in a logical inferential task who then had the experience of
cooperating with others more advanced than themselves did better in this task in a
post-test given three days later and in a further test given after a three-week interval.
We also found that children who had the experience of cooperating with others who
had also performed badly (at the same level) in the pre-test did not get better at
making logical inferences. We conclude that social interaction between less and more
advanced children enhances the less advanced childrens ability to make logical
inferences, and we argue that this is probably due to the effects of discussion and of
agreement, rather than to social conflict, during the intervention period.

There is considerable evidence that young childrens performance in two central Piagetian
tasks, conservation and perspective taking, improves as a result of social interaction with
more advanced peers (e.g. Ames & Murray, 1982; Carugati, 1984; Carugati, De Paolis &
Mugny, 1979; Carugati & Mugny, 1985; Doise & Mugny, 1981, Light, Foot, Colbourn
& McClelland, 1987; Miller & Brownell, 1975; Mugny, Giroud & Doise, 1979, PerretClermont, 1980; Perret-Clermont & Brossard, 1988; Silverman & Geiringer, 1973). The
effect is often used to support the idea that logical development is heavily influenced by
social experiences (Moro, 1986,1987,1991; Mugny & Doise, 1978a,b; Taal & Oppenheimer, 1989; Weinstein & Bearison, 1985).
However, the exact nature of the social experiences which cause the effect is still not
clear. One unsettled issue is whether social interactions between children at the same
intellectual level also have a beneficial effect. The issue is important because if symmetrical interactions, as interactions between children at the same level are usually called, are
also effective, we could conclude that social interaction and possible social conflict per se
are the crucial factor, as indeed Doise & Mugny (1981) and Perret-Clermont (1980)
suggest they are. However, if childrens performance only improves after interactions with

* Requests for reprints

176

Antonio Roazzi and Peter Bryant

children who are at a higher level than them, a more plausible conclusion would be that
young children are prepared to accept opinions about physical and spatial laws as true
when these are stated by another child whom they see as more advanced than themselves.
The evidence on this point is inconsistent. Some studies apparently show that
symmetrical social interaction does reliably improve childrens perspective taking (Doise
& Mugny, 1979; Emler & Valliant, 1982), but Russell (1981a) found no such effect.
Perret-Clermont (1980)and Ames & Murray (1982)report that symmetrical interaction
between non-conservers does improve their performance in conservation tasks later on.
On the other hand, Russell, Mills & Reiff-Musgrove (1990) did not find this with
conservation of liquid, and Russell (1982a) also failed to find the effect with length
conservation. Russell also reported that symmetrical interaction does not help children in
transitive inference (19824, in appearance-reality (Russell & Haworth, 1988) or in class
inclusion (198lb) tasks either. It is surprising that such an important question has been
left to hang fire. Until we have a satisfactory answer, we can draw no firm conclusion about
the claim that social construction plays an important part in childrens cognitive
development. More evidence is needed and with a wider range of tasks.
W e now report an experiment in which we looked at the effect of symmetrical and
asymmetrical social interaction on childrens performance in a newly devised inference
task. In this task children had to make a deductive inference about number. They were
given a balance scale and boxes with different numbers of identical objects, and in some
boxes the number of objects was identified, while in others it was not. The child was
shown that a box A, in which the number was not identified, was heavier for instance than
one with three objects and lighter than one with five objects. The childs task was to infer
the number in box A. This was a simple inferential task and our aim was to see whether
performance in it improved as a result of social interaction between children at equal
intellectual levels as well as between less and more advanced children.

Method
Participants
We saw 90 children with an age range of4:2 to 5:5 years (mean 4:72, SD 3.43), ofwhom 45 were male and
45 female. There were four groups: one control and three experimental (called equal, close and distant).
The number of participants in each group, and their mean ages, with standard deviations in months, were:
control (N = 24, mean 4:8, SD 3.66), equal (N = 18, mean 4:11, SD 3.05), close (N = 24, mean 4 9 , SD
2.27) and distant (N = 24, mean 4:7, SD 3.46).

Material
W e used a balance scale with the following characteristics: beam length 16 cm, diameter of trays 6.5 cm,
distance from the beam to the bottom of the plate 18 cm, and from the bottom of the plate to the base 4
cm. We also used several boxes: (a) four boxes with two, three, four and five sweets, painted; (6) two boxes
with four to five sweets, painted, which could be opened; (c) six boxes, with transparent tops, allowing the
number of sweets inside to be seen. The distribution of the sweets inside these boxes was one, two, three,
four, five and six.

Social interaction a n d infwences

177

Procedure
The experiment consisted of a pre-test, an intervention period and two post-tests. In all four phases we used
an inferential balance-scale task. The aim of this balance-scale task was to discover the childs capacity to
work out how many sweets were inside a box by means of comparisons using a balance scale. The task was
to judge the number of sweets inside an opaque box [target box (T)] by comparing its weight with that of
two other boxes (comparative boxes 1 and 2: Cbl and Cb2) (see also Roazzi, 1988).
The examiner began by suggesting that the child take part in a game in which helshe play the part of
a buyer, and the experimenter that of a salesman.
Having established that the child understands how the balance scale works, the experimenter began the
inferential problems. In each trial the experimenter first took an opaque box, hereafter named target (T).
He put the target box on the left-hand tray, then took two boxes of sweets, hereafter named comparisons
1 and 2 (Cbl and Cb2). The child knew how many sweets were in the comparison boxes, because the tops
were transparent so that the sweets could be seen.
The experimenter said: Look what happens when I put this box (Cbl) on this tray (the right-hand tray).
The experimenter then took the first comparison box off and put it besides the balance scale. He put the
second box (Cb2) on the right-hand tray and said: Now look what happens when I put this other box on
the balance-scale. How many sweets do you think are in this box (T)?Why?

Phases of the experiment

(a)Pre-test. The aim of this phase was to identify the childrens initial level of logical inferential skills.
Children were tested in eight trials. In each trial there was only one possible answer, as for example, when
the target box was heavier than a comparison box with three sweets and lighter than one with five sweets
(Cbl 3-Cb2 YTarget 4).
Those children who scored badly (minimum score 1 and maximum score 2) in these pre-test trials were
selected as the experimental children (E-Ch) and were randomly assigned to one of four interaction
groups-equal peer interaction (equal group), close peer interaction (close group) and distant peer
interaction (distant group) and no interaction (control group). The mean scores for the four groups in the
pre-test were 1.72, 1.87, 1.75 and 1.79 respectively for equal, close, distant and control group. The bases
for selecting the childrens partners in the equal, close and distant groups are given in the following
section.

(b) hterurtionphuse. In a second stage, a week after the pre-test, the children in the equal, close and distant
groups were given an extra session in groups of three. In each group E-ch worked with two confederates

(Ct).
Distant group: The two confederates (Cfl and Cf2) had performed well in the balance-scale pre-test
(minimum correct 5-maximum 8), while the third child (E-ch) had performed badly. The E-ch remained
seated at the head of a table with the other two children at his side, opposite each other.
The session consisted of 12 trials. In each trial the experimenter told the children that he was going to
start the game with the boxes of sweets and the balance scale that they had used the previous week. In each
trial only one of the children had to provide the answer, but in this session the other two children were
allowed to help himlher. The other children could provide clues, but were not allowed to give the answer
directly to the child who had to produce the solution.
In eight of the trials, it was the E-ch who had to produce the answer: each of the Cf children had to do
so on two trials.
There was an incentive for the three children to ensure that as many as possible of the answers given in
this session were correct. The children were told that, if they got the number of sweets in at least 10 boxes
right, they would all get two bags of sweets; but if they failed to guess more than three boxes correctly,
nobody would get anything. The experimenter took note of the childrens answers without saying whether
each answer was correct or not. Only at the end of the 12 trials did the experimenter give the number of
correct answers. The procedure with the target boxes and the comparison boxes was identical to that used
in the pre-test.
Closegroup:The procedure for this group was identical to that of the distant one; the only difference was

Antonio Roazzi and Peter Bryant

178

that the pre-test scores of the Cf children were closer to those of the E-ch. The minimum pre-test score of
the Cf children was 3 and maximum 4.
Equalgroup: The procedure for this group was identical to that of the distant and close groups except that
the Cf childrens pre-test scores were the same as those of the E-ch (minimum 1-maximum 2).
Controlgroup: The children in the control group were given the same 12 trials, but on their own, and they
were given the same incentive to do well.

Post-test 1. The procedure in the post-tests was identical to the procedure in the pre-test. A first posttest (identical to the pre-test) was carried out three days after the experimental phase.

(c)

(d) Phase ofpost-test 2.

A second post-test (identical to the first) took place three weeks after the first.

Results

Table 1. Mean correct and standard deviation of each group (three experimental and
one control) in each experimental phase (pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 )
Experimental

Control

Equal

Close

Distant

Total

SD

Mean

SD

1.75

.44

4.04

1.16
1.34

1.79
3.23
3.56

.41
1.07
1.31

.98

2.86

.93

phases

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

Pre-test
Post-test 1
Post-test 2

1.79
2.25
2.33

.42

.76
.98

1.87
3.67
4.25

.34
.70

.48

1.72
2.89
3.17

.46

.44

Total

2.12

.44

2.59

.73

3.26

.68

.99 4.37
3.38

Key. Control = no interaction group; Equal = equal peer interaction group; Close = close peer interaction
group; Distant = distant peer interaction group.

Table 1 gives the results for the pre-test and the two post-tests. It shows that the three
groups of children were at similar levels in the pre-test but diverged sharply in the posttests. All three experimental groups produced better scores in the post-tests than in the
pre-test, and the improvement in the scores of these three interaction groups were much
greater than in the control group.
There were also sizeable differences in the improvement shown by the three experimental groups. In the first post-test the children in the equal group did better than the
control group but worse than the other two intervention groups in which the children had
interacted with children with slightly and far higher pre-test scores than their own. This
pattern of differencespersisted in the second post-test. This suggests that interaction with
other children with higher inferential capacities has a positive effect on the development
of logical inferential skills and that this effect is a lasting one.
The number of correct answers was analysed in a 4 (groups: equal, close, distant,
control) X 3 (tests: pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2 ) mixed analysis of variance. This
produced a main effect of the group (F(3,86) = 23.09, p < .001). A Scheffi post hoc test
showed that the control (mean 2.12) and the equal (mean 2.59) peer interaction groups
achieved significantly lower performance levels than the distant interaction group (mean
3.39,p < . O l ) and than the close interaction group (mean 3.26,p < .Ol). No difference was
found between the distant and close interaction groups.
A significant main effect of test was also found (F(2,172)= 204.22,p < .OOl). A Scheff6

Social interaction and inferences

179

post hoc tests showed that there was significantly lower performance in the pre-test (mean
1.79) than in post-test 1 (mean 3.23, p < . O l ) and post-test 2 (mean 3.56, p < .01). No
difference was found between the two post-tests.
There was also a significant group X test interaction (F(6,172)= 16.63, p < .001). A
Scheffi post hor test showed no significant difference among the three groups in the pretest. In post-test 1 significant differences were found between the control (mean 2.25) and
equal (mean 2.89) groups and the two other experimental groups distant (mean, 4.04,
p < .01) and close (mean 3.67,p < . O l ) ; the difference between control and equal as well as
between distant and close group was not significant. The same significant differences were
found in post-test 2: significant differences were found between the control (mean 2.33)
and equal (mean 3.17) groups and the two other experimental groups distant (mean, 4.37,
p < . O l ) and close (mean 4.25,p < . O l ) ; the difference between control and equal as well as
between distant and close group were not significant.
A comparison between the three different tests for each group showed an improvement
in performance from the pre-test to the post-test 1 for the three experimental groups
(p < . O l ) but not for the control group. A significant improvement from post-test 1 to
post-test 2 was found only with the close group (p < .Ol).

Discussion
The study showed that social interaction between less and more advanced children does
improve performance of the less advanced ones on a simple logical task. These children
make inferences more successfully after having done the task cooperatively with more
advanced children, and the effects of this cooperation seem to last for some time. In other
words this result indicates that while children are in a phase of cognitive development, the
suggestions and remarks of other children (a little cleverer and also much cleverer) help to
integrate the thought in a developing stage into a more coherent whole. This result is in
line with those of many other studies on a variety of logical tasks such as Mugny et al.
(1979) regarding length conservation, Weinstein & Bearison (1985) regarding twodimensional space, substance, weight, continuous and discontinuous quantity,
Perret-Clermont ( 1980) regarding childrens ability to conserve number and liquid and
Mugny & Doise (1978a) and Doise, Mugny & Perret-Clermont (1975) regarding the
coordination of spatial perspectives.
However our study also showed a large difference in the effects of asymmetrical and
symmetrical interaction. There were slight improvements in the children who had
interacted with others no more advanced than they were, but these were not significant
and they were always less than in children who had interacted with their more advanced
peers. This second result agrees with previous data for liquid (Russell et al., 1990) and
length (Russell, 19826) conservation, for class inclusion (Russell, 198 l a ) and appearancereality problems (Russell & Haworth, 1988), but it is inconsistent with Ames & Murrays
data (1982) on conservation. Nevertheless the bulk of evidence now suggests that
symmetrical interaction usually fails where asymmetrical interaction succeeds. We can
thus rule out the possibility that social interaction per se is effective, and we can draw the
same negative conclusion about having to be more explicit about the task in the
interaction session. Both these factors applied to the symmetrical groups experiences in
the interaction session, and yet their performance did not improve.

180

Antonio Roazzi and Peter Biyant

This negative result should not detract from the importance of the success of the other
two interaction groups. Our study shows that social interaction can improve childrens
ability to make simple logical inferences. It is unlikely that mere observation of more
advanced children caused this effect. Weinstein & Bearison (1985) showed that children
learned more from interacting with others than from observing them. This suggests that
the children in the asymmetrical groups benefitted from the interaction through the
experience of discussing the task with children who knew better than they did and being
persuaded by them.
One important difference between our methods and those used in previous investigations was our emphasis on cooperation rather than on conflict. W e encouraged a common
interest-if at the end the children got 10 choices right, everyone would get bags of
sweets. This raises doubts about the ideas of Piaget on the importance of conflict, since
Piaget gives conflict, and not cooperation, a basic and crucial role in producing
development. For Piaget, the child is able to develop cognitive abilities as a result mainly
of internal intellectual conflicts and of the subsequent disequilibrium which originates
from these conflicts. This approach was also adopted by Perret-Clermont (1980) and by
Doise & Mugny (1981) to explain the effects of social interaction: both sets of authors
adopted the idea that social conflict was the important factor in their intervention
studies.
The Piagetian theory of conflict as a mechanism able to cause development has been
criticized (e.g. Bryant, 1982, 1985, 1986) on the grounds that conflict is an effective
signal of the existence of a problem, but provides no means of solving it. As an alternative,
Bryant (1986) proposed the agreement hypothesis which is that children adopt a new
intellectual strategy when they see that i t leads to the same conclusion as another strategy
which they use already. So they begin to measure in order to compare two sizes when they
see that such measurement produces results which agree with direct comparisons of the
two quantities when this is possible. In this context the child develops as a result of the
comprehension of the connection between different intellectual strategies. This idea
about agreement could easily be extended to explain the positive results of social
interaction. Children could adopt new strategies when they see that these agree with the
conclusions reached by other children, and particularly by children whom they recognize
as more advanced than them.
In conclusion, this is the first study to show that social interaction can improve
childrens ability to make simple logical inferences. It also showed that this improvement
takes place as a result of interaction with more advanced peers and not with peers at the
same intellectual level.
References
Ames, G. & Murray, F. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social
conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 8 9 4 8 9 7 .
Bryant, P. (1982). The role of conflict and agreement between intellectual strategies in childrens ideas
about measurement. British Joiirnal OfPsychoIogy, 73, 242-25 1.
Bryant, P. (1985). The distinction between knowing when to do a sum and knowing how to do it.
Educational Psychology, 5 , 207-2 15.
Bryant, P. (1986).Theories about the causes of cognitive development. In P.L.C. van Geert (Ed.), Theory
Bziilding it1 Developmetltal Psychology, pp. 167-187. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Social interaction and infwences

181

Carugati, F. (1984). La nozione di conflitto in psicologia dello sviluppo. Eta Evolutiva, 19, 76-84.
Carugati, F., De Paolis, P. & Mugny, G. (1979). A paradigm from the study of social interactions in
cognitive development. Italian Journal of Psychology, 6 , 147-1 5 5.
Carugati, F. & Mugny, G. (1985). La thiorie du conflit socio-cognitif. In G. Mugny (Ed.), PsychologieSociale
du Developpetnetit Cognitif. Bern: Peter Lang.
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1979). Individual and collective conflicts of centrations in cognitive development. EziropeanJournal ofSocial Psychology, 7 , 105-108.
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1981). Le Dheloppment Social de Llntelligence. Paris: Inter-Editions.
Doise, W., Mugny, G. & Perret-Clermont, A.N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of
cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5 , 367- 383.
Emler, N. & Valiant, G.L. (1982). Social interaction and cognitive conflict in the development of spatial
coordination skills. British Journal ofPsychology, 73, 295- 303.
Light, P., Foot, T.Colbourn, C & McClelland, I. (1987). Collaborative interactions at the microcomputer
keyboard. Educational Psychology, 7, 13-2 1.
Miller, S.A. & Brownell, C.A. (1975). Peers, persuasion, and Piaget: Dyadic interaction between conservers
and nonconservers. Child Development, 46, 992- 997.
Moro, M.L.F. (1986). A construglo da inteliggncia e a aprendizagem escolar de criangas de familias de baixa
renda: Continuando um debate. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 56, 66-72.
Moro, M.L.F. (1987). Aprendizagem Operatdria: A lnterapio Social d? Crianfa. Slo PaulolCuritiba: Cortezl
Scientia et Labor.
Moro, M.L.F. (1991). Interag6es sociais e construgiio do conhecimento. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 7,
215-227.
Mugny, G. & Doise, W. (1978a). Socio-cognitive conflict and structuration of individual and collective
performances. European Journal ofsocial Psychology, 8, 181- 192.
Mugny, G. & Doise, W. (17786). Factores sociologicos y psicologicos del desarrollo cognitivo. Anuario de
Psicologia, 18, 22-40.
Mugny, G., Giroud, J.C. & Doise, W. (1979). Conflit de centrations et progrss cognitif, 11: Nouvelle
illustrations expirimentales. Bulletin de Psychologies, 32, 979-985.
Perret-Clermont, A.N. (1980). Social Interaction and Cognitive Development in Children. London: Academic
Press.
Perret-Clermont, A.N. & Brossard, A. (1988). Llnteraction des Processus Cognit.$ et Sociaux h n s les
Interactions. Relations Interpersonnelles et Dheloppernetit des Savoirs. Neuchatel: Delval.
Roazzi, A. (1988). Childrens Cognitive Skills: A Social Class Comparison. DPhil thesis, University of
Oxford.
Russell, J. (1918a). Why socio-cognitive conflict may be impossible: The status of egocentric errors in the
dyadic performance of a spatial task. Educational Psychology. 1, 159-169.
Russell, J. (19816). Dyadic interaction in a logical problem requiring inclusion ability. Child Development.
52,1322-1325.
Russell, J. (1982a). Cognitive conflict, transmission, and justification: Conservation attainment through
dyadic interaction. Jozirnal of Genetic Psychology, 140, 283-297.
Russell, J. (19826). Propositional attitudes. In M. Beveridge (Ed.), Children Thinking through Language, pp.
75-98. London: Edward Arnold.
Russell, J. & Haworth, H.M. (1988). Appearance versus reality in dyadic interaction: Evidence for a
lingering phenomenism. InternationalJournal of Behavioural Development, 11, 155-170.
Russell, J., Mills, I. & Reiff-Musgrove, P. (1990). The role of symmetrical and asymmetrical social conflict
in cognitive change. Journal OfExpwimental Child Psychology, 49, 58-78.
Silverman, I.W. & Geiringer, E. (1973). Dyadic interaction and conservation induction: A test of Piagets
equilibrium model. Child Development, 44, 815-820.
Taal,M. & Oppenheimer, L. (1989). Socio-cognitive conflict and peer interaction: Development of
compensation. European Journal ofsocial Psychology, 19, 77-83.
Weinstein, B.D. & Bearison, D.J. (1985). Social interaction, social observation, and cognitive development
in young children. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 15, 333-343.

Received 25 January 1995; revised version received 25 April I997