Transactive Discussions With Peers and Adults

Piaget hypothesized that peer and adult-child discussions of moral dilemmas are qualitatively different. He asserted that children are more likely to use reasoning when interacting with peers. To test this hypothesis, the present study compared the interactive styles of child-child and adult-child dyads engaged in discussions of moral dilemmas, focusing on the use of logical operations (transacts). Forty-eight female subjects, ages 7 and 11 years, were paired with either a female agemate or their mother. Children used transacts in a higher proportion of their conversational turns when interacting with peers than when interacting with mothers. Subjects produced proportionally more transactive responses when interacting with mothers because mothers produced proportionally more requests for idea clarification than did peer partners. Self-generated transacts, on the other hand, were produced proportionally more often with peers. Furthermore, when paired with peers, children produced transactive statements that operated on the partner's logic more often, rather than clarifying their own logic. These results support Piaget's contention that moral discussions with peers feature a more spontaneous use of reasoning than do discussions with adults. © 1986 American Psychological Association.

Duke Scholars

Author Michael Tomasello Psychology & Neuroscience