Peer collaboration: conflict,cooperation, or both?

The present study sought to characterize the mechanism of cognitive change during peer interaction. Forty-eight focal subjects (8-year-old females) were paired with either their mother or their best friend for dyadic discussion of two socio-moral dilemmas. The focal subjects were pretested and posttested to assess any change in their socio-moral reasoning. The hypothesis tested was that subjects cooperatively co-construct solutions to dilemmas; therefore, the discussions regarding solutions they eventually accept, as opposed to those they reject, will be positively related to posttest performance. Contrary to expectations, it was discovered that only the discussion of rejected solutions has a significant relation to cognitive outcome. Close analysis revealed that the consequence of a rejected solution discussion often is the focal's proposal of a more acceptable solution, and this also has a strong relation to outcome. A new conceptualization of collaboration is proposed, one that focuses on the importance of dyadic consideration of multiple perspectives. The consequence of such consideration is both critical analysis of ideas (socio-cognitive conflict) and co-construction of new understanding (cooperation).