Children

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Children

      Parental beliefs about online education: Reflections on the Italian experience during COVID-19 quarantine

      by

      Italy was the first western country hit by COVID-19 and one of the countries in Europe with the highest death rates. National lockdown restrictions came into force in March 2020 and schools were closed until the end of the academic year. Now new lockdowns are feared. Teachers’ and parents’ engagement in online schooling and remote learning has emerged as one of the most significant challenges for the country.
      Children experiencing lockdown measures at home are likely to have accumulated multiple stresses related to their lack of or low engagement in school-based instructional and social activities. With schools closed, parents have become full-time child care providers and home-school teachers, responsible, more than ever, for supporting their children’s educational and developmental needs.
      Now Italian young people, their families, and their teachers are facing the challenge of in-person or blended (partly in-person, partly online) education.

      “How well both parents and their children believe they are capable of handling challenges associated with online education was associated with higher child autonomy around online education, better academic performance, and fewer child emotional difficulties.”

      Last summer in Italy, we conducted an anonymous survey of parents with 6- to 18-year-old children about their beliefs about online education. Here are some preliminary data:
      250 parents, 83% of whom were mothers, answered the survey.
      The average age of the children was 11 (SD = 3.84) and 53% were boys.
      The parents were from the center and south of Italy.
      48% lived in an independent house, while 52% lived in an apartment.
      90% said they had WIFI in their home during the lockdown.
      Our study was inspired by Albert Bandura‘s studies on self-efficacy beliefs, which showed that people’s actions are strongly influenced by how much they believe they are capable of reaching a goal or effectively handling a challenging situation. We conducted a pilot study to examine parents’ self-efficacy beliefs toward the challenges of online education during quarantine (we asked, for example, “During quarantine, how well did you believe you were capable of supporting your child doing homework during online education?”). We also examined parents’ perceptions of their children’s beliefs about feeling capable of handling the challenges (we asked, for example, “During quarantine, how well do you think your child felt capable of asking for support to do homework from you/a classmate/a teacher during online education?”). Hereafter I refer to those constructs as parents’ and children’s efficacy beliefs toward online education.
      First, both parents’ and children’s efficacy beliefs toward online education were associated with higher autonomy on the part of the children around online education (e.g., “During quarantine, how often did your child attend online education autonomously, without you having to remind him/her it was time to do so?”). Similarly higher parents’ and [children’s?] efficacy beliefs correlated with better academic performance and fewer emotional difficulties on the part of the children at the end of academic year.
      Second, parents’ support for their children’s academic activities before the COVID-19 pandemic started, as well as parents’ and children’s familiarity with online communication platforms before the pandemic, were associated with higher parental self-efficacy beliefs toward online education.
      Greater parental difficulty in supporting their children in respecting homework deadlines and understanding teachers’ instructions about homework, as well as an overall parental feeling of powerlessness in understanding how they could support their children’s learning, predicted lower parents’ and children’s efficacy beliefs.
      In addition, higher parents’ and children’s beliefs in understanding others’ needs (empathic self-efficacy), handling anger and sadness in challenging situations, and expressing positive emotions (regulatory emotional self-efficacy) were associated with higher parents’ and children’s efficacy beliefs toward online education, as well as with youth’s autonomy toward online education.
      Parents’ hostile rumination (e.g., “I will always remember the injustices I have suffered”) and irritability (e.g., “I often feel like a powder keg ready to explode”) were associated with lower parents’ self-efficacy and children’s autonomy toward online education.

      “Facilitating family-school communications in the time of COVID-19 might decrease parents’ sense of powerlessness when supporting their children’s learning development.”

      Children’s negative emotions (e.g., anger and sadness), low effortful control (e.g., the ability to inhibit an action when there is a strong tendency to perform it), and higher problematic behaviors (e.g., aggressive behaviors, anxiety and symptoms of depression) before the COVID-19 pandemic were also associated with lower parents’ and children’s efficacy beliefs toward online education.
      In conclusion, Bandura’s self-efficacy theory supports the importance of taking into account how well both parents and their children believe they are capable of handling challenges associated with online education. Our preliminary findings show a correlation between these beliefs and developmental outcomes for Italian children during the difficult months of the lockdown.
      Facilitating family-school communication in the time of COVID-19 might decrease parents’ sense of powerlessness when supporting their children’s learning development. It could also increase their sense of efficacy around the challenges typically associated with online education.
      If parents and teachers know which parents’ and children’s characteristics are associated with better child outcomes, they might be able to think more effectively about how to manage their own and their children’s behaviors to maximize the chances of success for the children.
      Header photo: Nenad Stojkovic. Creative Commons.  More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Children

      Poverty generates strengths and rational decisions, not just damage

      by

      Is adolescent parenthood amid poverty always poorly thought out – the irrational miscalculation of youthful short-sightedness? It depends. Some studies of teenage parenting show worse outcomes for both mothers and children, but others indicate better outcomes, once social disadvantages are accounted for. Starting a family early may make sense, even in the long term. To understand why, we should step down from our ivory towers and into the shoes of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are making these decisions.
      Damaging decisions can be rational
      A disadvantaged young woman –  like her relatives – can expect a shorter, unhealthier life than a more affluent young woman. Her unconscious calculations, formed under the effects of poverty, might also vary from her better-off contemporaries. For example, decisions about whether to delay pregnancy for further education might involve a different cost-benefit matrix for a low-income woman than for someone who has more resources. If she waits, then her parents – their health probably already declining under the chronic stress of poverty — might be unable to help her raise the kids. She’ll want those children to reach adulthood before her parents’ advancing health issues compete for her attention. When is a good time to begin a family if a woman wants to be well at least until her oldest grandchild is five? Answers to this question have anticipated childbearing choices across socioeconomic groups; they have also accurately predicted an eight-year gap between the first birth for an average woman and for women living in poverty. Therefore, an early start can be rational, given the circumstances.
      This example begins to show why we need well-rounded ways to capture the diverse impacts of living in poverty. For understandable reasons, a conventional deficit approach concentrates on the damage that disadvantage causes for long-term physical and mental health. But this focus can be too narrow. It may not recognize that some actions –  irrational within privileged contexts –  are reasonable for someone in poverty, even if these actions might also harm health and well-being.
      “Hidden talents” spring from poverty
      Focusing solely on damage caused by living in poverty can also obscure mental strengths – what are called “hidden talents” – developed by the experience. For example, adversity may enhance abilities to address challenges relevant to disadvantaged environments. People may develop specific abilities to deal with harsh and unpredictable situations where threat looms large and potential rewards are sparse and short-lived.

      “We should step down from our ivory towers and into the shoes of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are making decisions.”

      Cognitive tests of young British homeless people showed that, predictably, they performed less well on many activities than did peers from more affluent backgrounds. The deficit process – linked to sleep deprivation, poor nutrition, chronic stress or neglect –  damaged their performance on most tests. However, on the creativity test, the homeless scored on par with others. Surviving on the streets may put a premium on creativity –  being able to solve problems imaginatively – leading to homeless people scoring within the typical range.
      Research has revealed other allied skills. Studies by Seth Pollak at the University of Wisconsin-Madison show that people who have been physically abused may develop an enhanced ability to detect threat. This can help them spot danger early and avoid it.
      Other studies suggest that, in unpredictable circumstances, it is valuable to be able to shift attention  and form memories quickly and efficiently. Cognitive studies show that people who have recently experienced violence may do as well as – or even better than – people who have not experienced violence on tests of remembering information relevant to social dominance. However, such findings are difficult to accommodate if we rely solely on a deficit model that highlights the undoubtedly widespread damage that poverty and adversity can inflict on brain and body.
      A “strengths-based” model complements the deficit approach
      An approach that combines the deficit model with models of reasoned responses and hidden talents is vital for many reasons. It can help fine tune policy and interventions. It can encourage the development of learning and work environments that capitalize on strengths that arise from adversity. It can help explain apparently anomalous research findings where enhanced performance among people in poverty might otherwise be dismissed as a fluke or mistake. Finally, it challenges researchers, who typically come from privileged backgrounds and who may overlook strengths developed through poverty: A broader, more complex model makes us question our assumptions of what is “normal.”
      In terms of policy interventions, a broader model might make parenting programs more effective. In general, authoritative parenting is regarded as the gold standard. Characterized by high demands and high responsiveness, and by giving children choices and flexibility, this approach is believed to secure the best academic and mental health outcomes for children. Experts advocate it and prefer it to authoritarian parenting styles that brook no discussion or dissent.
      Better parenting programs
       But maybe parenting that provides children with choices and flexibility is not always the most rational or even effective approach to raising children. African American children typically face a much harsher reality than affluent White contemporaries whose parents are more likely to favor an authoritative, more liberal style. African American children are much more at risk if they make a single mistake — such as saying something a police officer dislikes, shoplifting once, or misbehaving in ways a teacher finds threatening; when done by a White child, these actions might be dismissed or explained as exploring boundaries. The costs to African American children of slipping up – involvement in the judicial system and tougher punishment – are high. This helps explain why some African American parents are harsher and more authoritarian. Are they making a mistake? It’s unclear: There is some evidence that children who experience strict, no-discussion, but non-abusive upbringings have better outcomes in these contexts than more permissive parenting.

      “A broader model might make parenting programs more effective … Educational practice also could gain insights.”

      Perhaps advocates of a simple deficit approach should get closer to the realities of disadvantaged lives and gain a broadened perspective. For example, it is tempting to conclude that hypervigilant behavior — checking for potential dangers – developed in an abusive childhood offers no benefit and only damage as a working model for a more typical adult life. But this may ignore an asymmetry in the costs of trusting someone you cannot trust compared with trusting someone who can be trusted. Erring on the side of caution may be reasonable, and not merely a mark of impairment caused by stressful early experiences that we should work to reverse.
      Social workers recognize such subtleties. Such behavior makes sense to them and matches their experiences. They see that it can be reasonable (if damaging and not desirable) for young people who are raised in adversity to use aggression to acquire social status or to engage in delinquent behavior to secure resources when they are deprived of opportunities. In contrast, developmental scientists who study youth behavior are often not focused sufficiently on the context; they may concentrate more on the shortcomings of the individual and on interventions that can improve that person’s outcomes.
      Insights into the impact of poverty on learning 
      Educational practice could gain insights and accrue benefits from broadening the deficit approach. Studies suggest that adversity impairs a variety of cognitive abilities. However, research also suggests that, in some conditions, adversity may improve abilities to switch between tasks. Particularly in stressful settings, this skill seems to come to the surface, whereas it may not be apparent in neutral settings.
      Working memory – keeping track of changes in the environment – also seems to be enhanced by some experiences of adversity. These hidden talents could help inform the design of learning environments where the optimal set-up for a disadvantaged child might differ from that for a more affluent peer.
      These insights might also help us design more equitable testing environments for children. Exams with problems that require hours of focused activity may be harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are used to more dynamic situations where their attention is more distributed. Pencil-and-paper problems might be harder than hands-on calculations. Problems about money – a pressing need for children from low-income families – might be more difficult than more abstract problems. We should recognize that children in poverty or from working-class backgrounds may be skilled at – and particularly benefit from – solving problems collaboratively.
      No one believes that poverty is good. The damage it causes far outweighs any marginal benefits. However, a strengths-based approach, combined with a better understanding of reasonable behavior, can complement the perspectives and tools already available to us, even if this approach comes with its own set of challenges. This endeavor can help us understand how contexts of adversity shape people’s strengths and weaknesses. It may swing the pendulum more toward intervening to improve those contexts and away from simply trying to change the individuals who live in them.
      Header photo: Rolls-Royce plc. Creative Commons. More

    • 50 Shares99 Views

      in Children

      Adolescent motherhood in crisis

      by

      The COVID-19 pandemic has reignited concerns about the effects of crises on the development of children globally. Within this realm of concern is an area that continues to be overlooked: the particular vulnerability of adolescent mothers and mothers to be, and by proxy, their children. Countries with high rates of adolescent childbearing also tend to struggle with reaching education goals and reducing poverty. It’s not that adolescent motherhood is rare; in many parts of the world, marriage and childbearing under age 18 is very common. An estimated 12 million girls aged 15 to 19, and nearly 777,000 girls younger than 15, give birth each year – and most of their pregnancies are unintended. But the particular risks for this subdemographic often go overlooked because governments and the development community prefer to think about preventing adolescent pregnancies than supporting adolescent mothers. Our research addresses this gap, noting that, around the world, shocks like a global pandemic make adolescent mothers and their offspring exponentially more vulnerable.
      Adolescent mothers are already among some of the most vulnerable, even in the best of times and regardless of cultural perceptions (in some contexts, adolescent pregnancies are stigmatized; in others they are celebrated). Most teenage pregnancies occur in low- and middle-income countries and are often concentrated among the parts of society of the lowest incomes. Pregnancy at an early age often means mothers leave school and transition to domestic roles, resulting in lower levels of education, fewer economic resources, and less bargaining power in the home; these outcomes coincide with restricted access to sexual and reproductive health services. Adolescent childbearing is also associated with higher risks to maternal health. In fact, pregnancy and birth complications are the leading causes of death among 15- to 19-year-old girls worldwide.

      “Adolescent mothers are already among some of the most vulnerable, even in the best of times and regardless of cultural perceptions (in some contexts, adolescent pregnancies are stigmatized; in others they are celebrated).”

      However, not all of the risk is contextual. At least some of it lies “below the skin.” We argue in a forthcoming article that part of the risk adolescent mothers and their offspring face stems from neurobiological processes specific to adolescent development, for instance, heightened sensitivity to reward and stress. This becomes particularly salient when exploring how these processes interconnect with stressful life events. In short, adolescents’ heightened sensitivity to stressful events leads to higher levels of physiological stress, which has been demonstrated to affect adolescent development as well as pregnancy outcomes (e.g., preterm labor and low birthweight) and child development. Stress is transmitted to children prenatally through neuroendocrine pathways and postnatally through caregiving. In fact, recent studies link stress related to COVID-19 to pregnancy outcomes and early caregiving. Ultimately, we argue that the physiological stress response is a key factor in why adolescent moms and their offspring, on average, have worse developmental outcomes later in life, a fact that is supported by abundant evidence.
      Given the scale and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are asking questions about the impact of the pandemic on early child development broadly, and adolescent motherhood more specifically. We already know that large shocks, such as financial crises, pandemics, natural disasters, and armed conflict, are accompanied by massive social and institutional disruptions and cause substantial stress in individuals, families, and communities; we also know that these often lead to widespread displacement and insecurities in housing and livelihood. Higher rates of adolescent pregnancies have been observed in contexts of displacement, often due to inadequate availability of sexual and reproductive health and family planning services for adolescent girls. By mid-2020, more than 15 million people were newly displaced internally due to conflict or disaster. Their situations are made even more precarious by the fact that, in response to the pandemic, in many places, non-essential services and programs closed their doors or refocused to respond to the pandemic. Moreover, stigma associated with COVID-19 has drastically reduced clinic visits for prenatal care.
      Pregnant adolescents and adolescent mothers are even more at risk when sexual and reproductive health services become scarcer. In contexts of displacement, high rates of gender-based violence and poverty-driven transactional sex contribute to the increase in adolescent pregnancies. With lockdowns, there is the added risk of increased domestic violence and abuse in the home. For instance, both Kenya and Paraguay have reported increasing adolescent pregnancy rates during COVID-19 lockdowns. High rates of and increases in adolescent pregnancies during such stressful times should sound alarm bells.

      “High rates of and increases in adolescent pregnancies during such stressful times should sound alarm bells.”

      There is little evidence on how to best support adolescent mothers and mothers-to-be effectively, but some innovative interventions are pioneering the way. Countries such as Zimbabwe have started to change laws around school attendance for pregnant adolescent girls, allowing them to continue their education and ensuring that pregnant and mothering girls stay in school. A program in Ethiopia, “Meseret Hiwott,” used community women as mentors to facilitate group discussions for married adolescent mothers, focusing on increasing voluntary counselling and testing for HIV, as well as sexual and reproductive health awareness, family planning, motherhood, gender and power dynamics, and financial literacy. And a recent experimental evaluation of a home visiting program for low-income adolescent moms in São Paulo, Brazil, demonstrated positive effects on caregiving and maternal well-being. Such programs are promising, but more rigorous research is needed to better understand their impact and how to take them to scale successfully.
      Unfortunately, most efforts in this area have focused on preventing adolescent pregnancies. Many of these initiatives have largely failed to produce substantial change, and can contribute to stigmatization and drive underage marriage practices underground, increasing the risks to adolescent mothers and their offspring. They also fail to acknowledge that adolescent motherhood will not be going away in many parts of the world anytime soon. We need more investigation and inquiry into the most effective ways to support adolescent mothers and their children – particularly in contexts of acute stress. The effects of the current pandemic are likely to be felt for a while to come and new crises are inevitable. Understanding how crises affect adolescent girls and how to effectively support their development, education, and reproductive health, with or without children, will likely yield long-term returns, not just to them and their families, but to society at large and generations to come.
      Header photo: Fixers on Flickr. Creative Commons. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Children

      How to support parents with home learning during COVID-19 lockdowns

      by

      The COVID-19 pandemic takes a toll on all of us, but particularly on families with young children. In an effort to slow the spread of the virus, Germany – among many other countries – closed child care centers, prohibited the use of playgrounds, and implemented social distancing measures in spring 2020. This put parents of young children in a tight spot. They had to provide education and care at home while juggling other demands, including jobs and household chores. How did the lockdown affect parents’ ability to provide home learning activities for their children?
      Parents engaged in more home learning activities with their children during the lockdown than they did before the lockdown. This was the general trend in our survey (see Cohen, Oppermann, & Anders, 2020) of 7,048 German parents of 1- to 6-year-olds, conducted during the lockdown in Germany in April and May 2020. For instance, parents read more books with their children, spent more time together in nature, and played more (board) games or did more puzzles.

      “The largest predictor of parents’ ability to provide home learning activities was stress: Parents who said they were the most stressed provided the least amount of learning activities for their children.”

      Our study also showed that providing home learning activities during the lockdown worked better for some parents than for others. Parents with more than one child under age 6 and parents who were employed full time provided fewer activities than parents with only one child 6 and under and parents with part-time jobs.
      The largest predictor of parents’ ability to provide home learning activities was stress: Parents who said they were the most stressed provided the least amount of learning activities for their children. This finding is intuitive: Parents who are overwhelmed by all the demands have fewer resources to engage with their children. And the COVID-19 pandemic certainly did not make life easier for parents. Many were juggling working at home with caring for children (54% in our survey), and some had to deal with sudden unemployment (1%) or short-time leave (7%), which often led to financial strain (41%). Moreover, playgrounds were closed and families were stuck at home, often in apartments and houses that were too small (27%).
      These problematic situations caused stress, which impaired parents’ ability to provide learning activities for their children. This is not a new finding. Studies have shown that parents are better at supporting their children’s learning and development when they feel good themselves. However, the special measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 led to cumulative stress situations for many families. The implications are clear: If we want to ensure that parents provide a rich home learning environment during difficult times such as the COVID-19 lockdown, we need to support parents.
      How can we support parents in helping their children learn?
      As a parent, it is important to acknowledge your stress and take care of yourself. Take breaks, delegate tasks where possible, and seek support. Also, when it comes to supporting your children’s learning, keep in mind that everyday interactions make a difference. You don’t need to prepare learning sessions with your child. Rather, try to engage your child in an in-depth dialogue about everyday situations (e.g., by asking questions and helping children refine their thought process). Plenty of websites provide materials, ideas, and guidelines for parents to facilitate learning at home.

      “If we want to ensure that parents provide a rich home learning environment during difficult times such as the COVID-19 lockdown, we need to support parents.”

      As friends, relatives, or neighbors, you can provide emotional support by asking parents how they are doing or even offering hands-on help, e.g. with shopping.
      As teachers, you can help parents support their children when child care centers are closed by keeping in contact with the children and proving parents with ideas or materials fit for children’s individual developmental stages. In fact, 51% of the parents in our study said they wished preschool teachers gave them ideas and materials to foster their children’s learning at home.
      As policymakers, it is important to keep in mind that closures of child care centers are extreme measures that deprive children of the education and social contact they need while putting parents under immense stress. This can be particularly harmful for families living in disadvantageous circumstances. Thus, even though such closures may have less short-term impact on the economy and may be easier to implement than other restrictions, they potentially have the worst long-term outcomes for the future of our children.
      Header photo: Nenad Stojkovic. Creative Commons.  More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in Children

      Chaos at home and infants’ play: Your baby may be more adaptable than you think

      by

      Chaos in the home is bad for child development. Homes are chaotic if they are disorganized, unpredictable, and unstable. This could mean they are noisy, are crowded, have many people coming and going, or lack routines. The adverse effects of chaos at home on early cognitive and social-emotional development are well documented. Long-term exposure to chaos interferes with the development of important skills like self-regulation and cognition. But how can we interpret this research in a global pandemic? For many people, home life has become more chaotic since March. Daily routines have been disrupted and replaced. Busy parents are juggling work from home. And many parents are wondering: Should we be worried for our kids?
      How do young children respond to chaos in the home? Before the pandemic, we visited parents with infants (1-2 years old) while they played at home. With parents’ permission, we video recorded all the rooms in their house, getting an unprecedented look into their natural home settings. From the videos, we coded physical features of the homes that might reflect chaos, including the number of toys on the floor, items on the counters, unwashed dishes, piles of laundry, and scattered papers. We also analyzed infants’ play behaviors (e.g., the length of play and the objects selected for play) because play is an important way babies learn about their worlds. And the quality of infants’ play predicts cognitive and language skills. Based on research on chaos, we predicted that infants in highly cluttered, physically chaotic homes might experience disrupted play.
      Our preliminary findings surprised us: We found no evidence that any of the physical manifestations of chaos at home mattered for babies’ play. In fact, infants didn’t discriminate — they played with whatever objects were available to them, whether the objects were in bins or on the floor, and regardless of whether they were designed for play. They banged on pots and pans like a drum set, made a tower out of Tupperware, and played hide and seek in a pile of laundry. In other words, infants happily played and explored their environments, regardless of the state of their home.
      Any scientist or statistician will tell you that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence in support of the counterhypothesis. In other words, we can’t conclude for sure that chaos at home doesn’t matter for infants’ play. Also, our study represents only physical manifestations of chaos. Children certainly need routines and structures to thrive. But when it comes to the state of your house? You can probably relax. And if your budget is tight lately, you can rest, knowing your baby is likely just as happy playing with Tupperware as with expensive gadgets. In coming studies, we plan to ask a different question. Rather than asking how chaos at home affects infants’ play, we want to know how infants learn to adapt to chaotic environments and play using whatever materials are available to them.
      The bottom line for parents is this: You’re probably doing a better job than you think. Your baby doesn’t care how organized your home is during the pandemic. Prolonged exposure to chaos is still not good for your child, but infants may be more resilient to mess than we previously thought. And their ability to adapt and even thrive amidst the chaos may actually surprise you.
      Header photo: Nenad Stojkovic. Creative Commons. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Children

      The evolved nest approach fosters children’s well-being

      by

      New parents today often are given conflicting information about how to raise their children. This was not always the case. Millions of years ago, our species established childraising practices that shaped children to be cooperative and intelligent. These practices were passed from one generation to another through children’s observation and practice before they became parents. With civilization, industrialization, and other historical trends, these practices have diminished and sometimes have been replaced by practices that have outcomes opposite to the original ones.

      “Millions of years ago, our species established childraising practices that shaped children to be cooperative and intelligent. It is time to remember them.”

      We call these practices the evolved nest. What are those long-established practices?
      1. Soothing perinatal experiences where mothers are highly supported during pregnancy and follow natural biological rhythms during childbirth, and where neither mother nor child are traumatized during childbirth or separated afterward
      2. Several years of on-request breastfeeding and frequent suckling that shape not only the jaw and skull, but also the brain and body, with the thousands of ingredients in breast milk, including ingredients that protect babies from infectious agents
      Babies who aren’t breastfed have less brain myelination at three months (myelination is associated with intelligence) and biological consequences related to obesity, asthma, and allergies.
      3. Nearly constant affectionate touch in the first years and no negative touch to shape multiple systems like the stress response, the vagus nerve (which interrelates with all major body organs), and the oxytocin hormone system
      4. Responsive, companionable care from mother and others that reassures the baby, keeping him or her optimally aroused during rapid neuronal growth, and keeping the child feeling supported and connected throughout life
      5. A social climate that welcomes children at every stage, keeping them in the middle of community activities
      6. Self-directed free play with playmates of different ages that builds executive functions (e.g., redirecting actions and plans, empathy, and control of aggression) and leadership skills
      7. Immersion in nature and ecological attachment so children feel like members of the earth community with responsibilities to non-human members
      We know that each evolved nest practice shapes the neurobiological structures of children’s brains and bodies to work optimally, affecting everything about the child, including personality, sociality, and morality. In my lab, we study these components and their relation to well-being, self-control, sociality, and morality.
      Babies are so immature at birth, looking like fetuses of other animals, that to grow well they need nearly constant touch. In a recent article, parents who endorsed providing greater affectionate touch and less corporal punishment, than parents with the opposite pattern, reported that their preschool-aged children had less psychopathology and greater sociomoral capacities, like empathy and cooperation. In another study, of mothers from at-risk situations, children who received more positive touch and less negative touch over the first years of life had better self-regulation and cooperation than children who received less positive touch and more negative touch.
      In a recent study, colleagues and I asked parents in the China, Switzerland, and the United States to report on their preschool children’s evolved nest experience, specifically, experiences of affection, corporal punishment, indoor and outdoor self-directed free play, and family togetherness inside and outside the home. In every country, children whose parents practiced more evolved nesting in the prior week were more likely to be thriving socially and mentally.
      In a survey study of 383 mothers of three-year-olds in China, we collected information on children’s behavior and attitude as they related to components of the evolved nest. Mothers also completed standardized measures of their children’s behavior regulation, empathy, and conscience. We found significant effects for most caregiving practices and attitudes on children’s outcomes after controlling for maternal income and education, and most effects remained significant after controlling for responsive, companionable care.
      In another study (Narvaez, Wang & Cheng, 2016), adults reported on their childhood experiences, as well as their mental and social health. Childhood experience more consistent with the evolved nest predicted ethical orientations of social engagement via a pathway through secure attachment, mental health, and perspective taking. In addition, experiences that lacked components of the evolved nest through low levels of secure attachment and less optimal mental health predicted social opposition through low perspective taking and social withdrawal through personal distress.
      The evolved nest provides concrete ways for parents to be responsive to the needs of their children to foster optimal neurobiology, as well as psychological and social development.
      Header photo: Proggie. Creative Commons.  More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Children

      Chronic, low-level parental conflict contributes to children’s mental health problems

      by

      Low-level, poorly resolved conflict between parents – bickering, giving the cold shoulder, eye-rolling – can seem inconsequential. It isn’t physical violence, after all. But it is a feature in many families. And such behavior may help explain enduring mental health problems for many children, including depression, anxiety, poor sleep, and aggressive behavior.
      Reducing this type of chronic interparental conflict and tension helps children feel the emotional security they need for robust mental health – not only when they are young but also as adults.
      Most people recognize that engaging in yelling matches, throwing things, and acting in ways that are physically aggressive are unhealthy conflict behaviors that can harm children’s development. However, the wider issue is more subtle. It’s about how parents tackle commonplace, sometimes tiny disagreements that all couples can expect to have – conflicts that are natural, inevitable occurrences in any intimate relationship.
      A disagreement might be about politics. It might be about who folds the laundry. Many parents don’t see eye to eye on issues related to work-life balance – they may argue about who is spending enough time on child care. A couple from one of our studies was adamant that they had never had a conflict in 27 years of marriage. Eventually, they acknowledged that for nearly three decades, they had disagreed about whether the peanut butter should be kept in the pantry or the refrigerator.

      “It’s about how parents tackle commonplace, sometimes tiny disagreements that are natural, inevitable occurrences in any intimate relationship.”

      Smoldering battles lead to hypervigilance
      How parents tackle such apparently minor (and major) differences matters to children’s mental health. Some couples focus their attention not on collaborating or solving the problem, but on insults, verbal anger, or non-verbal expressions of anger. Friction can be caused by one parent pursuing the dispute through continual nagging and the other parent withdrawing. Small conflicts may remain unresolved for lengthy periods, festering, creating tension, and harming children’s mental health.
      Damage is done not by a single or even a few instances, but by chronic interactions of these kinds. They compound and accumulate, stacking up and eroding relationships. Early thinking suggested that if parents bickered a lot, children would get used to it and become desensitized. But studies since the 1980s have demonstrated the opposite: Amid chronic marital conflict, children may become increasingly sensitive to the episodes. They can become hypervigilant, tracking signs for a conflict breaking out. This can make them prone to spotting conflict where there is none or where the typical person might ignore what’s going on. Such focus can be exhausting emotionally for a child.
      It is a mistake to believe that children are unaware when parental battles happen behind closed doors. Children are highly tuned to their families’ emotional climate. They can tell if there is tension; they don’t have to witness it. They also recognize when conflict has been resolved, even if they haven’t witnessed the resolution.
      Constructive conflict can benefit children 
      In contrast, children’s mental health can benefit when parents behave constructively around their conflicts. When parents have differences, they can talk calmly together and focus on solving the problem. Perhaps they touch each other gently while talking, maybe even use kindly humor with one another. This might even have a boosting effect on children – they see that their parents can work out differences so they feel that their family is safe and secure. The children don’t need to worry that their family system will be disrupted. They can expend their energies elsewhere.
      Photo: OUCHcharley. Creative Commons.

      We should take seriously the risks posed by widespread, poor resolution of disputes among parents. Most children are exposed to parental disagreement on almost a daily basis: Poorly resolved parental conflict is an important factor in mental health outcomes. Family history of the home environment is a robust predictor of good and bad outcomes. 
      Children feel emotionally insecure
      The wide range of mental health outcomes associated with interparental conflict suggests that several mechanisms may be involved. One pathway relates to children’s sense of emotional security: They need to feel that their family system is safe and secure.
      Destructive, unresolved interparental conflict can make children uneasy about the strength of the emotional bonds that are vital for their survival. As a result, children might act out to stop the conflict, or withdraw into themselves and into negative feelings to avoid such threats. In the short run, such strategies can help children manage life with their parents, but in the longer term, these types of learned behaviors – applied to other situations, such as at school or with friends – aren’t good for them or those around them.

      “Children are highly tuned into their families’ emotional climate. They can tell if there is tension; they don’t have to witness it.”

      Children may blame themselves for conflict
      Another pathway involves the thoughts children may have during interparental conflicts. Some children blame themselves, thinking: “I’ve made Mom and Dad fight. I’m responsible.” These feelings of self-blame can fester and break down children’s self-worth. Children who cannot stop their parents’ fighting may feel they have failed, which can lead to depression.
      The implications of poorly managed parental conflict do not stop there. This type of conflict is correlated with parental depression and the quality of the parent-child relationship. Some parents imagine they can compartmentalize conflict with their partner. However, if you are angry with your spouse, you may unintentionally take it out on your children, snapping at them and parenting in a harsher manner. Or you may feel exhausted and withdraw, lacking the energy to engage with your children in a meaningful way. There may also be “compensatory” spillover, where a parent turns to a child for comfort, placing undue pressure on the child to make up for the loss of an unfulfilling relationship with the partner. 
      Damage may endure into adulthood
      Research suggests that these mental health impacts of mishandled interparental conflict can often endure into adulthood: Even after children have become adults and left home, the quality of their parents’ relationship can still affect their mental health and well-being. This might be partly because couples can get stuck for years in a negative way of interacting, exposing their children to chronic interparental conflict throughout development. Additionally, children may model their parents’ pattern of interaction in their own relationships, which may further damage their mental health.
       It’s never too late for parents to change
       There are ways to prevent these injurious impacts. Smaller studies have shown that interventions with parents can lead them to handle conflicts more constructively, encouraging them to solve problems together and speak kindly to each other. These interventions have led to short-term improvements in children’s mental well-being. Interventions to support parents’ mental health and develop positive parenting also make a difference. Important relationships with peers, other adults, or a sibling also buffer the impact on children of interparental conflict. Policymakers, researchers, and practitioners have important work to do to translate this decades-long research into large-scale interventions needed to bolster millions of families affected by this phenomenon.
      For parents who get stuck in poor ways of managing conflict, it’s never too late to try healthier ways of tackling differences. But it’s best to start early, before children are exposed. Otherwise, the occasional negative interactions may gradually become so much the norm that nobody realizes what’s happened to a once-loving couple relationship – or to the children.
      Header photo: Unsplash.  More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Children

      Children flourish in new forms of family, but some still suffer outsiders’ stigmatization

      by

      People concerned about children growing up in new forms of families (e.g., LBGTQ families, families created by donor eggs) have worried unnecessarily. In the face of dire warnings about such families, studies consistently show that their children turn out just as well as – and sometimes better than – kids from traditional families with two heterosexual parents. Findings have been remarkably similar, whether studies have focused on families with lesbian mothers, gay fathers, transgender parents, or single mothers by choice. Findings on families created by donations of eggs, sperm, or embryos, as well as by surrogacy, reflect the same pattern.
      In studies of all these new forms of family, we, along with other research teams, have found that the quality of family relationships matters for children’s welfare far more than the number, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or biological relatedness of the parents.
      It has taken nearly 50 years of studies, many following children across decades, to establish the empirical evidence. And there has been plenty of heartache along the way, starting with lesbian mothers who lost custody of their children back in the 1970s. In the half century since then, public and expert fears about new forms of family have underpinned various legal barriers to parenthood, discriminatory practices, and widespread stigmatization.

      “My brother and I knew people in our school that had gay and lesbian parents and that did get bullied quite a lot, and that scared us from telling people.”

      More new forms of family coming
      However, even though research on children’s outcomes is clear, the story does not end there, for two reasons. First, the diversity of new family forms seems likely only to expand as science advances and people seek new paths to parenthood. Artificial wombs, eggs, and sperm are just over the horizon. At the University of Cambridge Centre for Family Research, we are already examining children’s outcomes in co-parenting families in which couples are not romantically involved, children are parented by single fathers by choice, and transgender people give birth after they have transitioned.
      These developments pose fresh challenges to what has long been seen as the norm for children to flourish. Let’s hope people avoid repeating over-hasty judgments. We should await the evidence and be calmed by encouraging outcomes from other new forms of family.
      Children are asking for change
      Second, and perhaps more important, there is much more to say about children in these new forms of family, beyond simply logging their long-term outcomes. What is it like for them to grow up in such families? We should listen to their voices, and hear their thoughts and feelings. To that end, our team has conducted many studies gathering children’s stories.
      Through our work, we have found that schools, parents, and the wider society still have much to learn about supporting children in non-traditional families through their experiences, which can be upsetting. The distress is not related to the type of family children have, but because of stigmatization, inadequate communication, and lack of understanding, mainly from those on the periphery of home.
      So, for example, many children with LGBTQ parents have been stigmatized in school, by society, and sometimes by wider family. When we interviewed children of lesbian mothers born in the mid-1960s when they were young adults, almost half reported being teased or bullied as teenagers.
      Stigmatization burdens children
      “I wasn’t allowed to go to my friend’s house anymore,” said Anna. “Her mum and dad forbade me from going anywhere near, and that hurt me because she had been my best friend for a long, long time. I lost that friend. And then, of course, there was a chain reaction. Everybody found out. They said, ‘Don’t go near her, she’ll turn out like her mum.’”
      John was bullied when schoolmates found out about his lesbian mom. “School was one big nightmare really, because I got picked on so much,” he explained. “I had cigarettes stubbed out on the back of my neck, and high-heeled shoes thrown at me, and a bit of hair cut off, and my head chucked down the loo, and that sort of thing.”
      Children have felt the need to clam up about their families because of widespread prejudice. Stacey explained: “My brother and I knew some people in our school that had gay and lesbian parents and that did get bullied quite a lot, and that scared us from telling people. So, we never told anyone. It was hard keeping secrets.”

      “Schools, parents, and wider society still have a lot to learn about supporting children through their experiences.”

      Effective school challenges to prejudice
      Schools must create a positive, supportive environment for such children. It pays off. Carol, 14, highlighted helpful action by her school: “Basically, they spread the word how it’s not very good to say, ‘Oh this is so gay’ or ‘that’s so gay,’ even though it’s used as a different meaning. They tell them that’s wrong and why you shouldn’t say that.” Mike, 17, recalled how a new English teacher, who was gay, made a difference: “He has one of the Stonewall ‘Some People Are Gay, Get Over It’ posters in his classroom. Just seeing the poster in his room is really cool.” As part of our research project, the UK campaign for equality of LGBTQ people, Stonewall, published 10 recommendations from children on how schools can support them and their same-sex parents.
      Children of transgender parents have been bullied and teased in similar ways, and inclusive attitudes by schools can help them. Wendy explained: “I put my hand up and said, ‘I don’t have a dad because my dad’s transgender,’ and I got an award for it ‘cos it was actually really brave of me to say.”
      Tell children what’s happening
      Parents also should consider being more open about what is happening in their families. “It would have helped if he had explained things a bit better,” said Henry, 18, reflecting on when his father transitioned to being a woman. “It wasn’t so much him wearing dresses, but more him being a bit manic and doing strange things.” Chris, 18, advised other children in a similar situation: “Try to get them to communicate with you as much as possible because it’s worse if things are happening and you don’t know why.”
      Children tend to accept, in a matter of fact way, their father’s or mother’s change of gender if it happened while they were little or a long time ago. “Chloe’s always been Chloe,” said Susanna, 14, who was a toddler when her father transitioned. “I don’t remember when it actually happened, so it’s basically been for as long as I remember.”
      Experiencing transition can worry them
       But some children find it difficult when they experience a parent’s transition. They can have fears of loss, which typically pass, but which can be very real during gender transition. Jade, who was six when her father transitioned, was upset about losing her dad: “When she transitioned, I felt like there was a hole in my heart because I missed my dad and every time somebody talked about their dad, I got really upset.” But she grew more accepting. At age nine, Jade reflected: “When she transitioned, it made her a lot happier ‘cos, when she was a boy, she was really unhappy. Ever since she’s transitioned, she’s come home from work, hugged us, and been really happy. It’s changed a lot since she transitioned.”
      Another upset can be rejection of parents by their wider family, so children lose contact with some relatives. Theresa, whose father transitioned when she was six, explained: “People on my mum’s side of the family really struggle with it. Her parents and brothers, and basically everyone over there, cut us off. It made me sad and kind of angry because it’s really no reason to be horrible.”

      “When children found out later, as teenagers or adults, they felt more negatively about how they were conceived and their relationship with their parents.”

      Children should not have to explain their families
      Children may also feel responsible for explaining to the outside world issues such as gender transition. “My problem,” explained Susanna, “has been having to explain to other people constantly because no one really understands.” Josh reported: “Sometimes, random people ask me questions and I have to explain to them. That gets tiring for me.”
      Our research has highlighted issues for children born through assisted reproductive technologies, such as egg, sperm, and embryo donation, or surrogacy. Some children as young as two or three years might ask of a single mother by choice: “Do I have a daddy? Where is he?” Some – but by no means all – especially as they get into their teens, are eager to fill a gap in knowledge about themselves by finding out more about their donor, surrogate, and any half-siblings born to the same donor or surrogate.
      “It’s important to me now . . . I’m always thinking about what she looks like,” explained Sarah, 14, who was born through egg donation. Alex, 14, conceived by sperm donation, said: “I would like to know who he is . . . quite a lot . . . Recently a lot more than I used to.”
      Tell children early about their origins
      We have found that it is generally better to start talking to children early about how they were conceived and born. Children who find out later, as teenagers or adults, tend to feel more negatively about how they were conceived and in their relationships with their parents than children who have had the conversation about their beginnings early. Many parents hold off telling their children, fearing that the children will love them less. However, these fears are unfounded because children who are told early tend to be very accepting, often not particularly interested, and unshocked by learning more as they grow older.
      The risks of not disclosing this information to children have grown with the advent of ancestry sites offering DNA tests, which can suddenly lead unsuspecting children to discover half-siblings and relatives of whom they had no inkling. Children may find their identities destabilized, and learning about their beginnings in this way can undermine their trust in their parents.
      The story of new forms of family is largely good news, of children flourishing, much as we might expect them to do in traditional families, and sometimes doing even better. The composition of their family does not upset them. It is other factors, such as people’s reactions to their family or the lack of information about their origins, that cause them distress. The solutions lie in better understanding, greater societal acceptance of diverse families, swift challenges to prejudice, and openness within families about where their much-wanted children came from. More