More on “More”: The Mythology and Actuality of Children's Understanding of Relational Terms

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The study reported by Griffiths, Shantz, and Sigel (4) on children's understanding of relational terms in conservation tasks is used in a case study to illustrate a number of problematic practices in the use of psychological literature. A number of examples are given that reflect a negligent or clearly inaccurate reading of the Griffiths et al. report. Common errors made by authors in citing the published research of others are failure to examine closely the study's methodology, uncritical acceptance of authors' conclusions, and misinterpretation or confusion of the study's findings.