Key takeaways for caregivers

• Screens may be beneficial to but may also prove problematic for infants’ development.
• More than half of infants in a study on child development had been exposed to screens by six months and many had a screen in the room where they slept.
• Mothers reported using screens with infants for at least 1-3 hours a day and during daily activities, such as during meals, when going to sleep, while waiting, and to calm infants.
• Maternal stress did not predict the use of screens with infants, but moms’ educational level did.
• Research suggests that we need to learn from caregivers why they offer screens to their young children, as well as the need for increased guidance and resources for caregivers regarding exposure to and use of screen time.

Screen use can negatively affect caregiver-child attachment and children’s development

The popularity of cell phones, tablets, and other screens is undeniable and has changed our world, largely for the better. These media are instruments of daily life, helping us navigate both time and location.

Mothers’ self-reports of their perceived levels of stress did not predict whether a screen was provided. However, educational attainment did predict screen exposure.

They allow us to read on the move, serve as a form of entertainment, and connect us rapidly and easily with those around the corner and around the globe. Screen devices are everywhere, and exposure to them now extends beyond adults to include teenagers, tweens, and young children.

Yet while cell phones may help us connect, they may also serve to disconnect. The challenges of disconnection, or technoference, are revealed in adult relationships and, in similar ways, may be particularly disruptive for parents and other caregivers of young children.

Young children form an attachment to parents and caregivers, relying on them to satisfy needs for food, warmth, safety, and affection. By attending to a child’s cues, a parent is participating in the type of back-and-forth interactions that bolster development (Maccoby et al., 1983).

Research shows that the healthy development of a child depends in part on the consistency of these back-and-forth interactions, sometimes called serve and return. Considerable evidence shows that language, emotional, and cognitive development all begin in the small and unscripted interactions between caregiver and child.

But research also shows that screens may sometimes disrupt or interfere with this type of interaction between a parent and their child, and can result in changes in infants’ sleep, language, executive function, and attention.

Photo: Sunvani Hoàng. Pexels.

A study of mothers’ screen use with their infants

Given the importance of the back-and-forth relationship between caregivers and young children, we conducted a study to understand why some mothers give their infants screens and others do not. While mothers offer screens for many reasons, we studied whether mothers’ descriptions of their own stress levels and their educational attainment played a part.

Our study used data from an ongoing study seeking to understand how early experiences influence child development outcomes. Eighty-two mothers were invited to share their prenatal experiences with our team of researchers, completing surveys that asked, among other questions, about their levels of stress and their educational attainment. Our sample of mothers was diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and educational attainment.

After giving birth, the mothers were contacted periodically until their child turned three years old. When the infant was six months old, mothers were invited to return with their child to the research lab. At this visit, mothers were asked if their child had been exposed to screens. If they answered yes, the moms were given a survey that asked about the ways the child had been exposed to screens, including questions about what they watched, with whom, and for how long.

Caregivers may not be fully aware that screens can disrupt parent-child interactions and children’s development.

Many infants are exposed to screens through daily activities

Forty-three of the six-month-olds had been exposed to screens, with 28 (70%) having a screen in the room where they slept. About a third of the infants were given a screen at mealtime, while going to sleep, and while waiting at the doctor’s office. About half of mothers reported offering a screen to calm their infant. More than half of moms reported providing a screen between 1-3 hours per day, and about a third reported providing a screen more than 3 hours per day.

Mothers’ self-reports of their perceived levels of stress did not predict whether they gave their infants a screen. However, moms’ educational attainment did predict screen exposure: Less maternal education was associated with mothers more often offering screens to their infants.

This information is important to consider when thinking about infants’ screen use but should be taken at face value. Our study was a small sample of mothers and infants. We did not talk with mothers about why they provided screens to their infants so we can only attempt to interpret their survey responses without knowing the full picture of these early experiences for children.

One possibility is that stress is felt universally by parents of infants and as such, was not a strong predictor of who might provide a screen. However, educational attainment is not equal or equitable among people in the United States, and it may serve as a marker of knowledge about screens or other characteristics that predict screen use.

Photo: pxfuel.

Educating parents about screen exposure and use is essential

Researchers need to understand more about why mothers offer screens to their infants. Caregivers may not be fully aware that screens can disrupt parent-child interactions and children’s development. They may be less prepared by people they encounter in health care or social service settings to consider screen exposure and use with their infants in the same way they consider, for example, feeding or providing safe sleeping conditions.

Given the findings from our study that screen use and daily care activities may be intertwined for some caregivers, personnel in health care and social services should facilitate these conversations with new parents.

We hope to continue research on this topic so we can better understand how parents’ educational level is related to social supports or services for mothers. We would also like to understand more fully how these supports for parents of infants might reduce the need to provide screens at certain times during the day (e.g., during meals, at bedtime, while waiting) and for extended periods of time.

If you are a caregiver with questions about screen exposure and use with your infant, visit the AAP website, where there are resources for caregivers, including guidelines on screen use for young children and their development. In addition, ask your pediatrician or other health care provider questions about age-appropriate screen use so you can learn how to navigate potentially stressful times when the distraction of a screen may seem helpful.

The post How and why do six-month-old infants interact with screens? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Supportive fathers influence their children in significant ways, including the development of cognitive and social skills.
• The positive impact of fathers is greater when fathers’ relationships with mothers are strong and supportive.
• Fathers can help their children’s development through supportive and involved parenting and engaging activities, such as reading books and playing.

To fully understand the significance of a father’s influence on his children, we will explore four key areas:

1. Father-child attachment and later development
2. Father influence on a child’s achievements
3. Father influence on a child’s social skills
4. The mother-father relationship

1. Father-child attachment influences children’s later development

When there is a strong father-child attachment in the first two years, research shows a link with the child’s later social skills, cognitive skills (e.g., language, school achievement) and behavior. In this way, fathers influence their children’s futures.

These links between strong father-child attachment and later child development are greatest when fathers are more involved in parenting. This suggests that involved fathers have the potential to make a big difference in their child’s life.

Involved fathers have the potential to make a big difference in their child’s life.

2. Fathers have a significant influence on their child’s achievements

Fathers who provide primary care for their two-year-olds have children who achieve higher scores on academic tests. (The same is true of mothers.) Anne Martin and her team found that mothers and fathers who provided primary care for their children when they were two had five-year-olds with higher arithmetic and language scores.

Eirini Flouri and Ann Buchanan found that British children with more involved fathers had higher IQs at age seven than did children with less involved fathers. Other researchers have found similar associations at 11 years and 16 years.

Some researchers have worked to distinguish fathers’ influences on educational performance from the effects of other wider family and community influences. The links remain: Fathers who are supportive appear to promote their children’s language and cognitive development.

3. Fathers influence their children’s social skills

In a large British study, when mothers reported that fathers were involved with their seven-year-olds, the children were more likely to report being close to their fathers at 16 and to have less contact with police during adolescence. Other researchers have found even longer-lasting links – fathers’ involvement with their six-year-olds appeared to positively influence  the feelings of their offspring when they were in their 30s, more than 25 years later.

Photo: Mieke Campbell. Pexels.

High levels of paternal involvement in childhood also predict offspring’s social interaction styles in adulthood, as well as their married relationships, parenting skills, and mental health. The converse has also been shown – low paternal involvement and poor child-father attachments predict more psychological and social problems later.

Ross Parke and his colleagues found that a physically playful and affectionate father-son relationship predicted sons’ later popularity with peers. Other researchers have found that fathers who were more sensitive to their five-year-olds’ emotional states had more socially competent children three years later.

Researchers have examined whether fathers and mothers exert different influences on the social development of their children. It is very difficult to separate these influences from the many roles mothers and fathers play in different families. However, researchers have found that children who reported secure attachments to both their parents were more likely to report positive friendships than children who did not.

Mothers influence father-child relationships and fathers influence mother-child relationships.

4. The mother-father relationship influences children

The last 20 years have seen a lot of research on how family members influence the relationships of other family members with children. Studies suggest that mothers influence father-child relationships and fathers influence mother-child relationships.

A key influence on the father-child relationship is how supportive the mother is of this relationship, as well as the quality of the mother-father relationship.

The inverse is also true: Both the father and the mother-father relationship influence the mother-child relationship, but the influence is less. This may be because maternal behavior is framed by clearer conventions and role definitions, while fathers’ roles and behavior are more influenced by what mothers believe.

Mothers’ mental health also affects the father-child relationship, and fathers’ mental health affects the mother-child relationship. Sometimes the response can be compensatory. For example, when mothers suffer from postnatal depression, fathers often engage in more positive interactions with their babies.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this research is clear: A father who wants to be close to his children and positively influence their future should invest in relationships with both the children and their mothers.

The post The significance of a father’s influence on his children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Put simply, gentle parenting  is placing a greater value on parent’s understanding and sensitivity instead of traditional punishments. The three primary components of a Gentle Parenting approach are Empathy, understanding and respect.

Read on to gain a comprehensive understanding from our author, Liza Ware.

Introduction

Gentle parenting is a parenting philosophy first made popular by Sarah Ockwell-Smith in The Gentle Parenting Book. The term is sometimes used synonymously with mindful parenting, respective parenting, and other positive parenting approaches. Although not identical, these approaches share common features—they emphasize parents’ sensitivity and understanding instead of strict discipline or harsh punishment, with the goal of helping children develop independence, confidence, self-regulation, and happiness. Gentle parenting is essentially equivalent to what developmental scientists refer to as the authoritative parenting style, an approach shown to be most ideal for healthy child development.

Gentle parenting involves a two-way partnership between parent and child, where the parent is neither too hands-off nor too controlling. Parents respond to their child’s needs and set boundaries and demands that align with the child’s developmental level. The parents encourage positive behavior – such as kindness, respect, and emotional self-regulation – by modelling it themselves.

The three primary components of the gentle parenting approach

• Empathy – Putting yourself in your child’s shoes to understand what needs or emotions are causing their behavior. For example, a tantrum might be caused by hunger, fatigue, schedule changes, transitions, or a need to spend more time with you.
• Understanding – Considering your child’s needs and behavior in the context of their developmental level, such as behavioral and emotional maturity. For example, while throwing oneself on the floor and sobbing may not be how an adult responds to frustration, it is more acceptable for young children because their abilities to regulate their emotions are limited.
• Respect – Treating your child how you would want to be treated. Parents focus on teaching and guiding, rather than dictating. They avoid commanding, criticizing, punishing, or forbidding. Instead of yelling or saying “no,” a parent might calmly suggest an alternative or explain why behavior is problematic (e.g., “When you throw sand at someone, it can hurt them and they might get upset. Can you practice throwing sand in this bucket instead?”).

By implementing these components, gentle parents aim to help their children feel validated in their thoughts and feelings, learn how to self-regulate, and develop independence and confidence in their ability to navigate daily tasks and problems.

Photo: Jupilu. Pixabay.

Gentle parents and discipline

Gentle parenting is not a discipline-free or boundaryless approach. Like authoritative parenting, gentle parenting is a middle ground between permissive parenting, where discipline is lax and the child has more control, and authoritarian parenting, where discipline is strict and the parent is in control. Control and consistency are critical components of gentle parenting, but they are coupled with empathy, understanding, and respect. This strikes a disciplinary balance that incorporates the child and fosters parent-child communication and connection.

Gentle parenting discipline (or authoritative discipline) involves setting age-appropriate boundaries with the goal of teaching children acceptable and regulated behavior. Gentle parents provide behavioral and emotional guidance while also fostering autonomy and independence. For example, they communicate the rationale for boundaries or rules at a level the child can understand, and they allow room for a reasonable amount of discussion, negotiation, and compromise. Gentle parenting does not include negative discipline, such as scolding, yelling, coercion, expressing disappointment, or any form of corporal punishment.

Does gentle parenting work?

The term gentle parenting has become a catch-all term for positive parenting approaches but its effectiveness for child development has not been directly studied. However, child development research has provided decades of evidence in favor of the authoritative parenting style as well as parenting behaviors that relate to the components of gentle parenting.

Research on parental empathy

• Parental empathy is critical for building secure attachment, which is a healthy emotional bond between parent and infant. Infants with secure attachment sense that their caregiver is available and responsive to their needs. This promotes feelings of safety and security, emotional self-regulation, and confidence and autonomy in exploring the world. Infants with insecure attachment typically face challenges in these developmental areas and demonstrate anxiety or avoidance in social interactions. Sensitive and responsive parenting helps build secure attachment, such as consistently and warmly responding to a baby’s cries and gestures. In contrast, insecure attachment is associated with inconsistent and insensitive parenting.
• One especially important component of caregiver sensitivity is mind-mindedness – behaviors that acknowledge and interpret an infant’s internal mental states. For example, during play, a mind-minded caregiver uses the child’s actions to infer their interest or boredom with a toy and might comment on their mental states (e.g., as the child reaches for a ball, the parent might say, “Oh, do you like playing with this ball?”). Thus, secure attachment depends on parental empathy for the child’s needs, thoughts, and emotions.
• Parental empathy also supports the development of social competence and prosocial behaviors. Maternal attention to toddlers’ mental states is linked to lower aggression and greater empathy. Positive impacts of parental empathy are also evident in school-aged children, helping reduce negative emotions like anger.
• Importantly, the benefits of parental empathy involve validating both positive and negative emotions. Minimizing or punishing a child’s feelings, even negative emotions likes anger, sadness, or fear, can lead to issues with social competence, difficulties coping with distress, and aggression.

Research on parents’ understanding

• Parents may find it daunting to understand child development because there is certainly a lot to know! A critical factor in the developmental timetable is brain development. As the brain develops from birth through adolescence (and even into young adulthood), children and youth become increasingly better at emotional regulation and impulse control. Especially important is the development of effortful control during the toddler and preschool years, a child’s capacity to voluntarily direct and regulate their attention and behavior, inhibiting and activating responses as needed and appropriate. For example, effortful control is evident when a child stops themselves from hitting a peer when they feel angry or pays attention to the teacher despite distracting conversation from nearby peers.
• As with most aspects of development, both “nature” and “nurture” influence brain developments leading to improvements in control and self-regulation. Biological factors, such as genetics and maturation, play a key role. Therefore, parents need to match expectations regarding behavioral and emotional regulation to their child’s developmental level. Much as one would not expect a young infant to walk or talk due to developmental immaturity, a young child (and even a teenager) should not be expected to readily manage their emotions and behaviors.
• Environmental factors also play a critical role in shaping childhood brain development. Sensitive (i.e., gentle or authoritative) parenting, and opportunities for play and educational activities that support autonomy and control (e.g., games that involve taking turns), are associated with greater advances in self-control.
• Thus, parental understanding involves both knowing what should be expected at their child’s age and what they can do to support and encourage their child’s development.

Research on parental respect

• Parental respect is at the core of authoritative parenting because it involves balancing warmth and responsiveness with discipline and demands. Children learn in a safe and supportive context where their individuality and voice are respected. Authoritative parenting has long been viewed as the gold standard of parenting styles and is associated with many positive developmental outcomes. Parenting that is either too too harsh (authoritarian) or lenient (permissive/indulgent) places children at risk for emotional and behavioral issues, such as substance use and internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety, withdrawal).
• One effective authoritative parenting strategy is inductive discipline, which involves explanation and discussion rather than punishment. For example, a parent might use age-appropriate language to explain to a young child why they should not hit their sibling: “Ow, that hurts your sister. Use gentle hands, please.” Inductive discipline can involve helping the child identify alternative behaviors (e.g., “When you’re mad you can squeeze your hands into a ball or stomp your feet instead of hitting your sister”) or asking them to explain the causes of their behavior (e.g., “Are you angry because she took your toy?”). Negotiation can also be included to acknowledge the child’s feelings and promote autonomous decision making (e.g., “Would it be okay if you gave your sister a turn when you’re done playing with the toy?”).
• Inductive discipline provides consistent structure and expectations, coupled with warmth and guidance, to help build self-awareness and self-control. As such, inductive discipline is associated with behavioral, social, and academic adjustment and promotes prosocial behavior, such as empathy.

Photo: Family Equality. Creative Commons.

How to practice gentle parenting

The gentle parenting components of empathy, respect, and understanding and the authoritative balance of responsiveness and demandingness (i.e., parental warmth and sensitivity coupled with a reasonable degree of control and discipline) create a foundation that can be applied to a variety of specific parenting situations. Gentle parenting focuses on acknowledging and supporting a child’s thoughts and emotions and offering them behavioral and coping tools. Gentle parents establish consistent rules and routines but are flexible and willing to compromise within reason.

Gentle parenting example

For example, imagine a child frequently asks to watch or engage with different screen media, getting upset when not allowed to do so, and the parent is questioning how much screen time to allow. A gentle parent might empathize with their child’s interest in screen media, gain a better understanding of media recommendations from experts (e.g., quantity and quality guidelines, parent monitoring and controls), and work with the child to develop a media schedule and plan that meets the child’s needs and the parent’s guidelines. This might include a plan for turning off screens when designated media time is over to promote regulated responses during this schedule transition (e.g., using a visible timer or 5-minute warning to avoid tantrums or demands for more viewing time).

The parent might also consider how to maximize screen-free time by building in family activities, encouraging outdoor time, and offering other enriching activities that help promote parent-child connection and child development. The gentle parent might periodically review and adapt the media plan as the child develops or other situations arise.

Avoiding punishment and not relying on rewards

Just as gentle parenting avoids using punishment, it also does not rely heavily on rewards. External material rewards, such as a small prize, are generally ineffective and actually reduce the likelihood of the behavior the parent means to encourage. Rewards undermine intrinsic motivation, or the child’s desire to engage in a behavior because it is inherently enjoyable or beneficial. For example, rewarding prosocial behavior like sharing makes the child less likely to perform that behavior in the future.

Using positive reinforcement

In lieu of rewards, gentle parenting naturally provides positive reinforcement through affection, warmth, connection, and gentle encouragement. Parents can also reinforce and praise in ways that help build self-confidence, self-regulation, and prosocial attitudes. In particular, process praise (e.g., “You were really working hard on that puzzle!”) is more effective than person praise (“You are so good at puzzles!”). Process praise provides specific feedback that helps children understand how to approach and persist in a task. Person praise, like material rewards, can reduce intrinsic motivation and teaches children that their self-worth depends on whether they do a “good job.”

Gentle parenting as a long-term approach

Importantly, any effective parenting approach requires patience, persistence, and flexibility. Gentle parenting is not a magic wand that will instantaneously alter child behavior. Parenting is a long game, and child development and learning require lots of repetition. Parents also evolve and adapt their parenting over time. Understanding your child as they go through different developmental stages requires continuous education. Gentle parents do not need to know everything about their child’s development at the start, but they are committed to learning and adapting with their child.

Photo: Pexels. Pixabay.

Challenges and limitations of the gentle parenting style

1. Focuses mostly on young children

One limitation of the popular literature on gentle parenting is that it focuses mostly on parenting young children (from birth to seven years) in areas of social and emotional development, with some discussion of physical development (e.g., feeding practices). However, research on authoritative parenting is extensive and demonstrates its application and benefits for school-aged children and adolescents. For example, gentle parents might have rules about household chores, curfews, peer and dating relationships, and so on, but adapt them to their child’s developmental level, discuss their rationale with the child, and consider the child’s input in establishing and modifying them.

Authoritative parenting has also been shown to benefit other areas of development, particularly cognition, learning, and academic achievement. Authoritative parents guide and scaffold learning as appropriate for their child’s age and avoid taking over or providing too much direction. In so doing, they promote independent exploration and problem solving.

2. May not apply to all children

An important question to ask of any parenting method is whether it applies to all children in all contexts. Literature on the gentle parenting approach includes minimal discussion of its effectiveness across individual or situational factors, but again, research on authoritative parenting provides insight. One child-specific factor to consider is a child’s temperament, which varies on several dimensions, such as fearfulness, emotional reactivity, and effortful control. Authoritative parenting is effective regardless of temperament, especially benefitting children with more “difficult” temperaments.

Nevertheless, the relationship between parenting and temperament is complex. It can vary depending on other factors, such as children’s gender or genetic predispositions, and can include bidirectional effects, with children’s behavior influencing parenting. For example, a child with high levels of negative emotionality (e.g., one who is easily frustrated or fearful) is more likely to elicit controlling parenting as parents try to contain or direct the child’s emotions. Consequently, adopting and maintaining a particular parenting style may unfold differently depending on child and family dynamics.

3. Can vary across socioeconomic and cultural contexts

Similarly, parenting can vary across socioeconomic and cultural contexts. Some research shows that the authoritative style is beneficial for child development across sociocultural contexts. However, authoritative parenting is somewhat of an anomaly that is found mostly in Western cultures. Authoritarian parenting is the norm in many Eastern cultures and among U.S. families of ethnic or racial minority or lower socioeconomic status. Questions about what is the “best” style must therefore consider the relevance of cultural values (e.g., respect for authority) and environmental factors (e.g., neighborhood safety).

The goals and values of the authoritative parenting style may also lead to different parenting behaviors in different sociocultural contexts. For example, imposing a strict curfew may be overly controlling (authoritarian) in one context but appropriately protective (authoritative) in another. Thus, when assessing parenting effectiveness or educating parents about gentle or authoritative parenting, it is important to consider how social contexts and culture may influence parenting style and practices.

4. Can increase pressure on the parent

Finally, a challenge for any parent is allowing mistakes and avoiding pressure to be the “perfect” parent. Some situations might naturally call for temporarily strict parenting, such as quickly pulling your toddler out of harm’s way when they are about to touch a hot flame or step onto a busy street. Explanation and discussion can be used after the event to incorporate gentle parenting. Parents may also find themselves wavering from gentle parenting in non-emergency situations, such as after a stressful day.

Instead of seeing this as faulty parenting, it can be viewed as an opportunity to reassess and adapt as needed. The parent may need to practice self-care to reduce stress, identify opportunities for co-parenting, or locate educational resources to learn more about their child’s behaviors and needs at their current age and adapt parenting as appropriate. Just as your child is developing, allow yourself the room to develop as a parent and acknowledge that parenting is a skill that can be honed over time.

Photo: Phinehas Adams. Unsplash.

Conclusion

Ample research supports the benefits of authoritative parenting and gentle parenting methods. However, parenting is complex, and a parent’s style and how they apply that style may differ depending on factors specific to the individual child or situation. Work in this area is still ongoing as researchers continue to ask new questions and acquire additional knowledge about parenting. Like the researcher who continues to uncover new information, gentle and authoritative parents are guided by a core style but continue to learn and adapt as their child develops and different situations arise along their parenting journey.

The post What is gentle parenting and is it good for children? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

A consistent theme in family adaptation is the family’s ability to make sense of their experience. When a caregiver is away at war, the stress on the family is immediate and can have lasting effects, especially on very young children.

Family Stress

Families of service members deployed to war are forced to live with both the hope and expectation of a safe return and the acute awareness of possible loss of life. During times of war, risk varies for different family members and different family systems.

“When a caregiver is away at war, the stress on the family is immediate and can have lasting effects, especially on very young children.”

Stressful life events and normative life events before notification of deployment, during separation, and after reunion contribute to the overall adaptation of the family.

Individuals who have strong connections to family and community support and can identify and use these supports adapt to the changes and continue to thrive after deployment. For others, the cumulative and chronic nature of stressors on their family system increases uncertainty about individual and family well-being.

Infants and toddlers also experience separation and loss, but their needs can be overlooked when caring adults are overwhelmed and assume that children will not remember this time. Yet the young are the most vulnerable.

Separation during deployment affects an infant’s attachment relationship with the service member. Boundary ambiguity about who is in or out of the family, as well as both visible and invisible wounds of war, represent other losses in the parent-child relationship.

Injuries sustained in war may be visible or invisible to children. Invisible injuries are more difficult for children to understand because there are no obvious physical signs.

Invisible injuries such as post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and depression can harm the quality of the parent-child relationship because these wounds often are associated with parental irritability, rapid mood swings, emotional numbing, memory loss, and lack of behavior control.

Any of these can enhance children’s risk for disorganized attachment, psychological distress, emotion and behavior dysregulation, and poor health and well-being.

Children growing up in homes with a depressed parent are at increased risk for depression themselves, as are children raised by parents with substance abuse disorders, especially when they occur with high levels of aggression and violence. Children traumatized by parental violence may themselves develop symptoms of PTSD.

Separation during deployment affects an infant’s attachment relationship with the service member.

The nature of the invisible injury may directly harm family functioning and the quality of parent-child relationships necessary for promoting optimal child development. While all types of parental combat injuries influence various components of family functioning, evidence suggests that families are more resilient when there are visible wounds and struggle more with changes related to invisible ones.

Ambiguous Loss

The realities of stress on non-deployed parents can make it difficult for them to be emotionally present with their child during and after deployment. Uncertainty about the extent of the loss and the inability to bring closure to these losses make them ambiguous.

Psychologists describe two types of ambiguous loss: when a loved one is physically absent but psychologically present, and when a loved one is physically present but psychologically absent.

The concept of ambiguous loss became significant when research with families of U.S. military sent to fight in the Vietnam War looked at the psychological presence of a father declared missing in action.

Studies showed that the effect of the father’s absence was influenced by the mother’s adjustment in the first few years after receiving notification of the father’s missing-in-action status. Later studies revealed that ambiguous loss during a parent’s deployment changed not only children’s relationship with the deployed parent but also their relationship with the non-deployed parent.

During Deployment

Certainly, both deployed parents and children at home experience the loss of shared developmental milestones (e.g., first smile, step, word). Lengthy separations are thought to have greater implications for young children, who are developmentally unable to process the cause of the separation, time of the parent’s absence, or explanations of the parent’s return.

When the service member is absent, the non-deployed caregiver and that caregiver’s attunement to the developmental milestones of the child or the impact of stressors on the young child are critical for normal attachment and development of young children.

“Infants and toddlers also experience separation and loss, but their needs can be overlooked when caring adults are overwhelmed.”

Ongoing fear for the loved one’s safety and a fixation on the war can result in the non-deployed parent or caregiver being psychologically absent during the deployment.

While they are physically present, they may be unable to maintain normal routines or care for children. For these adults, feelings of despair can lead to ambivalence, guilt, anxiety, depression, and incapacitation.

Boundary ambiguity about who is in or out of the family unit or what roles individuals play in a family can be conceptualized on a continuum with varying degrees of psychological presence or absence, as well as changing physical presence or absence.

When a parent is deployed or absent from the home for an extended period, other family members assume their roles within the family and may not be interested in relinquishing some of those responsibilities when the service member returns.

Reunion

Community supports in place during deployment might assume that once the service member is home, life will quickly return to normal. However, when service members return, they have to deal with not only their wartime experiences but also the loss of family as they knew it prior to their deployment.

Many become acutely aware of developmental milestones missed and the ability of the family to go on without them. As the boundaries of who is in or out of the family change and the future seems uncertain, families may experience turmoil.

Building an attachment relationship is influenced by parents’ ability to be both physically and psychologically present for their child during all phases of the deployment cycle, including the reunion and reintegration of family.

When service members return, they have to deal with not only their wartime experiences but also the loss of family as they knew it prior to their deployment.

Military families and community support need to understand and normalize bodily responses to chronic stress and how these responses create ambiguity.

The stress response that activated to help the service member or at-home caregiver survive their stressful experience takes a toll on the human body. Over time, the endemic stress affects bodily functions like heart rate, blood pressure, immunity, sleep, attention, and moods.

Furthermore, thinking about negative events that happened in the past or fearing for the future can continue to hijack the stress response, making it more difficult to manage everyday relationships.

When parents are consumed with thoughts and fears, they are unable to be present and attuned to their child in the moment, that is, they might be physically present but psychologically absent. This can happen at any stage of the deployment cycle.

Family Functioning

When parents experience stress that takes them away from being attuned to and present with their children, there is strength is seeking help from professionals. Meaningful treatment focused on the injury, role changes, and loss of personal and family dreams is central in the process of healing.

A multi-level, systemic, resilience-building approach is needed to strengthen family and community resources, rather than focusing solely on individual deficits. Considering parents’ combat injuries, interventions should respect individual, family, military, and community differences.

Having strong social support facilitates better adjustment for the injured and has a buffering effect on the family. When social supports reduce the stress experienced by the military family, the parent can focus on being emotionally responsive and attuned to the needs of their child.

“When service members return, they have to deal with not only their wartime experiences but also the loss of family as they knew it prior to their deployment.”

The early life trajectory is shaped largely by infants’ relational world of family, community, and life contexts.

During times of stress, parents can provide comfort and security for their children by establishing and maintaining routines. Age-appropriate tasks may help children feel that they are contributing positively to the family.

Children need to make sense of what the stress means for their life. When adults communicate age-appropriate information, it supports children’s intuitive sense that something is wrong.

Parents can also create an environment where the child knows it is acceptable to ask questions. What children want and need to know changes as they grow. Children express a broad range of emotions, and they often need their caregivers to help them name and regulate their emotions.

Child development studies consistently promote the benefits of children maintaining a relationship with both parents. Children need the adults in their life to plan activities and rituals that help them feel connected to a parent who is physically absent.

During wartime deployments, events inevitably occur outside families’ control. Family members’ beliefs, values, goals, and perceptions of themselves in the context of their community may influence whether the family views their situation as manageable.

Community supports can focus on reducing parental stress, mitigating mental health challenges, building confidence in parents’ engagement, and supporting strategies that enable parents to live in ways that are consistent with their values.

The post Children and war: Loss, family stress, and attachment relationships appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Based on years of research, the framework – called the Intergenerational and Cumulative Adverse and Resilient Experiences (ICARE) model – identifies 10 types of ACEs, as well as 10 protective and compensatory experiences (PACEs) that build resilience.

The ICARE model also recommends a wide set of interventions that address the many ways ACEs can harm children’s development. At the heart of the approach is supporting the protective factors that are already in place in families and helping families become stronger.

The ICARE model shows the pathway by which ACEs can disadvantage children’s future and harm the next generation.

Neurobiological and epigenetic impacts of ACEs

Prolonged activation of stress responses that are typically used in brief crisis-response situations results in biological and neurobiological changes that can become embedded in a child. The body’s immune system can be harmed, as well as the development of brain structures and functions. Epigenetic changes to DNA as a result of adversity – the methylation of certain genes that change how they function – embed the impact of ACEs, influencing how the child responds to stress later in life. Epigenetic changes are heritable, passed from mothers and fathers to their biological children.

The ICARE model shows the pathway by which ACEs can disadvantage children’s future and harm the next generation.

Developmental impacts of ACEs

The most significant developmental system in early childhood is attachment. Secure attachment evolves when an infant’s needs are consistently met, creating a safe and predictable place where caregivers can be trusted. Attachment also has a biological/neurobiological dimension, for example, with the action of the hormones dopamine and oxytocin. ACEs can disrupt attachment, which is associated with a wide range of behavioral, social, and emotional problems later in life.

ACEs can also damage cognitive development. Skills associated with executive function, such as working memory, inhibitory control, and focused attention, can be harmed in children who have experienced adversity. This can lead to problems with learning during education and training.

Intergenerational transmission

ACEs can disadvantage the next generation in two ways: Parents who have been adversely affected by ACEs in their own lives are more likely to struggle with parenting. And parents may pass to their children epigenetic changes that affect the child’s biological response to stress.

Strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of ACEs

The foundation of the strategic approach proposed by the ICARE model starts with assessing and mobilizing protective factors that already exist or could exist around the child. Researchers point to successful support programs in five categories:

1. Supporting parents and caregivers with their own psychological and emotional well-being
2. Supporting parents and caregivers with attachment and parenting skills
3. Supporting children directly, for example, by encouraging their participation in sports, hobbies, and friendships
4. Psychological therapies for children that address the past traumas
5. Play-based therapeutic activities for children and parents together

The authors of the framework explain that the ICARE model “suggests new opportunities to design and implement multilevel prevention and intervention programs across the various pathways by which adverse and protective experiences influence outcomes.”

The post How to protect children from the negative impacts of adverse childhood experiences – a comprehensive approach appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Why does social isolation affect us so much? And how does answering this question lead us to examine the way human thinking develops?

Just how social we are as a species is made even more evident by the COVID-19 lockdowns that have restricted our everyday social interactions and affected our physical and mental health. Social engagement influences us at an even more fundamental level because it is crucial to the formation of human thinking and minds.

We address this issue in What Makes Us Human? How Minds Develop Through Social Interactions. In the words of a 9-year-old, the question is, “How do you go from a bunch of cells to something that thinks?” How are we as humans able to explore such questions about our own origins and the workings of our minds?

Humans are intrigued by the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but a puzzle unfolding right before our eyes is how intelligence develops in our homes as babies start to communicate and then understand the world in ways that adults simply take for granted.

Relations with other people

In our book, we develop and justify the idea that the essential aspects of being human arise through our relations with other people.

To understand these processes and the way human intellect develops, it is essential to look closely at the nature of communication in infancy and childhood, with which much of our thinking is intricately entwined.

To explore the complexities of human language, we begin by describing the rich social and emotional niches in which human babies develop and the forms of interaction on which communication is based emerge.

We develop and justify the idea that the essential aspects of being human arise through our relations with other people.

Have you ever considered why human infants are born so helpless that they must be cared for over many years, yet they develop such powerful ways of thinking?

Our answer to this question follows a historical tradition that suggests that this helplessness is an important factor in the development of human thinking. This is because the need for constant care in the early years necessarily produces a social context in which complex human skills develop.

Although the infant is unable to fend for herself, she is born with a host of evolved biological characteristics that draw her into engagement with others.

For example, typically developing babies are interested in looking at human eyes, which are particularly striking compared to the eyes of other primates because the dark centre is surrounded by contrasting white sclera.

Such attentiveness to eyes may be interpreted as indicating babies’ apparent interest in other people, and this interest is typically reciprocated by parents, who love to engage with their infants. This bidirectional process of attentiveness promotes the infant’s development.

Initially, this consists of staring into the eyes of a caregiver, or cuddling into the caregiver for comfort, but these early and simple skills soon develop into more complex abilities like smiling or cooing. These new forms of interaction elicit even more positive experiences because they are so rewarding for parents.

We explore how essential social interaction is to the development of the human mind in: What Makes Us Human? How Minds Develop Through Social Interactions.

Daily social interaction

This repeated daily social interaction between infants and their parents becomes increasingly coordinated, which reflects early forms of communication. For instance, when a baby reaches her arms toward her parent, the meaning of this action — a desire to be held — is clear to the parent, who typically picks up the baby.

Through experiencing this response to her reaching, the baby learns to anticipate this outcome of her reaching action. That is, she comes to grasp the meaning that her action has for others, and then she gradually learns to communicate this desire intentionally.

This is a crucial change in ways of interacting, not seen to such an extent in other species that lack an extended period of helplessness. The baby becomes aware of the meaning in the interaction and can then anticipate the response and communicate intentionally. Later, she can learn to add words such as up or uppy to these sorts of shared social routines.

Sharing

Other acts, such as mutually sharing a toy with a caregiver or gesturing in a specific way, develop in a similar fashion as their meaning emerges within shared patterns of interaction.

Beginning at about 10 to 12 months, babies typically start to point, but not in a sophisticated way. It takes a lot of experience to realize that successful pointing involves the pointer gesturing to the object and checking that the receiver is following the line of the point. It also requires the receiver to identify what is being pointed to and why their attention is being drawn to it.

The hard-won reading of these sorts of gestures reveals the origins and nature of children’s understanding of other people. It shows how a grasp of simple experiences like reaching to be picked up facilitates further interaction in which children develop yet more complex communicative and social skills.

These are concrete examples of how increasingly sophisticated human thinking and minds emerge as communication develops in everyday interaction, a fact that makes their significance easy to overlook. They are instances of the sort of mundane interactions on which human ways of being and thinking are based.

The use of words is an extension of earlier communication with gestures. Language gradually becomes part of the way thinking can take place. Initially, the baby’s words refer to objects and actions in the here and now, but gradually they can be applied to experiences not directly perceptible – for example, toddlers can relate what happened at preschool or make up a story about an imaginary character.

More sophisticated forms of social understanding emerge when children gradually master the language skills needed to talk about human activity in psychological terms.

Most toddlers articulate what they want with words by age two, and soon afterwards use words like think and know to show that they are aware that they and the people around them are influenced by their own thoughts and motivations. By acquiring the ability to talk about the psychological world, children can begin to reflect on themselves and others in these ways.

Mutual affection and respect

From the perspective we have developed here, morality emerges at the level of interaction as children learn to coordinate their daily activities with others in relationships of mutual affection and respect.

These interactions based on equality are well suited for reaching mutual understanding because they require children to listen to others and explain themselves. This allows them to coordinate conflicts and develop a practical morality in their interaction with equals.

A further step is to begin to articulate what was first implicit in their activity, which then makes reflection possible. In this way, children become able to articulate and reflect on their initially practical ways of interacting with others.

Moral notions such as fairness and justice do not have their source in biology alone, nor are they pre-existing and passed on from a previous generation to be imposed on children. Instead, they arise through particular forms of cooperative interaction among equals based on mutual affection and respect.

To understand the way human intellect develops it is essential to look closely at the nature of communication in infancy and childhood, with which much of our thinking is intricately entwined.

Of course, explaining the origins of human thinking is controversial and not everyone will agree with our account.

In our book, we compare our developmental account, which is grounded in the processes of social interaction, with two competing explanations for human thinking: that it is either simply determined by biology or that the computer makes a good metaphor for the human mind.

First, we show that although biological factors are crucial in structuring the developmental system in which human skills emerge, the claim that thinking is determined by genes is incompatible with work in biology over the last 50 years.

Research in genetics and developmental neurobiology highlights that we must consider the complex developmental system in which multiple levels of biology and environment interact with each other to drive the individual’s development. Key aspects of human thinking, although based on neural activity, emerge only at the level of the person interacting with others.

Shared way of interacting

Second, the claim that thinking can be likened to computation is based on a flawed assumption that meaning is fixed, as it is in a computer. Instead, as we illustrate, human communication is rooted in shared ways of interacting. This is also why current approaches to artificial intelligence that attempt to model human intelligence are based on the wrong foundation.

Revealing the flaws in these two general approaches to human psychological development supports our argument that human communication and thinking emerges within interaction with others in a developmental system in which biological and social levels are thoroughly interwoven.

We trace this development by beginning as gestures emerge in early interaction, leading to language and then to human forms of thinking.

The post What makes us human? How minds develop through social interactions appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Parents influence children’s brain development in ways that can shape how we think about our experiences for a lifetime.

Early emotional experiences leave children with much more than memories. Neuroscience suggests how these experiences can literally shape the ways in which children – and the adults they become – think. These early experiences contribute to the development of the biological mechanisms that process and interpret past and future experiences. They can influence brain circuitry that makes meaning from what has happened and predictions for what happens next, sometimes throughout children’s lives.

These insights from neuroscience place parents – not only their actions but also their well-being — at the heart of children’s brain development for two reasons.

First, parents are usually the source of their children’s earliest experiences and those who are likely to influence brain development. The nature of this relationship highlights the importance of understanding these experiences.

Second, parents also provide a buffer between the world and young children’s brain development. If parents can manage the stresses the world throws at them, then children may learn how to manage challenges better. Children are also more likely to be protected from biological responses to adverse events. In contrast, when parents are overtaxed and have difficulty regulating themselves, children may be more vulnerable to external stressors.

This understanding of how moms and dads influence children’s brain development makes a fresh and compelling case for supporting parenting. It also demands action to help ensure that parents are supported and buffered. It means that, if we care about children, then we as a society should care a lot for their parents.

“A parent is an extension of a child’s developing neurobiology – like an interpersonal scaffolding that affords a long childhood.”

This understanding of children’s neural development springs from observing how the brain functions. My colleagues and I have looked at a key communication inside a particular part of the brain — between the subcortical brain regions and the medial prefrontal cortex. These areas support and link emotional learning with subsequent emotional behaviors.

Subcortical brain regions learn at a deep level about positive and negative events, and they create emotional memories. Meanwhile, the medial prefrontal cortex is involved in managing behaviors, as well as in planning and decision making. These two areas are connected and therefore, communicate with each other. The patterns individuals establish in making meaning seem to influence how they interpret what happens and how they make decisions.

We have observed how these regions of the brain are influenced by early experiences. We can also see how they are then used in later life. This helps us understand how childhood experiences may play out and influence subsequent adult behaviors.

Forming the neurobiology of the childhood brain

What happens in the early building of these brain regions? They develop rapidly during early childhood so they are very vulnerable to environmental influences, whether nurturing or maltreating. These areas of the brain learn about security and threat, create emotional memories, and are involved in managing behavior and decision making. Intriguingly, we have also found that these areas are very sensitive to parents and to the messages or cues parents send to children.

Photo: NeONBRAND. Unsplash.

Why does it serve human welfare to be so heavily influenced by these early experiences? Because, as a species, humans have evolved to learn from our early environments so we are ready for what we encounter once we reach maturity. The human brain develops very slowly compared with other species – it’s on a “slow cook” setting. This is a great adaptation that gives us a lot of time to learn from our environments.

Some have said that childhood is a dress rehearsal for the performance of adulthood. The longer the dress rehearsal, the longer we get to stay immature, and the more efficient and powerful the adult brain becomes to help us tackle the drama on life’s stage.

A child’s brain is primed to learn from its closest environment, especially early in life. That makes family and parents a big influence on emotional development. Human children spend a very long time with their parents, compared with other species. This time affords them a lengthy period of brain plasticity — the first two decades of life — during which they can do the massive amount of learning required for the sophisticated set of behaviors human adults need.

The role of parents’ neurobiology

Although parents are not the sole source of input, they provide the bulk of that learning. Part of that learning, especially early in life, springs from the way parents regulate their children’s stress biology (consciously or not). The neurobiology involved in social and emotional behavior is enriched with stress hormone receptors that prompt the body to respond biologically to what is happening. However, the mere physical presence of a parent can reduce the release of these stress hormones in a child.

Mom or dad can also decrease the firing of a child’s amygdala, one of the brain’s subcortical structures that is involved in learning about fear. A parent is an extension of a child’s developing neurobiology –like an interpersonal scaffolding that affords a long childhood. However, this scaffolding can also create a perilous situation when it is difficult for a caregiving environment to be an effective buffer of threat or may even be a source of threat, rather than security, to the child.

“(We must) ensure that parents are supported and buffered. It means that, if we care about children, then we as a society should care a lot for their parents.”

The power of parents as buffers has been demonstrated in studies with rodents. In an experiment that associated a meaningless stimulus – such as peppermint odor – with a mild shock to the foot, young rats learned to dislike the odor (as you and I would) and their amygdala responded to that learning. However, when the rat’s parent was present, the developing rodent, despite smelling the scent and experiencing the shock, did not avoid the smell. Functionally, the presence of the parent blocked the young rodent’s amygdala from reacting. Indeed, the rodent actually showed a preference for the odor. This sounds bizarre, but we have duplicated these findings in experiments with preschool-age children.

These reactions occur because early in life, humans are primed, as dependents on their parents, to form preferences for things associated with them – regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant the stimulus. For example, my father smoked cigars. I know the smell is unpleasant. However, that odor was learned in the context of my attachment to my father, so  I remain drawn to this stimulus. Most people can probably think of things associated with the home (“the nest”) to which they are attracted, regardless of whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. This response is part of a young animal’s survival strategy.

Usually this system works well — it keeps us close to our parents, the nest, and the developmental benefits mom and dad bring. However, this system may also explain why, even in the context of harsh early environments, children still form attachments to their parents and things associated with them. This understanding helps explain why children often resist being separated from a parent even where there is maltreatment. It highlights the difficult and complex issues involved in separating any child from his or her parent.

The adult brain and its inheritance from childhood

Next, let us think about the adult brain: How do these brain circuits, shaped by early experiences during childhood, work later in life? Studies show that these neural circuits are activated when adults are trying to manage strong emotions, say, after a really bad day at work or when someone needs to calm down. The same neurobiology – between the prefrontal cortex and the subcortical regions – is involved when we lack complete information and need to fill in the gaps to understand fully what is happening.

Taken together, these observations of the brain suggest that early experiences may influence future behavior by providing a template for understanding how the world works. One person’s templates differ from another’s. Such templates are presumably supported, at least in part, by subcortical regions and the medial prefrontal cortex.

In situations of incomplete knowledge, a template influences an individual’s predictions of what a situation means and guides the response. Thus, matching what behavioral psychologists described more than 60 years ago, neuroscience can provide a biological model of how early experiences with parents and other caregivers form templates that influence how adults operate socially and emotionally, sometimes throughout their lives.

To care for children, care for their parents

All this demonstrates how important it is that parents themselves feel supported and are well-regulated. When parents are overly distressed, they may find it difficult to effectively buffer their children’s stress biology. However, when parents themselves are well and feel relatively secure, they are probably more effective than any other intervention in managing their children’s emotional reactions.

Parents are powerful; they are the conduits of the emotional world to their children. This is easy to see in everyday life: If parents react well to something, their child often will do the same. If parents respond in a calm way, their child will likely follow that lead. In certain senses, parents are an extension of their children’s developing brain. For that reason, we should consider: How can we support families so parents regulate themselves well to help their children become well-regulated?

Certain policies around parenting place children’s mental health at risk. For example, imagine the problems caused by the policy of separating children from parents who tried to cross from Mexico to the United States without visas. There are other areas of policy to consider. For example, how should we shape employment practices to ensure that mothers and fathers are sufficiently present in their children’s lives to provide a calm buffer against adverse experiences? How can we ensure parents’ mental, physical, and economic well-being so their wellness protects their children?

Childhood adversity is the leading environmental risk factor for mental health problems. Many of these problems are preventable – they are not genetically determined from birth. That’s why, if we are serious about caring for children, we must care for parents.

Parents ask me, “What is the best parenting advice you can offer?” I tell them, “Do what you can to take care of your well-being, to make sure you are feeling safe, and to manage your own emotions in a healthy way. When you feel this way, that gets translated to your children in a powerful way.”

The post Care for children by caring for parents, says neuroscience appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Seventy attachment researchers with long track records in the field collaborated globally to produce a seminal statement concerning the widespread use of attachment theory in family courts.

The start of 2021 sees a major new contribution to family court practice by child development researchers. A 35-page “Consensus position based on the concerted body of attachment research” has been published, under the names of 70 leading attachment researchers. It is the most comprehensive statement ever produced on how attachment theory can be applied in family courts worldwide in the best interests of children. It also shows ways in which attachment theory is frequently misused.

This summary highlights the key points in the statement, but family court professionals who wish to learn more about this important topic should read the document in full. References to page numbers are included in this summary to enable quick access to the more detailed account.

The “best interests of the child” has become the fundamental consideration in family courts. The concept is included in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (#3.1)” (p. 5).

This article addresses four issues:

1. The challenge of using attachment theory in family courts
2. What is attachment theory?
3. Three attachment principles for family court practice
4. Eight pieces of advice for family courts

1. The challenge of using attachment theory in family courts

A fundamental difficulty applying attachment science in family courts is that the science and the courts start from very different places. The measures used in attachment research are accurate enough to produce average scores that predict patterns of future child development across groups, but they are not sensitive enough to be used as diagnostic tools for individual families, which is what courts need (p. 5). Correlations found in attachment science, while statistically significant, may not be substantial, and rarely provide the basis for making a prediction about one individual (p. 21). Even the more fine-grained attachment assessments have been designed and validated for standardized contexts and may not apply in highly charged situations common in family courts.

“Family courts are under pressure to appear to base their decisions on evidence, and attachment theory has become by far the most popular theory among professionals working with children and families.”

Therefore, specific measures of attachment quality should be used with great caution. They may play a part, but only in combination with other assessments. Other measures include the child’s physical, cognitive, and socioemotional development, and very importantly, the capacity of a parent to provide care or be helped to develop caring skills. Above all, it is crucial to assess risk of harm to the child. Every one of these factors is hard to assess, not least because each can change over time, particularly if the assessment is made at a moment of heightened trauma and change (pp. 15-16, 20-21, 30-32).

Family courts are under pressure to appear to base their decisions on evidence, and attachment theory has become by far the most popular theory among professionals working with children and families. This creates an environment in which over-confidence about the application of attachment classifications or concepts to individual cases is common (p. 21). Because of the complexity of cases in family courts, proceedings can be influenced by personal opinions or cultural and social values and norms (pp. 5, 6, 32).

2. What is attachment theory?

2.1 Defining attachment

The 70 attachment researchers who contributed to the statement defined attachment this way:

Attachment refers to an affectional bond in which an individual is motivated to seek and maintain proximity to, and comfort from, particular familiar persons (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Children are born with a predisposition to develop this motivation in relation to significant others (“attachment figures”) who have been sufficiently present and responsive. For children, these persons are usually their caregivers. The motivation is held to be governed by an attachment behavioral system. This system seeks to maintain a certain degree of proximity between child and attachment figures, with the setting for desirable level changing dynamically in response to internal and external cues. The motivation to increase proximity is activated when a person is alarmed by internal cues (e.g. pain, illness) and/or external cues (e.g. fear-evoking stimuli, separation), and manifests in a tendency to seek the availability of an attachment figure. When the attachment system is strongly activated, some kind of physical contact with an attachment figure is generally sought, especially by infants, though this contact can also be achieved by non-physical means later in development … Caregivers who have regularly interacted with and protect the infant when the infant has been alarmed usually come to be represented by the infant as someone he or she can turn to when in need (i.e. as a safe haven). Importantly, even the most sensitive and responsive of caregivers necessarily “tune out” from time to time – to visit the bathroom, make tea, or even temporarily hand over caregiving to another trusted person familiar to the infant, while the caregiver attends to other matters. Thus, that a caregiver provides a safe haven does not necessitate that this person is constantly accessible for the infant physically, or even psychologically, or that the child is securely attached to that caregiver. Conversely, being physically present does not necessarily mean that a caregiver is emotionally available (pp. 7-8).

Photo: Yogendra Singh. Unsplash.

2.2 Attachment quality is measured by secure/insecure, not strong/weak

In attachment research, trained and certified coders measure the quality of attachment through standardized observation of children’s relative ability to use their caregiver as a safe haven to which they can turn for protection, and as a secure base from which they can explore the environment (p. 8).

Secure attachment manifests itself in the child’s expectation that the adult will be available in times of need. Insecure attachment manifests itself in the child’s expectation that the adult will be relatively unavailable (p. 8).

Insecure attachment is not weak and is extremely common and normal. Insecure attachment is an important strategy for children to maximize the potential availability of a caregiver who is unavailable or insensitive. An insecure attachment does not mean that the caregiver is never a safe haven for the child (pp. 10, 17).

Insecure attachment is observed in three forms:

• Insecure-avoidant is when the child does not seek his or her familiar person when mildly alarmed, but remains near (p. 17).
• Insecure-resistant is when the child seeks proximity but is not readily comforted and can show anger toward the caregiver. Both this and insecure-avoidant behavior are termed organized insecure attachment because they are coherent and work to increase the availability of less sensitive carers (p. 17).
• Disorganized attachment is when the child is conflicted, confused, or apprehensive about a family caregiver in a situation of mild to moderate alarm. It is often associated with frightened, frightening, or dissociative behavior on the part of the caregiver, or a caregiver’s hostility, withdrawal, or maltreatment (p. 18).

All these forms of insecure attachment correlate with later compromised child development, but even in the case of disorganized attachment, the associations are not strong enough to infer that observing insecure attachment foretells poor development outcomes for a specific child (p. 19).

Furthermore, researchers observe patterns of attachment in carefully controlled conditions that involve only mild to moderate stress for a child. Family courts commonly deal with children in situations of intense stress. Disorganized behavior on the part of a seriously stressed child does not necessarily imply disorganized attachment (p. 19).

“Specific measures of attachment quality should be used with great caution. They may play a part, but only in combination with other assessments.”

2.3 Attachment disorder differs from insecure attachment

The negative effects of insecure attachments, as presented earlier, are far surpassed by the potential damage of attachment disorder.

Two types of attachment disorder have been defined. Reactive attachment disorder is when a child shows a lack of care-seeking toward any caregiver when alarmed. Disinhibited social engagement disorder is when a child is over-friendly with unfamiliar people.

Reactive attachment disorder is seen in children who have experienced extremely inadequate caregiving in their early years, for example, those who have lived in institutions. The symptoms are reversible if the child is placed in a stable caregiving environment (p. 19).

2.4 Children form attachments with multiple caregivers

There is a widespread belief in the importance of one psychological parent, which emerges from the practice in some cultures of a single parent being the primary caregiver. A related idea has emerged: that an attachment with one person competes with other attachment relationships. Bowlby himself started with the idea of a single attachment in his 1969 book, but had changed his mind by the time he wrote his second book in 1984.

The reality is that children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers simultaneously if they have sufficient time with the caregivers and if the caregivers provide enough of a safe haven in times of need. For decades, the vast majority of attachment researchers have believed that children benefit from having more than one safe haven (p. 6, 11-12).

The presence of multiple caregivers is the norm in many cultural settings across the world. Multiple caregivers and a network of attachment relationships constitute a protective factor in child development when caregiving is inconsistent (e.g., a caregiver is unwell or unavailable). This does not imply that the number of attachments is limitless, nor that a child may not prefer some caregivers over others. A child’s preferences are often shaped by the current accessibility of one carer over another and do not seem to depend on relative attachment quality with the caregivers. However, in the context of inter-parental conflict and custody disputes, less is known about how children’s preferences play out (p. 11-12).

While all attachments with regular caregivers are important, researchers’ opinions differ about whether a most familiar carer should be afforded priority in the early years. Variations in context – such as cultural and family factors – might influence the organization of continuous contact with different caregivers (p. 12).

“Insecure attachment is not weak and is very common – the average rate of insecure attachment in the general population is nearly half.”

2.5 New attachments can form

When a child and new caregiver spend sufficient time together, attachments usually form. The time together can activate not only the child’s attachment system but also a complementary caregiving system in the caregiver. Both are malleable. This is a relevant consideration in decisions about custody and overnight stays. However, no empirical research shows that overnight stays are a necessary condition for the development of an attachment relationship (p. 14).

Photo: Alan Wat. Creative Commons.

3. Three attachment principles for family court practice

In their statement, the researchers present three principles for family court practice based on a full consideration of attachment research.

Principle 1: A child needs to experience safe havens provided by particular, familiar, and non-abusive caregivers.

Two considerations are key:

• Limited contact with a caregiver makes it more difficult for a child to form, enhance, and maintain expectations of that caregiver’s availability in times of need.
• Almost all non-abusive and non-neglecting family-based care is likely to be better than institutional care (p. 25).

Principle 2: Safe, continuous, “good enough” care is in the child’s best interest and caregivers should be helped to provide it.

A safe haven requires particular familiar relationships and sufficiently continuous interaction with these caregivers. Even if another caregiving environment may be better in some way than the child’s current one, continuity of good enough care constitutes part of a child’s best interests. Disrupting existing attachments in favor of an “optimal” solution should be pursued with extreme caution (pp. 25-26).

Safe, continuous, good-enough care can be actively supported. Many studies and meta-analyses demonstrate effective interventions that improve caregiving quality. Many of these interventions are limited in time, typically lasting just 6 to 10 sessions (p. 26).

To this end, it is important to assess a caregiver’s potential to provide good enough care with sufficient support, not just the caregiver’s actual caregiving. The assessment also needs to consider a future time, if a current extreme state of distress diminishes the caregiver’s current ability (e.g., fear of loss of custody). Also, any particular intervention does not suit every caregiver, so alternatives should be made available (p. 32).

In families where roles were different prior to the separation, it is important to give the less experienced caregiver the opportunity to develop the ability to provide a safe haven (p. 12).

Bowlby put it this way in 1951: “Just as children are absolutely dependent on their parents for sustenance, so … are parents … dependent on greater society for economic provision. If a community values its children it must cherish their parents” (p. 28).

“The reality is that children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers simultaneously.”

Principle 3: Maintain a child’s existing safe havens if they don’t pose a threat.

A decision to maintain a child’s existing safe havens does not provide a blueprint for allocating time in shared care arrangements. Time must be sufficient for attachment relationships to be developed and maintained (p. 28).

This principle can also apply to foster care, where relationships with biological parents can be maintained during fostering. Similarly, relationships with foster carers can maintained after foster care (p. 29).

In addition, grandparents, step-parents, siblings, and extended family members can often provide a safe haven for children (p. 29).

Photo: Frank Mckenna. Unsplash.

4. Eight pieces of advice for family courts

1. Do not equate attachment quality with caregiver sensitivity.

Caregiver sensitivity – the ability to notice a child’s signals, interpret them correctly, and respond to them appropriately and in a timely way – is, of course, important and correlates with attachment. However, gender norms can influence how care is expressed, and measures of safe haven and caregiver sensitivity may be shaped by gendered assumptions about caregiving (pp. 8-9). For example, sensitive caregiving in mothers predicts secure attachment more than it does in fathers, suggesting that other factors play a greater role in father-child attachment.

2. Do not equate attachment quality with relationship quality.

Relationships are made up of more than attachment alone. Other factors, such as basic physical care, play, supervision, teaching/learning, setting standards for conduct, and discipline, are also important (p. 9).

3. Do not interpret one-off behaviors of children as reliably indicating attachment quality.

Children’s behaviors depend on context. Attachment is measured in very controlled contexts. A very frightened child behaves differently than a less frightened child. A child in a highchair may cry in response to a threatening noise, but not cry if he or she is free to move to the caregiver. Children’s behaviors are also a function of their individual temperaments (p. 9).

4. The Tender Years Doctrine is wrong.

The Tender Years Doctrine holds that custody automatically goes to the mother for children under a certain “tender” age. While this concept has been formally replaced in most countries by standards related to the best interests of the child, it remains influential (p. 13). In Israel, it remains the policy: custody automatically goes to the mother for children under the age of six. The researchers state: “We are in full consensus that the ultimate establishment of a network of attachment relationships is generally a protective factor in the long term and thus a desirable outcome in child development. We are also in full agreement that losses of and permanent separations from attachment figure are in themselves risk factors that should be prevented wherever possible in child development.” (p.13)

5. Overnight care with a second parent is not inherently harmful for children.

In the 1990s, researchers concluded that co-parenting arrangements that included overnight visits to the co-parent were associated with insecurity in a child’s attachment with the resident parent (Solomon & George, 1999). However, the data presented in the study actually showed that parental conflict, not overnight stays, was  the problem. The inaccurate conclusion of this study has been quoted frequently to defend a position that is not supported by this or other evidence (p. 13).

The key question regarding decisions about overnight stays is whether the child experiences a safe haven with each caregiver. Of course, having a secure attachment does not preclude a child being unsettled for a time by unfamiliarity with, say, a new home. Also, the application of Principle 2 (safe, continuous, “good enough” care is in the child’s best interest and caregivers should be helped to provide it) requires attention to actively enabling the caregiver to develop a safe haven over time (p. 14).

“It is important to assess a caregiver’s potential to provide good enough care with sufficient support, not just the caregiver’s actual caregiving.”

6. Addressing and reducing conflict is key.

Inter-parental conflict and hostility undermine a parent’s own caring competencies and ability to let the other parent provide care. Interventions to reduce parental conflict are important (pp. 14-15).

If courts are clear about their decisions regarding custody and time allocation, they can increase parents’ capacity to overcome conflict. Similarly, if courts are clear about their commitment to the three principles outlined earlier, caregivers’ anxiety can be reduced and their motivation for cooperation increased (p. 33).

7. Ensure that family court professionals are adequately trained in attachment assessment.

While attachment theory is typically a mandatory part of professionals’ training, specialist training in assessing attachment quality is not. This can lead to attachment theory being either under-estimated or used with over-confidence. If assessments of attachment are used, they must be performed by formally trained observers (pp. 23, 31).

8. Take evidence directly from experts, not via representing parties.

Appeals to attachment in family courts would be less partial, more balanced, and more aligned with convergent evidence if courts called in experts, rather than the representing parties (p. 23).

The post How to apply attachment theory in family courts: The world’s leading experts weigh in appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Millions of years ago, our species established childraising practices that shaped children to be cooperative and intelligent. What are these long-established practices?

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

• Stress during pregnancy is related to irritability in the child, making the child harder to care for. Separating mother and infant at birth can impair bonding and breastfeeding success.

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

• Lack of sufficient affectionate touch leads to the underdevelopment of these systems. Negative touch throws off the development of self-regulation and social skills.

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

• Leaving babies alone in playpens, cribs, and carriers instead of carrying them affects growth and systems that rely on touch.

5. A social climate that welcomes children at every stage, keeping them in the middle of community activities

• Isolation and loneliness plague many people in the United States, where babies are often sent to child care centers with high turnover in staff, which can harm their social development.

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

• Children who do not experience whole-body play may be restless and unfocused, which adults may misinterpret as a need for pharmaceuticals.

7. Immersion in nature and ecological attachment so children feel like members of the earth community with responsibilities to non-human members

• Societies that emphasize these practices foster biological diversity.

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.

The post The evolved nest approach fosters children’s well-being appeared first on Child and Family Blog.