Child Observation Paper After observing a nine month old child for this Child Observation paper, the author of this paper has taken copious notes during the session. The purpose of this paper is recognizing the biological, cognitive and psychosocial development of the child. The author of this paper identified the background history of the child, the observation made and the development process of the child.
BACKGROUND
The child chosen for this child observation paper is a nine month old male, who appears to a healthy normal child. His mother is Caucasian and father is half Caucasian and half Hispanic. Mother and father are together however, are not married. He lives in the home with grandmother, mother, father, aunt, uncle a older …show more content…

mistrust. “The first stage of Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development occurs between birth and one year of age and is the most fundamental stage in life”(Cherry, n.d.)
OBSERVATION OF CHILD ‘S INTERACTION WITH ANOTHER CHILD During the session, the child older three year old female cousin was in the room. The child interacts with her by following her around the room and tries to mimic her. At one point the older female cousin had her own Sippy Cup and the child tried to bully her for it. He pulled her hair while reaching for the cup. The child plays patty cake with the older cousin. Another point in the session he cried because she left the room. He grabs her face pulls her towards him and kisses her face. It seems as if the nine month old is fascinated with what the older cousin can do. The two children play with toy cars with each other. The older cousin rolls the car to the infant the infant grabs and tries to roll it back.
THEROIES
The nine month old mimicking what the older cousin does can be compared to Albert Banduras example of Bobo doll, “group of nursery school children watched an adult punch a large Bobo doll (an inflated rubber doll that pops back up after being pushed), the children were more likely to attack and play aggressively with the doll than were a group of children who had not seen the model” (Parke & Gauvain, 2009, p. Ch. 1).
CONCLUSION