Strollerderby : psychology

The Painful Reason Bullies Bully

Kelly Mills — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:27:00 GMT

There's an idea that kids who bully lack empathy or simply don't feel for their victims. But a new study indicates the truth might be more disturbing than that. Researchers took an admittedly small sample of eight boys, ages 16 to 18, with aggressive conduct disorder, and a group of eight adolescent boys with no obvious aggressive behavior. They showed both groups video footage of someone inflicting pain on another person, and used MRI to track the brain patterns of both groups.

What they found was pretty creepy: The boys with aggressive conduct disorder showed high activity in two areas of the brain that regulate pleasure, but less activity in the region involved in self-regulation. In other words, the bully group actually derived pleasure from seeing others in pain. This might seem somewhat obvious, but it does counter the theory that bullies simply feel nothing towards their victims. In fact, they may just get off on hurting others.

The researchers say more investigation with a larger sample is in order. However, they were impressed by the striking difference in brain activity between the two groups of kids. And boy, am I grateful I'm not in high school any more--though I've met some adults who probably fit this description as well.

Boy Tells Your Mom Joke, Boy Goes To Jail

They Say: Here's Why Your Kid's a Bully Magnet

Five Kinds of Moms and How They Mess You Up

Kelly Mills — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:33:00 GMT

Jezebel reports on a new book by clinical psychologist Stephen Poulter called The Mother Factor: How Your Mother's Emotional Legacy Impacts Your Life. The gist is that your bond with your mom can have a big ol' influence on your emotional development, ability to form meaningful relationships, and so on. (Do the dads do anything? Cuz we should share the dysfunctional love!) Anyhow, according to the book, there are five kinds of mothers. This immediately begs the question: Which mother are you?

The five types are:

The Perfectionist Mother — whose family must look perfect in every way
The Unpredictable Mother--whose ups and downs can create lifelong anxiety and depression in her son or daughter
The "Me First" Mother — whose children come second or last
The "Best Friend" Mother — who's now in vogue but can wreak havoc
The Complete Mother--who provides guidance and shows compassion to her child

Um, I don't know which one I am, though I suppose that's the point, because the ways I'm screwing up my kid should be a mystery to me. I do know I'm not the Perfectionist, and my kid doesn't like me enough for me to be the Best Friend. See, I think of myself more as the "Well-Intentioned But Frequently Harried Mom Whose Child May Later Resent Her Blogging" which I guess makes me the "Me First" mom. Only thing is I made many of my big ol' life decisions based on what was best for my kid, not me, because I'm so noble like that. Oh well. Just let me know when they add an "Irritable Bitch" mom category.

Are Kids Today More Narcissistic?

Kelly Mills — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:01:00 GMT

There's a little debate raging among psychology researchers: Are kids today more narcissistic and self-centered than they were in the past? One side points to results from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (a test designed to measure, well, guess) as evidence that this generation is both more conceited and more unhappy than people were in the past. They point to the emphasis on self-esteem building and the new technological avenues for self-promotion (like YouTube, Facebook) as part of an epidemic of kids who collectively say, "I'm all that." In fact, psych professor Jean Twenge has a book called "Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before" that summarizes this research, and many media outlets ate it up.

On the other side of the argument, researcher Kali H. Trzesniewski and colleagues will publish an article in Psychological Science "showing there have been very few changes in the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of youth over the last 30 years." They also cite evidence from that personality test, which some social scientists say fails to capture nuances in personality and therefore doesn't measure what it tries to measure. And many have pointing out that it is a favorite pastime of adults to bemoan the self-centeredness of the next generation.

Seems to me people haven't changed that much, and every generation or so there is some decrying of the current generation's parenting, with dire predictions as to how it will ruin the children of today. I like what Jeffrey Jensen Arnett says. He's publishing a critique of the Twenge book, and he comments, "It’s like a cottage industry of putting [young Americans] down and complaining about them and whining about why they don’t grow up." Yeah, young Americans, I say, "Alllllllright."

The Difference Between "Psychosis" and "Being a Teenager"

Adrienne Martini — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:21:00 GMT

The National Institute of Mental Health just published a study that lists the signs that a teenager may be at risk of developing a full-blown mental illness like schizophrenia. Some of the indicators include "deteriorating social functioning (for example, spending increasing amounts of time alone in one’s room, doing nothing); increase in suspicion/paranoia (such as suspicion of being followed); and past or current drug abuse."

Um. Is it just me or does that sound like every teen I have ever known?

Researchers did go on to say that it is these factors plus a few other indicators like family history, a buzzing sound that never goes away and "fleeting images that disappear with a second glance" more than likely mean that a psychotic episode is immanent. With teens, these indicators are quickly followed by a break with reality so early diagnoses becomes extra important.

In short, this study may make it less challenging to get help for a kid who is in desperate need of it -- as well as offering assurances that most teens aren't clinically ill despite outward appearances.

Racist Kids? Probably Mom's Fault

Amy Kuras — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:59:00 GMT

We here at the SD have been bemoaning the lack of weird, funny, easy-target type stories around here for the last couple days. So, when I saw this article from the NYT Freakonomics blog , I was thrilled – after all, what’s more fun to write about than racism?

Yeah.

The post looks at research published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology. Unlike other studies that have compared a child's racial views to that of his or her parents, this one asked 58 four- to seven-year-old kids what they thought their parents' racial attitudes were. The idea was that children would be much more forthcoming about what their parents would think than the parents would be about their own racial attitudes. Adults often will tell researchers what they think they should say, not what reflects their actual views, while young children would likely be less disingenuous.

It found that children's racial attitudes were much more correlated with their mothers than with their fathers. The Freakoconomists' take was that moms still do the majority of childcare duties, including playdate arranging and supervising. Therefore, their kids are more likely to listen to what their mother has to say about their friends.

Good point, but here's what I think: racism is an insidious problem and while most people are way too smart to express racist attitudes, they show them in lots of less-obvious ways like self-segregation. Children are not stupid, and they notice our actions as much as they notice our words. Mothers usually have equal or greater influence than fathers about where our families live and who we socialize with. If we surround our families with people like ourselves, then yeah, they're getting the message even if we talk a good game.

And, of course, everything bad a kid can be? Mom's fault. Sigh

What Do Moms Smell Like?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:31:00 GMT

I’ll admit I was a little irritated when I read the results of a study on what smells we adults most associate with our mothers: laundry detergent. Could the respondents have been more cliché? Are mothers really trapped in the cages of domesticity even in our minds? Didn’t the old lady do more than clean up?

So I thought about it for three seconds and realized that the one smell that makes my eyes-lids droop and my arms feel floppy and my head want to burrow into my mother’s sagging yet still ample bosom is this: Liquid Tide (with color-safe bleach alternative).

How could that be? My mom was a feminist! I did my own laundry! When I think back on my mother, I don’t imagine her in an apron with her washboard and clothespins. I’m thinking office work! I’m thinking ‘80s shoulder-padded power suits! I’m thinking restaurant dinners five nights a week! But uncap the lid on that reddish-orange one-gallon bottle and I’m back in a freshly laundered pair of Brittania jeans and tuxedo shirt basking in the glorious attention of Mom.

Dad doesn’t fare much better in terms of scent memory originality: cigarettes and Right Guard. I’m practically reading the paper on his lap right now.

As for my kids? I’d like to believe they’ll think of me at the first hint of sautéing garlic. More likely, coffee breath and the subtle fragrance of email will return them to their idyllic childhood.

Strollerderby’s Karen Murphy associates Old Spice with her dad and chalk dust with her teacher mom. She’s sure her kids will think of her anytime nag champa incense is burning.

Cryitout Mike’s dad smells like Canoe and Old Spice, while his mom smells like Jazzercise and endless loops of "Take me on" by A Ha! He says of his daughter: “In 30 years, Emmeline is going to say I smell like coffee and neglect.” My kids will see yours in group therapy, Mike.

Readers, name your smells.

Sad Kids Need One Parent to Ignore Them

Madeline Holler — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:33:00 GMT

You know how parenting experts are always advising couples to work together to raise healthy kids – get on the same page, align your philosophies, that kind of thing? Well, when it comes to responding to your precious one’s negative emotions, the more the adult response differs, the better.

Oh, thank goodness, because my baby daddy and I are all over the map when it comes to the kids’ sad times and daily frustrations.

According to this study, we’re doing better than fine. In fact, we are more likely to be raising kids who can figure out their own negative emotions and how to deal with conflict.

The study looked at children in conflicts (having to share toys, etc.) and their reactions. Researchers also had the parents of these children report how they would have responded to their child in those conflict situations.

When both parents reported a “high support” response to their child’s negative emotions, the child had a difficult time working out conflict and less of an understanding of his emotions. When both parents reported a low support response, same thing. But when one parent reported high support and one parent low support, the child was better able to resolve the conflict and also had a better understanding of her emotions.

Oh, yes. Self-important mothers, take note. When the fathers were the high support responders, the children fared even better! But, but ...

The researchers hypothesized that duo high support responses wind up shielding children from negative emotions and modeling fewer ways to respond. The differing support levels offer a range of exposure.

Based on these findings, they suggest in situations where kids are sad or frustrated that one parent offer comfort and problem-solve with the child while the other hang back and give the child space to process feelings.

So while one of you is “listening reflectively” and “empowering emotions,” it’s fine if the other one escapes to the other room or asks a barely sincere “what’s wrong.”

Best Dad Ever: Let Kids Drink Booze!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:27:00 GMT

Kids, there’s someone on your side. He’s a dad. And he wants you to drink alcohol.

Big Daddy trusts you. He understands you. He thinks drinking while young is good for you.

He has even written a book about it.

The psychologist and father’s book “Addiction-Proof Your Kids” lays out his arguments for why parents should let their kids have some sips starting around middle school. By the time his own children were in high school, they drank regularly at family dinners and on special occasions.

His daughter agrees. She says alcohol isn’t a big deal for her, so she doesn’t feel like she has to sneak around and binge. No mention of how old she is now, though by 14, she was ordering her own beers on a trip with family friends in Greece.

Sure, I get the idea of taking the allure out of drinking, but I want to know if the author's young-drinker is in college yet. Get back to me when she’s made it through four years without getting totally ripped. And starting young? That doesn't work out so well for everyone, does it? I'm thinking about the Drew Barrymore Story, here.

As expected, the psychologist/dad making the arguments uses Europe as an example: they let kids drink young so it's OK. If you ever talked to the Swedish exchange student in high school, you’ve already received a similar lecture. Alcohol is part of the culture. Kids start drinking young. No big deal. Therefore no out of control drinking. But if you ever spent much time outside of school with that same exchange student, you also know Europeans are not afraid to tie one on.

In fact, a recent study shows binge drinking in Mediterranean countries is on the rise.

I’d also be interested in knowing what, for instance, Chicago parents think of this whole thing. A father there was recently sentenced to 14 days in jail for having allowed teens to drink in his basement. Several of them wound up dead later that night from drunken driving. I don’t think the father/psychologist is advocating for kids to be allowed to drink unsupervised at homecoming parties or leave his home by car, though.

My six-year-old has yet to taste her first drops of alcohol. But she is well aware of it, and frequently asks for a taste of our wine or beer. One of these days, not soon but certainly well before she’s 21, I’m sure we’ll say yes. As for serving other people's kids? I don't think so. What are your plans?

Don’t Give Up? It’s Healthier If You Do!

Madeline Holler — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:49:00 GMT

I'm a big quitter, let me just state that upfront. But regrets, oh, I've had a few. There's no bigger way to feel like a loser in America than simply walking away.

So when my daughter was four and wanted to quit her gymnastics class -- she feared heights and simply couldn't figure out cartwheels -- I told her she had to at least finish the class. Stick it out. Face her fears. Suck it up. (Don't be like me.)

But recent psychological studies seem to indicate that while persistence gets more accolades, quitting might actually be better for our health. Oooohhh, I think I'm going to like this research.

How do researchers determine something like the effects of persistence on health? First, they developed a test to distinguish between people who never gave up working toward a goal and those who gave up when the going not only got tough, but seemed impossible. With this persister/quitter diagnostic in hand, the psychologists then followed a group of teens.

After a year of following the teens, they showed that those who hadn’t persisted in attaining difficult goals had a lower level of a certain protein that causes inflammation, which, over time, is detrimental to internal organs. Those who stayed the course, however, had higher levels of this protein, putting themselves at a higher risk for heart disease and diabetes.

The authors of the study suggested that walking away from an insurmountable goal might be better for your health in the long run.

But what about the persistent feelings of failure when one up and walks away? The psychologists suggested people set new goals and start trying again. Though there were no apparent health benefits to this so-called "re-engagement," they said the psychological effects of failure were less when a person could just let it go.

Let it go? Consider it done. Hey, I feel better already!

This is also something I'll keep in mind with my daughter as she comes up against other situations that she might be tempted to walk away from. How bad is it? How impossible? Is there a similar and more attainable goal that you won't have to kill yourself in trying to meet?

Epilogue: my daughter finished the gymnastics classes. A few months later, she wanted to sign up again.

Easy Sleep Now Only Means Pain Later

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:06:00 GMT

When Emmeline was about five months old, I performed the usual bedtime routine -- bath, massage, bottle, book -- then hoisted in her in her crib, turned off the light and let her fend for herself. Dana had to work through the night and into the early morning, and so I was the only one around the hear Emme cry. Maybe it was cruel. Maybe it was mean. It certainly broke my heart every time she woke up and I sat on my hands. But she sleeps like a drunken rock star now, so I'm not complaining.

I'm not advocating the cry-it-out method, despite the aptly chosen moniker above this post. It worked for us -- but it may not work for you. Still, I was reading a column by family psychologist John Rosemond, and I started to see he had a point: Taking the easy way out will only haunt you later.

Before we let Emme cry it out, Dana and I were up every half hour to plug a pacifier back into her yawning maw. She couldn't do it herself because A. she didn't know what those chubby, wiggly things were at her side, and B. she was swaddled, so she couldn't use them even if she did know. We tried everything to get her to sleep just a little bit longer. We took turns sitting with her. We brought her into bed with us. We sang, we hummed, we got so tired we actually rationalized with her. "Emme, you're a big girl now -- it's time to sleep. All night."

So at five months, we took away the swaddle, we took away the pacifier and we let her soothe herself -- and us, eventually -- into a deep, sound sleep. The easy way would have been to answer her every cry and trudge into her room for comfort and pacifiers. The hard way was to let her cry for one night -- she only needed one. If I had it to do over, I'd choose the hard way -- simply because it's easier over time.

Denial of Pregnancy: Doctors Attempt to Explain Perplexing Phenomenon

thezeroboss — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:03:00 GMT

A few months ago I boggled over the case of Jessica Exposito, the 24-year-old Pennsylvanian woman who insisted that she didn't know she was pregnant until the moment she gave birth. How do you not know that you have a life inside you, attempting to kick its little way into daylight? This issue came up again recently when a dead newborn was found in Drexel Hill, PA last week. (DAMN, Pennsylvania - you folks do something to the drinking water?!) The mom? An 18-year-old Drexel University student whose pregnancy was a mystery to her and her family. It's cases like these that leave the rest of us asking, "Huh?!"

Professors Doris Vallone and Lori M. Hoffman, co-authors of "Preventing the Tragedy of Neonaticide", attempted to explain how a woman can explain away her bulging abdomen. But sadly, they have no good answers either. The best they can do is emphasize the "power of denial", and point out that pregnant teenagers can succumb to "magical thinking".

That doesn't help the rest of us in deciding whether to cut these women any slack in the deaths of their children. Given that most women who present to doctors with denial of pregnancy never receive a psychiatric evaluation, it is any wonder some of these cases end in tragedy? Still I'm with police Superintendant Michael Chitwood. Denying pregnancy? That's one thing. Hiding your baby's corpse after you've killed it? Sorry, but denial's no cover for murder.