Miranda Perry
December 7, 2012
Child Psychology Project
I. Foundations of Development: Perception
Research has shown that perception and action are very much related. Pattern perception, depth perception, object perception, and intermodal perception all allow a child to move selfsufficiently and manipulate objects such as a toy. A child also uses their gross and fine motor skills as they play with objects. Often these gross and fine motor skills can reflect their perceptual development.
We will start by exploring four different types of perception: pattern perception, depth perception, object perception, and intermodal perception. Each concept is well developed and consists of loads of information; however, we will discuss a simplified definition of each. First of all, pattern perception is the concept of differentiating between different patterns and shapes whether in a picture, a puzzle, or on an object. Research has shown that newborns are more stimulated by an object or toy with a pattern rather than a plain one. However, young infants are more attracted to large, bold patterns rather than small ones. Another type of perception is depth perception. If a child has depth perception then they are able to distinguish the distance of an object from their position. This is what keeps older children from going off the edge of a bed or a stair ledge. A third type of perception is object perception. This is the concept is closely related to pattern perception, but instead it focuses on three-dimensional stimuli. For instance, if a baby turns a block in the hand, it may produce a different stimulus but the child still understands the object is still a block. The fourth type of perception to discuss is intermodal perception.
Intermodal perception is the ability to combine two different sensory stimuli such as hearing and

vision as one whole. Our textbook gives the examples that when we see a moving mouth we associate it with the sound of a voice and throwing an object down on a hard floor will create a banging noise. All of these perceptions make vision possible, and without vision there would not be action for a child cannot act if he cannot see what is surrounding him.
I observed a small toddler, a two year old female, playing in her living room floor for 15 minutes. I observed her gross and fine motor skills. Gross motor skills are large scale movements such as crawling, walking, and such. Fine motor skills include reaching and grabbing, small scale movements. As the child played with pretend food I noticed how she would reach out and grasp the pretend spoon, scoop pretend food, and bring the spoon slowly to her mouth in order to pretend to eat. Depth perception allowed her to realize when the spoon was close enough to her mouth. I also watched as she would get up and walk across the room to pick up a toy she wanted.
Depth perception also assisted her in this process. It allowed her to realize the distance at which the toy was from her and how far she needed to walk in order to reach it. Another example of depth perception is when the young girl went to reach a toy. Depth perception helped her understand how far she needed to reach in order to be able to grasp the object. What I found most interesting was when I saw her mom playing with her on a blanket. Her mom was holding a pretend bowl and dropped it. Although it fell on a blanket, the young girl expected it to make a noise therefore she quickly put her hands over her ears. This is an example of her using intermodal perception. She associated dropping a toy to a loud noise and therefore reacted accordingly. I did not observe this, but if the child were to do a puzzle pattern perception and depth perception would assist her in this process. I laughed when the girl’s mother held up a spoon and asked her daughter, “What is this?” Her daughter replied “a spoon!” When the mother turned the spoon to face the girl in a different manner and asked the little girl the same question,

the girl looked at her mommy and smiled, “A spoon!” This was an example of object perception.
She understood that although the rotation of the spoon created a different image, it was still, in fact, a spoon. One of the biggest examples of perception during this little girl’s play time would be walking. In order for her to walk she needed to have good depth perception. Without depth perception she may would see the floor as much closer and bring her leg up way too far. As you can see, her actions are influenced and assisted by perception.
One may ask how exactly motor and perceptual development support one another. Well as I described above, many motor skills, both fine and gross, would not be possible if a child did not possess perception. In order to walk a child must understand how far away the ground is from her vision or from the location of her feet. This is depth perception. A brand new walking child may not step over and object in the floor because they do not realize the object was so close and falls over it. Also as perception develops, a new walking infant will understand not only huge ledges and drop offs but sloping surfaces. The classic example used to discuss depth perception development and motor skills is a crawling baby and a bed drop off. A new crawler does not have a complete understanding of depth perception. Therefore he or she may venture on a bed to the edge and possibly fall off. However a more experienced crawler may not venture to the edges because they understand that there is a drop off. Therefore, as perception development increases and comes close to that of an adult, a child’s motor skills improve because it is easier for them to understand the world around them more clearly.

II. Cognitive and Language Development: Object Permanence
If you love children or have ever played with a child, you may have decided to hide an object from the child under a blanket or in a box and encouraged the child to find the object.
According to Piaget, the process in which an infant, toddler, or child understands that an object may be hidden but still exists although it is out of their sight is called object permanence. Piaget believed that a child’s awareness or their concept of object permanence develops over time, and he believed that very young infants did not possess this awareness. He concluded that young children may attempt to search for a hidden object but will often make the A-not-B search error.
This A-not-B error means that a child may try to grasp an object several times, however if the object is moved, they will continue to search for that object in its original location or spot. After much research, Piaget established a time line for a child’s process of mastering object permanence. He understood that when a child under 8 months was presented with an object and then that object was hidden, the child would become upset. However, most children 8 months to
12 months would not cry when the object was hidden, but instead they appeared to look for the object. This is the age group that he found would often make the A-not-B search error. When
Piaget studied infants between 12 months to 18 months, he found they would accurately search for an object in more than one location. This means that these infants did not make the A-not-B search error any longer. Last but not least, he studied infants ages 18 months to 2 year old toddlers. He noticed that this age group had the most advanced concept of object permanence. At this age group he noticed that these children would search for an object even if they had not actually seen the object being moved. This concept Piaget named invisible displacement. Object permanence is an aspect of cognitive development.

I decided to test Piaget’s developmental sequence of object permanence. I chose two young children, one male age 9 months and one female age 13 months, to use for my studies. I started my study by doing a simple object hiding task, and in the spirit of Christmas I used a shiny tree ornament as my object. First I gained the attention of the male 9 month old by showing him the shiny ornament and let him touch it for a short time. Once I had gained his attention, I took the ornament and placed it under a washcloth. He immediately noticed my action and reached out for the washcloth to retrieve the ornament. When I tried this exact same task with the 13 month old female child, she had the same overall reaction. She looked at my hand, looked at the washcloths, and then retrieved the ornament from underneath the washcloth.
Once I had finished this simple task I proceeded to do a more complex hiding task. Again I chose to begin with the 9 months old. I sat in the floor with the child and brought out two plastic cups. I took the ornament and placed it under cup A. I showed the child again that I put the ornament under cup A. Then I decided to move the object under cup B. I allowed the child to watch me do so. I noticed that even though I had moved the object from cup A to cup B, the child continued to stare at cup A. He reached for cup A and when he realized there was nothing under it, he chose to play with the cup instead. Once I completed this task with the younger child, I tried it with the older female. I repeated the exact same task, but I received a different reaction. The 13 month old watched as I moved the object from cup A to cup B. Although she did not immediately realize she should look under cup B, once she saw there was nothing under cup A she did in fact continue to check under cup B. Finally I tested out an invisible object hiding task to see if either child obtained the advanced concept of object permanence: indivisible displacement. This time I decided to do my task simultaneously with the two children. I took the ornament and hide it inside of a small tissue box and allowed the children to watch me. Once I had the ornament

inside the box, I covered the box with a small blanket. Once I had done these two things and made sure that both children saw me to them, I had their mothers gain their attention. While the children were not paying attention to me but rather their mothers I quickly dumped the toy out of the box and regained the attention of the children. I showed both of the children the empty box. I noted that the 9 month old seemed almost uninterested in where the toy went and simply directed his attention elsewhere. However the 13 month old had a much bigger reaction. She grabbed my hand and looked at it. When she did not find the toy there she got up from sitting on the floor and began walking around saying “oh no!” Therefore, the 9 month old did not possess the concept of indivisible displacement, while the 13 month old in fact did.
Once I had completed all three of my tasks, I organized my observations and began to form my conclusions. When looking at the 9 month old male child I found that he did recognize that the ornament had been hidden in task #1. Therefore this child possessed the beginning of the awareness or object permanence. However in task #2 the child did not look for the object under cup B but continued to look for it under cup A. This is exactly as Piaget suggested. This 9 month old boy was in the fourth stage of sensorimotor or the stage of coordination of secondary curricular reactions. Piaget claimed that in this stage a child would possess awareness, but would make the A-not-B search error. This is exactly what the 9 month old child did. In task #3 the child did not recognize or even seem concerned with the object’s disappearance or maybe didn’t even understand the event. This is also exactly as Piaget suggested. When I went back and looked at the reactions given by the 13 month old girl, I again saw support of Piaget’s developmental sequence of object permanence. The 13 month old also proved to have awareness in task #1. In task #2 the child initially searched under cup A, the object originally location, but continued to search under cup B when the object was not found. This shows the child was

capable of looking for the object in more than one location, which is a characteristic of the tertiary circular reaction sensorimotor stage. This child is the age that Piaget had placed on this stage. There was one finding I had that did not support Piaget. In task #3 the child had a sense of invisible displacement when she looked for the object even though she had not actually seen me move it. Piaget suggested only children 18 months to 2 years would possess this quality.
However, the 13 month old girl had already reached this point. Since children are different and develop at different rates, it is not uncommon for there to be a finding that would conflict with such a laid out plan thought up by Piaget.

III. Personality and Social Development: Day Care
In today’s society it is not uncommon for both parents to have careers and choose daycare as their primary source of childcare. Parents often put a lot of time and thought into their decision regarding a daycare. They often look for a high quality daycare. These daycares are usually warm, welcoming places where parents can trust the caregivers and where their child will have opportunities to learn new things. Daycare is a very important decision for parents because childcare has a significant influence on personality, social development, and emotional development.
In chapter ten of the text, we learned aspects of a quality daycare and how daycare can affect children. For instance, a quality daycare would have a small amount of children per each individual childcare provider. The more children a single caregiver is responsible for, the more her quality time has to be divided among children. This often results in a less quality relationship between the caregiver and the children. Another aspect of a quality daycare would be long-term caregivers. If a daycare’s care providers are constantly leaving and the daycare is forced to hire fresh new providers every couple of months, the lower quality of the daycare. This is due to the fact that children do not typically like change and a high staff turn-over means less time for the children to become attached to their caregivers. This also means less time for parents to get to know the caregivers and feel comfortable with open communication with them. Since good and open communication between staff and the parents is another characteristic of a quality daycare, this proposes another issue with the daycare quality. Other aspects influence the quality of a daycare such as caregivers who are sensitive to children’s needs and appropriate learning curriculums.

On November 7 th
I visited a local daycare in Athens, Alabama to observe the early morning routines of several teachers. I paid special attention to the staff as they greeted both the children and their parents. I watched as each teacher had different techniques in order to ease the children’s stress of separation from the parents. One teacher had previously encouraged the parents to remain in the doorway in the mornings. She also had a very well planned out schedule for the mornings, so there were never any surprises for the children that might make them uncomfortable. As the children came into the room, she made sure to greet the children and attend to their attention before approaching and speaking with the parents. Another teacher encouraged parents to always tell their child goodbye and assure them they will return. She discouraged parents from ever “sneaking away”. This particular teacher always had an activity at the table for the children such as a maze, coloring page, or other fun worksheet. Both of the teachers I discussed were greeted with hugs, smiles, and lots of stories from their students.
These teachers seemed to have secure attachments between them and their children. However, the third teacher I observed was not always given positive greetings and at least half of her students did not seem attached to her. Many of her students would cling to their parents, cry, or act hesitant to enter the room as they came in during the morning hours. As I watched her morning routine, I realized her routine was very different from the first two teachers I observed.
She often sat in a chair and let the parents bring their children in, say their goodbyes, and point their child in the direction of a morning activity. The teacher would smile and greet the children and their parents, but didn’t interact much with them past a simple greeting. She also gave the children a choice on their morning activity whether it was reading, playing, or coloring rather than simply giving the children a given task every morning.

Once I had completed my observations at the daycare and reviewed my background information along with what I already knew about daycares from previously working at one, I feel comfortable with placing a “grade” on this certain daycare. On the basic of the content in
Chapter ten of our textbook, I would rate the quality of this daycare facility as average. Many of the classrooms had more children per teacher than the recommended number according to our book. Other rooms had less or the exact amount of children per childcare provider. I also inquired about the staff turn-over rate. I learned that there were several teachers whom had been teaching at the daycare for three or more years, while others were new teachers for this calendar year. Other aspects that lead me to categorize the daycare as average is the fact that there were several older teachers that did not seem as responsive to the children’s emotional needs.
However, the daycare’s curriculum is fantastic, and the administration is great at talking with the parents of the children. Therefore with some of the negatives of this daycare, I cannot rank it as excellent, but it deserves much more than a poor rating as well.
Lastly, I believe that sensitive, responsive care is a vital part of having a quality daycare.
However, I do not believe it is the only factor parents need to consider. Many people, especially individuals who seek a job at a daycare, love children and are naturally responsive and sensitive to them. Children need more than just someone to be attentive to them. Children need stability, a proper curriculum for their educational growth, and small classroom numbers so they can have more one-on-one time with caregivers.

IV. Special Topics: Child Rearing Styles
Parents have different child rearing beliefs and styles. A circumstance one parent may discipline heavily for, may be little worry to another parent. Some parents are more laid back making the claim that “kids will be kids” while others expect more from their children or have stricter parenting styles. Whether many parents realize it or not, their child rearing styles can affect both their child’s emotional and physical growth.
There are four different types of parenting styles. “Parenting styles may be categorized as authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive” (as cited in McKinney, Milone, & Renk, 2011, p.464). Authoritarian parents are described as often strict and are not up for discussion with their children, while authoritative parents are strict, but encourage discussion of their parental reasoning as well as listen to their child’s point of view on the issue. Permissive parents are just as the word describes, permissive. These parents are often lenient and do not have many rules to follow. These parents would most likely make the statement: “Kids will be kids”. More than likely one of the most uncommon types of child rearing styles is uninvolved parenting. These parents often give their child their basic needs, but they do not communicate or are even active in their child’s “personal” life. Unfortunately, there are many negatives to most of these rearing styles. For instance, children raised by authoritarian parents are said to create children who have low self-esteem, high levels of depression, and anxiety problems as adults (McKinney, Milone,
& Renk, 2011, p.465). Likewise, a child raised by a permissive parent will perform poorly academically and likely will be rather defiant as an older child or adult.
After researching some background information, I interviewed three parents from different families regarding their child rearing style. I chose to interview two mothers, one in her twenties and the other in her forties, and one father in his early thirties. All three of these parents

have three children each. The first interviewed parent, a young mother in her twenties with three boys, claimed in her house they establish clear rules and consequences for breaking those set rules. However, she described to me how they explain to her boys why they must do what they are told, why the rules are in place, and why they are getting a consequence. Once I gave the mother the four rearing styles and described them, she told me that she believed she was an authoritative parent or believed in authoritative parenting. She also explained to me that her husband is this way as well with their children. Although this mother believes she is mostly authoritative, she did inform me that on occasion she may choose to be authoritarian. She claimed that she gets overwhelmed sometimes and doesn’t want to give her children explanations. However since child rearing styles are based on the overall way parents handle their children, this “spontaneous” authoritarian parenting is obsolete.
I decided to interview the father in his thirties second. This father has two girls and one adopted son. He most definitely had a lot to say about my questions! When I asked him about his child rearing style, he was eager to tell me that he is the boss and they will do exactly what he says when he says it, no complaints or discussion. I asked him if he found himself giving them the explanation “because I said so”. He informed me that he most definitely tells them that the majority of the time. When I proceeded by asking him why he feels they should receive that answer rather than an actual explanation he stated, “Small children such as mine are not at the age to where rational thinking has developed. If I feel they are old enough to explain situations to, then I will do so. As they mature I will gladly explain the reason for the punishments and why
I believe the way I do.” Then I decided to read him the definition of authoritarian parenting style, and I asked him if he thought he would fit in this category. He replied that he most definitely has an authoritarian way of rearing his children and that his parents reared him the same way.

Lastly, I decided to interview a mother in her forties with two girls and one son. When I asked her to describe her child rearing style she stopped to think for a moment. She told me,
“Honestly, I tended to switch between my children because each of them was different and needed different rearing.” She went on to explain that her first child was a son, and he was a very obedient child. She explained to me that he was a very logical thinker, therefore, she would simply explain to him things and discuss them, and he would do what she said and leave it alone.
However her middle child, a girl, was not so obedient. Her third child liked to argue and whine so she found this child sometimes required the classical “because I said so” answer. Her third child, however, she tended to be more permissive because she was several years younger than the other two. Once I gave her the styles and explained them, she claimed that she mostly is authoritative, but her husband is mostly authoritarian. He likes things done his way right when he wants it. She, however, likes to discuss with her children and come to somewhat of an understanding of things.
After doing interviews and looking over the information I found concerning child rearing styles, I have seen somewhat of a pattern. Women, for the most part, seem to lean towards the authoritative rearing style while most fathers tend to give the explanation “because I said so” or authoritarian. Also after talking to these parents, I found that most of them were not aware of the effects that most studies say their type of rearing can bring about such as self-esteem issues, weight issues as older children or adults, and academic effects. One of the most obvious findings is that every parent I talked to fell into one of the four styles and almost exact to the textbook.

McKinney, C., Milone, M., & Renk, K. (2011). Parenting and Late Adolescent Emotional
Adjustment: Mediating Effects of Discipline and Gender. Child Psychiatry & Human
Development, 42 (4), 463-481. doi:10.1007/s10578-011-0229-2