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.

Research has shown that harsh physical parenting has a negative effect on children’s behavior and potential educational achievements.

Research has consistently shown that children who are physically disciplined by their parents, such as getting hit or slapped, have more externalizing problems (like aggression) and more disruptive behaviors in the classroom. Their academic performance is also lower than that of children who are not physically disciplined. Even in studies that do not focus on physical punishment, children who behave in problematic ways in the classroom tend to do less well academically, in general, than their peers.

However, this research raises the proverbial chicken-and-egg question: Does disruptive behavior in the classroom interfere with the learning process? Or do learning challenges lead children to act out? For example, when children act out in school, they are sometimes separated from other children and removed from the classroom, which may give them  fewer opportunities to learn. Under this scenario, which has been referred to as the adjustment erosion hypothesis, negative behavior comes first, followed by academic challenges. An alternative idea, called the academic incompetence hypothesis, suggests that when children have difficulties learning, they can become disruptive, perhaps out of frustration.

“We found that children who were physically  disciplined by their parents in kindergarten had more externalizing problems in first grade, slower rates of literacy learning from K-8, and ultimately, lower overall literacy skills by eighth grade.”

Many studies lack the data to determine when problems start, how children’s behavior changes over time, or even if these challenges start as a result of disciplining practices at home. To examine these questions, my colleagues and I conducted a study, focusing on children’s literacy as an important indicator of academic performance. Literacy is the foundation for acquiring knowledge, especially as children shift from learning to read to reading to learn.

We analyzed data from a large U.S. sample that tracked children from kindergarten through eighth grade. While controlling for factors that have also been associated with children’s behavior and learning, such as socioeconomic status and parents’ education, we found that children who were physically disciplined more frequently by their parents in kindergarten had more externalizing problems in first grade, slower rates of literacy learning from K-8, and ultimately, lower overall literacy skills by eighth grade when compared to children whose parents did not use physical discipline early on. Our findings  support the adjustment erosion hypothesis and show that parents’ physical discipline practices have long-lasting, cascading effects on children’s behavior and learning.

Why might physical discipline in early childhood lead to children’s problem behavior and lower literacy over time? As children transition into a new educational system, as they do when they start kindergarten, they may be particularly vulnerable to the challenges at home. We know from a number of studies that in times of stress or change, children need support. If parents are sensitive to their children’s needs, and offer a supportive and predictable caregiving environment, children feel comforted, safe, and less stressed.

They also regulate their feelings better, meaning that when a child gets distressed, as all children do, they are better at recovering from their negative feelings. However, if children are parented harshly or inconsistently, they can feel unsettled, and this adds to the stresses they are already experiencing. When some children feel heightened levels of stress, they act out. Moreover, when children are hit by their parents, it signals to them, even unintentionally, that aggression is a way to control others. So harsh discipline in the home may set up children to struggle with getting along in the classroom environment and ultimately, with learning important skills such as reading.

We also know from our research that promoting a positive environment at home should start as early as possible. Early in infancy, when children are so dependent on support, they need a safe and responsive caregiving environment. For example, when babies are very young and cry, they are signaling that something does not feel right. Caregivers need to respond by picking them up and trying to figure out what they need. Babies cannot be spoiled by caregivers responding their needs.

“Promoting a positive environment at home should start as early as possible.”

As children get older, they start to test limits and boundaries. Sometimes they engage in behaviors that could harm themselves or others. Parents can learn strategies that are more authoritative in which they set clear boundaries (e.g., telling that that “it is not okay to push your sibling”), teach them better ways to regulate their feelings (e.g., using words, not physical force), and provide comfort when children are distressed. Using more authoritarian methods such as hitting a child to “teach them the rules” may work in the short term but does not work over time.

Early parenting behaviors are important for children to help them feel safe, learn how to explore safely, and regulate their feelings so they do not resort to acting out at home or in the classroom. Promoting better ways for children to manage their behavior can also help them in the learning environment, which can set them up for success.

The post Physical punishment has a cascading effect on children’s behavioral problems and literacy appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research shows that parents’ legitimacy increases when they set rules based on morality and safety. Constructive practices are more effective than harsh ones.

As children move into their preteen years, they increasingly differentiate between rules and obey the ones they think are legitimate. One of the most promising ways to bolster parents’ legitimacy is to treat children fairly.

Negative Impacts of Punishment

Parents often try to make their children comply with rules through punishments, but in our study, parental practices of procedural justice predicted obedience more strongly than did punishments. Procedural justice practices include allowing children to give their side of the story, explaining to them why they are being reprimanded, and talking politely.

“Research shows that parents’ legitimacy increases when they are fair judges.”

The study assessed a diverse group of 697 Brazilian 11-, 12-, and 13-year-olds once a year for three years. Disciplinary practices were classified into constructive practices (e.g., removing privileges, reprimanding verbally, grounding) and harsh practices (e.g., threatening, physically punishing , yelling). Harsh practices actually increased disobedience, possibly because they diminished perceived parental legitimacy. In other words, when parents punished their children harshly, instead of promoting obedience, it made the parents look less credible.

Parents often try to make their children comply with rules through punishments

This study also allowed children to differentiate between issues. It is well established that, as children develop, they discriminate between domains over which parents have authority and grant more legitimacy to issues of safety and morality than to issues of convention or personal preference. In the study, the children were presented with 10 common household rules and asked if it was legitimate for their parents to have that rule. The issues with the highest legitimacy across all three years were substance use and truth telling. The issues that declined the most in legitimacy were media use, curfews, homework, and dating. And the strongest predictor of individual obedience was issue-specific legitimacy. Thus, children obeyed the rules over which they thought their parents had legitimate authority.

The study also asked about parents’ global legitimacy, in other words, whether youth thought their parents had the right to make the rules and whether they trusted their parents to make the right decisions. Youth’s evaluations of global legitimacy also strongly predicted their obedience.

“One of the most promising ways to bolster parents’ legitimacy is to treat children fairly.”

Prior research has established that authorities with high levels of procedural justice are typically legitimized. In other words, if your child thinks you are a fair judge, he or she may obey you because he or she sees you as a legitimate authority figure. However, harsh disciplinary strategies may backfire for the same reasons. Instead of eliciting a healthy fear, they may unintentionally undermine parental legitimacy.

So, for your children to obey you, based on this study, you should:

• Avoid harsh discipline because it tends to backfire in the long term.
• Emphasize procedural justice (hear youth’s perspective, be polite, provide explanation).
• Stick to issues of morality and safety – it may be a losing battle to enforce other rules.

Published on 31/01/2021

Updated on 05/02/2024

The post How to make your child to obey you appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Adverse childhood experiences include growing up in poverty; absence or death of a parent; violence; caregivers’ drug or alcohol addiction; physical or emotional neglect; peer victimization; or physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.

Based on the study, the researchers concluded that fathers should be involved in programs that support children with problems such as anxiety, anger, inattention, and sleep disturbance. Other studies have shown that parents with a reported history of prior maltreatment have the capacity for improving their parenting practices. Fathers should also receive direct support to address depression and negative parenting practices.

The study featured 118 fathers of 6- to 17-year-olds. All fathers were in stable, committed relationships with the mother of their children. Fathers completed a series of psychological questionnaires and evaluations of their own children. They were asked about their own childhood experiences, their assessment of their children’s mental health (inattention, sleep disturbance, depression, anger, anxiety), their own parenting practices, and their relationship with their children’s mother.

The correlations in this research do not imply causation, but they do correspond with earlier research, particularly on mothers. Mothers’ depression and negative parenting has been shown to explain the link between their own adverse childhood experiences and their children’s development – including communication, problem solving, motor skills at age 2, health, and hyperactivity. Many studies have confirmed that individuals who were maltreated in childhood are at risk of repeating these negative behaviors toward their own children.

Fathers’ symptoms of depression have also been linked to their children’s anxiety, depression, substance addiction (for up to 20 years), psychiatric disorders, lower academic performance, hyperactivity, social problems, and emotional difficulties. The global socioeconomic changes that have been occurring for the last 40 years suggest that the traditional mother-focused models of developmental influence are old fashioned. The presence and involvement of fathers in their children’s lives is strongly associated with their offspring’s social well-being, academic achievement, and behavioral adjustment. Moreover, longitudinal studies have confirmed that, in child development, fathers matter in ways similar to mothers.

The post Fathers’ adverse childhood experiences are linked to their children’s development appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research shows that hitting children of kindergarten age harms their literacy skills through eighth grade.

A detailed statistical analysis of data collected from over 21,000 children in the United States  sheds new light on how harsh parental physical discipline during the kindergarten years can lead to reduced literacy in the subsequent eight years. Literacy is important because reading is a foundation of learning: Children learn to read and they need to read to learn.

Children with parents who frequently use physical discipline when the children are of kindergarten age are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, acting out) in first grade, and such behaviors are likely to interfere with subsequent literacy development through eighth grade. In other words, the link between harsh parenting and reduced literacy skills can be explained by the fact that children who are hit are more likely to behave disruptively at school, which impedes their learning to read.

Based on this finding, the authors make three recommendations.

• Researchers should investigate more closely how teachers respond to children who act out in class to see how this results in reduced learning on the part of the child.
• Teachers and others who support parents should inform them about the negative effects of harsh discipline on children’s socioemotional development and subsequent impairment of literacy skills. They should teach parents alternative forms of discipline, such as setting limits, providing reminders about rules, and explaining the consequences of behavior, all of which are correlated with prosocial behavior and empathy.
• Education policy makers and managers should ensure that educators target the whole child by addressing their socioemotional learning, too.

The data in this analysis were drawn from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). The nationally representative cohort consisted of 21,260 children from 944 kindergarten programs in the United States. Children’s externalizing and internalizing were assessed by asking teachers to rate the children. Literacy skills were directly measured by assessing the children. Parental discipline was assessed via a questionnaire that asked parents about discipline, warmth, and emotional supportiveness.

The picture from earlier research

 Research has shown a correlation between harsh parenting and reduced language comprehension, reduced vocabulary, and poorer reading in children. But how this happens has been unclear.

Harsh parenting – for example, shouting, threatening, shaming, spanking, slapping, pushing, or hitting with an object – is clearly linked to impaired social and emotional development in children. This kind of parenting is also correlated with more aggression, hostility, and disruptive behavior on the part of children.

This kind of behavior in children is also linked to less optimal academic performance. The hypothesis with the strongest evidence to explain this is the adjustment erosion hypothesis; it holds that impulsivity, hostility, and other such behaviors disrupt learning. These behaviors can even lead to children being excluded completely from the classroom or school. An alternative hypothesis – that academic incompetence comes first and leads to disruptive behavior — is not backed as strongly by evidence, especially in the early school years. However, influences in both directions do seem to exist.

This new statistical analysis confirms these associations, going further than previous research to find a correlation between harsh parenting during the kindergarten years and decreased literacy skills eight years later.

In this study, children’s externalizing symptoms in first grade completely mediated the relation between parents’ physical discipline in kindergarten and the development of literacy between kindergarten and eighth grade. In addition, children’s externalizing symptoms in first grade partially mediated the relation between parents’ physical discipline in kindergarten and children’s eighth-grade literacy levels.

The post Hitting children leads to reduced literacy skills throughout their childhood appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Scientific Evidence Is Easily Sidelined By Parental Beliefs & Displaced By Critical Anecdotes On The Internet

Near-scientific consensus that physical punishment has negative effects on children has led to interest in how to educate parents about its potential harms. Efforts to reduce parents’ use of physical punishment, often called spanking, with young children through on-line education are likely to succeed only if they directly address parents’ beliefs.

This is what we learned from an experiment we undertook to examine how parents who approve of physical punishment remain committed to spanking even after being shown scientific evidence linking the practice to many negative effects for children, including aggression and mental health issues. The study, of parents of 2- to 8-year-olds from 41 U.S. states, was published in the Journal of Family Psychology.

Discomfort Makes Parents Mistrust Science

In our study, parents were given written scientific evidence about spanking in the form of an on-line news article, which included quotes from an expert on physical punishment. They also received written opinions from lay commentators who advocated for physical punishment. Parents who approved of physical punishment rated experts as less trustworthy than lay commentators, thereby avoiding the psychological challenge and discomfort – often called cognitive dissonance — that occurs when beliefs contradict scientific evidence. They may do this by questioning the trustworthiness of the science and preferring alternative perspectives that fit their views.

“Parents do not discount all science related to parenting, just science that conflicts the views they hold.”

However, in our study, parents who approved of physical punishment were not anti-science in principle. Their distrust of science was specific to this topic. For example, parents had no trouble valuing messages from experts on a neutral topic — the importance of car seats for children — even when they had discounted the expert on physical punishment. These findings suggest that parents do not discount all science related to parenting, just science that conflicts the views they hold.

Photo: Average Joe. Creative Commons.

Findings Suggest More Workable Approaches

The Internet has become a leading source of information for parents around the world. Our study helps us understand why efforts to significantly reduce spanking by disseminating information on-line about the dangers of physically punishing children may prove difficult without directly addressing common misperceptions about physical punishment. First, the on-line world makes it very easy for users to avoid information that contradicts what they already believe. Second, it gives users competing lay and pseudo-scientific commentary that can confirm existing views in what are often referred to as echo chambers.

The good news is that parents who approve of physical punishment don’t distrust science per se — they are generally open to scientific findings, as the comparison involving child car seats showed. However, it is easy for parents to discount scientific findings when they can easily find others on-line who validate their support for practices such as physical punishment.

Paediatricians Can Be Influential

Given the challenges of on-line parent education, a more productive way to educate parents about the harms of physical punishment may be to do so through experts they already trust, such as their children’s pediatricians. Pediatricians are widely trusted by parents. In the United States and Canada, they are encouraged to offer anticipatory guidance – a type of proactive counselling on childrearing topics such as children wearing bicycle helmets and ensuring that guns are stored safely — even if parents don’t raise the issue. The risks of physical punishment should be a subject that is frequently discussed with parents, along with suggestions for disciplinary methods to use instead of physical punishment. Pediatricians say the best time to discuss this is when children are infants so parents can reflect on the options available long before their children misbehave. However, pediatricians are not always trained for the task and may need advice on how best to raise these issues and participate in these discussions.

Beliefs Underpin Parental Resistance To Science

At some level, most parents who physically punish their young children believe in the practice. Some use this kind of punishment because their parents used it on them and they believe it worked. Some see it is as a last resort, when parents feel they have no other option. They may feel they need spanking in their toolbox to drive their message home on occasion. Simply telling parents not to hit their children without providing a realistic and credible toolbox of alternatives is unlikely to win over converts. Experts may seem to be taking away parents’ last resort without offering them something they know will work in what can be a stressful situation. Also, if experts offer parents alternatives that seem too difficult or time consuming, parents may display solution aversion: When a solution is regarded as unworkable or too scary, people recoil from it and stick with what they know.

Tempting though it may be to simply rely on making scientific evidence about physical punishment widely available, to have a wider impact, we need more individualized approaches that address parents’ beliefs. Resistant parents are not intrinsically anti-science. But on the issue of spanking, they need workable options other than physical punishment. When the going gets tough, they need something they can really believe in.

The post Ending The Practice Of Spanking Young Children May Require More Individualized, Belief-Based Dialogue With Parents appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Physical punishment of children has emotionally and psychologically negative effects across cultural communities, hindering developmental potential.

The increased focus on the rights of children worldwide has drawn greater attention to child maltreatment and the lost developmental potential of children who live in difficult social and economic circumstances. Yet depending on economic resources and political and social will, attention to physical discipline remains elusive in several low- and middle-income countries. In the main, such discussions are much needed at the societal and local levels in many of the poorer nations of the world to further advance the rights and welfare of children in today’s global community.

Across cultural communities, parents and caregivers use different levels of psychological control (e.g., making children feel worthless, guilty), physical control (e.g., restraining, hitting children), and behavioral control (e.g., setting limits, offering structure) during childrearing. In high-income countries, high levels of psychological, physical, and behavioral control affect children’s social adjustment and academic performance negatively. However, it remains unclear whether these effects generalize to low- and middle-income countries, where endorsement of the use of physical punishment can be high. At the same time, there appears to be a good deal of confusion among parents across low- and middle-income countries about physical punishment and discipline. Physical punishment is meant to inflict pain in the child as a way of dealing with behavioral difficulties and noncompliance. By contrast, discipline is meant to teach children desirable ways of behaving through redirection, explanation, reasoning, and induction.

Photo: Kelly Sikkema. Unsplash.

As august bodies (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018) and researchers continue to warn about the developmental risks associated with physical discipline, it is beneficial to weigh in on what we know about the impact of harsh parenting in the developing countries of Africa. Over the last two decades, we have assessed the impact of harsh parenting across multilingual Caribbean countries. In diverse Caribbean countries, there is high endorsement of the use of physical discipline, but the outcomes of physical discipline on children’s social and cognitive skills are inconsistent. Here, we share findings from an analysis in about half of the countries in Africa of the links between maternal use of nonphysical discipline (explaining), harsh physical discipline (hitting child with an object), physical discipline (spanking), and psychological aggression (berating child) and preschoolers’ social skills, literacy skills, and behavioral difficulties. Our analysis drew on the UNICEF Micro Indicator Surveys of 32,817 biological mothers and their children in 25 African countries: Algeria, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe.

What implications might harsh and non-harsh forms of discipline have for child development in Africa? In our research, a high percentage of mothers used explanations with children, but endorsement and use of physical discipline were also prevalent across countries. Across countries, harsh physical discipline, physical discipline, and psychological aggression were each associated with higher levels of behavioral difficulties such as biting, hitting, and kicking other children and adults. That is, berating children had adverse effects on children that were similar to using physical discipline. Not surprisingly, non-physical discipline that involved the use of explanations and redirection was positively associated with children’s literacy skills. Only harsh physical discipline was negatively associated with children’s social skills, such as displaying independence and following directions.

“Some researchers have argued that in cultural communities where physical punishment is seen as an appropriate method of discipline, the effects of harsh discipline on child development should be less severe. Our analysis offered little support for such a proposition.”

Some researchers have argued that in cultural communities where physical punishment is seen as an appropriate method of discipline, the effects of harsh discipline on child development should be less severe — the normativeness hypothesis. Our analysis offered little support for such a proposition and instead suggested that harsh forms of maternal discipline have direct negative consequences for children’s behavior and early literacy skills across the African countries we studied.

These findings from 25 low- and middle-income African countries add to the growing body of evidence on the harmful effects of harsh parenting practices on child development. Moreover, developmental risks associated with harsh forms of discipline become magnified in families with poor material resources, poor access to health care, in the presence of neighborhood difficulties (e.g., violence), and with limited access to preschool education. It is difficult for children to show prudential interest in their social world and moral concern for others when parents hit, slap, pull, and belittle them.

The post The negative impacts of physical punishment and psychological aggression on child development are similar in high-, middle- and low-income countries appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Study has found that mothers prone to anxiety, stress, guilt and frustration are more likely to be harsh parents if the father is not supportive.

Mothers who are prone to anxiety, nervousness, stress, guilt, frustration and anger are likely to be harsher parents to their children only if the father is not supportive of their parenting, according to a study of 182 dual-earner couples in Ohio, USA.

This is perhaps not surprising. In the presence of an undermining coparent, an anxious and frustrated mother is unlikely to handle parenting well. Conversely, a supportive coparent can mitigate the impact of the mother’s difficulties, allowing her to parent without being harsh and intrusive.

The study did not find the influence the other way round. There was no link between a father being prone to anxiety and stress and his parenting, either when the mother was supportive of him or not.

Earlier research shows that harsh parenting – angry, hostile, intrusive and controlling – is associated with poorer child development. On this basis, the researchers recommend that those who support families should address not only the mother’s personality, but the coparenting relationships in her family. If a mother is prone to anxiety, her partner may need more help to perform a positive coparenting role.

The parents in this research, however, were a nonclinical sample, without high needs. The levels of undermining coparenting and harsh intrusive parenting among them were low, though there was ample variability on each measure. They were married, dual-earner, different-sex couples who were the biological parents of the children; 75% of the mothers and 65% of the fathers had a university degree, and 86% were white.

Researchers use the term “neuroticism” to describe the combined tendencies towards anxiety, nervousness, stress, guilt, frustration and anger. Neuroticism was measured in both mothers and fathers during the third trimester of pregnancy. They were asked to rate statements like “I feel inferior to others”, “I often feel tense and jittery” and “I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems”.

Coparenting was assessed later, when the baby was three months old, by observing parents changing the baby’s onesie together. The parents were asked to divide the task of removing the onesie and putting the new one on between them. Supportive coparenting was measured by the degree to which the parents helped each other with their respective tasks, displayed affection to each other and took pleasure in watching the other interact with the baby. Undermining coparenting is characterized by the opposite: criticism, disparagement, competition for the child’s attention and disregarding the other parent’s competence or authority.

Finally, the quality of individual parenting was assessed when the baby was nine months old. Each parent was asked to play separately with the child for five minutes, using either a shape sorter or stacking rings. Intrusiveness is characterized by the parent being more self-centred than child centred, and by a failure to understand and recognize the child’s effort to gain autonomy. Harshness is characterized by being abrupt with the child and calling the child names.

These findings did not fully back earlier research showing a direct association between a mother’s neuroticism and her harsh intrusive parenting. There is much less research on fathers ,and the results of earlier research on paternal neuroticism and harsh parenting are inconclusive – some finds a link, some does not.

This suggests more research is needed on fathers, which could lead to a similar recommendation as for mothers: when services find a father prone to neuroticism, the mother should be given help to be a supportive coparent.

The post Mothers prone to anxiety are more likely to be harsh parents if the father is not supportive appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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