article 1

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Volume 11 Number 4 2010 www.wwwords.co.uk/CIEC

365 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.4.365

The Aesthetic Preferences of Infants: pictures of faces that captivate their interest

KATHERINA DANKO-McGHEE Department of Art, University of Toledo, USA

ABSTRACT This research focused on the observation of infants between the ages of 2 and 18 months with regard to their aesthetic preferences for a variety of visual stimuli. These stimuli included: a black-and-white schematic drawing of a baby, a popular cartoon image, a colorful abstract painting of a baby, and a photographic image of a baby’s face. Prior research with this age group has determined that faces are of most interest to them. However, young children are now bombarded by the visual media (i.e. television and DVDs, picture books, etc.), and this preference may have changed. Determining the aesthetic preferences of babies will help parents, childcare providers, and picture book authors/illustrators to provide visual imagery that is aesthetically appealing to them. Providing visually stimulating imagery can help babies to develop their visual discrimination and tracking skills. Research confirms that birth to five years is the most important period for children with respect to brain development. Therefore, more research is needed that will provide us with clues about what forms of visual stimulation are appropriate in order to better facilitate this developmental process.

Introduction

Seeing the world with ‘fresh eyes’ is exactly what happens to newborns as they become acclimated to their new surroundings upon arrival. It does not take long for them to experience delight in looking at a variety of visual stimuli. While infants are watching the new world around them, adults, in turn, are charmed by their responses. Babies have captivated the interest of researchers for a long time. And these research findings have provided us with a small window of opportunity to enter into the world of infants, which has helped to facilitate our understanding of their visual responses. The research presented in this article is yet another opportunity that provides insight into the aesthetic delight of infants, aged 2 to 18 months. When infants are presented with a variety of visual images, which ones elicit an aesthetic response from them?

Stores that sell items for babies have an abundance of colorful toys, bedding, books, videos, and musical recordings to choose from. Linn (2008) notes that the media and marketing industries train infants to rely on items that are sold for their comfort and amusement. Adults also decorate infants’ rooms with popular characters from the media and offer them opportunities to watch these characters on television. Typically, items are purchased for babies because of their aesthetic appeal to well-meaning adults. Providing babies with aesthetically pleasing environments (which includes visuals) is important for their overall development (Honig, 2003). Today, infants spend numerous hours each week in day-care centers where they absorb a variety of visual stimuli, which can impact the child’s behavior. Designing environments for young children is an area for further study because most centers and infant nurseries are designed according to adult aesthetic standards, not those of the child (Read & Upington, 2009). How do adults know what babies aesthetically prefer? Let us first take a look at the definition of aesthetics.

Katherina Danko-McGhee

366

Theoretical Foundations

Aesthetics and Visual Culture

Oftentimes, we use the word ‘aesthetic’ when referring to a work of art, but today, our world contains a plethora of visual images. We need not go to an art museum to see art. It is all around us: on billboards, MTV, packaged products in a grocery store, picture books, toys – the list goes on. These visual images can be powerful because of their aesthetic allure. They can charm us into buying things that we do not really need and they can keep us fixated on the television screen for endless hours. For the adults in our society, this is the world that we have seen slowly manifest itself over decades. For many youth, it might be the only world that they have come to know.

These popular images are often referred to as visual culture, which has been defined in many different ways (Mirzoeff, 1999; Hooper-Greenhill, 2000; Sturken & Cartwright, 2001; Freedman, 2003; Tavin, 2003, 2005; Wilson, 2003; Duncum, 2004; Garoian & Gaudelius, 2004). However, Sturken & Cartwright’s (2001) definition appears to summarize the views of most theorists that visual culture includes all forms of visual images, from television to fine art paintings. Freedman adds that:

Contemporary experience with the sophisticated visual culture we see every day, and the knowledge we construct through our many overlapping and associative visual experiences, tells us that the aesthetics exists in many forms and is as interesting as it is sublime. (Freedman, 2003, p. 32)

With a world saturated with what seems to be an infinite amount of visual images, having an ‘aesthetic experience’ is within reach of everyone, including infants.

Aesthetic Responses and Young Children

An aesthetic response for an adult is quite different than for a young child. While we know that an infant brain is not yet fully developed cognitively, it is primed for learning at birth. Early sensory experiences are necessary to wire the neural circuits in the brain for learning to occur (Brotherson, 2005). What this means with regard to aesthetic preferences is that adults are capable of processing visual information on a reflective level when viewing an art-work, while the infant is not yet capable of doing this. An adult can verbalize why they find something aesthetically appealing. For an infant, we have to rely on body language, such as a visual fixation, a smile, a giggle, or reaching for the image or object of desire.

While the visual cortex is one of the first to mature in the post-natal period (Bergen & Coscia, 2001), it is the limbic system that plays an important role here with regard to aesthetic response because it is the seat of emotions (Cold et al, 1998). The amygdala, part of the limbic system, is formed at birth and therefore emotions can be expressed by infants at an early age (Eliot, 1999). Bergen & Coscia (2001, p. 28) note that: ‘The limbic cortex, where emotions are recognized or felt, matures during the 6 to 18 month-old period’. The limbic system plays an important part in the ‘development of aesthetic preferences and makes us able to attach ourselves emotionally to objects and people’ (Tinmannsvik & Bjelland, 2009, p. 378). Heifetz (1966) refers to the limbic system as the visceral brain. Bearing this in mind, when one is captivated by an aesthetically pleasing image or object, one way to respond is at the visceral level, ‘where the brain perceives and analyzes and the body reacts’ (Tinmannsvik & Bjelland, 2009, p. 378). When infants respond aesthetically to an image/object, it is at this visceral level – a pure sensory response. Of course, adults can respond in this way as well.

In keeping with this line of thinking, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ‘aesthetic’ is defined as ‘responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses’.[1] ‘Preference’ is defined as ‘a special liking for one thing over another’.[2] While these two terms are defined differently, they actually are related. If a person sees something that they like (this is a preference) and if it gives them pleasure via the senses – i.e. taste, touch, smell, sight – then this is more of an aesthetic response. What this means for infants is that when they see something that they like (a preference), and they respond to it through the senses by wanting to touch the viewed object or image, fixate upon it, smile at it, or use any other body language to convey that they like it, then

Aesthetic Preferences of Infants

367

this is an aesthetic response. Therefore, the definition of aesthetic preference for this article is defined as a sensory response to something that is liked. An aesthetic response is a sense of pleasure that is triggered by viewing a pleasing image or object. According to the marketing research of Tinmannsvik & Bjelland (2009, p. 376): ‘For the child to take aesthetic interest in an object ... it is important that it offers some kind of appealing sensory stimuli’.

This is demonstrated in the recent research of Piscitelli & Smith (2009), who indicate that ‘there is a strong affiliation between children and art, and that they are indeed aesthetic beings’ (p. 6). In their research with infants and toddlers in a museum setting, Piscitelli & Smith found that infants, when finding an art-work aesthetically appealing to them, would keep their eyes focused on the work while crawling toward it. Other infants, still in their mother’s arms, would reach out to touch the art-work or even try to lick it, for that multisensory experience. It was clear in this research that children preferred three-dimensional work over two-dimensional pieces. This project paves the way for our understanding of aesthetic preferences of infants and toddlers. Piscitelli & Smith note: ‘The data suggest that very young children can and do appreciate art and have aesthetic experiences in museum settings’ (Piscitelli & Smith, 2009, p. 14).

There is other research as well that can attest that young children are capable of having an aesthetic response. According to Dissanyake (2001, p. 336): ‘In the first months of life, babies are born with natural predispositions for aesthetic engagement’. The pioneering work of developmental psychiatrists LeCanuet et al (1995) and Trevarthen (1997) supports the claim that infants come into this world with decided preferences. For example, the research of Slater et al (1998) found that when shown attractive faces versus unattractive faces (as judged by adults), newborns looked longer at the attractive faces. Research by Bornstein et al (1981) suggests that 12-month-old infants prefer vertical symmetry versus horizontal or asymmetry. And, referring back to the work of Piscitelli & Smith (2009) in a museum setting, there was an indication that infants preferred shiny metallic surfaces and also art-works that had large color expanses.

Lim (2004) considers these early years to be the richest time for aesthetic development. ‘Ninety five percent of the information children receive comes to them through seeing, touching, and hearing. Their sensory channels are their primary source of learning’ (Schiller, 1998, p. 52). Children’s perception through the senses is much more intense than that of an adult (Keel, 1972). And, as noted earlier, these sensory experiences play a role in aesthetic responses.

Most research with children conducted over the last century has not sought to understand children’s aesthetic experience (Hogan, 1998). But more recently, education theorists and practitioners have recognized the importance of aesthetic experiences for development and learning (Epstein & Trimis, 2002; Johnson, 2007). Susan Wright (2003, p. 144) notes that when one is captivated by an art form, ‘the “wow” factor or a “magic” moment is a response that is central to all modes of learning’. Similarly, Helen Johnson (2007, p. 312) speaks about the ‘“wide awaked-ness” that is critical in the development of the self-motivated and engaged learning’.

According to Bourdieu (1984), aesthetic responses can be nurtured in various environments, such as the home or the classroom. Here, children have opportunities to engage in dialogue about their aesthetic responses to works of art or visual images. Adults play a vital role in this process because they can facilitate this dialogue (Abbs, 1987; Wright, 2003). While infants can have aesthetic responses, they may not yet be able to voice their opinion about an image or object. However, their body language can demonstrate to an adult observer that they find an image or object intriguing. It is important that the adult validate this response by being supportive and interacting with the child during these times.

Dissanyake (2001) concurs that these early interactions are critical to the emotional, cognitive and psychosocial functions in the future. As already indicated, adult interaction with young children is a vital part of their aesthetic growth process. It is important for the adult to explore along with the child and to point out visual characteristics while using descriptive language to better support the learning process.

Important to this discussion is that aesthetic responses are socially constructed (Anderson, 2004). While infants have aesthetic preferences, it is likely that these preferences will differ for infants in countries around the world. This is due to the variety of visual stimuli that are a part of each indigenous cultural milieu (Anderson, 2004).


368

Past Research on the Aesthetic Preferences of Infants

There is a dearth of research that has been carried out in the art education arena with regard to the aesthetic responses of infants. However, the fields of psychology and child development have long been observing infants’ visual responses to various stimuli. This section is a review of that research.

While many of these researchers do not refer to these responses of infants as aesthetic, if we bear in mind the definition of ‘aesthetic preference’ for this article, infants have exhibited characteristics of aesthetic preference in these studies. During the first year, infants grow physically, cognitively, socially, emotionally and linguistically at rapid speeds, more than at any other time in life (Berk, 2005). ‘When babies are given the opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities, the notion of the babies as an “empty vessel” becomes a myth’ (Kovach & Da Ros-Voseles, 2008, p. 21). Babies learn through their sense of touch, taste, sound and smell. Observant adults will find that babies are marvelous creatures, especially with regard to their aesthetic responses.

Aslin (1982) notes that even newborns have a visual processing system. A study by Adams & Courage (1995) suggests that newborns can see color, although poorly, and a one-month-old child can discriminate red from green and that other color discrimination develops slowly during the first three months. More current research has suggested that 12-week-old infants have been found to demonstrate preferences for colored visual stimuli as opposed to stimuli that are white (Zemach & Teller, 2007). Around two months of age, there are changes in perceptual behavior (Haith, 1978). Infants are now able to visually track an object, show a preference for a family member, gaze at an object, and demonstrate interest in the environment (Kovach & Da Ros-Voseles, 2008). During this growth process, ‘[p]eople play a very special role in the world of infants’ (McKenzie & Day, 1987, p. 12). It is important for adults to engage the child in sensory stimulation in order to facilitate visual development that fosters growth.

Because infants’ perceptual behavior grows at rapid speeds, many visual stimulation research studies have been done with this age group. Research by Fantz (1963) and DeCasper & Fifer (1980) has indicated that the human face is more interesting to infants than geometric patterns. The work of Duuren et al (2009) has found photographs of faces to be attractive to infants as well. Numerous studies have shown that as soon as nine minutes after birth, babies prefer to look at pictures that most resemble human faces (Goren et al, 1975; Johnson et al, 1991; Johnson & Morton, 1991; Valenza et al, 1996; Simion et al, 1998; Mondloch et al, 1999). This suggests that these preferences develop prenatally. In fact, Bednar & Miikkulainen (2003, p. 1525) note that: ‘prenatal learning can account for the newborn preferences for schematic and photographic images of faces, providing a computational explanation for how genetic influences interact with experience to construct a complex adaptive system’.

The research by Fantz (1963) also indicates that while babies looked the longest at faces, they were particularly interested in high-contrast black-and-white schematic drawings of faces. Despite the fact that these findings are nearly 50 years old, his research still has an impact upon picture books and mobiles that are produced for babies in the market today. Prior to two months, the infant is unable to respond to the inner features of a face, focusing more on the outline of the face. ‘Very young infants (under two months) execute most of their scans to the regions of the hairline and chin’ (Dodwell et al, 1987, p. 54). After two months, infants begin to pay more attention to the internal elements of a face, i.e. eyes, nose, etc. They tend to concentrate heavily upon the eyes at this time (Dodwell et al, 1987; Geldart et al, 1999).

Research by Maurer & Barrera (1981) demonstrated that two-month-old infants could differentiate among a variety of drawings of the human face that included a naturally rendered face, a symmetrical but scrambled face, and an asymmetrical face. The preference of two-month-old infants in this study was for the natural arrangement of the face.

By three months of age, infants have built up prototypes of faces. This does not occur earlier than three months (De Haan, 2001). By the time the infant reaches three to five months, they are able to scan the components of a stimulus, such as a face, and look for more details (Aslin, 1982). Infants can respond to all of the elements that comprise a face by four months (Salapatek & Cohen, 1987). Research has also suggested that a real face, as opposed to a picture of a face, yields the same response (Yonas & Owsley, 1987). When presented with a picture of a face, four-month-old infants respond with a smile (Kagan et al, 1966). Additional investigations indicate that four-month-old infants will fixate longer on a pictured smiling face as opposed to one that is not smiling (Le


369

Barbera et al, 1976). By this time (four months), infants have developed visual inspection strategies much like adults use, where the eyes on a face receive most of the attention (Zusne, 1970).

The research of Lewis et al (1966) found that six-month-old babies fixated longer on a photograph of a face as opposed to a linear drawing of a face. Similar results were found by Geldart et al (1999), who worked with five-month-old infants. The research of Slater et al (1998) indicated that infants preferred attractive versus unattractive faces.

Many of the aforementioned studies used preferential looking, dwell time and reaching to determine the child’s preference for a visual stimulus. While there is a plethora of research that focuses on these attention mechanisms, only the research that is germane to the present investigation will be discussed here.

Methods of Discerning Aesthetic Preferences in Infants

Preferential looking. When studying the visual preferences of infants, preferential looking is the method that is most widely used (Atkinson, 2000). While Fantz et al (1962) were the pioneers of this method, Teller (1979) made improvements upon the procedure, which she refers to as forced-choice preferential looking. This method has the infant sit in front of a screen that contains two visual stimuli. The researcher sits behind the screen and observes the viewing behavior of the child. Another researcher, on the same side as the child, controls the placement of the visual stimuli so that the researcher behind the screen does not know which side each of the stimuli is located. When the researcher behind the screen observes the child (via a peephole) to fixate upon a preferred stimulus, a blind decision or forced choice is made. The observer may read body language, eye movements and head movements as indicators from the child that a particular stimulus is preferred. The entire process typically does not exceed 10 seconds. Dwell time and reaching. Because the newborn has control over head and eye movements, fixation or dwell time can be used as an indicator for a visual preference for a stimulus (Atkinson, 2000). Bronson (1990) suggests that during the infant’s first six weeks, scanning behaviors develop and the child is capable of fixating or dwelling on a single target. As babies develop between birth and six months, they are able to change their fixation between target stimuli. The research by Bornstein et al (1988) and Slater et al (1998), mentioned earlier in this article, also utilized observation and fixation behaviors of infants to collect their data. According to Atkinson (2000, p. 8): ‘Many successful behavioral studies of infant vision, throughout the first year of life, have depended upon fixation behavior’. In addition to fixation, infants often reach for the viewed target of choice. This typically happens around four months of age (Atkinson, 2000). Claus von Hofsten (1982) and King et al (1996) confirm this and found in their investigations that infants reach for the object that they are fixated upon. By four months of age, infants’ reaches are visually guided (McDonnell, 1975; Bower, 1976; King et al, 1996), meaning that their hand follows their eye movement as they fixate on a stimulus. Direct observations of infants and their fixation behaviors have been found to be a quite adequate method when studying aesthetic preferences for visual stimuli (Atkinson, 2000).

Linking Previous Infant Research with the Present Research Investigation

While psychologists and child development theorists have conducted most of the research on visual preferences of infants, art and early childhood educators can use this important information to help guide further research with this young age group. As already noted, work with infants in the early childhood art education research arena is almost non-existent. Therefore, the present investigation can serve as a starting point to further explore this area.

As indicated earlier, because the perceptual abilities of the infant undergo a considerable amount of change around the second month of life and they are able to fixate on a target (Amigo, 1972; Bronson, 1974; Pamelee & Sigman, 1976), the present research investigation began with two-month-old infants and included children up to 18 months of age. Taking into account that faces are preferred over other stimuli (as indicated from the previously discussed research – i.e. Fantz [1963] and DeCasper & Fifer [1980]), this research study endeavored to determine what, when given a variety of choices (which was not always the case in earlier research), kind of face (i.e. a photograph


370

of a baby’s face, a colorful abstract painting of a baby’s face, a black-and-white schematic drawing of a baby’s face, or a colorful picture of Dora the Explorer) would be most intriguing for infants aged 2 to 18 months. Presently, due to the increased exposure to television and the popular media, babies’ aesthetic preferences may have changed from what previous research has already indicated – that they prefer photographs of faces as well as black-and-white schematic drawings of faces. Although the research by Slater et al (1998) indicated that infants preferred attractive versus unattractive faces, visual culture has changed significantly since this research was done over 10 years ago. With the plethora of images available today, including a variety of images of faces, what kind do infants now prefer?

In recent years, we have seen the influx of cartoon images and baby videos (most notably the Baby Einstein series) that have vivid colors and movement. Perhaps such experiences wire the brain in a way that refocuses the child’s preference for other types of images, such as abstracted and/or cartoon-like images. One of the extraneous variables considered in this study is early television watching (as a major portal that transmits visual culture) and the impact on aesthetic preference for various visual stimuli.

Popular culture and the mass media are far-reaching around the world. According to Sinclair et al:

The media imperialism perspective more particularly sees that the major world sources for programme exports are located in the USA and secondarily in Europe, mainly in the UK [United Kingdom], and that these centers act as nodes through which all flows of cultural products must pass, including those from one peripheral part of the world to another ... the image flow is heavier than ever. (Sinclair et al, 2004, p. 297)

Sklair (2004, p. 75) further notes that: ‘mass media begins to inculcate the dominant ideology into the minds of viewers, listeners and readers from an early age’.

The statistics of such a young age group with regard to mass media influences are as follows: • The television is on at least half of the time for two-thirds of zero- to six-year-olds (Healy, 2004). • Forty percent of three-month-old infants are watching screen media regularly. The number

increases to 90% by the time they are two (Zimmerman et al, 2007). • Babies are forming mental images of corporate logos and mascots by six months of age (Hood,

2000). • There is a television in the bedroom of 19% of babies one year and younger (Rideout & Hamel,

2006). • More than two hours a day are spent with screen media by 14% of children who are under two

years of age (Rideout & Hamel, 2006).

With such statistics, mass media may have an impact upon the aesthetic preferences of young children.

Keeping in mind the previous discussion, the three research questions that guided the present research investigation are as follows: 1. When given a choice of four faces as the visual stimuli, will more than 50% of infants prefer a

particular image in each picture pair? For example, will more infants fixate upon a black-and-white schematic drawing of a face or a photograph of a face (as indicated to be the case in past research) or will they find other faces (a cartoon character or a colorful abstract painting of a baby) to be more appealing?

2. Does country of origin (cultural milieu) have an impact upon the aesthetic preferences of infants?

3. Does watching television impact aesthetic choices for a popular cartoon character?

According to Allen & Marotz (2007, p. 30): ‘The basic perceptual system is in place at birth. Through experience, learning, and maturation, it develops into a smoothly coordinated operation for processing complex information’. Therefore, the significance of this study lies with the importance of the relationship between early visual engagement, due to the aesthetic appeal of an image, and the nurturing of visual discrimination skills, which are a vital part of a normal growth process. Since the brain is growing quickly during this time period where neurons and connections between cells are being formed, stimulating visual perception with aesthetic stimuli could be beneficial to a young child.


371

Methodology

Pilot Study: choosing visual images of faces

In order to determine the kind of visuals and the best mechanism to use for children’s viewing, a small pilot study was conducted with a random sample of 50 babies, aged 2 to 18 months. All the parents of these children signed a consent form giving permission for their child to participate in the study.

The following was determined in this phase of the research: which visual images of faces were the most engaging to infants aged 2 to 18 months. Images were selected from the mass media, which included picture books and mobiles for infants. These items are readily available in stores that sell these products for babies. Using the criteria from the findings of earlier visual preference research that has already been previously discussed, the black-and-white schematic drawing of a baby’s face used in the Fantz (1963) study was selected (from the Infant Stim-Mobile by Wimmer Ferguson), along with a color photograph of a white baby (taken from the book Baby Talk, pub. Dorling Kindersley, 2005). However, it was determined in this pilot investigation that when all of the African American children were given a choice between the photograph of a white baby and the African American baby, they chose the African American baby. Therefore, both photographs – the white baby and the African American baby – were included in the study for the second phase of this research.

There were two remaining images to be determined: a colorful abstract image of a baby and a cartoon image. These images were chosen using cues from the mass media with regard to what is made available for babies in the marketplace. The children were shown a variety of colorful abstracted images (faces only) of babies and cartoon characters. The pictures were placed on the floor where the children would easily access them. The children were gently encouraged by their childcare providers to go to this space so that they could look at the pictures. During one half hour of observation, the children’s choices were documented. The choices were determined by fixation time. This was indicated when a child looked at one of the pictures for at least 10 seconds. Other body language was recorded as well, such as reaching for the preferred image, pointing to it, smiling, etc. This same procedure was done at all five childcare centers that participated in the pilot study.

After careful observation of the children, one colorful abstracted painting of a baby was selected to be the most popular choice, where 40 out of the 50 children chose this image. For the favorite cartoon image, the face of Dora the Explorer was chosen, where 45 out of the 50 children chose this image.

In order to control any variables, the favored images in the pilot study of this investigation were all faces (from the top of the head to just under the chin) that were facing forward and smiling. All the faces had a white background and the overall brightness of the pictures was the same. The final four selections are as follows: colored photographs of a baby (one white and one African American baby); a black-and-white schematic drawing of a baby’s face; Dora the Explorer; and a colorful abstracted painting of a baby in blues, greens and reds. All the visuals were mounted on a piece of cardboard, each measuring 7 inches square, to control the size. Due to copyright constraints, these images cannot be shown here.

Pilot Study: choosing a format to display the chosen visual images of faces

These favorite images were then placed in a variety of formats to determine which one was the best in keeping the interest of the infant: a picture book format, a picture cube format, or pictures placed on a black folding screen. The best visual format for this study was determined by the interest of the baby and also by the ease of observation for the researcher. The infants tended to chew and play with the picture book format and the picture cube, making it hard to determine which image was of interest to them. Often, after playing with these manipulatives, the children quickly lost interest or became distracted. The folded screen appeared to be the best format. The babies tended to stay focused more and were not as easily distracted. The researcher, to observe the child without being seen, used a peephole in the screen. Different sizes of screens were experimented with, but ultimately a 20 x 30 inch black foam core screen proved to be the best size


372

for this research project. The peephole was in the center and 12 inches from the bottom edge of the screen. It was a half inch square. It was found that an opening bigger than that was a distraction to the babies. After the noted improvements, this folded black screen was used for the second phase of the study.

The folded screen is a derivative of the research tools used by Davida Teller (1979) to measure visual acuity. This has already been discussed and is referred to as forced-choice preferential looking (FPL).

Phase Two: subject selection, observation of infants, and data collection

Subjects. During fall 2008, a sample of 126 infants (68 males and 58 females) was selected from early childhood centers in a city in the US Midwest (n = 30; 19 males, 11 females) and also additional selected sites around the world, including Australia (n = 30; 12 males, 18 females), New Zealand (n = 26; 18 males, 8 females), Romania (n = 20; 9 males, 11 females), and England (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females). The childcare centers in the countries chosen for the study were those that had indicated an interest in participating.

Overall, the participants in this phase of the study were children aged 2 to 18 months, with a mean age of 12.84 months and a standard deviation (SD) of 4.33. The mean age for each country was as follows: USA: 12.56 months; Australia: 13.50 months; New Zealand: 13.40 months; Romania: 12.21 months; and England: 12.10 months. Overall, the number of children within each age band was as follows: 2 to 4 months: n = 7; 5 to 8 months: n = 13; 9 to 12 months: n = 32; and 13 to 18 months: n = 74.

The infants from the United States were from lower-middle to middle-class families. The Romanian infants were from an economically deprived Romani community. The Romani (otherwise known by the offensive term ‘gypsy’) maintain aspects of the same culture with origins in India, speak a specific dialect, and share a similar genetic make-up (Hancock, 2002). Out of respect for the Romani, all are not economically deprived and illiterate. However, the group of Romani that participated in this study were. Parents oftentimes were unemployed or worked on a part-time basis. Because they were illiterate, their children were not exposed to any books, including picture books and other forms of reading material. The infants in England were middle to upper-middle class and resided in a university community. The Australian and New Zealand infants also came from middle-class families.

It was believed that working with babies from around the world would provide a more diverse sample since, as noted earlier, aesthetic preferences are influenced by the cultural milieu. As Eisner (2002, p. 85) notes: ‘frames of reference make a huge difference in what we see’. Everyone’s life experiences are different. Therefore, each will see the same thing differently. While infants have had a limited amount of world experiences, each has been provided with an indigenous environment where they can grow. What was important to this research project was how these environments, including television exposure, may have impacted the aesthetic preferences of these young children.

All the parents of these children signed a consent form and completed a survey questionnaire in order to elicit the kind of television viewing that was provided to their child at home.

Observation of infants and data collection. Each baby was taken to a quiet location in the childcare center where there was no interference from other children. This was where the folded screen had been set up for viewing the four selected pictures of faces. Velcro strips were placed on the board and on the back of each picture. The pictures were placed on the board in pairs at two locations at the eye level of the child and at either side of the midline of the folded screen. There were six pairs, in order to exhaust all the possible pairings of the faces. The ordered picture pairs were each presented (one pair at a time, i.e. the colorful abstract painting of a baby was shown at the same time as the photograph of a baby) to the subjects as follows: 1. Colorful abstract painting of a baby/1. Photograph of a baby; 2. Colorful abstract painting of a baby/2. Dora; 3. Colorful abstract painting of a baby/3. Black-and white drawing of a baby; 4. Photograph of a baby/4. Dora;


373

5. Photograph of a baby/5. Black-and-white drawing of a baby; 6. Dora/6. Black-and-white drawing of a baby.

Even though the pictures were displayed in the order described above, they were randomly placed on the screen so that the same picture was not always on the same side of the board. For example, since the first three picture pairs included the colorful abstract painting of a baby, this image was not always placed on the left side of the screen. Doing this helped to alleviate a potential problem of a child always favoring a particular side, instead of really looking at the picture.

The child sat on the lap of a childcare provider or the parent at a distance of 40 centimeters from the screen. The researcher sat behind the folded screen that displayed the picture pairs. The child was viewed by the researcher through the small peephole. The researcher did not know which picture was placed on which side of the display board because an assistant researcher placed these into position. The researcher had to make a ‘blind decision’ or ‘forced choice’ as to which side the infant preferred. Behavior by the infant served as a cue to help the researcher decide. Eye movements, head movements, pointing, facial expressions, and even pulling the favored picture off of the display screen were some of the ways that determined the choice of the child. The observation period was under the control of the researcher and did not exceed 10 seconds for each picture pair.

The baby’s responses to these stimuli were determined by visual fixation. Each baby’s visual fixation was observed as images were provided (see Figure 1). The images that provoked a visual fixation of a 10-second time frame (determined by the use of a stopwatch), were the ones determined to be of interest to the baby. The aesthetic preferences of each child were recorded on a survey form prepared by the principle investigator. The age, gender and ethnicity of the child were recorded along with observational notes about head/eye movement, body language, and vocal sounds.

When children displayed behavior that they did not want to participate, the data collection was stopped and the child was given an opportunity at another time to view the pictures. No child was ever forced to participate if they chose not to do so. There were three children who were dropped from the study because they were not comfortable in participating.

Figure 1. Mother with baby looking at images on black screen with researcher observing from behind. Parental survey. The parents were given a questionnaire to complete at the same time they were given the consent form. This was done prior to observing the children. The survey form included the following two questions: (1) Does your child watch television? and (2) If so, please list their favorite shows. Because the Romani parents could not read or speak English, a translator read the questions and the researcher recorded the responses.


374

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Preferences for Faces: which faces children liked the best

Keeping in mind that the first research question asks if more than 50% of infants will prefer a particular image in each picture pair, a one-tail test for proportion at the .05 level was done for each of the six picture pairs. The hypotheses were: H0: p ≤ .50 and H1: p ≥ .50. As indicated in Table I, when looking at those six picture pairs, the infants aged 2 to 18 months (n = 126) had the following aesthetic preferences: 1. The photograph, when viewed with the colorful abstract painting, yielded a z-score of 2.31 and

was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring the abstract painting is more than 50%.

2. Dora, when paired with the colorful abstract painting, resulted in a z-score of 4.63 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children who prefer Dora is greater than 50%.

3. The black-and-white schematic drawing, when compared to the abstract painting, yielded a z-score of 3.73 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring the black-and-white drawing is greater than 50%.

4. Dora, when viewed with the photograph, yielded a z-score of 0.898 and was significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The preference for Dora is less than 50%.

5. There was a z-score of 0.00 for the pairing of the photograph with the black-and-white schematic drawing. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The preference for either image is not greater than 50%.

6. When Dora was viewed with the black-and-white schematic drawing, the z-score was 3.03 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring Dora is greater than 50%.

Picture pair Sample proportion

preferring a particular image

z-score at .05 level

1. Photograph, versus abstract painting

0.396 0.603

2.31*

2. Abstract painting, versus Dora

0.293 0.706

4.63*

3. Abstract painting, versus black-and-white drawing

0.333 0.666

3.73*

4. Photograph, versus Dora

0.460 0.540

0.898

5. Photograph, versus black-and-white drawing

0.500 0.500

0.00

6. Dora, versus black-and-white drawing

0.635 0.365

3.03*

*significant at .05 level.

Table I. One-tail test for proportion (at 50%) to determine aesthetic preferences for images of infants aged 2 to 18 months (n = 126). When looking at the data according to age bands, the results of the one-tail test for proportion at the 0.05 level for the six picture pairs are shown in Table II, for infants aged 2 to 12 months, where n = 52. The hypotheses were: H0: p ≤ .50 and H1: p ≥ .50. 1. With the pairing of the abstract painting and the photograph, a z-score of -1.67 was obtained.

The null hypothesis is not rejected. 2. The pairing of Dora with the abstract painting yielded a z-score of 2.77 and was significant. The

null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring Dora is greater than 50%. 3. The abstract painting, when paired with the black-and-white drawing, yielded a z-score of 2.49

and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring the black-and-white drawing is greater than 50%.


375

4. A z-score of 1.11 was the result of the pairing of the photograph and Dora. This was not significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The proportion of children preferring the photograph is less than 50%.

5. The photograph, when paired with the black-and-white drawing, yielded a z-score of 0.274 and was not significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The proportion of children preferring the photograph is less than 50%.

6. Dora, when compared to the black-and-white drawing, yielded a z-score of 1.65 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring Dora is more than 50%.

Picture pair Sample proportion

preferring a particular image



0.384 0.615

-1.67


0.307 0.692

2.77*


0.327 0.673

2.49*


0.577 0.423

1.11


0.519 0.481

0.274


0.615 0.385

1.65*

*significant at .05 level.

Table II. One-tail test for proportion (at 50%) to determine aesthetic preferences for images of infants aged 2 to 12 months (n = 52). When looking at the data according to age bands, the results of the one-tail test for proportion at the .05 level for the six picture pairs are shown in Table III for infants aged 13 to 18 months, where n = 74. The hypotheses were: H0: p ≤ .50 and H1: p ≥ .50. 1. There was a z-score of 1.63, which was not significant, for the pairing of the photograph and

the abstract painting. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The proportion of children preferring the photograph is less than 50%.

2. The pairing of Dora with the abstract painting yielded a z-score of 3.72 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring Dora is greater than 50%.

3. The abstract painting, when paired with the black-and-white drawing, yielded a z-score of 2.79 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring the black-and-white drawing is greater than 50%.

4. A z-score of 2.10 was the result of the pairing of the photograph and Dora. This was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring Dora is greater than 50%.

5. The photograph, when paired with the black-and-white drawing, yielded a z-score of 0.241 and was not significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected. The proportion of children preferring the black-and-white drawing is less than 50%.

6. Dora, when compared to the black-and-white drawing, yielded a z-score of 2.56 and was significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. The proportion of children preferring Dora is greater than 50%.


376

Picture pair Sample proportion preferring a

particular image



0.410 0.595

1.63


0.283 0.716

3.72*


0.338 0.662

2.79*


0.378 0.622

2.10*


0.486 0.514

0.241


0.649 0.351

2.56*

*significant at 0.05 level.

Table III. One-tail test for proportion (at 50%) to determine aesthetic preferences for images of infants aged 13 to 18 months (n = 74).

Cross-cultural Differences and Similarities

In order to determine if country of origin has an impact upon aesthetic preferences, chi-squares were calculated (with four degrees of freedom at the 0.05 level) for each picture pair. The results that were obtained for children aged 2 to 18 months, where n = 126, can be found in Table IV. 1. For the pairing of the abstract painting and the photograph, the chi-square was 4.24 and was

not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

2. The abstract painting paired with Dora yielded a chi-square of 7.47 and was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

3. A chi-square of 6.12 was calculated for the pairing of the abstract painting and the black-and-white drawing. It was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

4. The photograph, when compared to Dora, yielded a chi-square of 7.03. It was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

5. A chi-square of 8.30 was calculated for the photograph and the black-and-white drawing, and was significant. Looking at the data, country of origin appears to have an impact on preferences for this picture pair.

6. Dora, when paired with the black-and-white drawing, yielded a chi-square of 10.90 and was significant. Looking at the data, country of origin appears to have an impact on preferences for this picture pair.

Picture pairs United States Romania England Australia New Zealand Chi-square Abstract versus photo

fo* = 10 fe** = 12.00

fo = 20

fe = 18.24

fo = 7 fe = 8.00

fo = 13

fe = 12.60

fo = 12 fe = 8.00

fo = 8

fe = 12.60

fo = 11 fe = 12,00

fo = 19

fe = 18.24

fo = 10 fe = 10.50

fo = 16

fe = 15.96

4.24

Abstract versus Dora

fo = 11 fe = 8.88

fo = 19

fe = 21.36

fo = 4 fe = 5.92

fo = 16

fe = 14.24

fo = 7 fe = 5.92

fo = 13

fe = 14.24

fo = 12 fe = 8.88

fo = 18

fe = 21.36

fo = 3 fe = 7.77

fo = 23

fe = 18.69

7.47

Abstract versus

fo = 8 fe = 10.08

fo = 9 fe = 6.72

fo = 7 fe = 6.72

fo = 6 fe = 10.08

fo = 12 fe = 8.82

6.12


377

black-and-white drawing

fo = 22

fe = 20.16

fo = 11

fe = 13.44

fo = 13

fe = 13.44

fo = 24

fe = 20.16

fo = 14

fe = 17.64

Photo versus Dora

fo = 10 fe = 13.92

fo = 20

fe = 16.32

fo = 14 fe = 9.28

fo = 6

fe = 10.88

fo = 10 fe = 9.28

fo = 10

fe = 10.88

fo = 12 fe = 13.92

fo = 18

fe = 16.32

fo = 12 fe = 12.18

fo = 14

fe = 14.28

7.03

Photo versus black-and-white drawing

fo = 9 fe = 15.12

fo = 21 fe = 15.12

fo = 14 fe = 10.08

fo = 6 fe = 10.08

fo = 11 fe = 10.08

fo = 9 fe = 10.88

fo = 15 fe = 15.12

fo = 15 fe = 15.12

fo = 14 fe = 13.23

fo = 12 fe = 13.23

8.30***

Dora versus black-and-white drawing

fo = 20 fe = 19.20

fo = 10 fe = 11.04

fo = 14 fe = 12.80

fo = 6 fe = 7.36

fo = 13 fe = 12.80

fo = 7 fe = 7.36

fo = 12 fe = 19.20

fo = 18 fe = 11.04

fo = 21 fe = 16.80

fo = 5 fe = 9.66

10.90***

*observed frequencies; **estimated frequencies; ***significant at 0.05 level with four degrees of freedom.

Table IV. Chi-squares: preferences for images with regard to country of origin of infants aged 2 to 18 months (n = 126). When broken down into age bands, the chi-square calculations (with four degrees of freedom at the .05 level) are shown in Table V for infants aged 2 to 12 months, where n = 52. 1. The abstract painting, when paired with the photograph, yielded a chi-square of 1.92 and was

not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

2. A chi-square of 6.15 was calculated for the pairing of the abstract painting and Dora. It was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

3. The pairing of the abstract painting with the black-and-white-drawing resulted in a chi-square of 2.05, which was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

4. The photograph, when paired with Dora, yielded a chi-square of 6.61 and was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

5. A chi-square of 8.78 resulted with the pairing of the photograph and the black-and-white drawing. It was significant. Looking at the data, country of origin appears to have an impact on the preferences of infants with regard to this picture pair.

6. Dora, when compared to the black-and-white drawing, yielded a chi-square of 3.26, which was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.


378


fo* = 5 fe** = 6.20

fo = 11

fe = 9.92

fo = 3 fe = 3.00

fo = 5

fe = 4.80

fo = 5 fe = 3.80

fo = 5

fe = 6.08

fo = 5 fe = 3.80

fo = 5

fe = 6.08

fo = 2 fe = 3.00

fo = 6

fe = 4.80

1.92


fo = 4 fe = 4.96

fo = 12

fe = 11.16

fo = 4 fe = 2.40

fo = 4

fe = 5.40

fo = 4 fe = 3.04

fo = 6

fe = 6.84

fo = 4 fe = 3.04

fo = 6

fe = 6.84

fo = 0 fe = 2.40

fo = 8

fe = 5.40

6.15

Abstract versus black-and-white drawing

fo = 4 fe = 5.27

fo = 12 fe = 10.85

fo = 4 fe = 2.55

fo = 4 fe = 5.25

fo = 3 fe = 3.23

fo = 7 fe = 6.65

fo = 4 fe = 3.23

fo = 6 fe = 6.65

fo = 2 fe = 2.55

fo = 6 fe = 5.25

2.05

Photo versus Dora

fo = 6 fe = 9.30

fo = 10

fe = 6.82

fo = 7 fe = 4.50

fo = 1

fe = 3.30

fo = 7 fe = 5.70

fo = 3

fe = 4.18

fo = 5 fe = 5.70

fo = 5

fe = 4.18

fo = 5 fe = 4.50

fo = 3

fe = 3.30

6.61


fo = 5 fe = 8.37

fo = 11 fe = 7.75

fo = 7 fe = 4.05

fo = 1 fe = 3.75

fo = 4 fe = 5.13

fo = 6 fe = 4.75

fo = 7 fe = 5.13

fo = 3 fe = 4.75

fo = 4 fe = 4.05

fo = 4 fe = 3.75

8.78***


fo = 10 fe = 9.92

fo = 6 fe = 6.20

fo = 6 fe = 4.80

fo = 2 fe = 3.00

fo = 6 fe = 6.08

fo = 4 fe = 3.80

fo = 4 fe = 6.08

fo = 6 fe = 3.80

fo = 6 fe = 4.80

fo = 2 fe = 3.00

3.26

*observed frequencies; **estimated frequencies; *** significant at 0.05 level with four degrees of freedom.

Table V. Chi-squares: preferences for images with regard to country of origin of infants aged 2 to 12 months (n = 52). The chi-square calculations (with four degrees of freedom at the 0.05 level) are shown in Table VI for infants aged 13 to 18 months, where n = 74. 1. The abstract painting, when paired with the photograph, yielded a chi-square of 4.92. It was not

significant. Country of origin appears not to have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

2. A chi-square of 10.62 was calculated for the pairing of the abstract painting and Dora. It was significant. Looking at the data, country of origin appears to have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

3. The pairing of the abstract painting with the black-and-white drawing resulted in a chi-square of 42.74, which was significant. Looking at the data, country of origin appears to have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

4. The photograph, when paired with Dora, yielded a chi-square of 3.03 and was not significant. Country of origin did not have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.

5. A chi-square of 5.43 resulted with the pairing of the photograph and the black-and-white drawing. It was not significant. Country of origin does not appear to have an impact on the preferences of infants with regard to this picture pair.


379

6. Dora, when compared to the black-and-white drawing, yielded a chi-square of 8.47, which was significant. Looking at the data, country of origin appears to have an impact on aesthetic preferences for this picture pair.


fo* = 5 fe** = 5.70

fo = 9

fe = 8.36

fo = 4 fe = 4.80

fo = 8

fe = 7.04

fo = 7 fe = 4.20

fo = 3

fe = 6.16

fo = 6 fe = 8.10

fo = 14

fe = 11.88

fo = 8 fe = 7.20

fo = 10

fe = 10.56

4.92


fo = 7 fe = 3.99

fo = 7

fe = 10.07

fo = 0 fe = 3.36

fo = 12

fe = 8.48

fo = 3 fe = 2.94

fo = 7

fe = 7.42

fo = 8 fe = 5.67

fo = 12

fe = 14.31

fo = 3 fe = 5.04

fo = 15

fe = 12.72

10.62***

Abstract versus black-and-white drawing

fo = 4 fe = 4.75

fo = 10 fe = 1.90

fo = 5 fe = 4.00

fo = 7 fe = 7.84

fo = 4 fe = 3.50

fo = 6 fe = 6.86

fo = 2 fe = 6.75

fo = 18 fe = 13.23

fo = 10 fe = 6.00

fo = 8 fe = 11.76

42.74***

Photo versus Dora

fo = 4 fe = 5.32

fo = 10

fe = 8.74

fo = 7 fe = 4.48

fo = 5

fe = 7.36

fo = 3 fe = 3.92

fo = 7

fe = 6.44

fo = 7 fe = 7.56

fo = 13

fe = 12.42

fo = 7 fe = 6.72

fo = 11

fe = 11.04

3.03


fo = 4 fe = 6.84

fo = 10 fe = 7.22

fo = 7 fe = 5.76

fo = 5 fe = 6.08

fo = 7 fe = 5.04

fo = 3 fe = 5.32

fo = 8 fe = 9.72

fo = 12 fe = 10.26

fo = 10 fe = 8.64

fo = 8 fe = 9.12

5.43


fo = 10 fe = 9.12

fo = 4 fe = 4.94

fo = 8 fe = 7.68

fo = 4 fe = 4.16

fo = 7 fe = 6.72

fo = 3 fe = 3.64

fo = 8 fe = 12.96

fo = 12 fe = 7.02

fo = 15 fe = 11.52

fo = 3 fe = 6.24

8.47***

*observed frequencies; **estimated frequencies; ***significant at 0.05 level with four degrees of freedom.

Table VI. Chi-squares: preferences for images with regard to country of origin of infants aged 13 to 18 months (n = 74).

The Impact of Watching Television on the Aesthetic Preferences for Faces

Out of a total of 126 children, 116 (92%) of the parents responded to a survey. The survey was used to provide some insight into the television exposure that parents were providing for their children. For the US parents, 27% indicated on the survey that their children watched television, which mostly consisted of cartoons. Eighty-seven percent of the Romani parents indicated that their children watched television, which also included mostly cartoons. According to 55% of the parents in England, their children watched predominantly cartoons on television. As indicated by their parents, 65% of Australian children watched cartoons on television. In New Zealand, 45% of the children watched cartoons on television. However, not knowing how often children watched


380

television impedes any conclusions that can be drawn. Therefore, what follows is for informational purposes only.

Out of 116 infants aged 2 to 18 months, 66 (57%) watched television. When asked specifically what shows were watched, the parents indicated that their children watched a variety of cartoon shows. Only 1% of them indicated specifically that their child watched Dora. According to age bands, 50% of the 2- to 12-month-old children (n = 48) watched television, while 63% of the 13- to 18-month-old children (n = 67) watched television. If we look at the data according to country (see Table VII), the highest percentage of children watching television was in Australia with 66% (n = 20), followed by Romania with 60% (n = 12) and the United States with 60% (n = 12), then England with 58% (n = 11). The lowest percentage of television watching was in New Zealand with 33% (n = 9).

Country Percentage of children who watch television

Number of children in each country

Australia 66 30 Romania 60 20 United States 60 20 England 58 19 New Zealand 33 27

Table VII. Percentage of children aged 2 to 18 months who watch television (n = 116). However, when looking at the children in each country, the number of times they chose Dora out of the three picture pairs and whether they watched television or not, all chi-squares were not significant at the 0.05 level with three degrees of freedom (see Table VIII). This suggests that television watching does not appear to impact the choice for Dora. United States n=20

Chose Dora 0 Times

Chose Dora 1 Time

Chose Dora 2 Times

Chose Dora 3 Times

Chi Square

Watch Television versus Don’t Watch Television

fo*=3 fe**=1.80

fo=0

fe=1.20

fo=5 fe=4.80

fo=3

fe=3.20

fo=0 fe=1.80

fo=3

fe=1.20

fo=4 fe=3.60

fo=2

fe=2.40

6.63

England n=19 Chose Dora 0

Times Chose Dora 1

Time Chose Dora 2

Times Chose Dora 3

Times

Watch Television Versus Don’t Watch Television

fo=2 fe=1.76

fo=1

fe=1.28

fo=3 fe=2.86

fo=2

fe=2.08

fo=2 fe=2.31

fo=2

fe=1.68

fo=4 fe=4.07

fo=3

fe=2.96

.208

Romania n=20 Chose Dora 0

Times Chose Dora

1 Time Chose Dora 2

Times Chose Dora 3

Times


fo=0 fe=0

fo=0 fe=0

fo=4 fe=4.20

fo=2

fe=1.80

fo=7 fe=7.70

fo=4

fe=3.30

fo=3 fe=2.10

fo=0

fe=.90

1.41

Australia = 30 Chose Dora 0

Times Chose Dora

1 Time Chose Dora 2

Times Chose Dora 3

Times


fo=2 fe=1.40

fo=0

fe=.70

fo=10 fe=10

fo=5 fe=5

fo=7 fe=6.60

fo=3

fe=3.30

fo=1 fe=2

fo=2 fe=3

1.84


381

New Zealand n=27 Chose Dora 0

Times Chose Dora

1 Time Chose Dora 2

Times Chose Dora 3

Times


fo=0 fe=.48

fo=1

fe=.60

fo=2 fe=1.32

fo=1

fe=1.65

fo=5 fe=5.76

fo=8

fe=7.20

fo=5 fe=4.44

fo=5

fe=5.55

1.76

*observed frequencs; *estimated frequencies. Table VIII. Chi-squares for children in each country aged 2 to 18 months who watch television.

Discussion

Infants’ Responses to Visual Stimuli

In response to the first research question, over 50% of the infants aged 2 to 18 months preferred Dora the Explorer when paired with the abstract painting, and also the black-and-white schematic drawing. When looking at the data via age bands, the results are the same for children aged 2 to 12 months. However, for children aged 13 to 18 months, Dora was preferred in all three picture pairings – with the photograph, the black-and-white schematic drawing, and the abstract painting. Perhaps the preference for Dora may be attributed to these older children having more television or mass media exposure. But, as noted earlier, not knowing the number of times Dora was watched impedes any conclusions that can be drawn. Also, for this study, watching television does not appear to impact aesthetic preferences for this particular image.

Dora the Explorer and Mass Media Influence

Dora, as a preferred image, is a new finding for this type of research. Mass media images have not been used as stimuli in preference research with children in this age group. And further, the results of this research are intriguing, as they do not support earlier research that indicates babies prefer photographs of faces and high-contrast black-and-white images of a baby, although the black-and-white schematic drawing was a preferred choice when compared to the abstract painting. This preference will be discussed later. Now, what is even more interesting is that while 57% of these children watched television, only a small number (1%) watched Dora. And, as noted earlier, television watching does not appear to impact aesthetic preferences for this group of children. However, the results may have been different if 100% of the parents had responded to the survey gleaning information about television-watching habits. Also, not knowing the number of times the children watched Dora or had been exposed to her image is the unknown variable. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that mass media influences, other than television watching, have an effect on children choosing Dora as their favorite image. So why did they choose her? It can be speculated that children may like the image of Dora, not necessarily because they might have seen her image or ‘like images’ in the visual culture of their environment, but because they may enjoy the high-contrast image with exaggerated features and her big eyes.

When the researchers in this study observed the children, they appeared to really fixate on Dora’s eyes. Many of them responded to her image with a smile on their face and some reached for her. More gregarious children tried to pull her image off of the display screen. It will be recalled that previous research (Zusne, 1970; Dodwell et al, 1987; Geldart et al, 1999) does indicate that infants are attracted to the eyes when presented with a face. Eric Jensen (2006) supports this as well. He informs us that the human visual brain is wired to respond to perceptions with more elements in the top half of our field of vision. The current research tends to support this.

Having children view other popular cartoon images, along with Dora, may produce different results, since most cartoon images are of high contrast and many characters have large eyes as well. It is suggested that more investigation is needed in this area.


382

A Look at the Other Images and How Infants Responded to Them

Black-and-white schematic drawing of a baby. The earlier research by Fantz (1963) is somewhat supported here with regard to the black-and-white schematic drawing of a baby. When given a choice, over 50% of the children aged 2 to 18 months, as well as the age bands 2 to 12 months and 13 to 18 months, selected this image when compared to the abstract painting. It was not chosen as a favorite with any other picture pair.

‘Choice’ is the operative word here. In Fantz’s earlier research, children did not have a selection of other images to choose from. When provided with a choice in this research, the black-and-white schematic drawing was preferred over the colorful painting. This finding is different from the research of Lewis et al (1966), where children focused longer on a photograph that was paired with a linear drawing of a face. In the present research, the frequency of choices between the photograph and the schematic drawing was very close and none of the chi-squares reached significance in any of the age bands. It can be speculated that the black-and-white schematic drawing was chosen because it is a simple rendering and of high contrast in comparison to the colorful painting and the photograph.

Photograph of a baby. It is somewhat surprising that the photograph of the baby was not a popular choice in this research. It was not chosen by any age band as a favorite in any of the tests for proportion. This finding does not support the earlier research (Maurer & Barrera, 1981; Duuren et al, 2009) that infants enjoy viewing photographs, especially of babies. This lack of choice for the photograph is an additional new finding.

One thing to consider with regard to the photograph is what would happen if a personal photograph of each child were shown along with the other visuals used in this research. Would Dora still be the first choice? Once again, more investigation is needed in this area using a larger sample.

The present research had some interesting results with regard to the photograph and children of color. The white baby was shown to white children and the African American baby was shown to children of color. While the white children did not always choose the photograph of the white baby in the various picture pairs, all of the children of color (n = 8) chose the photograph of the African American baby. This suggests that children will most likely choose a photograph of a child that most resembles them. This finding is supported by previous research with three-month-old children of color (Quinn et al, 2005).

Colorful abstract painting of a baby. In this research, the colorful abstract painting was chosen when paired with the photograph for 2- to 18-month-old children. However, overall, the colorful abstract painting of a baby was the least preferred image for the children. When looking at age bands, it was not preferred for any of the picture pairs for children aged 2 to 12 months and 13 to 18 months. These findings support earlier studies where infants preferred the natural arrangement of a face as opposed to an abstracted face (Maurer & Barrera, 1981).

Other research carried out with slightly older children (age two) indicates that colorful and bold and abstracted images are preferred (Danko-McGhee, 2000). This is obviously not the case for children younger than two. Yet, when we look at toys and picture books that are available for this age group, there is a plethora of bold colors.

Aesthetic Preferences of Children from Various Cultures

The second research question focuses on the impact of culture on aesthetic preferences. While data was collected from children in England, Romania, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the sample sizes in each country were too small to take a serious look at any cultural differences. Nevertheless, that information will be reported to provide some insight.

Looking at the data according to age bands, for children aged 2 to 12 months, the only significant chi-square was for the picture pair of the photograph and the black-and-white schematic drawing. Here, the children in the United States had a stronger preference for the black-and-white drawing than the children in the other countries.


383

For 13- to 18-month-old children, Dora was a clear favorite for children in New Zealand when her image was paired with the abstract painting and also the black-and-white schematic drawing. For the pairing of the abstract painting and the black-and-white schematic drawing, children in Australia expressed a stronger preference for the black-and-white schematic drawing compared to the children in the other countries. These children also favored the black-and-white schematic drawing when paired with Dora.

It is obvious from these results that country of origin does have an impact upon aesthetic preferences. This is a new finding. Certainly, the visual environment provided for children in each country should be considered as a possible variable, with more investigation needed. Dissanyake (2001) indicates that there may be a connection between the environment and aesthetic preferences. Considering the visual stimuli in the home, including the kinds of pictures hanging on the walls, picture books that are read, and mobiles that are suspended over cribs, would provide a much clearer insight about how these variables might impact aesthetic preferences.

Effect of Watching Television and Aesthetic Preferences

The third research question is concerned with watching television and the impact on children’s aesthetic choices. Since parents had indicated on the survey that their children watched cartoons (the top favorites included The Wiggles and In the Night Garden), perhaps these were chosen for sound effects and not necessarily the images. For example, The Wiggles has a lot of singing and In the Night Garden has music and sound effects. This auditory stimulation may compete with the visual imagery. Whatever the case may be, more investigation is needed here. Perhaps these visual images (that are high contrast and simple) may have had an impact upon these children’s choice for Dora. A consideration is the failure of the survey to specifically ask if children watched Dora and also how many times she was watched on television. The parents were only asked if their children watched television and to list their favorite programs. It was believed by the researcher that leaving the question more open-ended would produce a more unbiased response. More thought needs to be put into developing a better survey instrument as perhaps the current one is a weakness in this study. Having a 100% response rate would help here as well.

It is interesting to point out that children in New Zealand had the lowest rate of watching television, yet Dora was favored by the 13- to 18-month-old children when her image was compared to the abstract painting and also the black-and-white schematic drawing. This also suggests that perhaps television exposure may not be a factor here in affecting this aesthetic choice. If watching television does not appear to have an impact, then children may like Dora because they really like her face, or they may have seen her image elsewhere (i.e. products that bear her image), causing them to choose her image because they were familiar with her. At this point, all that can be said is that while children in this research sample preferred Dora, watching television did not appear to have an impact on this choice.

Another Unexpected Finding

There were four sets of twins in this research. Each child was observed separately. The results indicate that twins chose almost identical images. This warrants another research investigation exclusively with twin populations.

Closing Remarks

Preferring the image of Dora is the new finding for this study, which suggests that a mass media image does have an aesthetic appeal for young children, especially in New Zealand. Perhaps using her image or ones similar to her would be appropriate to display for visual stimulation for children in this sample. It is also clear from this research that country of origin does have an impact on the aesthetic choices of infants. In addition to the choice for Dora in New Zealand, Australian children preferred the black-and-white schematic drawing. For these particular children, perhaps more black-and-white images could be used for visual stimulation in the form of mobiles, picture books, etc.


384

While this research has answered some questions, many new ones have manifested themselves. Such a line of inquiry is important for parents, early childhood educators and toy manufacturers, and can provide a better sense of the type of visual stimulation young children aged 2 to 18 months prefer. Visual stimulation involves cognitive processes and, as indicated earlier in this article, the first years of life are critical with regard to learning. Providing a stimulating environment that includes visuals which children prefer can contribute to their cognitive growth process. Considering the visual interests of the child is a good place to start with regard to facilitating growth and learning for the infant.

Notes

[1] See ‘aesthetic’, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic

[2] See ‘preference’, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference

References

Abbs, P. (1987) Promoting Aesthetic Appreciation in Young Children, in S. Wright (Ed.) The Arts in Early Childhood. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Adams, R. & Courage, M. (1995) Development of Chromatic Discrimination in Early Infancy, Behavioral Brain Research, 67(1), 99-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(94)00143-4

Allen, K. & Marotz, L. (2007) Developmental Profiles: pre-birth through twelve. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Learning.

Amigo, C. (1972) Visuo-sensory Development of the Child, American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry, 49(12), 991-1001.

Anderson, R. (2004) Calliope’s Sisters: a comparative study of philosophies of art. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Aslin, R. (1982) A Commentary, in G. Bronson (Ed.) The Scanning Patterns of Human Infants: implications for visual learners. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Atkinson, J. (2000) The Developing Visual Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bednar, J. & Miikkulainen, R. (2003) Learning Innate Face Preferences, Neural Computation, 15(7), 1525-1557.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089976603321891792 Bergen, D. & Coscia, J. (2001) Brain Research and Childhood Education. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood

Education International. Berk, L.E. (2005) Infants and Children: prenatal through middle childhood, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education. Bornstein, M., Ferdinandsen, K. & Gross, G. (1981) Perception of Symmetry in Infancy, Developmental

Psychology. 17(1), 82-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.82 Bourdieu, P. (1984) Postscript: towards a ‘vulgar’ critique of ‘pure’ critiques, in P. Bourdieu (Ed.) Distinction: a

social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge. Bower, T.G.R. (1976) Repetitive Processes in Child Development, Scientific American, 235(5), 38-47.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1176-38 Bronson, G.W. (1974) The Postnatal Growth of Visual Capacity, Child Development, 45(4), 873-890.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128073 Bronson, G.W. (1990) Changes in Infant Visual Scanning across the 2-to-14-Week Period, Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 101-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(90)90051-9 Brotherson, S. (2005) Understanding Brain Development in Young Children.

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs609w.htm Cold, B., Kolstad, A. & Larssaether, S. (1998) Aesthetics, Well-being and Health: abstracts on theoretical and

empirical research within environmental aesthetics. Oslo: Norsk Form. Danko-McGhee, K. (2000) The Aesthetic Preferences of Young Children. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. DeCasper, A. & Fifer, W.P. (1980) Of Human Bonding: newborns prefer their mother’s voices, Science,

208(4448), 1174-1176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7375928


385

De Haan, M. (2001) The Neuropsychology of Face Processing during Infancy and Childhood, in C.A. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds) Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dissanyake, E. (2001) Aesthetic Incunabula, Philosophy and Literature, 25(2), 335-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/phl.2001.0026

Dodwell, P., Humphrey, K. & Muir, D. (1987) Shape and Pattern Perception, in P. Salapatek & L. Cohen (Eds) Handbook of Infant Perception: from perception to cognition, vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.

Duncum, P. (2004) Visual Culture Isn’t Just Visual: multiliteracy, multimodality, and meaning, Studies in Art Education, 45(3), 252-264.

Duuren, M., Kendell-Scott, L. & Stark, N. (2009) Early Aesthetic Choices: infant preferences for attractive premature infant faces, Advances in Psychological Science, 17(6), 1234-1241.

Eisner, E. (2002) The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eliot, L. (1999) What’s Going on in There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life. New

York: Bantam. Epstein, A.S. & Trimis, E. (2002) Supporting Young Artists: the development of the visual arts in young children.

Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Press. Fantz, R.L. (1963) Pattern Vision in Newborn Infants, Science, 140(3564), 296-297.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.140.3564.296 Fantz, R.L., Ordy, J.M. & Udelf, M.S. (1962) Maturation of Pattern Vision in Infants during the First Six

Months, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55(6), 907-917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044173

Freedman, K. (2003) Teaching Visual Culture. New York: Teachers College Press & National Art Education Association.

Garoian, C. & Gaudelius, Y. (2004) The Spectacle of Visual Culture, Studies in Art Education, 45(4), 298-312. Geldart, S., Maurer, D. & Carney, K. (1999) Effects of Eye Size on Adult’s Aesthetic Ratings of Faces and Five

Month Olds’ Looking Times, Perception, 28(3), 361-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p2885 Goren, C.C., Sarty, M. & Wu, P.Y.K. (1975) Visual Following and Pattern Discrimination of Face-like Stimuli

by Newborn Infants, Pediatrics, 56(4), 544-549. Haith, M. (1978) Visual Competence in Early Infancy, in R. Held, H. Leibowitz & H.L. Teuber (Eds)

Handbook of Sensory Physiology, vol. 8. Berlin: Springer. Hancock, I. (2002) We Are the Romani People. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Healy, J.M. (2004) Early Television Experience and Subsequent Attention Problems in Children, Pediatrics,

113(4), 917-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.4.917-a Heifetz, M.D. (1966) The Aesthetic Principle, Srt Journal, 25(4), 372-376. Hofsten, C. von (1982) Eye–Hand Coordination in Newborns, Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 450-461. Hogan, D.M. (1998) Valuing the Child in Research: historical and current influences on research

methodology with children, in D.M. Hogan & R. Gilligan (Eds) Researching Children’s Experiences: qualitative approaches. Dublin: Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College, Dublin.

Honig, A. (2003) Beauty for Babies, Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17(7), 22-25. Hood, D. (2000) Is Advertising to Kids Wrong? Marketers Respond, Kidscreen, 15 November. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000) Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge. Jensen, E. (2006) Enriching the Brain: how to maximize every learner’s potential. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, H.L. (2007) Aesthetic Experience and Early Language and Literacy Development, Early Childhood

Development and Care, 177(3), 311-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430500495576 Johnson, M.H., Dziurawiec, S., Hadyn, E. & Morton, J. (1991) Newborns’ Preferential Tracking of Face-like

Stimuli and Its Subsequent Decline, Cognition, 40(1/2), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90045-6

Johnson, M.H. & Morton, J. (1991) Biology and Cognitive Development. Oxford: Blackwell. Kagan, J., Henker, B.A., Hen-tou, A. & Lewis, M. (1966) Infants’ Differential Reactions to Familiar and

Distorted Faces, Child Development, 37(3), 519-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1126676 Keel, J.S. (1972) The Roots of Aesthetic Experience, Art Education, 25(3), 4-7.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3191676 King, J.A., Atkinson, J., Braddick, O., Nokes, L. & Braddick, F. (1996) Target Preference and Movement

Kinematics Reflect Development of Visuomotor Modules in the Reaching of Human Infants, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 37: S526.


386

Kovach, B. & Da Ros-Voseles, D. (2008) Being with Babies: understanding and responding to the infants in your care. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House.

Le Barbera, J.D., Izard, C.E., Vietze, P. & Parisi, S.A. (1976) Four and Six-Month-Old Infants’ Visual Responses to Joy, Anger, and Neutral Expressions, Child Development, 47(2), 535-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128816

LeCanuet, J.P., Fifer, W.P., Krasnegor, N.A. & Smotherman, W.P. (1995) Fetal Development: a psychobiological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewis, M., Kagan, J. & Lalafat, J. (1966) Patterns of Fixation in Infants, Child Development, 37(2), 332-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1126807

Lim, B. (2004) Aesthetic Discourses in Early Childhood Settings: Dewey, Steiner, and Vygotsky, Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(5), 473-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443032000153633

Linn, S. (2008) The Case for Make Believe: saving play in a commercialized world. New York: The New Press. Maurer, D. & Barrera, M. (1981) Infants’ Perception of Natural and Distorted Arrangements of a Schematic

Face, Child Development, 52(1), 196-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129230 McDonnell, P.M. (1975) The Development of Visually Guided Reaching, Perception and Psychophysics, 18(3),

181-185. McKenzie, B. & Day, R. (1987) Perceptual Development in Early Infancy: problems and issues. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mirzoeff, N. (1999) An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge. Mondloch, C.J., Lewis, T.L., Budreau, D.R., Maurer, D., Dannemiller, J.L., Stephens, B.R. & Kleiner-

Gathercoal, K.A. (1999) Face Perception during Infancy, Psychological Science, 10(5), 419-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00179

Pamelee, A.H. & Sigman, M. (1976) Development of Visual Behavior and Neurological Organization in Pre-term and Full-term Infants, in A. Pick (Ed.) Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, vol. 10. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Piscitelli, B. & Smith, B. (2009) Infants, Toddlers and Contemporary Art: bright and shiny research findings. Paper presented at Third Art in Early Childhood Conference, Singapore, 4-6 June.

Quinn, P., Slater, A.M., Lee, K., Gibson, A., Smith, M., Ge, L. & Pascalis, O. (2005) Preferences for Attractive Faces in Human Infants Extends beyond Conspecifics, Developmental Science, 11(1), 76-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00647.x

Read, M. & Upington, D. (2009) Young Children’s Color Preferences in the Interior Environment, Early Childhood Education, 36(6), 491-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0311-6

Rideout, V. & Hamel, E. (2006) The Media Family: electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, preschoolers and their parents. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Salapatek, P. & Cohen, L. (Eds) (1987) Handbook of Infant Perception, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. Schiller, P. (1998) The Thinking Brain, Child Care Information Exchange, 5(1), 49-52. Simeon, F., Valenza, E., Umilta, C. & Barba, B. (1998) Preferential Orienting to Faces in Newborns: a

temporal-nasal asymmetry, Journal of Experimental Psychology: human perception and preference, 24(5), 1399-1405.

Sinclair, J., Jacka, E. & Cunningham, S. (2004) Peripheral Vision, in F. Lechner & J. Boli (Eds) The Globalization Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sklair, L. (2004) Sociology of the Global System, in F. Lechner & J. Boli (Eds) The Globalization Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Slater, A., Schulenburg, C. von der, Brown, E. & Badenoch, M. (1998) Newborn Infants Prefer Attractive Faces, Infant Behavior and Development, 21(2), 345-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90011-X

Sturken, M. & Cartwright, L. (2001) Practices of Looking: an introduction to visual culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tavin, K. (2003) Wrestling with Angels, Searching for Ghosts: toward a critical pedagogy of visual culture, Studies in Art Education, 44(3) 197-213.

Tavin, K. (2005) Hantological Shifts: fear and lost things of popular (visual) culture, Studies in Art Education, 46(2), 101-117.

Teller, D.Y. (1979) The Forced-Choice Preferential Looking Procedure: a psychophysical technique for use with human infants, Infant Behavior and Development, 2(1), 135-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(79)80016-8


387

Tinmannsvik, L. & Bjelland, H. (2009) Children and Aesthetics: exploring toddler aesthetic experience of everyday products, International Journal of Product Development, 9(4), 370-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2009.027471

Trevarthen, C. (1997) Fetal and Neonatal Psychology: intrinsic motives and learning behavior, in F. Cockburn (Ed.) Advances in Perinatal Medicine. New York: Parthenon.

Valenza, E., Simion, F., Cassia, V. & Umiltà, C. (1996) Face Preference at Birth, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(4), 892-903.

Wilson, B. (2003) Of Diagrams and Rhizomes: visual culture, contemporary art, and the impossibility of mapping the content of art education, Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 214-229.

Wright, S. (2003) Children, Meaning-Making and the Arts. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia. Yonas, A. & Owsley, C. (1987) Development of Visual Space Perception, in P. Salapatek & L. Cohen (Eds)

Handbook of Infant Perception: from perception to cognition, vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Zemach, I.K. & Teller, D.Y. (2007) Infant Color Vision: infants’ spontaneous color preferences are well

behaved, Vision Research, 47(10), 1362-1367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.02.002 Zimmerman, F.J., Christakis, D.A. & Meltzoff, A.N. (2007) Television and DVD/Video Viewing in Children

Younger Than 2 Years, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161(5), 473-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.5.473

Zusne, L. (1970) Visual Perception of Form. New York: Academic Press.

KATHERINA DANKO-MCGHEE is Professor in Art Education and serves as the Early Childhood Art Education Coordinator at the University of Toledo, USA. She oversees and also teaches the methods course Art for the Pre- and Primary Child, and coordinates the annual Children’s Art Workshop and Art Exhibition. Her research interests are the aesthetic preferences of young children, the environment as third teacher, and museum experiences for young children. Correspondence: Katherina Danko-McGhee, Early Childhood Art Education Coordinator, Department of Art, University of Toledo, 620 Grove Place, Toledo, OH 43620, USA ([email protected]).

Date post:	11-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	harshkaur
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

article 1

Documents