• Experimental evidence shows that playing simple number-focused board games with preschool-aged children can improve their mathematical skills.
• Playing number games and encouraging young children to think about numbers in everyday conversations can help children practice counting principles and notice number-related aspects of their environment.
• Following children’s lead and encouraging mathematical thought in their interests may help them become more interested in math in the long term.

Incorporating math in everyday play at home

“Five, six, seven, eight,” counts four-year-old Remy as he moves his token three spaces, counting on from five, where he ended his last turn.
“Now I’m winning!” he says.
“How do you know that?” asks his dad.
“I’m on eight and you’re on six and eight is bigger than six!” answers Remy.

This vignette of a father and his son highlights the unique opportunities for preschool-aged children to learn from simple activities in the home, such as playing board games. Opportunities for engaging with mathematical information at home are referred to as the home math environment.

Previous meta-analytic research (which provides an average of effects from more than 60 studies) has established that the home math environment relates to children’s performance on math skills tests.

Young children tend to do better at math when they do things at home like identify and write numbers; play games with cards, dice, and spinners; and sort objects by shape, size, or color.

However, these correlational findings alone do not tell us much and leave unanswered two important questions:

1. Does increased engagement with mathematical and numerical information at home cause children to become better at math?
2. Do children who are better at math seek out more play opportunities that involve math than other preschool-aged children?

Photo: Karolina Grabowska. Pexels.

In addition, it is well-documented that mathematical skills are at least somewhat intergenerational in nature: Children of parents who are good at math tend to be better at math themselves.

To learn more, we asked whether playing games that involve counting improves children’s mathematical skills and whether improving parents’ math skills indirectly leads to improvements in children’s math skills.

How can we improve children’s math skills?

My colleagues and I conducted a study with 162 four-year-olds, each of whom was with one of their parents. The research took place in a large urban area in western Pennsylvania, and families were randomly assigned to one of five conditions. Parents were instructed to play an assigned game at home (either with their child or by themselves, depending on the condition) twice weekly for eight weeks:

1. Number board game (parents and children): Players used a spinner with numbers 1-6 and moved the number of spaces the spinner pointed to on their turn. Participants were told to count each space aloud as they moved their piece.
2. Shape board game (parents and children): Players used a spinner with different shapes (e.g., square, circle, triangle) and moved to the next space marked with that shape on their turn. Participants were told to name the shape on each space aloud as they moved their piece.
3. Computerized math game (parents only): This game was designed to improve parents’ math skills involving approximate mental addition or subtraction. Parents were shown sets of dots on the screen, then asked to say how many dots were there; the sets changed too quickly to count.
4. Computerized trivia game (parents only): Parents were asked to respond to multiple-choice questions involving general trivia.
5. “Business-as-usual” control group: Families were not given new materials and were asked to proceed with life as usual.

The conditions were devised to help us answer the following questions:

• Does playing a number game improve math skills more than playing an identical board game that does not involve numbers?
• Does a game that challenges parents’ math skills improve their children’s math skills more than a game that tests parents’ knowledge of general trivia?
• Do preschool-aged children learn more when they are directly involved in playing number games with their parents than they do when their parents play alone?
• Do preschool-aged children’s math skills improve more through these game-based interventions than they do without intervention?

Preschool children’s math improved the most from playing a number game with their parent

Children in the number board game condition outperformed children in the other conditions on a standardized math assessment after two months of engaging with their assigned condition.

In other words, children’s math skills improved the most when parents played a number game (versus a non-number game) with them (versus without the children).

Parent-child interactions that directly incorporate number, such as playing number board games together, can lead to improvements in children’s math skills.

Moreover, this improvement resulted from the intervention, not simply because of natural everyday learning (the business-as-usual condition).

While differences faded two months beyond the end of the intervention (as seen in a delayed post-test after materials had been taken away), there was still an indication of a positive effect, and continuing the intervention or testing a larger group might have found lasting effects.

Supporting parents’ math does not necessarily improve their preschool child’s skills

Parents in the computerized parent math game condition improved their own math skills and this improvement was present in the delayed post-test two months later.

However, in the delayed post-test, their children’s math skills were worse than their peers in the control condition. This appeared to have been due to changes in the home math environment: Parents in the math game condition reported doing fewer math activities with their children over the study than did parents assigned to play number board games with their children.

This finding is somewhat intuitive: Parents have a limited amount of time, so asking them to spend some of that time playing a game alone takes away from time they could be playing with their children.

While parents’ math skills seem to relate to preschool-aged children’s math skills, more research is needed to better understand why: Maybe parents who are better at math engage in more play with their children around math concepts, or maybe they express less hesitancy (or math anxiety) in those interactions. What is clear is that improving parent’s math skills does not necessarily affect children’s math skills.

Number games promote learning about numbers and counting

Overall, our findings show that playing number board games with children can lead to improvements in children’s math skills. But why?

Children benefit from repeated practice of saying the numbers in the count list in order, making more/less comparisons, and matching each number with a discrete object (e.g., a space on a board).

In addition, numerous studies have found that children who notice number-related characteristics of their surroundings (as opposed to other characteristics, such as color or shape) tend to perform better on tests of mathematical skills.

Photo: Keira Burton. Pexels.

Returning to the example of Remy and his dad, this short interaction gave Remy a chance to practice a lot of the principles necessary for learning to count.

He had the opportunity to practice reciting the count list in order and to see that each space represents one and only one count in the count list (one-to-one correspondence) in a potentially new context with objects he had not counted before (abstraction).

Through a simple prompt, Remy also had opportunities to make a more/less comparison and to discuss the stable order of the count list. That is, he recognized that eight is and will always be more than six, and that regardless of starting point (here, starting from five), the count list progresses in the same way (stable order; order irrelevance).

In playing the number board game, Remy (and the participants in our study) may have been encouraged to see the numerical features of their surroundings.

In everyday life, while one child might see a scene in the clouds, another might notice that there are exactly four clouds; similarly, one child might see apples ready to be picked from a tree, while another might see a proportion of red to green apples.

This is also true for adults: One individual may notice herself automatically operating mathematically even when it is not necessary (e.g., in looking at a clock at 6:18, she notices a 1:3 ratio), while another adult may perform a quick approximation (e.g., note that it is about 6:20) or see a general association with the time (e.g., “It’s getting late — we should have dinner soon!”).

Parents can incorporate math into everyday activities

Whether in board games, card games, or everyday routines, parents and caregivers can help preschool-aged children better understand principles of counting. Adults can encourage children to focus on numerical features by using simple conversational cues, such as:

• “How many are there?”
• “Are there more (X) or more (Y)?”
• “Who has more?”
• “Which is (bigger/smaller)?”

These kinds of prompts can be used in all sorts of contexts, including:

• Reading books: counting objects on a page, making comparisons to past pages or inferences about pages to come, discussing relative sizes
• Public transit: counting down the number of stops remaining, noticing the route number, discussing the number of passengers and how that changes as people board and disembark
• Cooking: measuring ingredients, counting additions or stirs, tracking time
• Grocery shopping: buying on a budget, tracking items, choosing a checkout line based on the number of items allowed and the shoppers in line

Making math learning fun and engaging for preschool-aged children

Children who have fun engaging with math information and games may find themselves drawn to those topics and activities in the future. As such, it may be unsurprising that children in our study who were randomly assigned to play a mathematically focused game outperformed their peers who did not play the game on a math test.

Children who have fun engaging with math information and games may find themselves drawn to those topics and activities in the future.

However, using a numerical board game this way does not have to represent an isolated context.

While parents and caregivers can help shape preschool-aged children’s interests by incorporating enjoyable media in a content area, children can also choose activities based on their own interests.

These interests can be a starting point for further learning, and encouraging and following them may produce a trusting, fruitful, and engaging relationship. In turn, that relationship can support the development of curiosity and inquiry. Such an approach also provides an opportunity to capitalize on children’s interests to build excitement about mathematical learning.

Conclusions: Support children’s math learning during play and daily routines

Extending beyond the well-documented correlational evidence that the home math environment relates to children’s math skills, we now have experimental proof that playing numerical board games can improve preschool-age children’s math skills.

Just as importantly, we know that parents have limited time and, when it comes to trying to improve children’s math skills, that time is better spent on talking about numbers while playing with their children than on working alone on their own math skills.

These activities can also happen in routine parent-child interactions. Parents can engage children’s interests in all sorts of settings, including on transit, while cooking and shopping, and when reading a book.

With simple questions and prompts, parents can highlight number in many non-math activities. Incorporating these small changes so children see number in all they do can have a meaningful effect on math skills.

The post Playing number games with preschool-aged children can improve their math skills appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Key takeaways for caregivers

• Playing with toys is an important activity for caregivers and infants to do together to support healthy development.
• When caregivers read manufacturers’ descriptions of toys, they were more likely to choose technological toys, but research suggests that these toys may have significant drawbacks, such as decreased engagement between caregivers and infants and less language use while playing.
• Reading toy descriptions with a critical eye is a good way to purchase high-quality toys for infants.

Choosing certain toys can positively affect child development

Many parents, caregivers, and family members face the challenge of selecting a toy as a gift for a child. What will they like? What do they already own? What toy will be best for them? And most confusing, how do I select which toy out of what seems like hundreds and hundreds of options? No wonder the choice feels so overwhelming: Toys are big business – a $40 billion dollar industry in the United States in 2022.

Beyond their role in the marketplace, though, toys are important for infants’ development because they play a critical role in supporting and encouraging play. Toys can encourage physical activity, such as tossing and catching a ball or pushing a toy train around a room. They can also provide a jumping off point for fostering social interactions between individuals, for example, when two children share and play with a toy together.

Toys can also expand children’s thinking as they use them to represent other objects, such as a toy phone in place of a smartphone. And they can also support the expression of creativity, as occurs when children use blocks to build a structure.

Playing with toys is not only about the toy itself, but also about how individuals interact with each other while they are playing.

The importance of playing with toys for infants’ development is well-established. But another important factor is critical to consider – the idea that interactions between caregivers and infants during play (with and without toys) help support babies’ cognitive and social development.

For instance, when caregivers and infants engage in back-and-forth interactions focused on the same topic or object of interest, infants can learn new words and develop an understanding of how to take turns in a conversation. In other words, playing with toys is not only about the toy itself, but also about how individuals interact with each other while they are playing.

Choosing technological toys may negatively affect children’s development

Toys are powerful tools for development and they can support important caregiver-child interactions. But are all toys created equal in terms of their potential to foster high-quality interactions?

In short, probably not. In particular, research suggests that technological or electronic toys – those that need batteries to operate – might have negative effects on how caregivers and infants play together and talk during their playful interactions. For example, when using electronic toys, caregivers might talk more about how to make the toy work (e.g., using more commands like, “Push the button”) instead of letting infants direct the interaction or asking open-ended questions.

How do caregivers approach decisions about buying toys?

Since toys are important tools for supporting cognitive and social development, and the types of toys caregivers and children play with may differentially affect important interactions, we need to better understand how caregivers approach purchasing toys for their infants.

To examine this matter, we conducted a study with caregivers. We asked how they approached purchasing toys for their infants. We also investigated whether and how manufacturers’ claims about the specific developmental benefits of toys affected caregivers’ purchasing decisions. In our study, we examined three questions:

• What types of toys do infants and caregivers play with?
• What are caregivers’ preferences for electronic versus traditional toys?
• How do advertisements of the developmental features of toys affect caregivers’ toy selections?

Photo: Polesie Toys. Pexels.

Examining how and what caregivers think about toys

Sixty-three primary caregivers of infants (0-24 months) across the United States took part in the study. Most caregivers were White (78%), 3% were Black, 5% were Asian, 13% were Latinx, and 1% were of another ethnicity. Caregivers’ highest level of educational attainment ranged from a high school diploma (3%) to a graduate degree (79%).

In our survey, caregivers were asked to report how often their infant engaged in playing with blocks, dolls or stuffed animals, electronic toys (i.e., toys with batteries), electronic and non-electronic books, electronic and non-electronic puzzles, and other toys.

Next, caregivers viewed eight images of infant toys without descriptions. Four of the eight toys were electronic, with features including lights and sounds, and required batteries. The other four toys were traditional or otherwise identified as non-electronic toys (e.g., shape sorters, stacking blocks, puzzles). Caregivers were asked to identify four toys they would be interested in buying.

Next, caregivers answered questions about their toy purchasing behaviors and opinions about toy marketing. Then the same eight toys were shown again (in a different order), this time with manufacturers’ descriptions. The descriptions included the toys’ developmental benefits (e.g., fostering fine motor skills, an understanding of cause and effect, or counting skills), and disclosed whether or not the toys were electronic. Finally, caregivers were again asked to select four toys they would be interested in buying and answered the same set of questions about toy buying.

Caregivers should ask themselves whether manufacturers’ claims about toys are supported by research or if they just feature buzzwords to sell the product.

What types of toys do caregivers and infants play with?

The youngest infants (0-6 months) used electronic toys most frequently (88% used them at least once per day), while fewer than 70% of the infants used traditional toys at least once per day. This indicates that technological toys are already part of infants’ daily routines, even at very young ages. Depending on age, between 33% and 46% of older infants (7-24 months) also used electronic toys at least once per day.

What are caregivers’ preferences for choosing between electronic and traditional toys? 

Before being exposed to the toy descriptions, caregivers were significantly more likely to select traditional than non-traditional toys for their infants. But after reading the descriptions, there was no difference between their selections of traditional and technological toys. That is, they were equally likely to choose either type of toy when descriptions were provided.

This indicates that caregivers were likely influenced by the presence of descriptions when making their selections and that reading these descriptions tended to bias them toward selecting more electronic toys, relative to when they were not given descriptions to read.

How do advertisements of the developmental features of toys affect caregivers’ toy selections?

Caregivers more often agreed with the following statements after reading the toy descriptions than before they read them: “Toy descriptions are accurate representations of toys,” “My toy purchasing decisions are impacted by the developmental benefits of toys,” and “Toys positively impact the cognitive development of infants.” This suggests that the descriptions influenced how caregivers perceived the toys’ ability to affect infant development.

Photo: PNW Production. Pexels.

Recommendations for caregivers when buying toys

The findings from our study suggest that being critical consumers of manufacturers’ toy descriptions can be beneficial for caregivers. Additional research is needed to determine how these findings generalize to other contexts, such as different types of toys, toys for different age groups and for other demographic groups, and actual toy-buying decisions. Understanding the power of toy descriptions for technological toys, in particular, is important because the market for these types of toys is expanding rapidly globally and is expected to grow another 16% between 2019 and 2025.

Caregivers should ask themselves whether manufacturers’ claims about toys are supported by research or if they just feature buzzwords to sell the product. It can be hard to know if claims are trustworthy, so caregivers can consider whether the toy helps support back-and-forth interactions and conversations between caregiver and child or between children.

Toys can be especially beneficial if they have the potential to spark social interactions, imagination, and creativity, or if they foster learning about concepts like math, spatial skills, or new vocabulary words. Caregivers may also want to consider if any additional features of a toy support these high-quality interactions rather than just being superficially distracting.

Finally, it is important to remember that supporting children’s healthy development does not require purchasing toys at all! Caregivers can engage in the kinds of back-and-forth interactions that support learning and social interaction through other types of play, such as playing with everyday objects like pans or boxes, as well as everyday conversations.

The post How do caregivers decide what toys to buy for infants? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Where are the teachers? Although they remain in the background, they have an important role: to be close and attentive observers who document the ongoing learning processes by taking pictures or videos. This documentation is later combined with drawings by the children expressing what they found interesting during the day so they can reflect together about the experience. Importantly, this practice is child directed, that is, it is driven by the children’s interests and fascinations.

Problems with reflective practices at school

This exercise in child agency – known as the progressive pedagogical approach “Anji Play” – highlights how children can learn about the world and test their capabilities in a self-directed manner. In doing so, the learners enhance their proficiency in a skill that is a central human challenge – understanding how to survive in an uncertain and often volatile world. The reflective practices aid in consolidating experiences and making sense of surprising events. Such skill development is helpful for children at any age.

“Reflection is triggered by an unusual or perplexing situation or experience . . . the element of surprise is of critical importance.”

Contrast these experiences to those in most schools, where reflective practices look very different. At a typical school, students are often bored by questioning at the end of an exercise which asks them to write what they have learned during the day. In our research, we find that such reflection prompts rarely lead the student to wonder about issues that have yet to be resolved. Instead of eliciting meaningful reflection, these prompts often result in a guessing game where students try to gauge what the teacher might want to hear from them. For many students, the word reflection becomes a term with negative associations.

“I really hate doing , they are boring, and usually formatted in an uncreative way,” explained one student. “And sometimes these are questions that are extremely hard to answer or formulated in a weird way. Too many questions!”

Reflection has become a key concept in formal education

Student antipathy to such “reflections” may seem ironic since reflection has become a cornerstone of education in the 21^st century. Across the world, numerous commissions, organizations, and state educational boards have highlighted reflection as a standard and a skill toward which students, as well as teachers, should strive. Yet there is little agreement over what reflection really is and how best to facilitate it.

The scientific literature on reflection (and especially the work by Russell Rogers) offers a couple of key insights. It suggests that reflection is triggered by an unusual or perplexing situation or experience and requires active engagement on the part of the individual. It involves examining one’s responses, beliefs, and premises in light of the situation at hand and results in integrating the new understanding into one’s experience. We believe that the first of these insights – the element of surprise – is of critical importance.

Photo: caterooni. Creative Commons.

The brain as a prediction machine

In recent years, researchers in computational neuroscience have approached the question of how the brain works in new ways. They start with the premise that the brain is a prediction machine. An essential function of the brain is trying to predict the future – what will happen next. As the brain makes predictions about the world and takes note of whether these predictions match what actually happens, it gradually learns about the world, getting better at predicting it.

“We need to create opportunities for learners to be genuinely surprised . . . Play and open-ended activities are great ways to do this.”

This is where play and reflection come in. When children (and also adults) play, they experiment and test options at the edges of their knowledge. In doing so, the brain and play enhance proficiency in a skill that is a central human challenge – understanding how to survive in an uncertain and frequently volatile world. Being better at prediction means that we expend as little energy as possible trying to interpret a world that sends an exhausting stream of information to us. This is a central element of reflection: the conscious processing of surprise.

How can we use these insights to facilitate meaningful reflection? Our research offers five lessons:

1. Invite surprise into the classroom

If surprise elicits reflection, we need to create opportunities for learners to be genuinely surprised. This entails shifting agency toward the learner by designing learning environments that are open ended. Play and open-ended activities are great ways to do this because they allow for easy entry points to get started. They also provide an opportunity to reach sophisticated levels of complexity. For inspirations on how to begin, see Mitch Resnik’s book “Lifelong Kindergarten” and the Pedagogy of Play website.

2. Be clear about the purpose of reflection

Ask yourself why you want students to reflect in the first place. Are you trying to gain access to their thought processes or do you want students to consolidate their knowledge on a given subject matter? Remember that asking students to share their thinking with you will alter their reflective processes.

3. Think about reflection as an ongoing process

Surprises occur all the time, not just at the end of a lesson. Think about reflection throughout the learning process, not just as an exit-ticket exercise. To help students reflect in a more ongoing manner, at the beginning of class, you might ask students about what they already know and what their expectations are. This can also help make changes in their thinking visible and allow them to revisit their earlier assumptions later. The “I used to think – now I think” thinking routine, developed by Project Zero, is a useful exercise in this regard.

4. Recognize that students can reflect in more than one way

Reflection can be facilitated beyond language. Reflection exercises can also involve drawing or building things. Nonverbal reflection practices can support second-language learners, who may struggle with constructing the past, present, and future sentences needed to talk about changes in experiences.

5. Work with your learning community to define reflection

It is helpful to develop a shared understanding of reflection — and language around it — in your community. Consider the word ‘reflection’ as a group and make your individual and shared understandings visible. Remember that reflective practices, as well as play, are embedded in the larger cultural context. Norms of how, and what, we reflect upon are set by our local community. Bringing people – especially those from a diverse background – together in a shared understanding of reflection is a vital nurturing ground to develop meaningful reflective practices.

The Project Zero Thinking Routine Toolbox provides helpful starting points for facilitating such a conversation. For younger learners, be sure to look into the Teaching Tool “Cracking Open Words.”

The post Creating effective environments for learning reflection through play appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

In times of adversity, children should be given space to use different forms of play as a coping mechanism to explore their emotions and adapt to their current situation. In this article, we draw on the findings of three qualitative studies conducted in various countries with different levels of economic development to demonstrate how children use play to cope with challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Play serves a protective function even in the most difficult of circumstances.”

Models of adversity and resilience outline the multisystem influences on how families and children respond to difficult experiences (e.g., war, statelessness, poverty, natural disasters) across cultures. At the heart of resilience is the human capability to face, adapt to, and gather strength from adversity. One way children demonstrate resilience is through playful activities.

Play serves a protective function even in the most difficult circumstances, unmasks the psychosocial difficulties (e.g., anxiety, depression, emotional distress) children may encounter, and highlights the adaptive qualities they use to cope with adversities. Play permits children to express emotional connectedness, a perspective that aligns well with the contention that play is key to emotional survival.

At different stages of the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic, researchers examined how children used playful activities to cope with social isolation and school closures, and to gain an understanding of the virus itself. An examination of the play of Israeli children during the early stages of the pandemic revealed an increase in play interactions with siblings and parents, and marked changes in the nature and themes of sociodramatic play (i.e., acting out imaginary stories and situations; Cohen & Bamberger, 2021).

Photo: Cyprien Hauser. Creative Commons.

Sociodramatic themes reflected attempts to cope with fear of the virus through imaginary protection, seeking refuge from COVID-19, and beating it. Children turned to humor and displayed acts of moral concern for others in the family. According to parents, children grew in self-care, language, and motor skills.

In India, amid tight lockdowns, parents from low-income backgrounds in rural and peri-urban areas reported that they noticed few changes in their children’s play activities (Chaudhary, Kapoor, & Pillai, 2021). In urban settings, confinement prompted children to find new play spaces (e.g., under stairways, in the corner of a terrace) and to venture to street corners to play, often evading the scrutiny of authorities. Solitary and parallel play increased and interest in outdoor play rose. With dramatic increases in technology use, children in more well-off families turned to online games. Children were creative in modifying existing games by inserting themes they invented. As the pandemic progressed into the second year, parents noticed that their children continued to play in diverse ways and that they had become more considerate of others.

As in Israel and India, in neighborhoods of Toronto, Canada, photographs of children’s outdoor play demonstrated a tremendous sense of hope (Brownell, 2022). By participating in animal scavenger hunts for Teddy Bears in windows, locating stuffed animals hidden in trees, playing “I spy” games, and designing bunny trails, children learned to play with anonymous others on their street and around the block.

“Children continue to turn to play activities, either alone or with others, to navigate their way through the pandemic.”

Chalk sketches on sidewalks (e.g., hopscotch, galaxies, UFOs, underwater creatures, blue skies, grassy knolls, flowers) served to transport people to experiences beyond the immediate present. “Chalk talk” extolled hope (“you can do it,” “you are not alone,” “it will pass”) and prompted others to be safe (“stay six feet apart,” “no Halloween candy due to COVID”). These outdoor activities were not synchronous in that specific groups of children were involved. During a pandemic, they reflect children’s desire to invite others to play in their absence and offer hope to those in their neighborhood.

Amid daily challenges — online education, home schooling, and anxieties about the COVID–19 pandemic — these accounts indicate that children used various adaptive strategies to invent play spaces and engage in different play activities. In doing so, much emphasis was placed on different modes of play and children’s cognitive and social skills development.

As they do when dealing with other difficult circumstances, children continue to turn to play activities, either alone or with others, to navigate their way through the pandemic. At the bottom of it all, play permits us to express our humanity, examine our vulnerabilities, and extend social and moral concern for others in a global world community.

The post Coping through play activities during the COVID–19 pandemic appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

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

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

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

Neurobiological and epigenetic impacts of ACEs

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

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

Developmental impacts of ACEs

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

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

Intergenerational transmission

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

Strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of ACEs

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

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

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

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

It might sound strange to encourage children to spend more time on their phones, laptops, or computer consoles. But a large body of research has identified nothing intrinsically damaging about these activities, provided they do not displace sleep, exercise, schooling, and healthy eating. In short, screen time does not in itself turn children into gambling addicts or overweight, uneducated zombies. And provided children are kept safe, using social media is also okay.

Bad outcomes are much more likely to be caused by eating poorly, missing out on learning, spending too much time on the sofa, or not resting enough. So a parent’s most productive focus should be to encourage physical activity, sleep, good nourishment, and learning – and make sure that time online is not getting in the way of those healthy activities.

Fears of digital media unjustified

Research has failed to justify the understandable fears of many parents who are concerned by the sudden changes over the past two decades in how childhood is lived. It is difficult to identify any clinically relevant impacts of the increased use of screens or social media. Where slight effects are found, they are drowned out by the established effects – such as genetics, socioeconomic circumstances, time adults spend with children, and parental education – that we have known, for 50 years, determine child development.

However, research does demonstrate that children are more likely to respect family rules about good ways to live when those rules are developed though sound and shared reasoning, and when they respect children’s perspectives and as well as adults’ preferences. Children can recognize parents’ wishes for them to have enough sleep, keep fit, learn and eat properly, and spend family time together. However, very strict rules, focussing on a prescribed number of minutes for this or that activity, can lead to added secrecy on the part of a child. They can also damage a child’s trust that their parents will be able to help and understand them, should they, for instance, encounter distressing experiences online.

As a trained neuroscientist, I want parents to follow the science. However, unevidenced “neuro-myths” – often really fears masquerading as science – are now used to justify concerns about screen time and child development. This is understandable. In just a few years, the digital world has disrupted traditional childhood by taking a distinctive place – and considerable time – in children’s upbringing. We did not have iPads in the home until 10 years ago. Internet bandwidth could not support online gaming 15 years ago. Seemingly overnight, gaming has become a cultural mainstay. Social media are everywhere. People are understandably worried about the impacts.

Inevitably, scientific research has lagged in providing reliable evidence about the effect of this dramatic shift. How do scientists prove the long-term impact of something that has not existed for very long? It takes time and science has been predictably slow to reach a conclusion.

The foundation of “neuro-myths”

As a result, people initially sought answers in other fields that seemed relevant. Alert to the psychological rewards computer gaming offers children, they explored studies on outcomes for children who are unable to defer gratification – the so-called marshmallow experiment. They also looked to more gloomy studies of children’s television viewing back in the 1980s and 1990s, and to research on rats allowed to administer dopamine-stimulating drugs to themselves. This work appeared to justify fears that exposure to digital media undermined children’s capacities to concentrate and led them to live more sedentary lives.

But time has demonstrated that these analogies are false and misleading. It turns out that children’s attitudes about marshmallows and lab rats doing drugs do not offer useful insights into the impacts of screen time. Research has not identified the kinds of screen time used today, in itself, as correlated with diminished general cognitive control, capacities to concentrate, or physical well-being. A recent review found the effects of screen time today to be quite similar to those of television time in the 1950s.

Moreover, scientists now better understand that the research into high levels of television viewing was not particularly instructive about the impacts of television viewing, even back in the 1990s. Closer examination showed that this research really told us more about the socioeconomic circumstances of different families: The prevalence of high levels of viewing was skewed toward low-income families. These families tended to have smaller homes, less outside space, a culture of having the television on more often than more privileged groups, and fewer alternative activities. Poverty and lack of opportunity were preventing healthier childhoods; TV usage was largely a symptom, rather than a cause, of the deprivation.

It is difficult to identify any clinically relevant impacts of the increased use of screens or social media.

Research does not find brain damage

Studies also show few, and only slight, correlations between children’s use of social media and their general well-being or mental distress symptoms such as anxiety and depression. Research has found nothing of this nature for boys. In girls, there is a slight relationship between time on social media and psychological distress. But it is small – as a comparative example, wearing glasses seems more damaging to a female teenager’s social well-being than spending a lot of time on social media, according to the same datasets.

Photo: Emily Wade. Unsplash.

Young children’s low exposure

Our research should also reassure parents who may be concerned that young children are exposed to high levels of screen time. We measured the time children are on digital media in Danish kindergartens, where they typically spend about five to eight hours each weekday between the ages of 3 and 6. In general, children were exposed to digital media about five to 10 minutes on these days in the kindergarten environment, which we generally view as a good thing. Technology is part of the world in which children live and provides teachable moments, even for the young ones.

Let us assume that, on weekdays, some children spend another two hours a day of digital time at home, perhaps in the early evening when they are tired, allowing parents time to finish housework and emails. This means that, on most days, these young children’s lives are about 90 percent free of digital inputs. It is understandable that parents might still be worried because much of that time is during the few hours in the evening when children are at home – probably feeling cranky and tired – before they go to bed. However, our research, which looked across the children’s days, suggests that parents should worry less about minutes and hours; young Danish children still have ample opportunities to develop in other ways.

Risk of gambling addiction

Some parents are concerned that their children will become addicted to gambling through their exposure as children to digital media and gaming. Studies have not found causal connections between such use and a greater risk of gambling addiction in typical populations. However, we studied children whose parents were worried about the general effect of gaming on their offspring, and then compared them with children who parents were not worried. We found that the brains of the two groups of children were indistinguishable. But the children with worried parents experienced more stress and conflict between their wishes to game and their need to sleep, do homework, and have dinner with their parents.

It makes sense to worry about preserving lifestyles that we know are good for children – playing, time with friends, being outside – but unwise to confuse this desire with unjustified and unevidenced arguments about the dangers that digital media pose to children’s brains.

Encouraging rather than controlling children

Other research shows that the more restrictive and reactive parenting styles are around media use, the less children internalize and respect parents’ reasons. A more effective strategy is one in which children feel that their wishes and interests are being understood, and they can share their parents’ reasoning about the need for exercise, sleep, and education rather than be part of a strategy based on a groundless fear of digital media.

In a study at the Interacting Minds Centre in Aarhus, Denmark, my colleague Stine Strøm Lundsgård and I found that the parents who were the most worried about digital media were those who placed the most value on different kinds of play. The parents who were most concerned that their children enjoy a traditional upbringing – for example, playing outside with other children – tended to be the ones most worried about screen time. These parents had a strong sense of what constitutes a good childhood and they feared that screen time was displacing it.

This is a very reasonable concern. It makes sense to worry about preserving lifestyles that we know are good for children – playing, spending time with friends, being outside. Parents are right to focus of the importance of these aspects of childhood; they should concentrate on the merits of such childhoods and encourage those shared values in their children. But they would be unwise to confuse this desire with unjustified and unevidenced arguments about the dangers that digital media pose to children’s brains.

The post We should not be fooled by the “neuro-myth” that digital media damage children’s brains appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

We might also better understand why and when attempts to become playful misfire, those moments when we see a chance to play and get creative but it does not work out. We can come to see that this probably happens because one or more of the stepping stones is missing.

Our research has identified four stepping stones that seem essential to becoming playful: autonomy, absorbed interaction, surprise, and feeling competent.

First, individuals at play need to feel autonomous. The choice about what to do, say, or make should belong to the player. It should not be claimed by another person who is orchestrating what is going on, whether an ambitious parent or a stressed boss at work.

Second, when people become playful, they lose themselves in what they are doing and become absorbed in the interaction. There is a blurring between them and the materials or the activity in which they are engaged. In tinkering with a material or a person, sensing the possibilities of an interaction by making them happen, it is no longer clear how a result came into being. Who built this tower? Who got that idea? Was it me, the other person, or the Lego bricks?  It was all of us.

Surprise is the third key feature of becoming playful. In the interactions described earlier, players tend to be less circumscribed by a set plan of what to do. They engage in actions not previously thinkable, which can introduce surprises. Things happen that are unexpected and have not been designed deliberately.

This unmapped exploration, leading to surprises, delivers the fourth feature of playfulness: a sense of increased competence. Surprising oneself is a big deal. In our research, we found that people gained an unexpected boost about what they felt able to do, and this motivated them to see how much further they could go.

Becoming concrete by building ducks

Our research does not start with definitions or discussions of playfulness. Rather, we arrange an encounter and let people walk us through their experience of turning a specific situation into a playful interaction.

For example, in one study, we gave five small plastic bags to 22 adults. Each bag contained six Lego bricks of varying sizes. Four were yellow – one of which had an eye on either side – and two were red. We then asked the participants to use the bricks to build five ducks across two rounds. In the first round, they were asked to build the ducks in ways that felt playful.

In the second, they were encouraged to build them in ways that did not feel playful. Immediately after each round, we asked the participants how they had approached the task and what they had experienced during different parts of the process.

We found that the change of mindset made a big difference. When advised to become playful, participants said they felt a conscious need to become autonomous, to not think about the experiment but, instead, to do whatever they liked. Some even decided not to build ducks at all, but to construct cars or buildings or whatever they felt like.

In contrast, when asked not to be playful, participants told us they tried to get into a mechanical mode, building according to the instructions. Typically, they built five identical ducks, often the same as a prototype we had shown them.

They also described different ways of touching the Lego. Being playful seemed to make them engage in a more tentative way, sensing the bricks before beginning to build. Their sense of autonomy seemed to allow ideas to flow freely within this absorbed tinkering. It was as if the bricks took over, they said.

It was only when being playful that people surprised themselves with the novel-looking ducks that emerged. Being surprised by their own actions led them to feel competent. “Oh, I made this!” they said.

They felt like they wanted to make more ducks that would be more novel and surprising.  Because they felt autonomous, they would say, “Let’s do it again.” They were motivated to see what else they could make.

In contrast, very few participants described the non-playful condition as enjoyable and motivating. The following of advice mechanically does not lead to many surprises. It might be somewhat fun to get faster at building, but such joy can quickly turn into boredom when confronted with an easy, repetitive task.

Playfulness supports a virtuous circle of experimentation.

Playfulness enhances motivation to learn

This experiment demonstrated how playfulness enhances and increases intrinsic motivation: it provides a drive to do things out of personal interest, not because of some external demand or incentive.

This fostering of an internal drive helps explain why learning is enhanced by playfulness.  Learning requires motivation for individuals to return again and again and not get tired of what they are doing. Playfulness supports a virtuous circle of experimentation, creativity, and learning, which generates personal rewards that encourage people to repeat the process again and again.

Photo provided by the author.

Enhance the features of playfulness

These experiments tell us that, if we want to support playfulness and learning, we should try to enhance the four stepping stones or experiences, mentioned earlier: autonomy, absorbed interaction, surprise, and feeling competent. How do parents, teachers, and others responsible for supporting children’s (and adults’) development encourage these features?

Let us start with autonomy. In a kindergarten or other classroom, a teacher should explore the opportunities for children to be autonomous. Is the environment unnecessarily restrictive, forbidding, or intimidating? Which rules are absolutely necessary? Which could be replaced by more open frameworks?

Some kindergartens have “yes” wristbands that represent a simple agreement: The child can do anything that day as long as his or her actions do not hurt anybody or damage equipment. Teachers love this simple idea, with many saying that it allows them to avoid constantly saying “no” and thus interrupting or hindering play.

What about art galleries or even public libraries? Many feature a lot of rules for what visitors can or cannot do. People are expected to remain quiet and not interact with other visitors. They have to move carefully. They cannot eat or drink. There are alternatives: The Aarhus Library in Aarhus, Denmark, has large, dedicated playgrounds indoors and outdoors.

It has a large café, but visitors can bring their own food and drink and consume them wherever they like. People of all ages and backgrounds mix and mingle there. For those who need silence, the library has soundproofed, silent reading and working rooms.

Similarly, the Trapholt Museum in Kolding, Denmark. shows its permanent collection in a setting where visitors are asked to curate their own personal exhibitions. They can view the artworks and if they like a particular one, hold a chip to its nametag that saves the details electronically. Visitors are then asked to create their own exhibition, starting with this artwork, creating a title, and bringing together other artworks that fit the theme or intention.

Once visitors have collected eight artworks, they can visit a virtual room to place them in an exhibition space that others can visit virtually. While the visitors have never touched any of the artworks, they have engaged with them, selected them, thought about them, brought them into relationships with each other, and placed them into their own exhibition.

They have exerted agency and probably had fun. Often, strangers show their personal exhibitions to each other and laugh about their ideas.

We should try to enhance four stepping stones or experiences: autonomy, absorbed interaction, surprise, and feeling competent.

Supporting absorbed interaction

How might children be encouraged to become absorbed with materials? Simply by offering them interesting materials and asking them to get engaged with them (without telling them precisely what to do). For example, an adult might roll out some old wallpaper in the yard and place fingerpaint nearby. He or she could tell the children that they cannot find the brushes and ask them to help find something else to paint with.

Can they paint with a stick? With its sharp end only? How does it look if, instead, the stick is rolled over the paper? What about using leaves? Stones? Feet? Yes, it can get messy, but if the adult makes sure nothing valuable gets in the way, children will play for hours.

Adults should take care not to throw away children’s artwork after they are finished. Instead, they can hang it on a line to dry and next time, ask them to cut or rip the works into interesting pieces and glue them onto postcards to make birthday cards. Playfulness produces so many possibilities.

Generating surprise and competence

Adults should also think about what generates surprise. One day, my daughter and I were walking through a wooded area and I asked her, “What if everything we see stares back at us? Like the tree, for example.” She looked a bit puzzled. “The tree?” she asked. “Yes!” I replied. “But it has no eyes!” she answered. “Are you sure? I feel it sees us. And did you know that cabbages pull their leaves closer when snails are approaching?”

She giggled. And then she whispered, “The tree is my friend.” “How do you know?” I asked. “I can feel it! It likes my green trousers!” Then she came closer and whispered, “But I think the dandelions are afraid of Solveig (my second, 2-year-old daughter) – they know she will feed them to the sheep.” I giggled, too. “But maybe it just tickles getting eaten?” I suggested. We went on for quite a while, going from surprise to surprise. And I found that I learned a lot during this conversation.

The post How playfulness develops and spurs a drive to learn appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

However, the three are, in fact, playing nicely together. They are communicating, though not through back-and-forth verbal dialogue. Each closely follows the others’ hand movements in the construction process, and these hand actions are like taking turns in a conversation. Bursts of songs signal togetherness. One child hums the famous “Halleluiah” section of “The Messiah,” while another follows by humming, in falsetto, a less well-known part of the oratorio. One child rolls the die and declares in imitation of Fortnite, “I am the One.” Another child does something with her hands. “Wow,” exclaims her friend.

This type of close observation highlights how autistic children do, indeed, relate to each other, but not in neurotypical language or in ways that neurotypical people instantly recognize. It can be difficult for people unfamiliar with children with autism to understand what is happening. This can easily result in erroneous conclusions, such as the mistaken view that autistic children dislike social relationships and prefer to play alone. Such misunderstanding can endanger autistic children because a major threat to their quality of life is loneliness and a dearth of friendships. Play-based social learning can help them avoid these dangers.

Parallel play among autistic children is a route to social play, not at odds with it.

Differences in autistic children

Autistic children value play with their peers and many are able to play with each other. However, they may communicate more visually and with their hands, rather than in the more verbal way of other children. They may need different facilitation strategies and more support than their neurotypical peers.

The benefit of carefully watching how autistic children play is that it can help others create environments that support the way they actually play, rather than spending time and effort instructing them how to play in neurotypical ways.

Inside parallel play

Some autistic children like to play in parallel. In general, the neurotypical world does not consider this type of play “social” play, but rather as an isolated, solo activity. But in our observations, we have seen that parallel play can be very social. For example, we watched three children building on their individual Lego boards. One was building a house, another was constructing a forest, and the third was building a TV set. We realized that the third child was watching the TV inside the house in the forest. This experience shows the need to cherish parallel play and let it continue until windows of connection occur, as they inevitably do. If we ask ourselves how we can support and strengthen these opportunities for connection, we will recognize that parallel play among autistic children is a route to social play, not at odds with it.

Photo provided by the author.

Understanding this can help teachers support the social dynamics of autistic children and tinker with those dynamics to support togetherness. In one game, we gave each child a Lego board and suggested that they build a bridge and they had to meet in the middle. In another game, children built a tower. Each child had bricks of a particular color, but the game stipulated that they should not place a brick of one color on top of a brick of the same color. As a result, the children enjoyed open-ended play, which gave them agency. The color rule supported the interaction of their parallel play. Simple games like this may be repeated with slight variations to create learning environments that are predictable, but not tedious, to support autistic children in developing their unique ways of socializing through hands-on experience.

Helping articulation of frustration

Accepting that autistic children can and do communicate  – albeit in atypical ways that may eschew direct language  – helps us support them when they become frustrated. In our work, we try to encourage children to tell the stories of their frustrations, recognizing that verbal explanations may not come easily. For example, in a play session involving a child with two younger children, the older and more experienced child became frustrated with the slowness of the others. To explain, he built a train track with three children on the platform, communicating that he felt like he was waiting for a train, which was frustrating. By ensuring that he had a way to express his feelings practically, we made it easier for him to manage his emotions and be patient.

Try to understand the social strategies the child uses to play with others. Create environments in which those strategies are easy for the child to use.

Suggestions for parents and teachers

We offer three suggestions for those who want to support children who are on the spectrum to ensure that they have access to play-based social learning. First, try to understand the social strategies the child uses to play with others. Create environments in which those strategies are easy for the child to use.

Second, do not be concerned if a child seems to play in parallel with others. At some point, as in the examples mentioned, a window between two parallel players will open. See parallel play as a route to social play.

Third, always assume that children are competent. Whether someone is silent, says “um,” or repeats a sentence, it is all meaningful. Think carefully about what children are doing because their actions provide a window into the way they are interpreting the situation. For example, when a child is tapping, there is something behind that. Behavior is communication.

We think of play as a way of learning – and not just for children. It is also a way for adults to learn about children. Just as we want children to learn from the play situation, so should adults. Be curious in the same way you want children to be curious. Try to adjust the environment to fit how the child is feeling that day – no day is ever the same as another and you never know in advance how a child is feeling.

If you wish to learn more, we have a resource tool kit for playing with children on the spectrum.

The post Play for autistic children is a vital path to social learning that is easily misunderstood appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Yet fear is often conceived of as an emotion to be avoided and a feeling that exists to keep humans and other animals away from experiences that could be dangerous. Often, people think children should experience this emotion as rarely as possible. How then do we explain the paradox of horror? How do we explain why we are drawn to fear and why we enjoy certain forms of such experiences, even when we are children?

In our Recreational Fear Lab in Denmark, we have conducted research that aims to answer these questions. In our work, we also explored whether carefully regulated scaring of young children may be happening in preschool and child care settings, sometimes even before children have learned to walk.

‘There seems to be a sweet spot when it comes to recreational fear … where delight is related to a manageable amount of fearful surprise that a person can deal with and ultimately learn from.’

In our study, we found that Danish nurseries commonly engage in scary activities. A singing game about a sleeping bear ends with all the children roaring “Rrrrrrr” at each other and collapsing into laughter. In another game, a child sits on an adult’s lap as if riding on a horse and then, at the end of the game, the adult pulls his or her legs apart and the child falls through the middle. Again, there are squeals of surprise and laughter.

Getting scariness right for toddlers

In these scary games, the adults are being careful. They do not frighten the children mindlessly. They try to get the level just right – not too much, not too little. And they choose the time for such play carefully – early in the day, when the children are well fed and rested and able to handle it. Even though this process is not part of their formal training, educators are committed to it and when asked, they are eager to discuss it.

The game and the surprise are not always the same. Sometimes, the children hear the story of the “Three Billy Goats Gruff” in which an ogre controls a bridge across which three goats must pass; the story is animated with dolls. Each time a goat tries to cross, the ogre declares in a deep, scary voice, “I’m going to eat you,” and the goat responds, “No, no, you should wait to eat my brother. He’s bigger!” The story ends with the third and largest brother crossing the bridge and beating up the troll.

If the teachers see that children are enjoying this tale, they sometimes take the story to the next level. They might add a bit of theatre, dressing up and acting out the scene on the bridge to make it a bit scarier, a little more real. But they do this only if they feel the children are ready for an added dose of scariness.

Learning to handle scares is key to brain development

Most of these games share a common feature – a predictable pattern of suspense. They are trying to teach children that, in a moment, they are going to be given a scare. The children are learning to anticipate – and manage – a soft jump in their fear, similar to what they may encounter at points in their lives.

Many Danish nursery and preschool teachers see it almost as an obligation to expose children to these types of experiences because children need to learn to deal with the unexpected and the scary. It is a way to counteract “helicopter parenting” or what Danes call “curling culture,” in which parents sometimes anticipate and sweep away difficulties in their children’s lives, leaving them possibly less able to deal with future problems by themselves.

We believe that children have fun and feel good during these scary experiences because, in the process, they are making something unpredictable more predictable. This exercise fits some of the main cognitive principles about the brain, which works like an advanced prediction machine, constantly trying to predict or guess what the future will bring (see Play in Predictive Minds: A Cognitive Theory of Play).

How to spot the right level of scariness

In general, play appears to be a deliberate quest for measured doses of unpredictability. When we play, we explore the borderlands of our sphere of knowledge. Totally unpredictable play is not much fun. It can feel chaotic. And predictable play is not fun either – it can be boring. The trick is finding the sweet spot, the perfect path through our personal borderlands.

‘A moderate scare can be good because it gives us an opportunity to learn how our bodies respond in certain ways to certain experiences.’

This theory of play applies to scary experiences, too, when they happen at the right level for children and are playful. Children often give signals when they are at their sweet spot – a shriek of laughter and surprise, signs that they are having fun, not being traumatized. Parents should be guided by signals that their child is handling the experience well, learning, and figuring out how to predict what will happen next.

Such sweet-spot moments have also been identified in reports of scary experiences by older children and adults. They have even been observed physiologically. We conducted a study of adults and children over age 12 who visited a haunted attraction. They completed questionnaires about how they experienced various moments and we mapped those answers against variations in their heart rates, which were monitored during the frightening experience.

The physiology of scary play

We found that enjoyment in the haunted attraction was related to just-right fluctuations in participants’ heart rate. In other words, “fun” coincided with moderate whoops and deviations in the heart’s fluctuations. In contrast, participants who reported that they did not enjoy the scary experiences either had larger variations in their heart rates, suggesting an overwhelming experience, or showed no change in heart rate, suggesting that they may have disassociated from or become bored by the experience.

Photo: Shutterstock.

We should not be surprised that joy springs from such an apparently negative emotion as fear. Nearly 300 years ago, David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, observed in his essay “Of Tragedy” that there is “an unaccountable pleasure, which the spectators of a well written tragedy receive from sorrow, terror . . . and other passions, which are in themselves disagreeable and uneasy. The more they are touched and affected, the more are they delighted with the spectacle.”

Paul Bloom, the esteemed Yale psychologist who is now a professor at Toronto University, underscores Hume’s observations and was among the first to suggest that many enjoyable experiences are also typically characterized by hitting a sweet spot. For example, a hug should be neither too hard nor too soft, and coffee should be neither too hot nor too cold. Similarly, there seems to be a sweet spot when it comes to recreational fear – those occasions when individuals derive pleasure out of fear – where delight is related to a manageable amount of fearful surprise that a person can deal with and ultimately learn from.

Overall, this is reasonable. It makes sense that a successful organism, such as a human being, should have a reward mechanism associated with learning so it can adapt to more circumstances and enhance its capacities to survive and thrive.

Bodily experience of playful fear

The haunted attraction experiment may highlight how we sometimes learn not only about phenomena outside of ourselves, but also about our own physiological responses. A moderate scare can be good because it gives us an opportunity to learn how our bodies respond in certain ways to certain experiences. We may then be more prepared to manage those responses in a better way if they happen again. We suspect that this is one reason children – and adults – repeat scary experiences, so they can go through the physiological impact again and learn how to recover more effectively.

‘The children are learning to anticipate – and manage – a soft jump in their fear, similar to what they may encounter at points in their lives.’

Some researchers argue that anxiety is epidemic among young people today not only because we are better at diagnosing it. They suggest that the increase might also be linked to the decline in the incidence of risky play, in part because of urbanization, less outside space for play, a focus on preventing children from getting hurt, and increased technology for play in the home. Taken together, these factors are reducing forms of risky play that are often the very circumstances in which children seek out appropriately scary experiences for themselves. So people today may be less experienced at being scared in a safe way, which may, in turn, contribute to the overall increase in general anxiety.

In summary, it is important not to misunderstand the fun derived from recreational fear. This is not a suggestion that parents hide in the closet and jump out to scare their kids. Rather, it is a reminder to look for those times when children squeal and laugh and shriek with delight. There is a good chance that these are signs that they are learning.

The post Scaring children – done correctly – can be a route to important learning appeared first on Child and Family Blog.