The Effects of Infant Day Care On Psychological Development

Abstract

A longitudinal investigation was designed to assess the psychological effects of an experimentally conducted day care program on children aged 3.5 to 29 months. The subjects were Chinese and Caucasian children from working-and middle-class families who were cared for at a special group care center five days a week; the major control group consisted of children reared totally at home and matched with the experimental children in terms of ethnicity, social class, and sex. Data gathered during the last two assessments, at age 20 and 29 months, revealed little difference between the day care and home control children with respect to cognitive functioning, language, attachment, separation protest, and play tempo; the only simple effect of rearing involved behavior with unfamiliar peers. There was a provocative interaction among ethnicity, social class, and rearing: among working-class Chinese children, the day care experience facilitated cognitive development and reduced apprehension in unfamiliar situations; this effect did not occur among Caucasians In general, the home environment seemed more influential in sculpting each child's early development than were day care experiences.The question that provoked the work to be summarized here can be put in deceptively simple form. Do infants attending a wellrun, nurturant, responsible group care center five days a week for a little over 100 weeks display different patterns of psychological development during or at the end of that period compared with children of the same AUTHORS' NOTE An earlier version of this paper was presented at a symposium on

From Social Withdrawal to Social Confidence: Evidence for Possible Pathways

“…Infant shyness is often linked to mothers' selfreports of being introverted, lacking sociability, and having an intense level of shyness (Daniels and Plomin 1985). Such caregivers influence the child's daily events and surroundings by limiting the child's social interactions; therefore, shy children often experience a lack of exposure to novel social situations (Schaffer 1966;Kagan et al 1977). As a result, these children tend toward a self-perpetuating cycle in which bi-directional associations are likely to develop: Isolation, hesitancy to interact, and poor social skills all reinforce each other, thus furthering the child's shyness and social incompetence (Putallaz and Gottman 1981).…”

“…As described by Asendorpf, shy children have both high avoidance and high approach tendencies, characterized by a desire to interact with other individuals, but are hesitant to interact due to a persistent fear of negative outcomes. These negative outcomes include negative evaluation (Buss 1980) and a general and ongoing fear of novel social situations (Schaffer 1966;Kagan et al 1977).…”

Silent or Talking in the Classroom: Implicit Self-Stereotyping Among Asian and White Students

“…North American children tend to be more verbal and to communicate more frequently than East Asian children (Caudhill & Schooler, 1973;Minami, 1994). These cultural differences emerge early on (Kagan, Kearsley, & Zelazo, 1977) and persist into adulthood (Swann & Rentfrow, 2001). Compared to East Asians or East Asian Americans, European Americans are more likely to endorse the idea that talking and thinking are closely connected and that talking is beneficial for thinking (Kim, 2002;Kim & Sherman, 2007).…”

Developmental Psychology after Piaget An Approach in Terms of Symbolization

“…A rival set of investigators asserts that Piaget has, if anything, overplayed the role of interaction with the world in the develop ment of mental capacities; embracing a nativist account, such observers prefer to attribute to the child a rich initial mental structure which in itself contains the concepts, and the requisite representational machinery needed for eventual achievement of the Piagetian end states {Bower, 1974;Chomsky, 1975;Fodor, 1975;Lorenz, 1977). A somewhat related point of view has recently been articulated by Kagan et al (1978) who, while spurning the seductive powers of innate ideas, deem much of development as a regular unfolding at key maturational points of cognitive and social milestones.…”