Cradling to Right Linked to Depression in New Mothers - Or is it?
Is this mother depressed?
The mainstream media are reporting that the side on which mothers cradle their babies may be linked to maternal depression (Foxnews, The Telegraph). First, there's the background to the story and second I explain why this study has been misrepresented. The Guardian writes:
It is accurate that there is a finding from previous research that (non-stressed or depressed) mothers tend to cradle their babies to the left. Further, it has been found previously that depressed mothers have a tendency to cradle their babies to the right.
Unlike the write-up in The Guardian (and elsewhere) it's not mentioned that this study (published online in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry) does flatly contradict previous work in one important respect. As the authors themselves point out, previous research found that depressed mothers hold their babies on the right, in opposition to this, the current study found depressed (but not stressed) mothers showed a bias towards the left - which is the way all mothers show a preference for holding their babies.
This is somewhat covered up by focussing on the fact that 'stressed' and depressed mothers tend to hold their babies to the right.
Not mentioning the contradiction significantly reduces the impressive media spin on the story. This is that doctors may be able to tell if mothers are depressed from the side on which they hold their baby. Even if this were a useful marker, the fact that the studies are contradictory is evidence that further work needs to be done.
The second point to note about this study is that it is based on a small number of participants (79). Since these were then split into four categories - and most mothers were not depressed - that doesn't leave many in some of the categories. In fact as few as 6 in the 'only depressed' category. That is low.
While this study is really interesting, there's obviously some way to go yet - something that is fully acknowledged by the authors of the study but totally glossed over in the mainstream media reports.
Read the study's abstract
The mainstream media are reporting that the side on which mothers cradle their babies may be linked to maternal depression (Foxnews, The Telegraph). First, there's the background to the story and second I explain why this study has been misrepresented. The Guardian writes:
"New mothers who cradle their infants on the right side of their body may be displaying signs of "extreme stress". The findings build on previous research showing that most mothers prefer to hold their baby to their left, regardless of whether they are left- or right-handed.
The study suggests there is a correlation between the minority who hold a baby on the right and a greater likelihood that they are experiencing stress beyond the levels natural in new parents."
It is accurate that there is a finding from previous research that (non-stressed or depressed) mothers tend to cradle their babies to the left. Further, it has been found previously that depressed mothers have a tendency to cradle their babies to the right.
Flat contradiction of previous work
Unlike the write-up in The Guardian (and elsewhere) it's not mentioned that this study (published online in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry) does flatly contradict previous work in one important respect. As the authors themselves point out, previous research found that depressed mothers hold their babies on the right, in opposition to this, the current study found depressed (but not stressed) mothers showed a bias towards the left - which is the way all mothers show a preference for holding their babies.
This is somewhat covered up by focussing on the fact that 'stressed' and depressed mothers tend to hold their babies to the right.
Not mentioning the contradiction significantly reduces the impressive media spin on the story. This is that doctors may be able to tell if mothers are depressed from the side on which they hold their baby. Even if this were a useful marker, the fact that the studies are contradictory is evidence that further work needs to be done.
The second point to note about this study is that it is based on a small number of participants (79). Since these were then split into four categories - and most mothers were not depressed - that doesn't leave many in some of the categories. In fact as few as 6 in the 'only depressed' category. That is low.
While this study is really interesting, there's obviously some way to go yet - something that is fully acknowledged by the authors of the study but totally glossed over in the mainstream media reports.
Read the study's abstract
Labels: Development, Media
Ageing and the Positivity Effect
[Photo by Mike Fischer]
Cognitive decline with age is not the whole story: recent research is suggesting older adults are more likely to notice positive emotional stimuli like happy faces in addition to experiencing less anger and regulating emotions more effectively.As we get older lots of depressing things start happening to our brains. We can't simultaneously manipulate as many items as we once could. We find it more difficult to retrieve memories. Our attention degrades, and so on. Essentially our brains are slowing down, just like the rest of our bodies. But, in this discouraging picture, there is one ray of hope: our emotions.
Noticing a happy face
A series of studies carried out by Professor Laura Carstensen from Stanford University and colleagues, has revealed that we may actually preserve our ability to process emotions as we get older. But this is not just the preservation of all emotion processing, rather it may just be positive emotions. This has led them to propose a 'positivity effect' - the idea that as we get older we tend to process positive emotions better than negative.
The evidence for this claim comes from cognitive psychology. A good example is a study carried out by Mather and Carstensen (2003) which involved the use of the 'dot-probe paradigm'. This name may sound terribly complicated (or perhaps even unnecessarily invasive!) but it's actually deceptively simple.
You sit in front of a computer on which a pair of human faces are shown for 1 second - one of these faces is neutral and the other is either happy or sad. After the faces disappear a small grey dot is shown in the place of just one of the two faces. Your task is simply to identify behind which face the dot has appeared. The experimenters then measure your reaction time.
If you are randomly attending to the faces - sometimes looking at the positive, sometimes the negative and sometimes the neutral - then there should be no difference in your average reaction time to different faces.
And indeed that's what Mather and Carstensen found for younger adults. On average the chances were about even as to which face they were looking at, as measured by reaction times.
Accentuate the positive
But for older adults there was a different pattern of responses. According to the reaction times, older adults were more likely to be looking at the positive face over the negative face, the positive over the neutral and the neutral over the negative. In other words, older adults were more likely to be looking at the happier of the two faces.
This experiment only examines attention but there are also similar findings for other areas of brain function. Another experiment compared the visual working memory of older and younger adults. Sure enough, the older adults were better than the younger at processing positive emotional stimuli.
While these experiments are all very well, they're a little abstract. Photos of faces and dots appearing - does this translate to any advantage for older people in reality?
Real world problem solving
Dr Fredda Blanchard-Fields at the Georgia Institute of Technology has looked at how older adults fare in everyday problem solving (Blanchard-Fields, Stein & Watson, 2004). Her research helps answer the question of whether these advantages in emotion processing confer any practical benefits for older adults over younger adults.
In a series of studies Blanchard-Fields and colleagues have examined how people of different ages approach practical everyday problems. In one study, people ranging in age from 15 to 84 were asked to think of a problem they had faced in the past and how they had tried to solve it.
The results of this analysis suggested older adults may be better at solving problems of a social nature. In addition, older adults were likely to use more diverse strategies and understand more clearly when to do something, when to leave well alone or what combination of these was most effective.
The question remains, though, of specifically how the positivity effect might benefit older adults in everyday situations. After all, these advantages in problem solving could simply be the result of experience.
Benefits of age
In two more study Blanchard-Fields and colleagues again asked people of different ages to think about interpersonal problems and how they had regulated their emotions in these situations. These interviews were then coded for the specific types of emotions experienced in the problem situations.
They found that older people were more likely to use passive rather than active strategies for regulating their emotions. Passive strategies include approaches such as suppressing emotions, or intentionally redirecting thoughts. Active strategies include expressing the emotion or seeking help from others.
Older adults were also less likely to report feeling angry. The authors argue this might help explain why they were less frequently required to use active strategies to regulate emotions.
With age comes wisdom
The message coming from this research is that older adults are:
- More likely to attend to and remember positive emotional stimuli.
- Less likely to experience anger.
- More likely to use diverse strategies to solve interpersonal problems.
- More likely to understand when to use particular problem-solving strategies.
These differences might not just be from accumulated experience, but rather result from changes in the way emotions are processed. While simple cognitive processing measures such as those of memory and attention might decline with age, it seems that everyday problem solving does not.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R., & Watson, T.L. (2004). Age Differences in Emotion-Regulation Strategies in Handling Everyday Problems. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(6), 261-269.
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L.L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces. Psychological Science, 14, 409-415.
Labels: Development, Emotion
The 'Monster Study' on Stuttering
[Photo by Yogi]
The so-called 'Monster Study' on children's stuttering qualifies for this series on weird psychology on three grounds. First it had extremely shaky (practically non-existent) ethical standards. Second its results were never published for fear it would be likened to experiments carried out by the Nazis (Rothwell, 2003). Finally, in historical context, its findings were dramatic.Challenging theories of stuttering
Dr. Wendell Johnson, a speech pathologist, wanted to show that the prevailing theories about the causes of stuttering were wrong. During the 1930s it was thought that stuttering had an organic or genetic cause. This meant you were born a stutterer (or not) and little could be done.Dr Johnson had different ideas. Instead he thought the labelling of children as stutterers could actually make them worse, and in some cases cause 'normal' children to start stuttering. To prove his point, he suggested an experiment which has since become known as the 'Monster Study'.
Power of labelling
Twenty-two young orphans were recruited to participate in the experiment. They were then divided into two groups. The first were labelled 'normal speakers' and the second 'stutterers'. Crucially only half of the group labelled stutterers did actually show signs of stuttering.During the course of the experiment, the normal speakers were given positive encouragement but it was the treatment of the other group that has made the experiment notorious. The group labelled stutterers were made more self-conscious about stuttering. They were lectured about stuttering and told to take extra care not to repeat words. Other teachers and staff at the orphanage were even unknowingly recruited to reinforce the label as the researchers told them the whole group were stutterers.
Dramatic results
Of the six 'normal' children in the stuttering group, five began stuttering after the negative therapy. Of the five children who had stuttered before their 'therapy', three became worse. In comparison, only one of the children in the group labelled 'normal' had greater speech problems after the study.Realising the power of their experiment, the researchers tried to undo the damage they had done, but to no avail. It seemed the effects of labelling the children stutterers was permanent. This is something the orphans labelled stutterers have had to cope with for the rest of their lives.
Clearly this research raises a number of major ethical concerns.
Case for the defence
- The researchers had the best of intentions - they were motivated to help stutterers of all ages. Indeed Dr. Wendell Johnson was himself a severe stutterer.
- The findings supported Dr Johnson's theory and contributed to new and successful ways of treating people with stutters.
Case for the prosecution
Despite the researcher's good intentions, the study fails on any number of ethical dimensions.- The children were never told they had been involved in a study, until it was revealed by a newspaper over 60 years later (read the emotionally charged report from the San Jose Mercury News).
- The teachers and administrators of the orphanage were also misled about the purpose of the study. This deception was never explained to them.
- The study was never published. Because of this some argue the damage inflicted on the children was even more unethical. All studies must balance the potential risks against the potential benefits. Without publication and dissemination through the academic community, this study's benefits are reduced.
The final word
This is left to the University of Iowa, where Dr Johnson was working at the time of the experiment. In 2001, 36 years after his death, they issued a formal apology, calling the experiment both regrettable and indefensible (Rothwell, 2003).This judgement is impossible to argue with.
UPDATE: Six participants in this study have just won a £500,000 settlement against the University of Iowa.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Development, Weird Psychology
What Are Babies Watching?
The first study for your consideration in the top ten psychology studies is by Robert Fantz, a developmental psychologist, and it is deceptively simple. Like many of us staring at young babies, Fantz wondered how much they understand about the world. "The eyes of tiny infants look glazed and they mostly seem concerned with the bare necessities of life."The eyes of tiny infants look glazed and they mostly seem concerned with the bare necessities of life. What do they understand about the world and how can you possibly find out, given that babies are not so hot on answering complex questions about their perceptual abilities?
In 1961, when Fantz carried out his experiment, there wasn't much you could do to find out what was going on in a baby's head - other than watch. And watching the baby is what he did.
An enduring feature of human nature is if there's something of interest near us, we generally look at it. So Fantz set up a display board above the baby to which were attached two pictures (Fantz, 1961). On one was a bulls-eye and on the other was the sketch of a human face. Then, from behind the board, invisible to the baby, he peeked through a hole to watch what the baby looked at.
Results
"...a two-month old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it did at the bulls-eye."What he found was that a two-month old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it did at the bulls-eye. This suggested that human babies have some powers of pattern and form selection. Before this it was thought that babies looked out onto a chaotic world of which they could make little sense.
In modern psychology the descendents of this experiment are still used today to find out what babies understand about the world. These have discovered that we're remarkably early developers. At one month we can follow a slow-moving object. At two months we can move both our eyes together and begin to appreciate how far away things are. At three months we can tell the difference between members of our family (Hunt, 1993).
As a result of these and similar studies, psychologists have suggested that we are born with a definite preference for viewing human faces. This would certainly make evolutionary sense as other human faces hold all sorts of useful information which is vital for our survival.
Not a bad set of conclusions from simply watching a baby's eyes! So Robert Fantz is the first nomination for the top ten studies in psychology.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesFantz, R. (1961). The origin of form perception. Scientific American, 204, 66-72.
Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. London: Doubleday.
Labels: Development, Top Ten Studies
Childhood Cynicism Develops Early
After findings about the brain areas responsible for understanding sarcasm and irony earlier in the week, we now have new research into the development of cynicism.
In this research, children of ages 6, 8 and 10 were told a story with an ambiguous ending that was open to multiple interpretations. These endings directly reflected the character's motivation. As expected, the ten-year-olds were most likely to ascribe a self-interested motivation to the central character, indicating a well-developed sense of cynicism.
What surprised researchers was that even the six-year-olds were more likely, on average, to interpret the character's behaviour as self-interested. This suggests that the seeds of a cynical outlook are sown earlier than had previously been thought.
Mills, C.M. & Keil, F.C. (2005). The development of cynicism. Psychological Science, 16, 385-390
In this research, children of ages 6, 8 and 10 were told a story with an ambiguous ending that was open to multiple interpretations. These endings directly reflected the character's motivation. As expected, the ten-year-olds were most likely to ascribe a self-interested motivation to the central character, indicating a well-developed sense of cynicism.
What surprised researchers was that even the six-year-olds were more likely, on average, to interpret the character's behaviour as self-interested. This suggests that the seeds of a cynical outlook are sown earlier than had previously been thought.
Mills, C.M. & Keil, F.C. (2005). The development of cynicism. Psychological Science, 16, 385-390Labels: Development
Home testing baby's mental development
Fisher Price have launched a new product designed to allow parents to measure the mental development of their babies. They are marketing it as a tool that will reassure parents that their baby is normal. The problem is that baby's mental development is very difficult to assess.
Take one the of the questions: "7. Can your child... a. have a babble conversation with you? b. look where you look? c. imitate an action - such as pretending to drink from a toy cup?" The idea being that the more they can do, the more developed they are.
Fully trained psychologists in laboratory contexts have problems making these determinations. Indeed psychologists are still arguing about what these kind of factors really mean.
Whether this new test is a 'good thing' or not depends on how it is used. I leave you with a question to think about: do you think it's more likely parents will treat this as a rough guide or the absolute gospel truth?
If nothing else, it will give the baby a taste of what is to come over the next eighteen years: endless testing.
> From The Independent
Take one the of the questions: "7. Can your child... a. have a babble conversation with you? b. look where you look? c. imitate an action - such as pretending to drink from a toy cup?" The idea being that the more they can do, the more developed they are.
Fully trained psychologists in laboratory contexts have problems making these determinations. Indeed psychologists are still arguing about what these kind of factors really mean.
Whether this new test is a 'good thing' or not depends on how it is used. I leave you with a question to think about: do you think it's more likely parents will treat this as a rough guide or the absolute gospel truth?
If nothing else, it will give the baby a taste of what is to come over the next eighteen years: endless testing.
> From The Independent
Labels: Development