• Mind-mindedness is the ability of parents to accurately read and label their children’s thoughts, feelings, and wishes.
• Both mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness in the first years of children’s lives play an important role in children developing the ability to regulate their emotions and behaviors.
• Parents can cultivate mind-mindedness by paying close attention to their children’s behavior and taking time to reflect on and label their children’s thoughts, wishes, and emotions.

What is mind-mindedness?

I have vivid memories of the first weeks of motherhood, feeling anxious and confused about why my baby was crying. I wondered: Why is she crying? How is she feeling? Does she want something other than food? Maybe she just wants to be cuddled? As time passed, I began to understand my baby’s wishes and emotions more clearly. Talking to other new parents, I realized that parents differ in how much they can understand their children’s minds.

This ability of parents to think about their children as individuals with their own thoughts, feelings, and wishes, and to label these experiences in their interactions with them is called mind-mindedness. Parents with this ability accurately read their babies’ minds and label their mental states. This might involve reflecting on a child’s emotional experiences or verbalizing their wishes.

Photo: Egidijus Bielskis. Unsplash.

For example, when a child starts crying after their toy broke, a mind-minded parent might say, “You seem upset that your toy broke. You wanted to play with this toy.” In contrast, parents who misinterpret their children’s mental states (e.g., assuming the child is crying because they are tired and do not want to play anymore) demonstrate non-attuned mind-mindedness.

How does mind-mindedness help children?

Parental mind-mindedness plays an important role in the development of children’s self-regulation. Self-regulation is a critical skill that enables children to manage their emotions and behaviors in response to what a situation demands (Eisenberg, 2000; Kochanska, 1993). As children reach the age of four or five and begin school, the demands for self-regulation increase. Starting a these ages, children need to stay focused, pay attention to learning goals, and actively participate in learning in the classroom so self-regulation becomes especially important (e.g., Nota et al., 2004).

Boosting self-regulation

Self-regulation in preschool is not only important for later academic achievement – accumulating evidence suggests that it is also essential for children’s social adjustment and mental health. Preschool-age children who can adequately regulate their emotions and behaviors have more successful relationships with others, are more socially competent, have healthier life habits, and are at a lower risk for developing mental disorders (Robson et al., 2020).

The ability of parents to think about their children as individuals with their own thoughts, feelings, and wishes, and to label these experiences in their interactions with them is called mind-mindedness.

Several studies have examined the role of parental mind-mindedness in the development of self-regulation in infants and toddlers. They have shown that mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness is associated with emerging self-regulation abilities in infancy and toddlerhood (Cheng et al., 2018; Gagné et al., 2018; Senehi et al., 2018; Zeegers et al., 2019). However, it remains unclear whether parental mind-mindedness at these ages plays an important role for self-regulation in preschoolers. This is especially important to determine since self-regulation at preschool age predicts various life outcomes.

The connection between parental mind-mindedness and preschoolers’ self-regulation

My colleagues and I set out to address this question. In our recent study (Nikolić et al., 2022), we investigated whether mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness in the first three years of a child’s life predicts the development of self-regulation at four and a half years.

We predicted that appropriate mind-mindedness in parents would help children develop good self-regulation because children would learn about their inner states from parents who accurately reflect on and label their mental states (e.g., when a child is sad and the parents reflect on the child’s sadness, the child becomes aware of the feeling and starts to understand it). In contrast, non-attuned mind-mindedness in parents would hinder the development of self-regulation because children whose parents misinterpret their thoughts, wishes, and feelings may feel misunderstood and would not learn to understand their mental states from their parents.

Photo: Karolina Grabowska. Pexels.

We assessed mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness in the first three years on multiple occasions by observing their interactions and conversations with their children during playtime. We then measured preschoolers’ self-regulation at the age of 4.5 in several ways. First, we asked parents about their perception of their children’s effortful control, or their capacity to voluntarily focus attention and suppress an inappropriate response or activate an appropriate response to adjust to a situation (Eisenberg, 2005). For example, the ability to prioritize sitting quietly and listening to the teacher over playing with a friend is an aspect of effortful control.

Second, the children completed behavioral tasks in the lab, where we asked them to keep their hands placed on a mat on the table while choosing a prize from a box filled with small toys or a box filled with candies (Kochanska et al., 1997). This task required children to follow instructions and inhibit a dominant response (i.e., touching or pointing to a toy or candy). Finally, we measured children’s heart rate variability during rest – a bodily response related to physiological regulation (Porges, 1997).

Mind-mindedness in the first three years of a child’s life

Both mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness in the first three years of their children’s lives contributed significantly to their preschoolers’ self-regulation. Fathers who were more mind-minded with their babies and toddlers had children who were better at self-regulation when they started school. In contrast, mothers and fathers who were more non-attuned and often misinterpreted their children’s mental states had children who were less able to self-regulate when they started school.

Fathers who were more mind-minded with their babies and toddlers had children who were better at self-regulation when they started school.

These findings provide the first evidence that both mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness in the early years matters for children’s self-regulation in preschool. They also emphasize the role of fathers’ attunement to their children’s mental states in early years for the development of self-regulation at preschool age.

How can parents cultivate mind-mindedness?

What does this mean for parents? While it may not be surprising that a strong parent-child bond has positive effects on a child’s socioemotional development, our study’s findings highlight the unique importance of both mothers and fathers in being mindful of their children’s internal experiences to promote self-regulation early in life.

Parents can pay close attention to their children’s behavior and cues, and take time to reflect on and label their children’s thoughts, wishes, and emotions. By doing so, parents can help their children develop an understanding of their own inner life, making self-regulation easier. And the best part? It is never too early to start this practice – even talking about mental states with your child before they can speak can help them develop this important life skill.

The post Parent mind-mindedness can boost children’s self-regulation 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.

Reminiscing has been described as “emotional socialisation”, nurturing a child’s emotional development. Parents sensitively reminiscing about earlier experiences with their children is part of early childhood emotional development.

Is maltreatment by parents associated with less quantity and quality of parent-child reminiscing on the child’ past, and, if so, is this a mechanism by which maltreatment leads to poorer early childhood emotional development?

Researchers who asked this question in a recent study found a pathway between maltreatment and emotional development. Specifically:

• Maltreatment predicts less sensitivity in reminiscing activity (less encouragement, more criticism); perhaps these parents are less able to reminisce about the past, or they are less sensitive to the child while reminiscing.
• Less sensitive reminiscing predicts less developed emotion regulation and less inhibitory control on the part of the child.

Reminiscing has been described as “emotional socialisation”, nurturing a child’s emotional development. Other research has shown that parents’ sensitively reminiscing about earlier experiences with their children plays a significant role in early childhood emotional development. Conversely, children of mothers who are unable to discuss past emotional experiences with their children in a sensitive way are more likely to display deficits in remembering their past lives, understanding emotions and regulating their emotions.

In this based experiment, the researchers worked with mothers only, acknowledging that later research should include fathers and others who are likely to reminisce with young children. The study, based in the USA, involved 111 maltreating mothers and 65 non-maltreating mothers of 3- to 6-year-old children, all from similar demographic backgrounds.

The researchers asked the mothers to reminisce with their children about four past emotional events – one in which the child was happy, then others in which the child was sad, angry and scared. The sessions were videotaped and coded against measures of how well the mother stayed focused on the task, how encouraging and non-critical the mother was towards her child, how engaged and interested the child remained, how the mother responded to negative emotions, how well the mother worked with the child jointly to construct stories, how well the stories matched the happy/sad/angry/scared themes, and how fluent and clear the stories were.

The researchers homed in on three specific components of early childhood emotional development to measure:

• ‘lability/negativity’ – things like wide mood swings and quickly becoming frustrated
• ‘emotion regulation’ – things like being empathetic towards others and responding positively to peers
• ‘inhibitory control’ – the ability to control attention and not react compulsively.

The first two were measured by asking the mothers to complete questionnaires. Inhibitory control was tested with the children by giving them a task that could challenge them – saying “day” when presented with pictures featuring the moon, and “night” when presented with pictures featuring the sun.

The researchers found a pathway to two of the early childhood emotional development outcomes, emotion regulation and inhibitory control; they did not find a pathway to child lability/negativity. However, children who experience maltreatment are more likely to show greater lability/negativity. So the correlation between maltreatment and poorer emotional development does not appear to be influenced by how well the mother is able to engage in reminiscing with the child. Alternatively, it may be a deficit in the research method, given that all forms of maltreatment were lumped into one, and the impacts of different levels/types of maltreatment on emotional development might be significant.

Of course, reminiscing with parents is not the only activity that supports early childhood emotional development. Interactive reading and conversation through free play, for example, are other ways to enhance child emotional development. Other research has shown some differences in outcomes between these types of parental engagement. Reminiscing activity has a stronger link with language and literacy than does reading books together, for example.

The post Positive parent-child reminiscing about past experience helps early childhood emotional development, but maltreated children experience less of it appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

The key predictor of antisocial behavior and violent crime (as opposed to nonviolent crime) is poor emotion regulation in early childhood.

A very small group of boys grow up to become involved in persistent antisocial behavior and violent offending. Research has confirmed that there are reliable predictors of antisocial behavior in boys as early as the age of two or three.

A key predictor of violent crime (as opposed to nonviolent crime) is poor emotion regulation in early childhood. Where this is linked to persistent conduct problems through childhood, particularly when combined with hyperactivity/attention problems, there is a correlation with male violence and antisocial behavior in adolescence and early adulthood.

The problem mainly relates to boys. Research has suggested that the male brain is more vulnerable to adverse influences in early childhood. See Male violence: Early childhood development predictors.

The research suggests that violence prevention programs should prioritise the development of self-regulation skills in boys living in urban poverty, through working directly with them and through parenting programs. Some programs have already been successful in this regard. The High-Scope Perry Preschool Study reduced early violent antisocial behavior by targeting self-regulation skills in early childhood. Other programs, such as the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum and Family Check-Up, have improved children’s emotion regulation and reduced conduct problems. Positive parenting is often associated with the improvement in child conduct in these programs.

Stephanie Sitnick and colleagues have carried out research into early childhood precursors of male violence and antisocial behavior in young adulthood. They studied data from the Pitt Mother & Child Project, a study that followed low-income high-risk youth from the age of one until they were 20 years old; 310 families participated at the start, and 256 were still going at the end. The researchers measured child oppositional behavior, child emotion regulation and quality of the home environment. They also measured conduct problems throughout the period (physical aggression, oppositional behavior, temper tantrums) and hyperactivity/impulsivity/low attention. At 20 years, they measured violence and antisocial behavior both through court records and by interviewing the young adults. Their key finding was the link between poor early emotion regulation and adult antisocial behavior and violence.

A considerable amount of other research has linked early childhood development problems with later male violence and antisocial behavior, particularly impulsive, reactive crimes. Correlates include:

• impairments in early executive function
• poorer recognition of facial emotions linked to antisocial behavior
• poor early attachment and rejecting parenting
• oppositional behavior in early childhood
• poor self-control, particularly for those living in poverty.

Other factors linked to violence and antisocial behavior, reviewed by Adrian Raine, include the following.

Genetics: Studies of aggression in identical versus nonidentical twins show 65% heritability for aggression. Heritability for domestic violence is over 50%. Heritability relates more to impulsive/reactive violence. The genetics are complex and the only single gene found to occur more in violent offenders is MAOA (Monoamine Oxidase-A).

Brain impairments: Neurological impairments can be seen in several parts of violent offenders’ brains relating to emotion regulation, moral decision-making and impulse control. In particular, reduced structure and reduced glucose metabolism is often observed in the prefrontal cortex. The striatum is also more likely to be enlarged. The striatum is associated with the reward system and may suggest an oversensitivity to rewards in violent offenders.

Physical influences: The research suggests a variety of physical predictors of antisocial behavior and violence.

• Poor prenatal nutrition is associated with increased risk of antisocial personality disorder in adulthood. Child malnutrition is linked to aggression in childhood. One fatty acid critical for brain development, omega-3, is not produced by the body but is present in some foods, such as fish—and countries with diets high in fish have lower murder rates.
• Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is linked to persistent offending. These links are stronger when other sources of stress exist, such as single-parent family status or an unwanted pregnancy.
• Alcohol consumption during pregnancy has been shown in many studies to be a risk factor for adult antisocial behavior and violence. Paternal alcohol consumption is also linked, possibly through epigenetic inheritance.
• Some birth complications, such as hypoxia, are linked to adult impulsive violent
• Lead exposure has been linked to adult antisocial behavior and violence. Lead is neurotoxic and affects boys more than girls, another indication of boys’ increased vulnerability to adverse influences in early childhood.
• Some traumatic brain injuries are linked to later violent behaviors.

The post Antisocial behavior and violence in men: how it can be predicted at the age of 2 and 3 and what can be done to prevent it appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

The best way to prevent chronic physical aggression in boys is intensive and long-term interventions initiated early in life targeting disadvantaged mothers.

Following research into aggression in children dating back to the 1980s, two leading researchers from Canada, Richard E Tremblay and Sylvana M Côté, have presented a wide range of factors that predict aggression and antisocial behavior in children, boys in particular. These include both genetic and social influences. Male aggression exceeds female aggression by a large margin and has done so for a long time. The ratio of female to male homicides in France 200 years ago was almost exactly the same as in the USA in 2014: 11.7:100 and 11.6:100 respectively.

The intergenerational nature of male aggression leads the authors to recommend that the best way to prevent chronic physical aggression and other antisocial behavior problems is intensive and long-term intervention initiated early in life and targeting disadvantaged mothers. This breaks the intergenerational transmission of violent behaviors.

Genetic influence on aggression

Large studies of twins have revealed the extent of genetic influence on physical aggression. Genetic factors explain 50% to 63% of the variance in frequency of physical aggression in children at 20 months. The link between genetics and physical aggression is stronger than the link between genetics and language development. However, this influence substantially diminishes as time goes on, while new influences come into play.

Parents’ life experience

When mothers report antisocial behavior during their own adolescence, their children are considerably more likely to display chronic physical aggression between the ages of 17 and 42 months. Chronic physical aggression in children is more frequent if the mother is young, poor, separated from the father, has not completed high school, has smoked during pregnancy, or suffers from depression.

This intergenerational phenomenon is exacerbated by assortative mating: mothers with poor childhood experiences are more likely to partner and have children with fathers who have had similar experiences.

A key mechanism of the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage is epigenetic change. The DNA methylation profiles of boys displaying chronic physical aggression are different from those of other boys (in 448 places on the genome in one study). Children whose mothers show more mental illness, more criminal behavior or more substance abuse have higher methylation of the oxytocin receptor gene at birth and later show higher callous-unemotional traits at 13 years of age. Similarly, boys displaying higher aggression have lower serotonin synthesis in the brain. This is linked to higher methylation of genes in the serotonin pathway.

Aggression begins early

In the 1990s, Tremblay found that physical aggression often starts in the second part of the first year after birth, substantially increasing in frequency up to the third year, then declining slowly. Aggression emerges between six and 42 months of age, after which a child would normally learn to control it. There is a substantial difference between boys and girls: 5% of boys between 17 and 29 months use physical aggression frequently, whereas only 1% of girls do.

Aggression in kindergarten and elementary school predicts aggression in adolescence

Other research by Tremblay in the 1990s in Canada showed that greater physical aggression among kindergarten boys predicts chronic physical aggression in adolescence. Another study in Canada, New Zealand and the USA found that boys showing high chronic physical aggression in elementary school were more likely to show the same in adolescence. This link was not seen for girls.

The authors note that the danger posed by aggression in childhood increases as children grow larger from 6 to 12 years of age.

In a randomized controlled trial in the early 1980s, Tremblay and colleagues found that a programme to address aggression and hyperactivity in kindergarten boys from low socioeconomic areas had positive outcomes for the children later in life: less aggression at the ages of 7 to 9, less physical aggressions and thefts at the ages of 11 to 17, increased rate of high-school completion and fewer criminal offenses in early adulthood. The programme consisted of both home-based parent training and school-based help for social and cognitive skills.

The evidence thus points to the importance of early intervention, starting at home before kindergarten.

The post How chronic physical aggression in boys passes down the generations appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Male violence exceeds female violence by a very significant margin. The origins of this lie in early childhood development, with the first differences appearing in preschool.

Two researchers in the USA, Paul Golding and Hiram E Fitzgerald, have identified three areas that influence male violence during early childhood development: (1) early relationships with caregivers, (2) biological differences between boys and girls, and (3) growing economic and social inequalities among families in the USA, particularly the growing number of single-parent families.

Male violence exceeds female violence by a large margin. Starting in preschool, boys in the USA are more likely to be disciplined and suspended for behavior problems. By adolescence, boys are four times more likely than girls to be arrested for violent crime. In adulthood, male violent crime is four times more common than female violent crime. And men are seven times more likely to commit serious violent crimes, such as murder, rape and robbery. Among major ethnic groups in the USA, only Asian Americans display little difference between male violence and female violence.

Early caregiving and the emergence of male violence

Research has shown that certain deficits in early caregiving are linked to worse outcomes for boys than for girls. For example, sons of depressed mothers score lower than daughters on measures of attachment at 18 months of age. Similarly, sons who experience maternal insensitivity are more likely to display poorer executive function and more behavioral problems in primary school than girls who experience the same deficit at home.

Similar differences appear in measures of fathers’ sensitivity. For example, when fathers fail to exercise dominance during rough-and-tumble play (that is, establishing limits so that the child feels safe), boys are more likely than girls to show aggression and poor control of emotions five years later.

But the question remains: Why are boys more affected by these caregiving deficits than girls are? The authors propose that the slower maturation of boys during infancy expands the scope for stress in the social environment to have a negative impact on their development. Girls are protected to an extent by their more rapid development in early childhood.

Biological and neurobiological factors

In addition to slower development, other biological differences between boys and girls could be linked to differences in the development of male and female violence.

• Boys are more likely to have lower resting heart rates than girls, on average. Lower resting heart rates in children are associated with uncomfortable mood states, seeking stimulation, and antisocial behavior.
• Boys are more likely to have the MAOA-L gene. This gene, when combined with abusive or neglectful caregiving in early childhood, is associated with impulsive physical aggression later in life.
• Boys are exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the prenatal and perinatal periods of development and also starting in adolescence. Children’s exposure to testosterone is associated with less empathy and more aggression.
• Differences in the neurobiology of boys and girls at birth are now being studied to see whether they may point to differential vulnerability to problems in early childhood development.

Social and cultural environment

Golding and Fitzgerald consider the expanding social, economic and racial inequalities in the USA to be a critical factor in increasing the risk of male violence.

The rise of single motherhood (4% of births in the 1950s, 35% 60 years later) is one factor. Single parenthood is associated with a wide range of pressures, for example, fewer economic resources, exposure to discrimination, more likelihood of exposure to conflict, and more mental health problems. All these incur risks for a mother’s ability to care for her children, to which, as described above, boys are more susceptible.

The absence of fathers in children’s lives is linked to developmental problems in both boys and girls, but the nature of the problems are different: boys are more likely to show behavior and social problems (externalising), while girls are more likely to show anxiety and depressive problems (internalising). This differential response manifests as more aggression among boys.

Studies have shown that growing up in poor, single-parent families has differential impacts on boys and girls . Boys from such families are less likely to be employed in their 20s than are girls from the same families. Boys from these families are more likely than girls to exhibit antisocial behavior such as low self-control and delinquency.

In the coming months, the Child & Family Blog will run a series of research updates that expand on the emergence of male violence, based on a collection of research articles published this year in the Infant Mental Health Journal.

The post Male violence: early childhood development predictors appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Overbearing parents can harm toddlers’ capacities to manage their feelings and actions, opening pathways to later difficulties with school and friends.

Do you quickly tidy up the toys, not letting your toddler attempt to clean up after playing? Do you intervene immediately if your two-year-old squabbles with another child, whisking him away before he can resolve the dispute on his own? Is she often chastised when she eats messily? Perhaps you always help him get dressed because he’s too slow getting it done himself? Do you feel like life with your toddler is a never-ending power struggle?

These behaviours could be signs of overbearing parenting: being too strict or demanding considering your child’s developmental stage and behaviour. Every mom and dad is guilty at some point of jumping in too fast, pre-empting children who would otherwise try for themselves. But parenting of young children that’s consistently overbearing and controlling is associated with troubling and potentially long-lasting impacts on children’s ability to develop important skills.

That’s what we found in our study of over 400 children and their mothers in the United States, conducted at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro by Nicole Perry, Jessica Dollar, Susan Calkins, Susan Keane, and myself.

Overbearing parents can harm children’s self-regulation

Overbearing and smothering care, though often well-intentioned, can prevent children from facing developmentally appropriate challenges and learning how to resolve them effectively. By shutting the child out of solving problems, overbearing parents can actually deprive children of valuable “teachable moments”.

“Children of overbearing parents were more likely to have difficulties managing their emotions and behaviours at age 5. At age 10, they were more likely to have emotional and school problems, and to have fewer social skills.”

In such moments, children can practice strategies to deal with frustrating situations or learn to distract themselves from impulses to behave inappropriately. Parents can also use these moments to teach children strategies for dealing with challenging situations.

In our study, children of overbearing parents were more likely to have difficulties with managing their emotions and behaviours (called “self-regulation”) at age five, right before they entered school.

But the potential impact of too much parental control didn’t end there. We saw the children again at age 10, on the brink of adolescence. Ten-year-old children of overbearing parents were more likely to have developed emotional and school problems, and to have fewer social skills. This finding reflects a cascade of processes that may ensue from overbearing parenting.

Overbearing parents can produce long-term problems

For example, a disruptive child, who because of overbearing parenting is not good at dealing with frustration or controlling impulses, might struggle to learn at school. Indeed, children with poor self-regulatory skills are often difficult to manage in classrooms. In response, some teachers might become overly strict and controlling. Children who have trouble self-regulating may also find it harder to make friends because other children don’t want to play with someone who can’t manage their impulses or frustrations.

Children inevitably encounter difficulty in their lives, especially as they approach increasingly complex school environments. A key message from our research is that part of a parent’s job is to give children the time and space they need to tackle challenges and complexities, the opposite of overbearing parenting. Parents must also support children appropriately so that they build the necessary problem-solving and coping skills along the way. To do so, adults need empathy and a capacity to tune in to their children’s needs.

Possible barriers to tuning in to your child

Tuning in well to a child can be difficult if, for example, parents are stressed or suffer from depression, anxiety or substance use disorders. These conditions can impair social relationships and the ability to be fully in the moment with someone else.

Working parents may have limited time to compare notes with other moms and dads. They may struggle to turn off work stress if they are expected to check their messages after work hours. Parents who stay home sometimes get overwhelmed by domestic duties or feel isolated.

“Parents must have the patience to let young children try to solve problems on their own terms and, if needed, to guide and support them in learning strategies that they can then use the next time.”

Any of these things can easily lead to overbearing parenting. Such challenges can impair parents’ abilities to recognize and appropriately respond to their children’s feelings and needs and to allow them to explore complex situations on their own terms. Policy makers can help by promoting parental mental health, teaching parents skills that they can use to foster the development of their children’s self-regulation, and creating situations that give parents the opportunity to tune in to their children fully.

Parents naturally want to keep their children safe from harm. But they must also have the patience to avoid overbearing parenting and let young children try to solve problems on their own terms and, if needed, to guide and support them in learning strategies that they can use when they face one of life’s many speed-bumps.

The post Toddlers with overbearing parents can have wide range of problems later on appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Both the mother’s and father’s mind-mindedness when a baby is four months and 12 months old influence the way the baby manages emotions at 12 months.

A new study has found that how well a baby manages emotions is influenced not only by the quality of parenting but even more so by the mother’s and father’s “mind-mindedness” – the ability to manage the physical and emotional states of their baby – during the first year.

In the early years, children are hugely dependent on their parents’ ability to help them manage their emotions. Mind-mindedness is assessed by observing whether parents respond appropriately or inappropriately to their child’s emotions during free-play interactions. A key question is how a parent names different emotions that the child experiences, enabling the child to recognise and manage them better. For example, when a child becomes overstimulated in a game –turning away from the caregiver, tuning out or having frantic moments – a mind-minded parent accurately understands the signal and responds appropriately by pausing the game and enabling the child to recover. When such responses are repeated many times, children learn from their parents how to manage their own emotions.

Earlier research has found that mind-mindedness is linked to secure parent-child attachment, which is in turn linked to children’s ability to depend on parents’ responding appropriately to emotional cues. So, for example, if a child becomes angry or fearful, this emotion becomes associated with a parent’s helpful response. The child can learn to trust that arousal with the parent present will not lead to disruption that goes beyond his or her ability to cope.

The researchers, led by Moniek Zeegers at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education in the Netherlands,  measured emotion regulation via “high-frequency heart rate variation” (HRV) – the variation in duration between subsequent heartbeats. Previous research has shown two things. First, a higher baseline HRV in toddlers is related to better regulation of emotions, as well as a more general alertness and responsiveness to the environment. Second, in a socially stressful situation, such as meeting a stranger or encountering a non-responsive face, HRV goes down; a larger drop is associated with stronger coping with the challenging situation.

The researchers found that mind-mindedness in both mothers and fathers is linked to improved emotion regulation in 12-month-old babies. But they also found differences between mothers and fathers in how mind-mindedness influences children.

For mothers, stronger mind-mindedness when the baby was 4 months old predicted more positive HRV in the baby at 12 months (higher baseline, more decline in a situation with a stranger). For fathers, there was no such link, but there was a link between a father’s mind-mindedness later, at 12 months, and HRV (both measures) at 12 months. This may reflect the fact that mothers tend to be more involved in caring for infants earlier on, so the mother’s influence displays itself earlier, on average.

The researchers found that the baby’s heart rate variation at four months did not predict a parent’s mind-mindedness at 12 months. Judging by other research, the child’s temperament would be expected to influence parenting, but perhaps in the case of a child’s ability to regulate emotions, this influence takes more than one year to exhibit itself.

The researchers found that measures of mind-mindedness and measures of parenting quality at 12 months correlated for fathers, but not for mothers. They were not able to explain this finding; they suggest that the problem might be the rather coarse measure of parenting quality used in the research.

Zeegers and her team recommend looking further at the longer-term influence of parental mind-mindedness on child cognitive and social development. Other research projects have started to show links between parental mind-mindedness and a child’s ability to interpret other people’s behavior. Maternal mind-mindedness predicts a child’s better working memory at 18 months and better management of conflict and impulses at 26 months. Paternal mind-mindedness predicts a child’s ability to control impulses at 18 months.

Another aspect that needs further work is how mothers’ and fathers’ mind-mindedness interact with each other during coparenting. In coparenting, one parent can strengthen or compensate for the other, so their influences become mixed.

This study took place in the Netherlands and involved 116 mothers and fathers, with measurements at four months and 12 months. The data were drawn from a larger, longer-term longitudinal program. The research is unusual in that it measures both mothers and fathers.

Mind-mindedness was measured at four months by recording a five-minute parent-child free play session. At 12 months, the session lasted 10 minutes. All the comments by the parents were classified as either being directed at the child’s mental state or not. If so, the statements were categorized as cognitions (e.g., “you remembered this from the zoo”), likes and dislikes (e.g. “you don’t like this rattle”) or emotions (e.g., “you’re all excited to play with these toys”). After this, each comment was coded as ‘appropriate’ or ‘non-attuned’ to the child’s mental state.

The heart rate variation was measured at baseline and then in a stranger situation – an unfamiliar man approaches the baby when sitting in front of the mother, talks to the baby for 30 seconds, and then picks the baby up for 30 seconds.

Parental quality was measured at 12 months by observing the play session and scoring for parental responsiveness, intrusiveness, warmth and negativity.

The post Mind-mindedness – parents’ ability to represent and hold in mind the internal states of their infants – predicts how well babies are able to manage their own emotions appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research into the neuroscience and biology of fatherhood has concluded that the idea that women are “primary caregivers”, solely responsible for nurture and care, limits our understanding of human caregiving and child development.

Examining the biology and neurobiology of fatherhood, neuroscience researchers Eyal Abraham and Ruth Feldman have concluded that the idea of women as “primary caregivers”, solely responsible for nurture and care—a “matricentric” view that’s deeply rooted in cultures globally—limits our understanding of human caregiving and child development.

Scientific enquiry shows that caring fatherhood, and cooperative care between mothers and others, has played a key role in the survival of the human race, enabling the long and substantial investment required to raise newborns to adulthood, and also enabling shorter birth intervals. Humans would not have emerged as a dominant species if active fatherhood had not emerged.

Anthropologists have observed that human babies, beginning at birth, are typically surrounded with and carried by group members other than the biological mother. Another key observation from anthropology is that human parenting varies across cultures. Sometimes fatherhood is more about active caring, and sometimes it is less so. For example, when there are large family groups with many women present, the contribution that men make to caring tends to be more limited.

With a view to evolutionary history, Feldman and Abraham argue: “If males have played an essential, albeit flexible and variable role in human parenting across human evolution by reducing Homo females’ reproductive costs, their physiological systems have evolved by selective pressures to respond to committed fathering and to provide adequate and sensitive care to their infants.” They argue that neural circuits and hormonal biology have developed in all humans such that—with practice, attunement and social experiences—all humans can provide nurturing care, irrespective of gender. At the same time, these attributes have transformed humans into a uniquely collaborative hyper-social species.

Parent-child behavioural synchrony

Mother-infant and father-infant pairs show similar levels of “synchrony”, that is adaptation of the parent’s behaviour to the infant’s state and social signals. Abraham and Feldman call this a “dance” between parent and infant. Mother-infant synchrony tends to display slow oscillations between states of low and medium arousal. Father-infant synchrony tends to be faster, with quicker and more sudden peaks associated with play. Fathers who are more involved in household and childcare responsibilities are likely to be more sensitive to their infants.

Both mother-infant and father-infant synchrony predict greater parent-child interaction through childhood and adolescence. Mother-infant synchrony tends to predict children’s greater social competence in preschool. Father-infant synchrony tends to predict reduced aggression and better conflict negotiation in adolescence.

The hormones of fatherhood

Levels of oxytocin, prolactin, vasopressin and testosterone have been measured in fathers.

Oxytocin and fatherhood

Oxytocin increases in fathers as much as in mothers in the transition to fatherhood and during the first six months of fatherhood. Increased oxytocin is associated with greater engagement with the child; this was also observed when fathers were administered a nasal oxytocin spray. Oxytocin levels tend to synchronise between mothers and fathers who are coparenting. They also synchronise between father and child – when oxytocin is higher in the father, it increases in the child.

Prolactin and fatherhood

Prolactin increases in fathers during pregnancy. It is associated with greater engagement in play activities and greater responsiveness to a baby crying.

Vasopressin and fatherhood

Vasopressin levels go up in the transition to fatherhood. When vasopressin levels are higher, fathers are more likely to stimulate their child to activity. When a vasopressin spray is administered to expectant fathers, they become more interested in baby-related avatars. After the birth, administration of the spray is related to greater empathy with the child.

Testosterone and fatherhood

Lower testosterone levels in fathers are associated with more father-infant touch, gaze, interaction and vocalisation. When a baby cries, a father’s testosterone level tends to decrease if the father is able to provide care in response. If not, the baby’s cries do the opposite, tending to increase testosterone in fathers, probably linked to the father’s fears for the child’s safety.

Photo: p2-r2. Creative Commons.

The neuroscience of fatherhood

The adult brain becomes more plastic after the birth of a baby, triggered by hormonal changes. This happens in both mothers and fathers—and to a much greater extent than in other mammals. Because of this increased plasticity, humans have a much stronger capacity to change through the practice of direct care for the child. Interestingly, both biological and adoptive fathers who care for their infants have similar brain responses.

Abraham and Feldman identify three neural circuits relevant to motherhood and fatherhood:

Core limbic

The neural patterns observed in this ancient part of the brain during parenting are similar to those found in other mammals. This neural activity is related to vigilance for the child’s safety and well-being.

Empathy sub-network

This helps parents to resonate with the experience of the infant in the moment.

Mentalising sub-network

This helps parents recognise the infant’s cues, make predictions and plan responses.

Using fMRI, Abraham and Feldman studied different fathers – full-time working fathers, fathers who were coparenting 50/50 with mothers, and gay fathers parenting without women. Caring fatherhood was associated with more activation of the empathy network, to the point that, if fathers are caring for the child wholly by themselves (without a mother present), the patterns were similar to those observed in mothers’ brains.

Fatherhood brain changes and later child development: brain-to-brain synchrony

When mothers and fathers interact with their infants, the activity appears to tune the infant’s brain, probably resulting in epigenetic changes in the baby’s brain that alter the way the brain responds to hormonal stimuli later in life, affecting social behaviour. Abraham and Feldman call this parent-infant “brain-to-brain” synchrony.

Changes in parents’ brains through the experience of motherhood and fatherhood are associated with a child seeking safety with a parent and self-soothing when exposed to high emotions.

Changes in empathy networks during fatherhood or motherhood, and greater parent-infant synchrony early on, are associated with children using more advanced methods to control their emotions in pre-school and more expression of positive emotions. At the age of six, correlations were found between parents’ earlier neural activity, on the one hand, and children’s level of oxytocin and better physical health, on the other. When parents’ oxytocin levels are high during early interactions, children’s oxytocin levels tend to be higher in later years.

Changes in mentalising networks through fatherhood and motherhood are associated with improved socialisation in the child in later years.

When greater connectivity is observed in parents’ brains between the empathy and mentalising networks, the child is likely to have lower cortisol levels (associated with anxiety) in pre-school and lower anxiety-related problems at the age of six.

The post Neuroscience shows that fatherhood is similar to motherhood, particularly when fathers care more appeared first on Child and Family Blog.