• A strong sense of identity can help children and youth build resilience and self-esteem to cope with challenges.
• Cultural identity is particularly impactful for young people who face adversities, such as Australian Aboriginal youth.
• Obstacles to building a strong cultural identity include repercussions of the history of colonization and racism, as well as distance from cultural learning in modern urban life.
• Cultural identity and being Aboriginal should be seen as assets, and schools are one context where these can be cultivated.

Article contents:

1. Australia’s Aboriginal youth face significant cultural challenges
2. Building cultural identity strengthens Aboriginal children
3. It is important to maintain cultural identity when children are young
4. Cultural identity combats adversity
5. The many barriers to transferring identity
6. Obstacles to learning within families
7. Difficulties of maintaining cultural identity at school

1. Australia’s Aboriginal youth face significant cultural challenges

How do we help children thrive when they face a hostile environment – racism at school, in daily interactions, and in almost every aspect of their public lives?

This is a crucial question, particularly if a key protective factor – connection to their own culture – is weakened by public institutions that fail, however inadvertently, to value such connections, and when past experiences have left families fragmented and adults also struggle to cope.

These questions are acute for Australia’s Aboriginal children. Many of their parents and grandparents were traumatized. Not until 1977 did the Australian government end the practice of forcibly removing Aboriginal children – the Stolen Generation – from their families, placing them in missions to assimilate with non-Aboriginal people.

Indeed, it was only in 1968, following a referendum, that Aboriginal people were classified as human beings and counted in the Census.

How do we ensure that children today develop well when the chronic symptoms of colonization – and its subsequent fracturing of Aboriginal existence – endure: alcoholism, drug dependency, poverty, self-harm, suicide, mental illness, and incarceration of family members?

On top of that, Aboriginal children continue to experience high levels of racism. For example, in a study in a Western Australian town, 75% of Aboriginal children and youth aged 11-17 years experienced racism that they wanted to stop, and 74% were too scared to walk around the town (Kickett-Tucker et al, 2018).

2. Building cultural identity strengthens Aboriginal children

Very young (aged 6-12) Aboriginal children still encounter racism. Some have reported scrubbing their bodies to remove their dark skin.

One vital response to these challenges is to build a young person’s identity.

Research shows that the identity of Aboriginal children usually equates with being recognized as the first people of Australia, with identity defined as connection to country (place), family, kinship, language, culture, and importantly, traditional rights to heritage, history and lands.

Research also indicates that building such an identity is an all-encompassing, holistic way to support any child to grow and thrive. But it is a particularly effective and culturally safe way to address the daily costs of historic injustices and the realities of modern-day racism. It can enable young Aboriginal people to take a steady and sturdy journey to adulthood and support other key points in their life transitions. 

3. It is important across cultures to maintain cultural identity during youth 

The prescription to maintain a strong, positive identity is important during youth across all cultures, according to developmental psychology. It helps create functioning, well-rounded individuals, and boosts positive social and emotional well-being.

A robust identity empowers individuals to acknowledge, respect, and define their purpose and role in life, helping them understand who they are and how they relate to others. Research suggests that the transition from childhood to adolescence and into early adulthood is a vital time for interaction with – and formation of – identity, though identity continues to develop across the lifespan. 

4. Cultural identity combats adversity

A strong identity is particularly important for children who face adversity. It helps them develop resilience, which promotes the skills, knowledge, and confidence needed to overcome and cope with life’s challenges.

Individuals gain control over their own well-being which has a positive impact on their self-esteem. In a study of First Nations’ youth in Canada, a strong racial identity was a protective factor against self-harm and suicide.

Having a strong Aboriginal identity and self-esteem is like the hub of a wheel. Without the hub, the wheel can go nowhere. Like a hub, racial identity is at the center of an Aboriginal child’s well-being. It is their spirit and without it, they can be steered by outside forces that determine how fast to go and in which direction to travel.

5. The many barriers to transferring identity

But transferring and bolstering Aboriginal identity is fraught with difficulty. The experiences of the Stolen Generation painfully disturbed identity in older groups, undermining their connection with land, kin, spirituality, and culture.

Chris Jackamarra, one of those affected, explained: “The mission taught us that we were white, but they never taught us to be prepared for what was out in the world. That there was racial prejudice, stereotype casting and things like that. We were robbed of our identity and culture and that bothered me. It is something I was never taught and I am still just learning it now.”

In my research, I have identified very young (aged 6-12) Aboriginal children who still encounter racism. Some have reported scrubbing their bodies to remove their dark skin.

Schools should be culturally audited for how well they respect, understand, maintain, and teach about Aboriginal identities.

6. Obstacles to learning within families

Many modern-day obstacles stand in the way of transferring Aboriginal identity.

Understanding what it is to be Aboriginal involves observational learning by a child, including sitting and waiting with elders. In this situation, an elder carries out an activity, a child models it, and the elder continues the activity until the child has done it in culturally appropriate ways.

The activity might be burning fur off a kangaroo tail and cooking it under the ashes. It might be collecting berries and fruit products. Out in the bush, Aboriginal people look for bush medicine.

Food is vital and many activities take place around a campfire. But today, Aboriginal people, who typically live in urban centers, are not allowed to make fires because of the risk of bush fires. They lack money for gas and few have cars to travel to the bush, leaving many stuck in the city.

Moreover, many Aboriginal people are very poor. If they live in state-provided housing, there are rules about how many people can be together under one roof, and neighbors can report anyone who violates the rules.

7. Difficulties of maintaining cultural identity at school

Schools have a long way to go before they are truly focused on Aboriginal children. Government funding is provided for Aboriginal education, but there is disparity between what is awarded to schools and the sums that are actually spent by schools on Aboriginal pupils’ education. Even less is spent to support the cultural identity of Aboriginal children and youth.

School leaders and teachers have some understanding that they should do something beyond just acknowledging the importance of Aboriginal culture, but ambivalence about teaching Indigenous languages persists. Aboriginal parents are rarely invited to help co-create curricula or inform teaching practices in ways that are culturally relevant.

Simple school practices could make a difference, signalling a shift in perceptions so that being Aboriginal is recognized as an asset, rather than a challenge. For example, when the Aboriginal flag is raised at school, an Aboriginal child should lead the flag raise alongside another student.

Each school assembly should begin with a welcome in an Indigenous language. Traditional authorities – local elders – should be invited regularly to attend assemblies. Schools should be culturally audited for how well they respect, understand, maintain, and teach about Aboriginal identities.

These recommendations are just the beginning of big changes that need to occur to develop and support Aboriginal identity in children. Aboriginal children and youth need these actions to protect them in a world that is often hostile and damaging.

The post Maintaining cultural identity: Key to children’s development, particularly for Australia’s Aboriginal children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Parents, peers, and schools all represent crucial influences that shape how white¹ adolescents make sense of racism and their actions toward social justice.
• Having explicit conversations with white youth about racism and embedding children in racially diverse environments that acknowledge race are essential to countering the dominant color-blind narrative that race “doesn’t matter.”
• Conversations about race with white youth must go beyond simply acknowledging historical and contemporary racism toward encouraging anti-racist attitudes and actions to address inequities.

Children receive messages about race and color-blindness from multiple sources

There is no “neutral” in racism. All youth learn to either reinforce or disrupt systems of inequality that uphold and maintain a racist status quo. As such, shielding white children from learning about race and the United States’ racist history encourages a way of knowing that is untethered to the country’s racial realities and further sustains white supremacy and racism.

Contrary to the color-blind narrative that positions racism as a thing of the past and “everyone as equal,” racism is embedded in structural forces (e.g., law, institutions, housing) and continues to shape all people’s experiences (though differently). The color-blind narrative is pervasive among white parents and caregivers and within predominantly white institutions (including school settings). For instance, only 53% of white parents believe schools should teach about the ongoing effects of slavery and racism in the United States, while 82% of Black parents hold this belief.

For white youth, social environments that counter the color-blind narrative and instead address racism may be integral to fostering social justice action.

Regardless of whether children receive explicit messaging about race, they interpret the various experiences, interactions, and (un)intentional messages in their lives. Parents, peers, and schools are three interrelated influences that shape how children make sense of race during adolescence. For white youth, social environments that counter the color-blind narrative and instead address racism may be integral to fostering social justice action.

What social contexts about race and racism do white adolescents in the United States experience?

In our research study, we examined the myriad influences that shape how white youth make sense of racism and the resulting impacts on their social justice behaviors. We used survey data from the Maryland Adolescent Development in Context Study to examine 323 white adolescents’ racial environments (i.e., the social contexts that may shape their beliefs and attitudes about race and racism), with particular attention to conversations with parents about race and racial attitudes, cross-race friendships, and conversations with peers about race.

We also looked at the diversity of youth’s schools with respect to racial composition and curriculum. We then explored how these different racial environments during adolescence (16-17 years old) related to white youth’s social justice actions two years later in young adulthood. All participants in the study lived in a racially and socioeconomically diverse county in the Eastern United States.

Photo: cottonbro studio. Pexels.

The racial environments of most adolescents (80%) were characterized by silence or passivity about race. Such environments align with a color-blind narrative in which racism is downplayed or ignored, limiting white adolescents’ ability to disrupt and challenge racism. However, the racial environments of some adolescents (20%) were more race conscious, meaning that race-related conversations occurred more frequently, schools were racially diverse and acknowledged race and racism in the curriculum, and adolescents had cross-race friendships.

How did different racial environments affect white adolescents’ social justice action?

White adolescents in race-conscious environments were engaged in more social justice behaviors during young adulthood than were white adolescents in racial environments characterized by silence. These behaviors included participating in civil rights or women’s rights groups. Our findings suggest that when white youth are in environments that are racially diverse and that acknowledge race and racism, they are more likely to take action in young adulthood to promote and foster social justice.

How can parents foster social justice attitudes and behaviors in their white children?

The findings of our study, in conjunction with other recent findings, challenge the often-espoused color-blind belief that not talking about race promotes equity. Instead, they suggest that having explicit conversations about racism and inequality, and embedding children in environments (e.g., schools) that are racially diverse or conscious of racism, can foster white adolescents’ reflection and actions toward creating and maintaining equitable social conditions for all people.

How can parents and caregivers foster a race-conscious environment for white youth?

First, parents and caregivers of white children should reflect about their own racial attitudes and beliefs. As we saw in our study, even parents who believed they had “positive” racial attitudes may foster a color-blind racial environment for their children.

Parents and caregivers must talk early and often with their white children about racism.

Thus, parents should challenge themselves to think critically about race in the United States and how their own racial identity relates to the ongoing perpetuation or disruption of racism. Numerous resources are available to prompt such critical reflection, including engaging with the works (e.g., film, books, art) of authors and artists of color that portray the racial realities of the United States.

Second, after such reflection, parents and caregivers must talk early and often with their white children about racism. For instance, when children bring up or notice race, parents should discuss what their child is noticing rather than silence them or communicate that noticing race is bad.

Building white adolescents’ skills

Discussing race and racism, celebrating and recognizing the contributions of people of color (which are often excluded from mainstream narratives), addressing racialized police killings and violence, and reflecting on the history and current manifestations of white supremacy are integral to building white adolescents’ skills for anti-racism work and for actively communicating the racial realities of the United States. (See EmbraceRace raising young white allies for more resources.)

Finally, the results of our study highlight the multidimensional nature of children’s racial environments. In other words, it is not just parents who play a role in how children make sense of racism, but rather a multitude of influences, including but not limited to peers and school. As such, fostering white youth’s social justice behaviors means embedding children in racially diverse environments in which cross-race friendships can form and where school curricula acknowledge and affirm people of color.

Photo: Ron Lach. Pexels.

White parents and caregivers can also promote change in their children’s schools by standing with parents of color as allies and teaching their children to stand up against racism. Parents can also support candidates in local and national elections who recognize the importance of discussing racism in educational settings. (Read more information on the debate about critical race theory in schools here.)

In conclusion – racial justice requires reckoning with whiteness and countering narratives

The take-home message is that reaching a state of racial justice requires reckoning with whiteness and countering the pervasive color-blind narratives that produce false and inaccurate understandings of racism in the United States. In particular, our study demonstrates how race-conscious environments can counter the racist status quo by building white youth’s efforts for social justice. Our findings also underscore the role of white parents and caregivers in ensuring that the next generation strives for an equitable and anti-racist society.

¹ Although the style of the Child & Family Blog is to capitalize ‘White,’ the authors have intentionally not capitalized the word when it refers to skin color. For information supporting this rule, please see The Associated Press.

The post Fostering Social Justice: White Adolescents’ Social Justice Action Requires Race Conscious Environments appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Developing the resilience of children and adolescents with parents in prison is important, but it should not involve just encouraging them to adapt to situations of disadvantage and injustice. Instead, the children and youth should be invited to challenge these situations. Finding ways to raise families out of poverty would go far in addressing the needs of families who have a parent in prison.

Impacts on children and adolescents of having a parent in prison

Having an incarcerated parent has multiple impacts on youth, with profound implications for both child and adolescent development. Antisocial behavior, psychological difficulties, trauma, risk taking, and health problems in children are all linked to having a parent in prison. Experts are also concerned about intergenerational transmission of criminality.

Children and adolescents with an incarcerated parent are likely to already be facing disadvantage and material hardship, and the imprisonment intensifies these problems. Imprisonment of a parent, particularly a father who earns money or pays child support, can cause intense stress for a family.

“In a 2010 comprehensive review of evidence, 58% of studies found that visits to parents in prison benefitted children, particularly if visiting arrangements were family friendly.”

Furthermore, imprisonment involves extra costs, such as legal fees, fines, prison visits, and phone calls. The pressure on the non-incarcerated parent, who is often already underresourced, can lead to a decline in the parent’s mental and physical health, which is linked to less positive parenting. And this, in turn, is linked to less cognitive and social competence in children and youth.

Incarceration exacerbates family instability, including relationship stress and the likelihood of divorce and separation. A child or adolescent may even become homeless: About 11% of children with a mother in prison and 2% of children with a father in prison enter into foster or state care. (However, the causal link between incarceration and foster care is uncertain.)

In some cases, incarceration can lead to improvements for children and adolescents, removing from the home a source of disruption, abuse, or violence.

Protective factors for children and youth

Researchers have identified a number of protective factors for children and youth with an incarcerated parent. A positive relationship between parent and child prior to the incarceration of that parent can help youth cope.

The quality of caregiving at home is very significant, though it is compromised by incarceration, as described above. Kin-based care, such as that provided by grandparents, can protect children and give them the opportunity to thrive.

The nature of a child’s contact with the parent in prison or jail can also make a difference. Contact can be through in-person visits or videos, recorded messages, letters, and phone calls.

In a 2010 comprehensive review of evidence, 58% of studies reported that visits to parents in prison benefitted children, particularly if visiting arrangements were family friendly. Four- to nine- year-olds were likely to show improved self-esteem following visits to their fathers in federal prison, as do the same aged children following visits to their mother in prison. In one study, adolescents with regular contact with their mothers in prison were less likely to drop out of school early than those with irregular or no contact. Children nine years old and older were less likely to display anger and alienation if they saw their mother in jail than if they had no contact.

All forms of contact seem to be beneficial. One study found less depression in four- to 14-year-olds who received more letters from their jailed parents than in their peers who did not receive letters. Letter writing was also associated with a stronger coparenting relationship between the two parents.

“Developing the resilience of children and adolescents with a parent in prison is important, but it should not involve just encouraging them to adapt to situations of disadvantage and injustice.”

Visits to prison can work both ways for children. They can help strengthen family bonds and the commitment to positive parenting by the incarcerated parent. They can provide an opportunity for sharing meals and playing games, and family members often report positively about the experience. But a visit to a prison can be very disturbing for a child.

In the United States, jails are locally operated, have shorter-term facilities, and typically have poor visiting facilities. In contrast, federal prisons hold people with longer sentences and offer more optimal conditions for visits.

Support for children and youth with an incarcerated parent

Parenting Inside Out is an intervention that has been evaluated via a randomized controlled study. It has shown positive outcomes for children’s and youth’s relationships with both the parent in prison and the parent at home. The program has many parts, including therapeutically organized visiting at the prison and collaboration with community agencies to provide support to the parent and family after the sentence is over.

Family-friendly visiting facilities are important and include having books, toys, and nursery facilities for very young children. Children and youth can also benefit from mentoring in their community to help them cope at home and at school.

Programs that focus on building children’s resilience look at the strengths already in the family and support family members to support each other and engage effectively with service providers. Sesame Street has created a multi-media kit, Little Children Big Challenges: Incarceration, that aims to help children thrive when a parent is incarcerated. Schools can also help children build resilience in the face of the adversity of having a parent in prison.

The Sesame Street program addresses social justice. It engages with parents to leverage power to tackle systemic problems such as poverty and disenfranchisement.

The post Supporting children and adolescents with incarcerated parents includes addressing social injustice appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Involved, vigilant parenting is key to children developing the capacity to regulate their emotions and avoid poor mental health outcomes that can emerge from racism. This confirms findings from earlier research of African American families, with associations between positive parent-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescents having skills to make decisions, pay attention, avoid distractions, set priorities, and control emotions.

In this study, the researchers make the case that, given how typical the experience of the negative effects of racial discrimination is in African American families, it is important to understand these strength-based, cultural parenting assets. Family support services need to understand and build around these assets when delivering preventative interventions for African-American families.

Middle Childhood

Middle childhood is an important stage in child development. This is when children develop a greater sense of self and the capacity to regulate their emotions. Their social world expands during this time as they learn how to engage in wider social settings. Such social competence is associated with numerous positive developmental outcomes in adolescence. Talking to your children about racism is another topic we’ve covered.

In the abovementioned study, African-American mothers were asked how satisfied they were with their children and how happy they were with their relationship with their children. The mothers were also asked questions like, “How often do you know what your child does after school?” “When you discipline your child, how often does the type of discipline you use depend on your mood?” and “How often do you give reasons to your child for your decisions?”

Middle childhood is an important stage in child development. This is when children develop a greater sense of self and the capacity to regulate their emotions.

When the mothers reported experiences of discrimination, they were more likely to report depression and anxiety on their part, as well as strained relationships with their children.

These in turn were associated with a greater likelihood of lower-quality parenting, as assessed by the mother. Both maternal depression/anxiety and lower parenting quality are linked to a greater likelihood of children developing poor self-control and emotion regulation skills.

Results & Conclusions

The study produced one surprising result. African American children who experienced the negative effects of racial discrimination during middle childhood showed a higher likelihood of developing stronger self-regulation and emotional control in early adolescence, which in turn was associated with less depression and greater social competence. This was the same for boys and girls. In some children, exposure to adversity during early childhood may help them self-soothe and regulate emotion, protecting them from adverse impacts on mental health.

However, this unexpected finding does not counteract the overall negative correlations between a family’s experience of racial discrimination and symptoms of depression in children. These links were found both in this and in earlier work by the same researchers.

The post Involved, vigilant parenting in African American families protects children from the negative effects of racial discrimination appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Many want schools to challenge prejudice against new family forms and want parents to provide more information about donors, half-siblings, and surrogates, according to a new book, We Are Family.

People concerned about children growing up in new forms of families (e.g., LBGTQ families, families created by donor eggs) have worried unnecessarily. In the face of dire warnings about such families, studies consistently show that their children turn out just as well as – and sometimes better than – kids from traditional families with two heterosexual parents. Findings have been remarkably similar, whether studies have focused on families with lesbian mothers, gay fathers, transgender parents, or single mothers by choice. Findings on families created by donations of eggs, sperm, or embryos, as well as by surrogacy, reflect the same pattern.

In studies of all these new forms of family, we, along with other research teams, have found that the quality of family relationships matters for children’s welfare far more than the number, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or biological relatedness of the parents.

It has taken nearly 50 years of studies, many following children across decades, to establish the empirical evidence. And there has been plenty of heartache along the way, starting with lesbian mothers who lost custody of their children back in the 1970s. In the half century since then, public and expert fears about new forms of family have underpinned various legal barriers to parenthood, discriminatory practices, and widespread stigmatization.

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

More new forms of family coming

However, even though research on children’s outcomes is clear, the story does not end there, for two reasons. First, the diversity of new family forms seems likely only to expand as science advances and people seek new paths to parenthood. Artificial wombs, eggs, and sperm are just over the horizon. At the University of Cambridge Centre for Family Research, we are already examining children’s outcomes in co-parenting families in which couples are not romantically involved, children are parented by single fathers by choice, and transgender people give birth after they have transitioned.

These developments pose fresh challenges to what has long been seen as the norm for children to flourish. Let’s hope people avoid repeating over-hasty judgments. We should await the evidence and be calmed by encouraging outcomes from other new forms of family.

Children are asking for change

Second, and perhaps more important, there is much more to say about children in these new forms of family, beyond simply logging their long-term outcomes. What is it like for them to grow up in such families? We should listen to their voices, and hear their thoughts and feelings. To that end, our team has conducted many studies gathering children’s stories.

Through our work, we have found that schools, parents, and the wider society still have much to learn about supporting children in non-traditional families through their experiences, which can be upsetting. The distress is not related to the type of family children have, but because of stigmatization, inadequate communication, and lack of understanding, mainly from those on the periphery of home.

So, for example, many children with LGBTQ parents have been stigmatized in school, by society, and sometimes by wider family. When we interviewed children of lesbian mothers born in the mid-1960s when they were young adults, almost half reported being teased or bullied as teenagers.

Stigmatization burdens children

“I wasn’t allowed to go to my friend’s house anymore,” said Anna. “Her mum and dad forbade me from going anywhere near, and that hurt me because she had been my best friend for a long, long time. I lost that friend. And then, of course, there was a chain reaction. Everybody found out. They said, ‘Don’t go near her, she’ll turn out like her mum.’”

John was bullied when schoolmates found out about his lesbian mom. “School was one big nightmare really, because I got picked on so much,” he explained. “I had cigarettes stubbed out on the back of my neck, and high-heeled shoes thrown at me, and a bit of hair cut off, and my head chucked down the loo, and that sort of thing.”

Children have felt the need to clam up about their families because of widespread prejudice. Stacey explained: “My brother and I knew some people in our school that had gay and lesbian parents and that did get bullied quite a lot, and that scared us from telling people. So, we never told anyone. It was hard keeping secrets.”

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

Effective school challenges to prejudice

Schools must create a positive, supportive environment for such children. It pays off. Carol, 14, highlighted helpful action by her school: “Basically, they spread the word how it’s not very good to say, ‘Oh this is so gay’ or ‘that’s so gay,’ even though it’s used as a different meaning. They tell them that’s wrong and why you shouldn’t say that.” Mike, 17, recalled how a new English teacher, who was gay, made a difference: “He has one of the Stonewall ‘Some People Are Gay, Get Over It’ posters in his classroom. Just seeing the poster in his room is really cool.” As part of our research project, the UK campaign for equality of LGBTQ people, Stonewall, published 10 recommendations from children on how schools can support them and their same-sex parents.

Children of transgender parents have been bullied and teased in similar ways, and inclusive attitudes by schools can help them. Wendy explained: “I put my hand up and said, ‘I don’t have a dad because my dad’s transgender,’ and I got an award for it ‘cos it was actually really brave of me to say.”

Tell children what’s happening

Parents also should consider being more open about what is happening in their families. “It would have helped if he had explained things a bit better,” said Henry, 18, reflecting on when his father transitioned to being a woman. “It wasn’t so much him wearing dresses, but more him being a bit manic and doing strange things.” Chris, 18, advised other children in a similar situation: “Try to get them to communicate with you as much as possible because it’s worse if things are happening and you don’t know why.”

Children tend to accept, in a matter of fact way, their father’s or mother’s change of gender if it happened while they were little or a long time ago. “Chloe’s always been Chloe,” said Susanna, 14, who was a toddler when her father transitioned. “I don’t remember when it actually happened, so it’s basically been for as long as I remember.”

Experiencing transition can worry them

 But some children find it difficult when they experience a parent’s transition. They can have fears of loss, which typically pass, but which can be very real during gender transition. Jade, who was six when her father transitioned, was upset about losing her dad: “When she transitioned, I felt like there was a hole in my heart because I missed my dad and every time somebody talked about their dad, I got really upset.” But she grew more accepting. At age nine, Jade reflected: “When she transitioned, it made her a lot happier ‘cos, when she was a boy, she was really unhappy. Ever since she’s transitioned, she’s come home from work, hugged us, and been really happy. It’s changed a lot since she transitioned.”

Another upset can be rejection of parents by their wider family, so children lose contact with some relatives. Theresa, whose father transitioned when she was six, explained: “People on my mum’s side of the family really struggle with it. Her parents and brothers, and basically everyone over there, cut us off. It made me sad and kind of angry because it’s really no reason to be horrible.”

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

Children should not have to explain their families

Children may also feel responsible for explaining to the outside world issues such as gender transition. “My problem,” explained Susanna, “has been having to explain to other people constantly because no one really understands.” Josh reported: “Sometimes, random people ask me questions and I have to explain to them. That gets tiring for me.”

Our research has highlighted issues for children born through assisted reproductive technologies, such as egg, sperm, and embryo donation, or surrogacy. Some children as young as two or three years might ask of a single mother by choice: “Do I have a daddy? Where is he?” Some – but by no means all – especially as they get into their teens, are eager to fill a gap in knowledge about themselves by finding out more about their donor, surrogate, and any half-siblings born to the same donor or surrogate.

“It’s important to me now . . . I’m always thinking about what she looks like,” explained Sarah, 14, who was born through egg donation. Alex, 14, conceived by sperm donation, said: “I would like to know who he is . . . quite a lot . . . Recently a lot more than I used to.”

Tell children early about their origins

We have found that it is generally better to start talking to children early about how they were conceived and born. Children who find out later, as teenagers or adults, tend to feel more negatively about how they were conceived and in their relationships with their parents than children who have had the conversation about their beginnings early. Many parents hold off telling their children, fearing that the children will love them less. However, these fears are unfounded because children who are told early tend to be very accepting, often not particularly interested, and unshocked by learning more as they grow older.

The risks of not disclosing this information to children have grown with the advent of ancestry sites offering DNA tests, which can suddenly lead unsuspecting children to discover half-siblings and relatives of whom they had no inkling. Children may find their identities destabilized, and learning about their beginnings in this way can undermine their trust in their parents.

The story of new forms of family is largely good news, of children flourishing, much as we might expect them to do in traditional families, and sometimes doing even better. The composition of their family does not upset them. It is other factors, such as people’s reactions to their family or the lack of information about their origins, that cause them distress. The solutions lie in better understanding, greater societal acceptance of diverse families, swift challenges to prejudice, and openness within families about where their much-wanted children came from.

The post Children flourish in new forms of family, but some still suffer outsiders’ stigmatization appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Breaking the cycles of bias and violence starts at home by talking to children about racism rather than well-meaning adults avoiding the subject.

In a 2008 column that went viral, the late journalist Fatimah Ali predicted that only the election of Barack Obama would save our country from a full-on “race war.” She was wrong. Obama’s two terms of service have long passed, but the racial injustices in this country are raging in full force. This spring alone, in the context of public health and economic crises that disproportionately ravaged Black and Brown communities, we’ve witnessed the systematic and blatant disregard for Black lives over and over again — George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Christian Cooper. Communities of color and their allies are tired, weary, angry, and impatient for change. Photos of peaceful protesters speak to our hearts, while burning cars, boarded buildings, law enforcement officers in riot gear, and state-mandated curfews tell the story of a nation at war. Company CEOs, university presidents, national sports figures, and the general public are responding to the countrywide unrest and are watching closely.

Our youngest generation is watching, too.

In these painful times, when the structural racism and inequality of American society is so palpable, many parents are asking two critical questions. Most immediately, “How and how much should we discuss these recent racial traumas with our children?” More importantly “How do we teach this generation about what it means to be White, Black, or any other racial or ethnic group in ways that help dismantle, rather than perpetuate, the systemic racial injustices and inequalities that appear to be so intractable?” The answer to both questions is the same.

Photo: Victoria Pickering. Creative Commons.

As researchers with expertise in parenting among ethnic-racial minority families, we advocate an approach to racial discussions with children that is intentional, honest, and focused on equity and justice for all people. We call it “intentional parenting for equity and justice” (IPEJ). It entails deliberate and purposeful conversations and activities that increase children’s awareness of racial dynamics in our country and impel them to resist and change those dynamics, which most notably include institutionalized racism and oppression; racial stereotyping, microaggressions and their consequences; and the damaging effects of racial privilege on those who are excluded. IPEJ also involves identifying opportunities to expose children to the strengths and rich cultural traditions of all cultural and ethnic groups, including their positive contributions to all aspects of our society.

‘Intentional Parenting for Equity and Justice’ entails deliberate and purposeful conversations and activities that increase children’s awareness of racial dynamics in our country and impel them to resist and change those dynamics, which most notably include institutionalized racism and oppression; racial stereotyping, microaggressions and their consequences; and the damaging effects of racial privilege on those who are excluded.

To achieve IPEJ as a normative approach to parenting, we need to shift the status quo. Currently, many well-meaning adults avoid mentioning race to their children, choosing instead to uphold colorblind and egalitarian national narratives. This is especially true of White parents. Studies following the killings of Trayvon Martin (2012) and Michael Brown (2014) showed that these highly visible events motivated Black parents to have extensive conversations about racism and discrimination with their children. But very few White parents did so, citing their wish to maintain a protected, worry-free childhood environment. Our research shows that on a more routine basis, Black, Latinx and Asian parents are far more likely than White parents to talk about racial issues with their children, especially cultural pride and awareness of discrimination.

The status quo hinders racial progress. To strongly position future generations to dismantle systems of racial injustice, inequality, and privilege, parents must deliberately teach children that they exist, that they are complex, and that they are unacceptable.

Photo: Victoria Pickering. Creative Commons.

Too many teens in our studies – teens of all racial backgrounds – say that racism is a thing of the past that ended when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus, even though they notice current racial disparities in the way people live, the opportunities they have, and the way people are treated in public places and by authorities. Children are learning race even when parents are not deliberately teaching it, and they are drawing conclusions that do not include the damage caused by persistent structural issues. In addition, when parents fail to sensitize children to racial bias, stereotyping, and their harmful effects, these racial dynamics persist uncontested.

In our studies, racial teasing and microaggressions are rampant in lunch rooms, schoolyards, and other unsupervised social and digital spaces where youth spend time: Although students of all races experience these aggressions, youth of color experience them more often, leading to what has been called “discriminatory distress” which, when chronic, has cumulative negative effects well into adulthood.  Instead of passively allowing young people to overlook or ignore these racial dynamics, we need to empower them to implement change. Moreover, when White parents continue to communicate to their children that race is unimportant, the burden of racial progress and change falls squarely on the shoulders of children of color, entitling White children to rarely or wrongly think about race. All parents, not just parents of color, need to actively help our children understand, interpret, and resist the structural racism and implicit biases they see in order to help prepare them as future leaders who recognize and fight against their own implicit racism and the racism of others.

How and how much, then, should parents discuss current racial events with their children? As much as possible, in ways that are aligned with children’s ages and readiness to learn. Importantly, though, parents need to have a plan about what they want to convey and how. For young children, discussion of highly visible racialized violence should be simple and brief. Although parents should certainly shield children from graphic video footage, they should prepare themselves to answer children’s questions about things they might see in newspapers or on TV (e.g., why are police officers pushing people? Why are stores and cars burning?). Answers should be simple and brief, and they should reflect parents’ equity and justice goals.

Photo: cool revolution. Creative Commons.

In our work, many parents have described situations in which young children’s questions caught them off-guard, leaving them at a loss for what to say or how to explain. Of course, older children are in a better position to digest more complicated information about inequality and structural racism, and we advocate that parents have frank and accurate discussions about current racialized events (especially their history and origins). Parents’ silence about racialized horrors that children see on TV and social media is in itself a communication to children that racism and inequality are an acceptable way of American life. It is important for all of us (teachers, parents, youth advocates, and researchers) to recognize that children are drawing inferences about the meaning of these events even if parents are not talking about them.

How can parents teach this generation in ways that help dismantle, rather than perpetuate, the systemic racial injustices and inequalities upon which America has been built? Our IPEJ principles apply most directly here. Parents first need to closely examine their own racial beliefs and attitudes to position themselves to teach what they value most to their children. If possible, they should expose children early to diversity in meaningful ways (the places and events they attend; the friends they have; the toys, books, symbols, and wall hanging in the home). In age-appropriate ways, find opportunities to talk about, rather than overlook, how racism and oppression has been deeply woven into the fabric of American life, both historically and to this day. Deliberately discuss, rather than avoid, how non-dominant groups are negatively stereotyped and harmed by slurs, stereotypes, and other stigmatizing public actions and portrayals of minority groups, both historically and now. When and where they see them, parents can identify instances of privilege and opportunity that result in people of color having less access. Find ways to expose children to the strengths, rich traditions, and positive contributions to all aspects of our society of diverse cultural and ethnic groups. In general, intentionally integrate teaching about race into your overall parenting agenda.

Racial injustice is a problem for all of us. Just as it required collective responsibility to flatten the COVID-19 curve, addressing racial oppression, injustice, and inequality is all of our collective responsibility. Intentional Parenting for Equity and Justice is a tool to end systemic and interpersonal racism by raising all children’s consciousness about the impact these systemic factors have on individuals’ health and wellbeing. Without this sort of approach, we, as social scientists, fear that traumatic and painful racial incidents will remain as entrenched as ever in the fabric of American life. Parents need to be part of the solution, recognizing that silence and inaction sustain systems of racial injustice.

The post Talking to children about racism: Breaking the cycle of bias and violence starts at home appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

How common stereotypes emerge in childhood: children don’t just learn from what adults say but also from what they don’t say.

How do children learn common stereotypes? Recent research has shown that, if you tell young children that one group is good at something (for example, “Girls are good at playing basketball”), they are likely to infer that other unmentioned groups (such as boys) are not so good at it. This is particularly likely if children believe that the person making the statement knows what they are talking about. This tendency has been tested in a laboratory setting on 4- to 6-year-olds.

In an animated game presented on a tablet, 4-, 5- and 6-year-old children were presented with two groups of made-up people called “zarpies” and “gorps”, distinguished only by wearing yellow or green clothing. Other than that, the groups were diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and other physical features. (This was intended to prevent children from bringing existing stereotypes into the test.)

Next, children heard a narrator describe attributes of one of the two groups. Half the children heard the narrator describe the group using generic statements, for example, “Zarpies are good at making pizzas.” The other half heard the narrator describe a specific individual from the group, for example, “This zarpie is good at making pizzas.”

After this, the children were shown more individual zarpies and gorps and asked to rate their pizza-making abilities. This served as a test to see if the children had adopted stereotypes about what zarpies and gorps are like.

Children who heard statements about specific individuals had no intuition about whether other zarpies or gorps would be good or bad at baking pizzas. However, those exposed to the generic group statements were more likely to attribute superior pizza-making skills to the zarpies and poor pizza-making skills to the gorps—even though the statement made no mention of gorps or their ability to bake pizzas. The tendency to infer that gorps are bad at pizzas emerged around 4.5 years of age and was stronger in older children. The findings suggest that negative stereotypes can develop from seemingly innocuous statements.

Photo provided by the author.

In a further test, children learned about the two groups from either a knowledgeable narrator (someone who lived in the same town as the zarpies and gorps) or a less knowledgeable one (a first-time visitor to the town). Here, children inferred that gorps were bad at making pizza from the generic statement “Zarpies are good at baking pizzas” only when they heard the statement from a knowledgeable speaker—suggesting that children are more likely to learn stereotypes from someone they trust to be knowledgeable (such as a parent).

The narratives used in this experiment are available online. (You can also play a version of the game yourself.)

Together, these studies suggest how parents may inadvertently reinforce existing common stereotypes—or how children may learn them in the first place. When children hears statements like “girls wear pink” or “boys don’t cry”, they are also likely taking away the message that boys don’t wear pink and that girls cry a lot.

This research suggests that one way parents can prevent their children from developing stereotypes is by limiting the statements they make about groups and instead focusing the conversation on specific individuals (for example, saying that “Hannah likes to sing” instead of “girls like to sing”).

The post How children can learn common stereotypes from adults appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

But when the distress of the bisexual parents was controlled for, there was no residual difference between the children of these and other parents, both lesbian/gay and heterosexual.

A study has found that bisexual parents experience substantially greater stress than lesbian/gay and heterosexual parents, and that children in these families display more emotional and mental health difficulties. Indeed, 20% of bisexual parents in a sample of over 1,000 exceeded the threshold score for a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. When the distress of these bisexual parents was controlled for, however, there was no residual difference between the children of these and other parents, whether lesbian/gay or heterosexual. This suggests that it is not the sexual orientation of bisexual parents per se that predicts more child difficulties, but rather the increased stigma these parents face, which could be mitigated by more support and acceptance.

Earlier research also finds that bisexual parents experience greater difficulties, possibly because of the discrimination that bisexual people face. They also receive less partner support: they are more likely to be single parents – 61% in this study, compared to 47% of lesbian/gay parents and 29% of heterosexual parents.

The study also showed no differences on average in difficulties experienced by children of lesbian/gay parents and heterosexual parents. Based on the fact that the sexual orientation of parents per se does not predict greater difficulty experienced by children, the researchers conclude, “Our results provide further reassurance that …. concerns about children being raised in same-gender partnered households appear unwarranted.”

The researchers analysed data collected in 2013-15 in a ‘National Health Interview Study’, involving 21,103 parents of 4- to 17-year-olds in the USA. In this sample, 0.7% of children were living with at least one gay/lesbian parent and 0.6% with at least one bisexual parent. The sample revealed some diversity not detected in studies that specifically select families for study. For example, 11% of children with one lesbian/gay parent lived in a household where parents were of different genders.

Each parent in this study was asked about sexual orientation, about their experience of psychological distress and about the well-being of their child, using a ‘Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’. The questionnaire asked about the child’s behavior, anxiety, unhappiness, peer friendships and concentration. (The researchers admit that measuring the child’s experience via asking the parent is not wholly reliable. This method also misses whether the child is aware of the parent’s sexuality, which may make a difference to the child.)

The results back up earlier research that finds no differences on average between children raised in LGB-headed families and heterosexual families in terms of psychosocial adjustment, peer relations, romantic relationships, sexual behavior, school outcomes, substance abuse, delinquency and experience of victimization. Indeed, young adults from lesbian-headed families have been found to report better mental health on average than their peers in heterosexual families.

The research does not say that the experience of children by LGB, heterosexual and bisexual parents is the same, however. Other research shows these children are likely to be exposed to more stigma than children of heterosexual parents, but also that the nontraditional family structure can be a source of strength, pride and positive coping strategies. But this study adds to the evidence that the sexual orientation of parents per se is not significant for child development outcomes.

In the USA about 6 million children have an LGB parent, and 220,000 children under 18 in are being raised by same-gender parents. More than a third of Americans, however, do not believe that LGB individuals should have the right to adopt a child.

The post Bisexual parents experience greater stress, which impacts their children 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.