| Course | PS 105 Developmental Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Middle childhood application |
| Length | About 1,040 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 105 Unit 4
"Everyone Else's Volcano Was Better": Erikson's Industry Versus Inferiority Applied to a Composite Nine-Year-Old at a School Science Fair, and Why the Same Evening at Five Would Have Gone Differently
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 105: Developmental Psychology
Instructor Name
April 6, 2026
"Everyone Else's Volcano Was Better": Erikson's Industry Versus Inferiority Applied to a Composite Nine-Year-Old at a School Science Fair, and Why the Same Evening at Five Would Have Gone Differently
The Case
Jaylen, the child in this case, is a composite invented for the paper. He is nine years old and in fourth grade. For his school's science fair he built a model volcano with his father, using baking soda and vinegar, and he was proud of it the night before. At the fair he walked the rows of tables and saw a classmate's project measuring how fast different paper towels absorbed water, with a printed graph, and another testing which plant grew fastest under colored lights. When his volcano erupted for the judges it worked as planned, and he received a participation ribbon. In the car home he said, "Everyone else's was better. I'm bad at science." The next week he told his teacher he did not want to do the fair again.
Nothing about the event is unusual. What needs explaining is why an evening that went well by most measures left him feeling incompetent, and why the same evening would likely have felt different a few years earlier.
The Framework
Erikson (1950) described middle childhood, roughly from age six to the beginning of adolescence, as the stage of industry versus inferiority. Children in this period turn their energy toward learning the skills their culture values, at school and in activities, and toward producing things and being recognized for them. The developmental task is a sense of industry, a confidence that one can make things and do them well. The risk is a sense of inferiority, which arises when a child comes to believe that he cannot measure up to others. Erikson stressed that the school and the peer group become the main settings in which this is settled, and that comparison with peers is central to it.
What the account says should be different now is the stage before. In early childhood, Erikson's stage of initiative versus guilt, children are driven to start things, to plan and pretend, and the main danger is guilt over overstepping rather than a sense of falling short of others.
The Application, With the Comparison Carried Inside It
Comparison with peers
The most striking thing Jaylen did was compare. He judged his volcano not by whether it worked, which it did, but against the projects around it. Erikson's account predicts exactly this, because in middle childhood competence is measured against what peers produce. Research on self-evaluation supports the timing. Ruble et al. (1980) found that younger children made little use of information about how others performed when evaluating themselves, while children from about the second grade onward increasingly did. At five, Jaylen would probably have walked the same rows, enjoyed the other projects, and still thought his volcano was the best, because young children's self-evaluations tend to be optimistic and largely untouched by comparison.
Competence becomes domain specific
Jaylen did not say he was bad at everything. He said he was bad at science. Harter (1982) developed a measure of children's perceived competence and found that by middle childhood children distinguish their competence in different areas, such as schoolwork, friendships and sports, rather than holding a single global view of themselves. That differentiation is part of why one evening could attach a negative judgment to one domain so firmly.
The emotional stake
Erikson's account explains why the comparison mattered so much. In his view a child of this age is actively building a sense of being capable at the things his world values, and school projects are one of the clearest tests. A sense of falling short in one domain is not trivial; it is the early form of the inferiority he describes, and Jaylen's decision to avoid the fair next year is consistent with a child protecting himself from a domain where he now expects to fail.
Testing the Fit
The framework fits three features of the case well: the reliance on peer comparison, the emotional weight of a school product and the beginning of avoidance. It is less helpful on two others. It does not explain why Jaylen compared himself to the most elaborate projects rather than to the many other volcanoes in the room, which may have more to do with what the judges and teachers praised. And it says little about the role of his father, who built much of the project, which the ecological framework of Bronfenbrenner (1979) would treat as part of the family system shaping how the child experiences school. Erikson's stage gives the case its meaning; it does not by itself explain the details.
What the Case Cannot Tell Us
A single composite evening cannot show whether Jaylen's judgment will last. Erikson treated the outcome of each stage as a balance rather than a verdict, so a child can feel inferior in one domain and industrious in others, and a single disappointing fair is unlikely to settle anything by itself. The research cited here describes when children begin to compare and to separate their abilities by domain; it does not predict what any particular child will conclude, or whether a negative view of one subject at nine persists into adolescence. Those questions would require following children over years, and the answers would depend on many experiences after this one. The case also leaves out Jaylen's own interests. A child who enjoyed the eruption more than the judging may return to science through a different door, which a framework built around competence and comparison would not anticipate.
What Has Changed Since the Preschool Years
The comparison across ages is the core of the case. At five, a child's sense of competence is mostly a sense of being able to start things and is protected by optimism. At nine, it is measured against others, broken into domains and tied to what school rewards. Neither stage is better. The shift is what makes middle childhood the period when children can first conclude that they are not good at something, and it is why the responses of teachers and parents to a ribbon or a remark carry more weight at nine than at five.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53(1), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129640
Ruble, D. N., Boggiano, A. K., Feldman, N. S., & Loebl, J. H. (1980). Developmental analysis of the role of social comparison in self-evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 16(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.2.105
Reading the PS 105 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 of PS 105 asks students to apply one framework to school-age behavior in a composite case. Expect to describe the child and situation in plain language first, then present the framework with its author credited and with attention to what it says should be different from earlier years. The application carries a comparison across ages: how the behavior would have looked in the preschool period and why it looks different now. A section should test the fit rather than announce it. The case usually takes about a third of the paper. Basing it on a child you teach or care for would share details about a real child, so build a composite.
Inside the PS 105 Unit 4 example
The case comes first: a nine-year-old, a model volcano, the projects around it and his remark in the car. Erikson's industry versus inferiority is then stated, together with the earlier stage of initiative versus guilt. The application runs in three parts, peer comparison with Ruble and colleagues, domain-specific competence with Harter, and the emotional stake in Erikson's terms, each comparing nine with five. A section tests the fit and brings in Bronfenbrenner for the father's role. Another section states what the case cannot tell us about lasting effects. The close summarizes what has changed since the preschool years and why adult responses matter more now. Throughout, the age comparison appears inside each point rather than in a separate section at the end.
Reading the PS 105 Unit 4 rubric
Rubrics for the middle childhood application typically reward a clearly described case, an accurately presented framework, an application that compares ages, a genuine test of fit and appropriate use of research, together with writing. The case earns credit when described before theory touches it. The framework scores when credited and stated in its author's terms, including the contrast with the earlier stage. The comparison across ages is usually the deciding criterion, because it shows development rather than description. Testing the fit earns points when the paper names what the framework misses. Research is credited when it supports specific claims about timing, such as when children begin to use social comparison.
Common PS 105 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Middle childhood papers lose points when they describe an age without showing what has changed from earlier years. Another common mistake is announcing that a framework fits without testing it. Students often let the case take over the paper or reduce it to a single sentence. Some cite a framework's stage name without explaining its mechanism. Others claim that one disappointing event will shape a child's future, which no study here supports. A case drawn from a real child in your care raises privacy concerns. If you need help building a comparison across ages into your application, our writers can work your chosen framework into one.
Get a PS 105 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Two files get this moving: the Unit 4 instructions and the PS 105 rubric your classroom posts, plus any case the assignment supplies. We write a custom example that describes the composite first, applies one credited framework, carries the comparison to earlier and later years inside the analysis, and closes on what went unexplained. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 105 papers and psychology samples
- PS 105 Unit 1: Developmental theory overview
- PS 105 Unit 2: Prenatal and infancy paper
- PS 105 Unit 3: Early childhood observation
- PS 105 Unit 5: Adolescence paper
- PS 105 Unit 6: Theorist comparison
- PS 105 Unit 7: Adulthood and aging paper
- PS 105 Unit 8: Lifespan case analysis
- PS 101 Unit 4: Learning and conditioning application
- PS 130 Unit 4: Employment outlook paper
- PS 323 Unit 4: Socialization paper
- PS 350 Unit 4: Long-term memory and encoding paper
PS 105 Unit 4 questions, answered
Which framework works best for school-age behavior?
Your instructions usually name one or offer a short list. Where the choice is yours, pick an account that makes claims about this period specifically rather than one built mainly from infancy or from adulthood, because a framework with little to say about the school years will leave your comparison thin. State that reasoning where the paper begins.
How much of the paper should be the case?
Less than most writers give it. The case exists so the framework has something to work on, so a page describing what happened and three pages explaining it is closer to the balance rubrics reward than the reverse. Include only the detail the analysis will use, and cut anything that is there because it makes the story better.
Can I base the case on a child I teach or care for?
Draw on what you know, then build a composite rather than writing that child up. A real pupil is identifiable to colleagues, has no say in appearing, and anything from a school file, a care plan or a professional record about them is theirs and their family's. Composite cases are widely accepted in these sections; label yours as constructed in the opening.
Where can I find a free PS 105 Unit 4 sample paper?
Read the whole PS 105 Unit 4 middle childhood application here without charge, including the case, the age comparison, the fit test and margin notes. Using another framework? Email the instructions and a matching application comes back free, often within two days.
Which framework works best for school-age behavior in PS 105 Unit 4?
One that says what should change from earlier years. The sample uses Erikson's industry versus inferiority because it contrasts directly with the preschool stage and explains why peer comparison carries emotional weight.