• In the United States, many children witness intimate partner violence, which puts them at risk for maltreatment and emotional and behavioral difficulties.
• While women and men in the United States are almost equally likely to experience intimate partner violence (around 50% versus 45%, respectively), the impact of men’s violence on women is far more severe, with higher rates of serious physical injury and harm as well as negative consequences for women’s emotional, psychological, economic, and long-term health.
• Current systems of care, including courts, child protective services (CPS), and behavioral health programs, are not doing enough to engage fathers and reduce ongoing violence that children experience.
• Fathers for Change (F4C) is an intervention that assists fathers by working on their emotion regulation and reflective functioning (the ability to understand their own mental states and reflect more accurately on how others may be feeling) to improve their relationship with their child and reorient their relationship with their coparent.
• Among fathers referred for intimate partner violence interventions, those who completed F4C had a significantly lower chance of being subsequently reported to CPS for maltreatment than did fathers who did not complete F4C.
• F4C is a promising alternative treatment to traditional batterer intervention programs, which are the standard and most widely implemented intervention for men who engage in intimate partner violence.

This blog post is based on research originally published in Beebe, R., Fish, M. C., Grasso, D., Bernstein, B., DiVietro, S., & Stover, C. S. (2023). Reducing Family Violence Through Child Welfare Intervention: A Propensity Score-Matched Study of Fathers for Change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(21-22), 11666-11691.

Intimate partner violence through a child’s eyes

Following is a fictional account of intimate partner violence as seen by a child. Based on clinical material from cases related to F4C, it illustrates how current practices can affect children in homes with this type of violence.

Nobody explains it to me. One day my Dad was here, and then he was gone. No goodbye and no answers to my questions. It was all a blur, I heard yelling, and when I came out, I saw my mother crying. I was staying in my room like they told me to, but then I saw police outside and I wanted to see what was happening. I saw them putting my Dad into the back of a police car. I don’t want him to hurt my mom, but now I just feel confused. I miss him, even if things weren’t perfect. I just want to know that he is safe. I don’t even know if I am safe. My mom says not to worry and I don’t think she wants me to ask her about it. All I know is that something bad happened, and now my Dad isn’t here. I don’t know where he is and I am not allowed to see him. I don’t know if he is ever coming back.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels

Intimate partner violence is prevalent

Intimate partner violence is a pattern of behavior that can include physical, psychological, and sexual abuse between romantic partners. It can lead to confusion and worry among children not only when incidents happen, but during the ongoing responses to those incidents by parents and systems like CPS and the courts.

This type of violence is more common than most people realize: According to the most recent report of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 2 women and 2 in 5 men experience some form of sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking. Compared to male victims, female victims are much more likely to be injured or develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The impact of intimate partner violence on children

Almost one in five children in the United States has witnessed intimate partner violence, which can result in significant trauma-related symptoms. Symptoms can include anxiety, depression, aggression, sleep problems, intrusive memories of the trauma, and increased startle responses or irritability.

When intimate partner violence is present, especially in homes with children, the immediate response from the criminal justice system and CPS is often to separate the perpetrator from the family to keep everyone safe. While this solution may be necessary (at least temporarily), it can leave children feeling afraid and confused.

Many children in the United States who witness intimate partner violence end up involved in the child welfare system, sometimes because of the violence alone, but also due to overlapping problems like neglect, physical abuse, or parental substance misuse.

Even when families are brought into the system, the cycle of abuse often continues.

CPS reports are official documents created during an investigation following a concern about a child’s safety or well-being. After any report of intimate partner violence in a home with children, police usually initiate a CPS investigation. In fact, exposure to intimate partner violence is a contributing factor in as many as 70% of CPS cases.

Even more alarming: Even when families are brought into the system, the cycle of abuse often continues. Repeat abuse happens in 30% to 60% of cases. The current systems and supports for this type of violence are not reducing the cycle of abuse sufficiently.

Why current interventions fall short

Rather than addressing behavior change in the abusive parent (most commonly fathers), services and supports in the United States are often directed primarily toward survivors (most often mothers). This puts the burden of healing and change on the mothers, while the fathers are either marginalized in terms of their importance to their children or are required by courts to attend one-size-fits-all programs that may not address the root problems causing their violent behaviors.

Lack of focus on fathers’ abilities to be better role models for their children can be a missed opportunity to facilitate repair in families.

When courts order fathers to complete an intervention for intimate partner violence, the men are usually sent to an intervention program for offenders or batterers. These programs are typically delivered in a gendered group format and are focused on different ways men use violence, coercion, and control in their relationships, while teaching anger management skills.

For many fathers, these programs fall short, with low completion rates (30% to 60%) and negligible benefits related to repeat violence across diverse populations in the United States and Canada. The group and educational format of batterer intervention programs lacks the flexibility to address the needs of individual fathers and does not directly assist them in re-establishing a relationship with their children. Lack of focus on fathers’ abilities to be better role models for their children can be a missed opportunity to facilitate repair in families.

Rewriting the script: How Fathers for Change (F4C) empowers fathers to take accountability for their behavior and actively change

F4C is an individualized therapy approach developed and currently implemented in the United States that switches the narrative. Rather than labeling men as batterers or offenders, the focus is on a motivator for change, their role as fathers. While traditional offender programs confront patterns of coercion and teach anger control, F4C focuses on fathers’ ability to understand themselves and regulate their emotions, while restoring relationships with co-parents and children.

Photo by Ketut Subiyanto on Pexels

F4C challenges fathers to think about how they want to be viewed as a father and how a healthy relationship with their co-parent is crucial to their children’s health and well-being. This approach fosters men’s intrinsic motivation to change their behavior to be the father they imagine and that their children deserve.

The program’s approach to engaging fathers has proven successful, with completion rates ranging from 67% to 80%, outperforming traditional offender programs. F4C does not excuse fathers’ acts of violence, but meets them where they are and encourages them to gain an understanding of their past experiences (e.g., trauma) that contribute to their dysregulation and engagement in intimate partner violence.

Measuring F4C’s effect on repeat CPS reports

To determine whether F4C leads to behavioral change, we examined how effective the program was in eliminating CPS reports of abuse and neglect in the year after the program ended.

We identified 297 fathers in a northeastern U.S. state who had been referred to F4C by CPS due to an incident of intimate partner violence and who had completed the program between 2015 and early 2020. Then we matched those 297 fathers to 297 fathers who had not received the F4C treatment because of long waiting lists in their area. (Fathers in this comparison group were referred to other services targeting intimate partner violence, although information about whether they participated in an intervention program was unavailable).

All fathers in the study were between 18 and 60 years old and in heterosexual relationships with a biological child under age 14. To hone in on the impact of the F4C program, the comparison fathers were matched to the F4C fathers on factors like ethnicity/race, age, number of children, severity of past intimate partner violence, number of previous CPS reports, history of past substance use, CPS risk assessment, and geographic location.

The results were striking:

• Only 14% of fathers (40 of 297) who completed F4C had a new CPS report for any form of maltreatment or intimate partner violence in the year after they began the program.
• In contrast, 27% of fathers (80 of 297) in the comparison group had a new CPS report in the year after CPS referred them for services to address intimate partner violence, a rate similar to typical reports after completion of other batterer intervention programs.
• Put another way, the rates of repeat CPS reports were cut in half for fathers that completed F4C.

Overall, this demonstrates that F4C affects intimate partner violence significantly, reducing fathers’ engagement in violent behavior at home. And it shows that families can become safer by supporting fathers’ development and healing.

Healthy fathers raise healthy children

Our results are clear: When programs invest in fathers by tapping into their desire to be present, loving parents, they can achieve real, measurable reductions in harm to children. F4C does not promise perfection; it simply asks fathers to show up, reckon with their past, and learn healthier ways to protect and care for their children.

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels

Fathers or families seeking treatment like F4C should look for programs or individual providers that do not focus solely on gendered/power dynamics, but ask fathers to examine the causes and motivations of their violent behaviors, understand their nervous system and how to regulate it, and push them to increase their reflective capacity both for themselves and in relation to their children and co-parents.

• To build on these encouraging findings, researchers are continuing to examine this field and projects are working to increase access to F4C programs. Current projects within the U.S. seek to:
• Track the benefits of F4C based on reports from the victims of intimate partner violence regarding reductions in the fathers’ violence and substance use and improvements in parent-child relationships.
• Track the benefits of F4C in different populations that were not part of our study but have participated in the program (e.g., same-sex couples) and explore how the program might be adapted for other populations.
• Identify specific components that help make the program successful in reducing intimate partner violence and how they work together in the process.
• Offer F4C in more northeastern U.S. settings, including Veterans Affairs health care facilities in New England, and work with community agencies to expand to states beyond the northeast, including Florida, Missouri, and Virginia.

At its heart, F4C is about seeing what is possible when researchers and practitioners shift from a lens of shaming and punishing fathers through criminal sanctions, loss of contact with their children, and court-mandated batterer intervention programs to offering them a supportive opportunity to change while still demanding an end to their violence. Within that shift lies the hope for safer homes, healthier fathers, and brighter futures for children.

The post Engaging fathers in individual treatment for intimate partner violence can improve outcomes for families appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Many children witness upsetting events. Contrary to what some adults believe, they often want to talk about these events. 

• Acknowledging children’s talk about these events is important for supporting their healthy processing and development. 

• Rather than avoiding children’s talk about upsetting experiences, caregivers should follow their children’s lead, echo what they say, and ask open-ended questions (e.g., “And then what happened?”). In this way, parents help their children make sense of those experiences. 

• Caregivers can adopt an emotion-coaching approach to help children label their emotions rather than telling children what they should or should not feel about upsetting events. 

Many children witness violence, death (of loved ones or strangers), natural disasters, abuse, and other upsetting events. Often, they want and need to talk about these events. 

Consider this conversation between a researcher and a six-year-old research participant, which occurred during a study on the linguistic structure of children’s descriptions of everyday topics. While talking about going to the beach, the young boy said, “My brother died.” The adult, a trained interviewer, responded, “Your brother what?” 

The boy continued, “My brother died. Um, he, um, was making a sandwich, and he fell, and a knife went in his heart.” Fortunately for the shocked interviewer, her protocol called for her to simply repeat the child’s words rather than evaluate what she had heard.  

How likely is it that adults will hear such talk about troubling events in everyday interactions with children? Estimates of this occurrence are hard to come by and vary widely. 

Children talk about disturbing events during spontaneous personal narratives

In a study of nearly 100 U.S. three-and-a-half to nine-and-a-half-year-olds on the developing structure of personal narratives, Carole Menig-Peterson and I found that more than half of the children who were at least six years old spontaneously produced narratives about the death of strangers, pets, and even immediate family members; such content was not as common among younger children. The interviewers had asked the children about likely events in daily life, such as whether they had ever gotten a shot at the doctor’s office or gone to a birthday party.

To our surprise, many of the older children had experienced traumatic events and even more surprisingly, seemed to want to talk to us about them.  

The children in this study were from a small town or rural area of a midwestern U.S. state and had no identified learning disabilities. All were European North American and from middle-class families, and none lived in a war zone or a high-crime area. 

Children talked about upsetting events despite the fact that the researchers did not mention death or anything approaching such a potentially traumatizing event. To our surprise, many of the older children had experienced traumatic events and even more surprisingly, seemed to want to talk to us about them. 

For children, exposure to disturbing events is not uncommon

In research on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in eight- to 12-year-old Dutch children, scientists also found that many children had witnessed disturbing events in their lives. They defined traumatic events as those characterized by “death, serious injury, or other threat to physical integrity” (Alisic et al., 2012, p. 274), and prevalence estimates ranged from 14% to 65%. 

For children living through times of war, of course, the incidence of witnessing traumatic events would be even higher. In short, exposure to deeply disturbing events is not rare in children’s lives. 

Caregivers’ responses to children’s comments about traumatic events 

Like the interviewer mentioned earlier, parents and other caregivers are often jolted by a child’s mention of these events and confused about how to respond. In reaction, most adults turn to a variety of strategies. 

Photo by Photo By: Kaboompics.com on Pexels

Some do not respond at all, whether due to their own discomfort with the information or concerns about potential negative effects of focusing on the trauma. However, such well-intentioned efforts to protect children can backfire, leaving them without a supportive outlet for expressing and processing their thoughts and feelings about the experience.

Avoiding discussion with children about upsetting experiences can backfire

For example, in a study of 40 five- to 18-year olds (19 boys, 21 girls) who experienced a traffic accident, children who did not talk with anyone about the accident said they did not feel understood. They also experienced more symptoms of PTSD (e.g., irritability, trouble sleeping, hypervigilance) 30 weeks later than did children who spoke about the accident with trusted adults. 

In this study, the children were questioned six weeks after the accident about whether they had talked about the accident with anyone (e.g., family, friends, therapist). This is important because of what we know about the value of psychologically debriefing individuals within days of a potentially traumatic event. 

When such talk is initiated right after the accident by someone other than the person who experienced the event, it may do more harm than good, even increasing trauma rather than decreasing it. However, if a child initiates such talk soon afterwards, then parents should follow the child’s lead and listen responsively. 

Opportunities to support children’s processing of trauma 

Children’s spontaneous initiation of talk about trauma is key, and we encourage caregivers to see such initiation as an opportunity to support how children navigate their reactions to difficult experiences. Although almost all parents want to help their children do just that, not all parents are prepared to do so effectively, despite having good intentions. 

Photo by Artur Skoniecki on Pexels

Researchers have identified three general parenting styles that actually exacerbate symptoms of trauma in young children (Alisic et al., 2012): 

1. Avoidant parenting: Some parents are withdrawn and unavailable to children as a result of their own insecurity and trauma.  
2. Overprotective parenting: Out of fear that their child may be traumatized again, some caregivers are overprotective, preoccupied with fear that their child will be retraumatized by talking about a difficult event. 
3. Frightening parenting: Some parents repeatedly quiz their child on details about the trauma, frightening their child in the process. 

In contrast, consider what researchers describe as supportive parenting, beneficial parenting that occurs in response to children’s initiation of talk about trauma. These parents take care to feel safe themselves and to be in control of their emotions (though this does not necessarily mean refraining from crying). They listen to what their children say about the difficult experience. 

What caregivers can do to support their children through trauma 

Caregivers help by acknowledging children’s difficult experiences 

Of particular importance is adults’ acknowledgment of what children say by engaging in a supportive dialog about the experience. Specific strategies include: 

• Asking questions, especially open-ended questions (e.g., “What happened then?”) 

• Making follow-up statements (e.g., after a child reminisced about a parent’s fear that a tornado would take their house down, one mother replied, “You’re right, we got lucky.”)  

• Repeating the child’s words back to the child, which clarifies and ensures that they were heard. This strategy can be especially useful when a parent is caught off guard by a child’s comments. 

Caregivers help by following children’s lead 

Supportive conversations between caregivers and children about difficult experiences allow children to take the lead. If a child wants to talk about these experiences, responsive caregivers show that they are willing. If a child does not seem to want to talk about them, parents should not drill them for information. 

Some caregivers find that their child is willing to talk under certain circumstances (e.g., while on a car ride) but not others (e.g., face to face). These conversations about difficult experiences occur when children (as well as parents) feel comfortable. 

Caregivers help by respecting children’s negative emotional experiences and coaching them through these emotions 

Parents and other caregivers sometimes think they know what their children would feel about difficult experiences, but this is not necessarily true. Adults who want to support their children after challenging events should be especially careful about labeling what children feel about the events. 

Occasionally mislabeling an emotion might not enhance a child’s sense of being understood, but it probably does not do damage in the long run. However, evidence suggests that when such mislabeling is repeated often, it is not optimal for children. Instead, caregivers should let children describe their own emotions and use strategies (e.g., ask questions, follow up, and rephrase) to help check their comprehension of children’s communication. 

Photo by August de Richelieu on Pexels

As caregivers navigate emotional discussions with their children, they tap into meta-emotion philosophy, defined as “an organized set of feelings and thoughts about one’s own emotions and one’s children’s emotions” (Gottman et al., 1996, p. 243).  

Some parents develop a dismissive attitude toward negative emotions

In research with five- to eight-year-olds, some parents adopted a dismissive attitude toward negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anger), ignoring or denying those emotions out of fear that their children’s sadness or anger would upset them. They tried to distract their children from talking about their feelings. Other caregivers were intrusive, critical, and mocking of their children, which is derogatory behavior that is characteristic of parental rejection. 

In contrast, other caregivers in the same study expressed awareness of negative emotions in themselves and their children, saw their children’s expressions as opportunities to become close with or instruct their children, and validated their children’s negative feelings. These parents’ style reflects an emotion-coaching philosophy. 

As caregivers who adhered to this philosophy, these adults helped their children verbally label negative emotions correctly and assisted them in identifying resolutions to the emotional experiences. The children of these emotion-coaching parents had better emotional regulation and peer interactions three years later than did the children of adults who demonstrated dismissive or derogatory parenting.  

Caregivers help by using direct words that minimize risk of misinterpretation 

Elementary school children often ask caregivers questions about death, and it is a common impulse for adults to use terms like “went to sleep” or to explain the circumstances by saying the person or animal “was very sick.” 

However, children this age are famously literal in their interpretations of such euphemisms, perhaps leading them to believe that when they themselves go to bed or get sick, they will disappear like their pet or grandparent did. It is better for children’s comprehension to call death what it is, even if it feels insensitive due to cultural tendencies. 

Additional advice 

Of course, in extreme cases – when a deeply traumatic event occurred or when children seem excessively upset – parents may seek therapy for their children. This kind of therapy inherently involves confronting the event and talking about it. Prior to such therapy, caregivers are advised to confine themselves to asking open-ended questions (e.g., “And then what happened?”) and avoiding yes/no questions (e.g., “Did the man touch you there?”). 

Letting children take the lead is advisable and associated with children’s well-being, allowing them to begin to move past the trauma.

Based on an extensive review of evidence, researchers have devised a structured interview for children who are suspected of having been abused (Lamb et al., 2007). Such an approach is difficult for even trained interviewers to adhere to; parents will likely also find advice in this blog difficult to follow, but they are still encouraged to try using open-ended questions that encourage children to elaborate on their descriptions based on their own needs and comfort levels.

In other cases – such as when a child continually avoids mention of what happened – caregivers may want to consult their local children’s librarian for books that may help them discuss the issue. The American Psychological Association (through Magination Press) has a list of books that promote children’s mental health, including books related to trauma. 

In summary, parents and other caregivers should be prepared to talk about upsetting events with their children, ensuring that both the children and the adults feel safe. Letting children take the lead is advisable and associated with children’s well-being, allowing them to begin to move past the trauma.

The post How to talk with children about traumatic events appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Based on research originally published in: Popham, C. M., McEwen, F. S., Karam, E., & Pluess, M. (2023). The important role of mothers during displacement: Direct and indirect effects of the refugee context on Syrian refugee children’s mental health. Child Development, 95(3). 

Key takeaways for caregivers

• Mothers play a crucial role in shaping the mental health of their refugee children (eight to 18 years old) through the parenting they provide.
• The mental health of refugee mothers is associated with their children’s mental health.
• Supporting maternal mental health is important for improving the mental health of child refugees.

Families are challenged by exposure to war and displacement

Millions of families across the globe are experiencing war and are forced to flee their homes. Not surprisingly, these experiences put children and their caregivers at high risk for mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

Photo by Ahmed akacha on Pexels

Mental health support for children is critical

In addition to the often-traumatic effects of being exposed to war, instability and lack of resources during displacement further exacerbate this vulnerability for psychopathology, making mental health support critical. Living in overcrowded and often unsanitary conditions, these families face daily stressors that can severely affect their mental health. The frequent lack of educational and recreational opportunities for children further adds to their uncertainty and hopelessness.

Primary caregivers play an essential role

Several studies have shown that primary caregivers, especially mothers, play an important role for children’s well-being in the challenging context of war and displacement. The support mothers provide can protect their children from the adverse effects of displacement, but research on refugees also reveals that poor maternal mental health is linked to greater emotional and behavioral challenges in refugee children.

To understand how best to support refugee families, it is crucial to explore the complex relations among exposure to war, the conditions of displacement, and mothers’ mental health and parenting practices as they relate to the well-being of their children.

What did we study?

In a recent study of families living in refugee settlements, we investigated the role of mothers in their children’s mental health. We sought to explore how the experience of war and displacement affected mothers’ mental health, as well as how maternal mental health in turn affected children’s well-being directly and indirectly through mothers’ parenting. The refugee families had all left Syria between 2013 and 2017, during wartime, and currently lived in an informal tented settlement in Lebanon.

We focused on mothers because they tend to be the primary caregivers in refugee families, with fathers often being absent for various reasons, including their efforts to protect their families.

How did we carry out our study?

Our study included 1,446 Syrian refugee mothers and their children, aged eight to 18 years, living in informal refugee settlements in Lebanon during their study participation (between 2017 and 2019). Mothers completed questionnaires about their experiences of stress, depression, and anxiety; their parenting behaviors and practices; and the quality of their living conditions during displacement (e.g., whether basic needs were met, and the quality of housing, the level of community support, and access to services).

Children completed questionnaires about their mental health. We then applied a statistical analysis method called structural equation modeling to analyze the data and test the direct and indirect pathways among all measures. This method helped us study the intricate dynamics of family life in refugee settings and allowed us to explore how maternal well-being affected children’s mental health.

The pivotal influence of mothers on their children’s mental health

Maternal mental health influenced the quality of mothers’ parenting which, in turn, affected the children’s mental health, we found. For example, mothers with more mental health problems were more likely to engage in negative parenting practices, such as being harsh, which was associated with a higher risk for PTSD and depression in their children.

Maternal mental health influenced the quality of mothers’ parenting which, in turn, affected the children’s mental health.

In contrast, mothers with better mental health engaged in more supportive and caring parenting practices, and these were associated with fewer psychological issues in their children. These findings highlight the importance of good maternal mental health and supportive parenting for children’s mental health.

We also explored the role of the current living conditions (e.g., access to clean water, housing quality, community resources) in supporting children’s mental health. The environment in which families lived affected children’s mental health indirectly by affecting mothers’ mental health and consequently, mothers’ ability to provide supportive parenting.

Photo by Ahmed akacha on Pexels

In other words, when mothers felt supported by the community and had access to resources, their mental health was better. This improvement in mental health was associated with more supportive parenting and therefore contributed to better mental health in the children.

What are the implications of this research?

Our findings highlight the need for interventions that support both mothers and children. Providing psychological support to mothers may improve their mental health, leading to better parenting practices and healthier mental states for their children.

Social support networks and community-based programs that offer counseling as well as parenting workshops may be particularly effective in helping mothers who are struggling with their mental health as a result of war and displacement.

Additionally, policies aimed at improving living conditions in refugee camps, such as ensuring access to health care, education, and safe housing, are not only important for current well-being but may also benefit mental health in the long term. Hence, it is essential for aid organizations to adopt a family-centric approach, recognizing that the well-being of mothers influences the well-being of their children both directly and indirectly.

Empowering mothers with skills and support can have a transformative impact on the entire family, promoting resilience and psychological health.

Conclusion

Our study underscores the importance of maternal mental health in shaping the mental health of refugee children. Improving living conditions during displacement, such as by meeting basic needs and ensuring access to services, and addressing the psychological needs of refugee mothers, can enhance the resilience and well-being of displaced families.

Investing in maternal mental health is not just beneficial for mothers. It has a profound impact on the next generation, helping break the cycle of trauma and fostering a more hopeful future for refugee children.

Our findings call for a holistic approach to humanitarian aid, one that recognizes and supports the interdependent relationships within families rather than focusing just on individuals.

Photo by Ahmed akacha on Pexels

Mothers can significantly influence their children’s recovery and adaptation in post-trauma contexts. Therefore, targeted interventions that focus on maternal mental health and effective parenting practices should be a priority in refugee assistance programs given that improvements in maternal mental health and parenting quality will likely benefit children’s mental health.

Our study provides valuable insights and a solid foundation for developing strategies that can make a real difference in the lives of refugee families. While our findings are specific to Syrian refugees and eight- to 18-year-old children, they can be broadly applied to the experiences of other refugee populations and likely apply to non-refugee contexts as well.

Our findings call for a holistic approach to humanitarian aid, one that recognizes and supports the interdependent relationships within families rather than focusing just on individuals.

It is crucial to create safe spaces in refugee settlements where mothers and children can access psychological services, engage in supportive community activities, and receive education about mental health and effective parenting. Fostering environments where families can heal and thrive can pave the way for a more stable and hopeful future for refugee communities.

The post Refugee children’s mental health: The critical role of mothers appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• While occasional arguments with siblings or peers are a normal part of childhood, more frequent conflicts may harm children’s behavioral and emotional development.
• Managing children’s conflict behavior can be challenging for caregivers, especially since few evidence-based interventions specifically target sibling or peer conflict.
• Our research explored an evidence-based parenting program designed for preschool and primary school aged children with disruptive behavior. The program aims to improve parent-child relationships. Our results suggest that this program may also reduce sibling conflict in families with high levels of sibling conflict. However, we did not find broader benefits for children’s relationships with peers.
• For families dealing with frequent sibling conflict, evidence-based parenting programs may be a promising resource for learning techniques to reduce conflict between siblings.
• We need to understand more about how to support families when children struggle with conflicts outside the home, such as with peers. This might involve collaborations between families and schools to promote children’s positive development.

Introduction

In this blog post, we briefly answer five main questions:

• What is children’s conflict behavior?
• How might conflict harm children’s development?
• How can communities support caregivers to reduce children’s conflict behavior?
• What is the Incredible Years parenting program?
• What do we know and what do we still need to understand about how to reduce children’s conflict behavior?

What is children’s conflict behavior?

Children’s conflict with their parents takes many forms. It might involve refusing to follow instructions and getting angry when things do not go their way. Conflict with other children might be more likely to involve physical or verbal arguments.

Photo by Monstera Production on Pexels

How might conflict harm children’s development?

Frequent conflict with siblings and peers can increase children’s risk of later mental health problems, such as higher levels of aggression. This might occur because conflict with siblings inadvertently teaches children to behave in increasingly aggressive ways. Additionally, children may be more likely to make friends with peers who show similarly disruptive behaviors, which can encourage further aggression.

How can communities support caregivers to reduce children’s conflict behavior?

Evidence-based interventions that specifically address children’s conflict with other children are limited, especially those that address sibling relationships. One promising approach may be group-based parenting programs that target children’s disruptive behavior more broadly. The effectiveness of such programs at reducing the broader range of disruptive behavior has been demonstrated in decades of research worldwide.

Group-based parenting programs aim to help caregivers interact more positively with their children, which in turn helps reduce children’s disruptive behavior. Goals often include replacing negative interaction patterns between parents and children, which might unintentionally reinforce challenging behavior in children, with more constructive techniques to help support children’s development.

Although the focus of such programs is improving parent-child relationships, improvements in the parent-child dynamic may spill over into children’s relationships with others, such as their siblings and peers.

Photo by Kampus Production on Pexels

Understanding whether parenting programs for children’s disruptive behavior can also reduce children’s conflicts with their siblings and peers is important. If these relationships do improve, it suggests that these programs might be even more effective than previously thought. In contrast, if the programs do not improve children’s conflict behavior, families may require additional support.

What is the Incredible Years parenting program?

To address this research gap, we analyzed data from more than 1,400 families. Each family participated in one of 12 published studies completed prior to 2016 in six European countries. In each study, researchers randomly assigned families of children ages 1-11 years to either the Incredible Years parenting program or an alternative experience, such as a normal care provision, or a waiting list to receive Incredible Years. Our goal was to assess the Incredible Years program’s effects on children’s conflict with parents, siblings, and peers.

About the program

Incredible Years is one of the most extensively researched group-based parenting programs for managing young children’s disruptive behavior. The program developers drew from scientific findings about children’s behavior, family relationships, and effective intervention strategies. More than 50 studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing children’s disruptive behavior. Given its strong evidence base, influential organizations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom, the Youth Institute in the Netherlands, and Blueprints in the United States have recommended the program.

In the program, caregivers meet in small groups led by trained facilitators for 12 to 18 weekly sessions. Caregivers are taught techniques for building warm relationships with their children (e.g., using responsive play) and encouraging positive child behavior (e.g., using praise and rewards). Facilitators also introduce methods to discourage children’s negative behavior through setting limits and constructive discipline techniques (e.g., time-outs, the removal of privileges).

Although the focus of such programs is improving parent-child relationships, improvements in the parent-child dynamic may spill over into children’s relationships with others, such as their siblings and peers.

An important part of the program is its collaborative approach. Caregivers work with group facilitators to set and pursue their own parenting goals. For example, some caregivers might choose to focus on strategies to reduce fighting between siblings. Since caregivers decide their own parenting goals, some families might focus on addressing disruptive behaviour in multiple children, while others might concentrate on the behaviour of one child.

Our research

We combined the data from the 12 studies. In all studies, caregivers were randomly assigned to either take part in the Incredible Years program or to a control condition in which they did not participate in the program.

Each study measured caregivers’ perceptions of the frequency of their child’s conflict with parents, siblings, and peers. When families had more than one child, we used data from the child with the highest level of disruptive behaviour at the beginning of the study.

Photo by SHVETS production on Pexels

The 12 studies took place in six European countries: England, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Wales. The children in the studies ranged from 1 – 11 years old, with most children aged between 4 and 7 years. Of the children, 61% were male.

The participating caregivers were primarily mothers (97%), with an average age of 34 years. Families had diverse socioeconomic backgrounds: 60% had low incomes, 36% were from families in which no one was employed, and 30% were from an ethnic minority.

Our findings

Participating in the Incredible Years program reduced the frequency of children’s conflict with their parents. Parents who took part in the Incredible Years program reported greater decreases in conflicts with their child (for example, fewer instances of their child refusing to follow their instructions) compared to parents who did not take part in the program. This was what we expected, because the program is designed to improve parent-child relationships.

The unexpected finding was that for the 22% of families with high levels of sibling conflict at the start of the program (where parents, on average, rated their child as ‘often’ or ‘always’ having conflict with their sibling), Incredible Years also reduced children’s sibling conflicts.

This might have happened because new techniques like limit-setting helped caregivers address sibling arguments more effectively. Also, if caregivers interacted more positively with the child with the most severe disruptive behavior in the family, that child may have modelled this behavior with their siblings.

Finally, applying the new parenting techniques to all children in the family (e.g., praising children’s positive behavior and selectively ignoring children’s minor negative behavior) might have led to overall improvements in behavior, reducing sibling arguments.

Stronger collaboration between families and schools may help ensure that positive changes in children’s behavior at home are supported and sustained.

However, taking part in the Incredible Years program did not reduce children’s conflict with peers. This might be because it is hard for children to change their behavior outside the home in a setting where others (e.g., teachers, peers) have not changed how they interact with them.

What do we know and what do we still need to understand about how to reduce children’s conflict behavior?

Group-based parenting programs targeting children’s disruptive behavior are well-known for strengthening parent-child relationships and promoting positive child development. Our study shows that one such program, the Incredible Years program, not only enhances parent-child relationships, but may also help reduce sibling conflicts, particularly for families experiencing high levels of sibling conflict.

Taking part in the Incredible Years program did not have an effect on children’s conflict with peers. This does not necessarily mean these programs cannot reduce peer conflict, but that communities need to understand more about how to support families when children’s conflict with peers is a concern.

Stronger collaboration between families and schools may help ensure that positive changes in children’s behavior at home are supported and sustained in school environments.

The post Can parenting programs improve young children’s sibling and peer relationships? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Although parents may try to shelter their children from collective tragedy, at some point, children of all ages will be exposed, personally or via peers, news, or family. Parents need to talk with their children (whether preschoolers, college-aged students, or somewhere in between) about such events and listen to their children’s concerns. When tragedy or violence strikes at college:

• Parents need to help their college-aged children stay safe from imminent danger and help them develop coping skills. Parents need to adjust how they help based on careful assessment of their children’s needs and abilities.
• Parents’ own reactions and coping (remaining calm, modeling empathy, expressing distress) directly affect how their college-aged children respond, so parents should be mindful of themselves as role models.
• Parents can remain connected via modern technology to their college-aged children, even when they cannot be together physically. Such connections provide support and help youth or the future.

 Talking with children about traumatic and violent events

With every act of violence, especially shootings that expose children, adolescents, and youth to harm, we are shaken to our core. As parents, we struggle with how best to protect our children, regardless of their age, but also with how best to help our children cope with and move beyond these experiences toward positive outcomes.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels

I am a psychologist who focuses on how to talk to children of all ages about traumatic experiences they have witnessed or endured. As a result of my expertise, news outlets, teachers, other professionals, and even parents ask me for advice on whether they should talk with children about trauma or shelter them from exposure or knowledge.

This question increasingly focuses on conversations about horrific collective events that appear in the news quite regularly, including mass shootings, assaults, disasters, and war.

Parents need to say something, even to young children, about recent tragedy

My first response is always that parents need to say something, even to young children who do not yet understand the meaning of the tragedy and the accompanying suffering.

Parents cannot fully shelter their children, no matter how hard they try. Children learn about tragedies from peers, news images, social media, or overheard adult conversations. By taking an active role in communicating with children about a tragedy or violent event, parents can engage youth in a developmentally sensitive way. Specifically, parents and other caregivers should:

• Listen: Some children may just want to talk. Let them. Others may not, which is also fine.
• Be honest. If children want to talk, have honest conversations. These should address the reality that unexpected events sometimes happen and that children will be okay.

My first response is always that parents need to say something, even to young children who do not yet understand the meaning of the tragedy and the accompanying suffering.

Through these conversations, parents have an opportunity to teach their children not only about their own feelings, but also about compassion, empathy, and supporting others in times of need, all of which are valuable lessons, especially in times of crisis.

What about when children are older, especially those of college-age?

Recently, parents have asked how to talk to their adolescent and young adult children following collective tragedy. At one level, the same recommendations apply. Children’s needs do not stop when childhood ends. Parents continue to play a crucial role in helping adolescents and young adults understand and cope with traumatic and unanticipated events.

Photo by Pixabay

At another level, parents need to be much more mindful of how they support their older children. Older teens and young adults are aware of what the events – and the accompanying trauma – mean for them and for others.

Therefore, parents should engage in conversations and offer suggestions on coping rather than just intervening directly. However, parents have rarely been given concrete advice regarding how to do this. Scientific research provides some useful suggestions.

How should parents respond when tragedy happens on their child’s college campus?

College students, most often, older teens and young adults, are learning new methods of coping and building new support groups that diverge from those they used earlier in life. These changes are developmentally appropriate and valuable, and they should be encouraged.

In times of violence, particularly on a college campus, here are four ways parents can provide support:

1. Help college-age children assess their immediate and future risk of harm
2. Assess college-age children’s needs
3. Be vigilant about parental inclinations that might conflict with college students’ needs
4. Help their college-age children build their own coping skills

1. Help college-age children assess their immediate and future risk of harm

For some tragedies, imminent risk is gone relatively quickly. Violent incidents and disasters often happen suddenly and unexpectedly, and end quickly. If risk is ongoing, parents need to help their children develop a plan to protect themselves.

There may be conflicting or limited information available about what to do, and parents’ support in minimizing risks can be especially helpful.

2. Assess college-age children’s needs

Children’s needs are shaped by many factors, including physical or emotional proximity to a tragedy.

When that proximity is close, youth may need stronger parental support. When it is farther away, parents’ gentle guidance can be useful in helping their children assess their needs and distinguish needs from fears or other concerns.

3. Be vigilant about parental inclinations that might conflict with college students’ needs

Since most parents’ ultimate goal is often to take away their children’s distress, parents may want to step in and quickly solve their children’s problems. For example, parents may take over scheduling, identify and seek out resources, or set up appointments, all on children’s behalf.

This can occur even when children are away from home. Yet children, especially as they get older, may not need management. They may instead need an ear. Expressing oneself following a collective tragedy can be valuable and therapeutic in and of itself. Parents should first listen and gauge their children’s desires and needs, rather than immediately jumping in and telling them what to do.

4. Help their college-age children build their own coping skills

Parents cannot always protect their children from harm or pain. A better approach is to listen to what children say and help them identify how to cope. Some coping strategies may not work, but youth should be encouraged to try different approaches.

In the long run, teaching children to cope with tragedy and disaster will be much more beneficial than simply taking control. Children, particularly older teens and young adults, are also quite resilient, especially when they have supportive parents, be they near or far.

How can parents console their children and be present when children are miles away?

In this day and age, individuals are connected, even when they are not together physically. Parents can text and call children, or post on social media. Brief check-ins signal availability, even when parents and children are separated by hundreds of miles.

This generation of young people, more than any before them, is very comfortable with the range of channels of communication and their potential benefits, so long as the channels are used in a way that provides support and assistance with children’s personal growth.

If children are close to a tragedy (e.g., they personally knew victims or offenders, they were present during a violent incident) and more intense intervention is needed, parents can help their college-age children find local resources and check in to assess how those resources are working.

By helping youth identify and reach out to local resources, rather than simply scheduling appointments on their children’s behalf, parents give their college age children a sense of agency and control, which can help them develop coping skills that will be of value not only in the present, but in the future as well.

Photo by Alex Green

How can parents manage their own stress, anxiety, and fear while being far away during and after a tragedy?

Children, even when they are in college, continue to watch, listen, and learn from adults, especially their parents. Parents should manage their own fears in the same way they would like their children to.

Some parents seek support from friends, family, or professionals. Others engage in stress-reduction activities or hobbies (e.g., exercise, reading) or immerse themselves in volunteering to assist others in need; aiding others can be enormously valuable in helping parents focus not on themselves but on those in need (an important skill for all!).

Parents can – and should – explain their coping strategies to their children, who may ultimately adopt the same ones. Tragedy, including unanticipated violence, is an unfortunate and inevitable part of life, and it is important to identify effective ways of coping with such experiences. Like all adults, parents are constantly striving to identify what works best in the face of adversity. Through modeling, parents teach their children to do the same.

Should parents visit campus or bring their children to another location?

Despite many parents’ gut reaction to swoop in and protect their children by removing them from the site of the violence, this may not be best in every circumstance.

Parents need to balance addressing their children’s needs with teaching them how to manage difficulties, stress, and challenges, including when these arise due to events outside of youth’s control.

Parents need to be attentive to their children’s needs, offer guidance and support, and be mindful of their own responses.

If children need their parents to be present or are unable to function, parents should consider visiting or bringing their children elsewhere. However, doing so when there is no clear need or risk or when children are functioning well does not help them develop effective strategies to manage difficult situations.

Parents need to think carefully about why they want to visit or pick up their college-age children, how the visit will help, and whether the visit is for the children’s or the parents’ well-being. Open and honest communication can help determine whether it is in children’s best interests to be with their parents or whether it is better to provide support at a distance as youth learn to navigate tragedies.

Parenting is challenging, particularly in terms of helping children respond to, understand, and move past tragedy, violence, and both personal and collective trauma. Managing this challenge while continuing to help youth develop and grow does not become easier when children move into adolescence and young adulthood, or when they leave home, sometimes moving hundreds of miles away.

Parents need to be attentive to their children’s needs, offer guidance and support, and be mindful of their own responses. All of these are important to consider when encountering and navigating trauma and violence nearby and far away, and as we work to ensure that children can adapt and cope in the best manner possible.

The post When Violence Hits a College Campus: How Parents Can Support Students, Even from Afar 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.

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.

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.