The Best 2 Strategies For Raising Happier And Wealthier Children

The two best parenting strategies help raise the happiest, wealthiest and most moral children.

The two best parenting strategies help raise the happiest, wealthiest and most moral children.

Research finds that the happiest, wealthiest, most moral and smartest children are raised by parents who:

  1. Pay their children a lot of positive attention,
  2. and use supportive child-rearing techniques.

In contrast, parents who combine a strict upbringing with positive attention tend to produce children who are less happy.

These children were, however, just as academically and financially successful.

Naturally, harsh parents produce children with the most negative mentalities who felt the least secure.

Children raised by easygoing parents, though, perform relatively poorly.

They were second only to those raised by harsh parents for low levels of security, financial success, and happiness.

The conclusions come from a Japanese study of 5,000 men and women.

For the research, an online survey asked people a series of question about their relationships with their parents during childhood.

These included statements like:

  • “My parents trusted me.”
  • “I felt like my family had no interest in me.”

From this, the researchers found six different types of child-rearing:

“Supportive: High or average levels of independence, high levels of trust, high levels of interest shown in child, large amount of time spent together.

Strict: Low levels of independence, medium-to-high levels of trust, strict or fairly strict, medium-to-high levels of interest shown in child, many rules.

Indulgent: High or average levels of trust, not strict at all, time spent together is average or longer than average.

Easygoing: Low levels of interest shown in child, not strict at all, small amount of time spent together, few rules.

Harsh: Low levels of interest shown in child, low levels of independence, low levels of trust, strict.

Average: Average levels for all key factors.”

These findings are from a discussion paper by Professors Kazuo Nishimura and Tadashi Yagi to be presented at the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry in Japan.

Why Some People Don’t Learn From Their Mistakes

Not learning from mistakes? Part of the reason is down to childhood and how people weigh risk and reward.

Not learning from mistakes? Part of the reason is down to childhood and how people weigh risk and reward.

Adults who don’t learn from their mistakes often have had stressful childhoods and find it harder to sense risky situations approaching, research finds.

As a result, looming health, financial or legal problems could be more difficult to spot for people who were maltreated early in life.

But when the bad luck hits, people who have had stressful childhoods get hit harder — perhaps because it is more of a surprise.

Professor Seth Pollak, who led the study, said:

“It’s not that people are overtly deciding to take these negative risks, or do things that might get them in trouble.

It may very well be that their brains are not really processing the information that should tell them they are headed to a bad place, that this is not the right step to take.”

Study on why people don’t learn from their mistakes

For the study, young adults — some of whom were highly stressed as children — were given a series of tests of risk and reward.

The study showed that those who were maltreated at around 8-years-old found it harder to learn from their mistakes and to sense that loss was coming.

They made the same poor decisions when weighing risks against reward over and over again.

Professor Pollak said:

“It was our observation not that they couldn’t do math, but that they weren’t really attending to the right things.

We didn’t see people improving over time.

You might say, ‘Well, they don’t get how it works.’

But the people with high-stress childhoods, even after many trials, they weren’t using negative feedback to change their behavior and improve.”

Brain scans also revealed that there was relatively low activity in areas related to loss as people were considering their choice — helps to explain why some people don’t learn from their mistakes.

Professor Pollak continued:

“And then, when they would lose, we’d see more activity than expected—an overreaction—in the part of the brain that responds to reward, which makes sense.

If you didn’t catch the cue that you were likely to lose, you’re probably going to be pretty shocked when you don’t win.”

Professor Rasmus Birn, the study’s first author, said they want to expand this finding:

“Now that we have this finding, we can use it to guide us to look at specific networks in the brain that are active and functionally connected.

We may find that childhood stress reshapes the way communication happens across the brain.”

The study was published in the journal PNAS (Birn et al., 2017).

Childhood Spanking Leads To These Mental Health Problems

55% of people reported childhood spankings, with men more likely to have been spanked than women.

55% of people reported childhood spankings, with men more likely to have been spanked than women.

Childhood spanking can lead to many adult mental health problems, research concludes.

Adults spanked as children are more likely to feel depressed, drink too much, use illegal drugs and attempt suicide.

Dr Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, who led the research, said:

“Placing spanking in a similar category to physical/emotional abuse experiences would increase our understanding of these adult mental health problems.”

Childhood spanking research

The study involved over 8,300 people aged 19 to 97.

They were asked how often they endured childhood spankings and whether they were abused in any way.

55 percent reported childhood spankings, with men more likely to have been spanked than women.

Those who were spanked had a higher risk of being depressed as adults, along with increased risk of other mental health problems.

It is important to avoid harsh parenting at all costs, said Dr Shawna Lee, an expert in the effects of child mistreatment:

“This can be achieved by promoting evidence-based parenting programs and policies designed to prevent early adversities, and associated risk factors.

Prevention should be a critical direction for public health initiatives to take.”

The study was published in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect (Merrick et al., 2017).

Cool Kid Problems: What Happens To Them After High School

Cool kid problems mean that despite being popular in high school, things can go wrong after that.

Cool kid problems mean that despite being popular in high school, things can go wrong after that.

Teenagers who try to ‘act cool’ in early adolescence grow up to experience a range of problems in early adulthood, research finds.

‘Cool kids’ tend to do things like hang out with more attractive people, become romantically involved at an early age and engage in delinquent activity (smoking, drinking and petty crimes).

However, by the age of 22, these ‘cool kids’ are rated as less socially competent than their peers.

They were also more likely to have substance abuse problems and to be engaged in criminal activities.

Cool kid problems

The conclusions come from a study of 183 teens who were followed from the age of 13 through to the age of 23.

They all attended public schools and were from ethnically and racially diverse backgrounds.

Professor Joseph P. Allen, the study’s first author, said:

“It appears that while so-called ‘cool’ teens’ behavior might have been linked to early popularity, over time, these teens needed more and more extreme behaviors to try to appear cool, at least to a subgroup of other teens.

So they became involved in more serious criminal behavior and alcohol and drug use as adolescence progressed.

These previously cool teens appeared less competent – socially and otherwise – than their less-cool peers by the time they reached young adulthood.”

The study was published in the journal Child Development (Allen et al., 2014).

The Psychology Of Play: Why Kids And Adults Should Play Outside

Research on the psychology of play suggests that both children and adults benefit.

Research on the psychology of play suggests that both children and adults benefit.

Children who play outdoors have a stronger sense of purpose and self-fulfilment than those who don’t, a study finds.

The study, published in the Journal of the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, found that kids who were outdoors playing for between 5 to 10 hours a week had a stronger spiritual connection to the Earth (Van Wieren & Kellert, 2013).

The study’s lead author, Gretel Van Wieren, said:

“These values are incredibly important to human development and well-being.

We were surprised by the results.

Before we did the study, we asked, ‘Is it just a myth that children have this deep connection with nature?’

But we found it to be true in pretty profound ways.”

The small study of the psychology of play involving 10 children from a mostly Christian background (7 of the 10) examined how they interacted with the natural world through in-depth interviews, diaries and simple observation.

The children who spent more time outside felt more humbled by nature’s power as well as feeling a sense of belonging in the world.

Being outdoors more also enhanced the children’s appreciation of beauty.

These children took greater notice of colour, symmetry and balance in nature as well as displaying greater imagination and curiosity themselves.

Van Wieren continued:

“This is the first generation that’s significantly plugged in to a different extent and so what does this mean?

Modern life has created a distance between humans and nature that now we’re realizing isn’t good in a whole host of ways.

So it’s a scary question: How will this affect our children and how are we going to respond?”

In a fascinating coda, the researchers also interviewed the parents and it emerged that the children who spent the most time outdoors had parents who had done the same when they were children.

The parents felt that this experience had significantly shaped their adult lives.

.

Early Life Stress Has A Lasting Impact On The Brain

Toxic early life stress may critically affect memory, learning and the way emotions are processed.

Toxic early life stress may critically affect memory, learning and the way emotions are processed.

Chronic early life stress — like that from abuse, neglect or poverty — can have a lasting impact on the developing brain, according to research.

Toxic stress at an early age may critically affect memory, learning and the way emotions are processed, finds a study published in the journal Biological Psychiatry.

The research investigated exactly why early life stress can lead to such a wide range of negative outcomes later in life, including depression, anxiety, poor educational achievement and also physical problems (Hanson et al., 2014).

Seth Pollak, co-leader of the study, said:

“We haven’t really understood why things that happen when you’re 2, 3, 4 years old stay with you and have a lasting impact.

Given how costly these early stressful experiences are for society…unless we understand what part of the brain is affected, we won’t be able to tailor something to do about it.”

Study of early life stress

The researchers recruited 128 children at around the age of 12 who had experienced neglect, abuse or other serious, chronic stressors in the first few years of their lives.

The children and their caregivers were interviewed about their early life experiences and any behavioural problems they now had.

Their brains were also scanned, with a special focus on the hippocampus and amygdala, both of which are heavily involved in how the brain processes emotions.

The results from these children were compared with other children from middle-class backgrounds who had not been maltreated.

What emerged was that those who had suffered chronic stress in early life had smaller amygdalas than those who had not.

In addition, those who were from very poor backgrounds or who had been physically abused also had smaller hippocampi.

While the implications of the reduced size of the amygdala is unknown, a smaller hippocampus is a recognised risk factor for negative outcomes.

Unsurprisingly the children who’d suffered early life stress also had more behavioural problems, and the smaller the affected brain structures were, the greater the behavioural problems.

Seth Pollak said:

“For me, it’s an important reminder that as a society we need to attend to the types of experiences children are having.

We are shaping the people these individuals will become.”

.

1 in 5 Children Experience Something Worse Than Parental Abuse (M)

The severe effect on adult mental health of an experience suffered by one in five children.

The severe effect on adult mental health of an experience suffered by one in five children.

Keep reading with a Membership

• Read members-only articles
• Adverts removed
• Cancel at any time
• 14 day money-back guarantee for new members

Piaget Stages Of Development Theory

Piaget’s theory of four stages of development has the dubious claim to fame of being one of the most criticised psychological theories ever.

Piaget’s theory of four stages of development has the dubious claim to fame of being one of the most criticised psychological theories ever.

Jean Piaget was a developmental psychologist whose four-stage theory, published in 1936, has proved extremely influential.

From the sensorimotor stage, through the pre-operational stage, the concrete operational stage and the formal operational stage, his theory attempts to describe how childhood development progresses.

However, Piaget’s experiments and theories about how children build up their knowledge of the world have faced endless challenges, many of them justified.

Let me give you a flavour of why Piaget’s research on stages of development has faced so much criticism and also why psychologists often regard him with such awe.

First I’ll describe one of the observations he made of his own three children, then why his conclusions are probably wrong and  finally the central insight at the heart of his four-stage theory of cognitive development.

Piaget’s research on his daughter

One of Piaget’s many careful observations was made when one of his daughters, Jacqueline, then 7 months old, dropped a plastic duck on the quilt and it fell behind a fold so that she couldn’t see it.

Piaget noticed that despite the fact that Jacqueline could clearly see where the duck had dropped, and it was within her reach, she made no attempt to grab for it.

Fascinated by this, Piaget put the duck in her view again but, then, just as she was about to reach for it, he slowly and clearly hid it under the sheet.

Again, she acted as though the duck had simply disappeared, making no attempt to search for it under the sheet.

This seemed strange behaviour to Piaget as Jacqueline was clearly interested in the duck while she could see it, but seemed to forget about it the instant it disappeared from view – out of sight and, apparently, out of mind.

What Piaget deduced from these observations, along with many experiments, was that children do not initially understand the idea that objects continue to exist even when out of sight (this is known as object permanence).

This concept, he thought, children had to work out by themselves by interacting with and experiencing the world.

It wasn’t until around 9 or 10 months of age that Piaget noticed his children began to search for a hidden object.

Piaget’s four-stage theory of development

While many parents play games with their children like this, what set Piaget apart was that he used these observations along with many experiments to develop a theory of how children acquire knowledge, the stages of development theory for which he is rightly best-remembered.

This theory is a four-stage ladder up which Piaget thought children climbed as they gathered knowledge about the world (Piaget, 1936).

1. Sensorimotor stage (birth to 18-24 months)

At the first of Piaget’s stages of development, the sensorimotor stage, infants are aware only of their sensations, fascinated by all the strange new experiences their bodies are having.

They are like little scientists exploring the world by shouting at, listening to, banging and tasting everything.

2. Pre-operational stage (18-24 months to 7 years)

At the second of Piaget’s stages of development, the pre-operational stage, children can process images, words and concepts but they can’t do anything with them, they can’t yet operate on them.

It’s like they’ve acquired the tools of thought, but don’t yet know how to use them.

E.g. in maths they can’t understand that 2 x 3 is the same as 3 x 2.

3. Concrete operational stage (7 to 12 years)

At the third of Piaget’s stages of development, the concrete operational stage, children gain the ability to manipulate symbols and objects, but only if they are concrete – abstract operations are still a challenge.

4. Formal operational stage (12 and up)

At the fourth of Piaget’s stages of development, the formal operational stage, children are able to think in abstract terms about the world.

Now they can understand concepts such as the future, values and justice.

From around this age children start thinking like adults.

Criticism of Piaget stages of development theory

It’s for this grand stages of development theory that Piaget is much admired.

Unfortunately, like many an ambitious theory, over time evidence was uncovered that contradicted aspects of this neat time-line.

For example, Piaget’s conclusions about his daughter Jacqueline’s failure to reach for the duck were probably wrong.

Subsequent studies have revealed infants as young as 3.5 months appear to understand object permanence.

Psychologists nowadays might explain Jacqueline’s behaviour as a failure of memory or an inability to grasp something that is out of view.

Einstein though Piaget was a genius

Although findings such as these have chipped away at Piaget’s stages of development theory, his work has continued to attract interest and stimulate research.

From observations like hiding his daughter’s duck to his grand four-stage theory of development, Piaget’s central insight was that children think in a fundamentally different way from adults.

They don’t just have less knowledge, less experience or less processing power; the qualitative content of their thoughts is actually different.

Even though psychologists now question many of the details of Piaget’s observations and theories, this central insight remains intact.

And it’s this central insight that Albert Einstein once described as “so simple that only a genius could have thought of it”.

→ This article is part of a series on 10 crucial developmental psychology studies:

  1. When infant memory develops
  2. How self-concept emerges in infants
  3. How children learn new concepts
  4. The importance of attachment styles
  5. When infants learn to imitate others
  6. Theory of mind reveals the social world
  7. Understanding object permanence
  8. How infants learn their first word
  9. The six types of play
  10. Piaget’s stages of development theory

.

Attachment Styles: Secure, Avoidant, Anxious And Ambivalent

Attachment styles are important because we are social animals, relying heavily on our ability to form relationships with others.

Attachment styles are important because we are social animals, relying heavily on our ability to form relationships with others.

Attachment styles analyse how people respond to threats and problems in their personal relationships.

People who find relationships difficult often become unable to participate in the ordinary give-and-take of everyday life.

They may become hostile towards others, have problems in education as well as a greater chance of developing psychiatric disorders later in life.

These difficulties sometimes have their roots in the most important early relationships, evidenced in attachment styles.

It’s no wonder that child psychologists are so interested in the first relationships we build with our primary caregivers.

These attachment styles are likely to prove a vital influence on all our future relationships, including those with our spouse, our workmates and our own children.

While you can’t blame everything on your parents, early relationship attachment styles are like a template that we take forward with us in life.

Measuring attachment styles

So the development of early relationships – often called ‘attachment styles’ – is extremely important.

Naturally child psychologists realised it would be extremely useful to know how well attached children are to their parents.

But here’s the problem: how do you measure attachment styles?

Infants of eight months old tend not to say very much of any use and parents can’t be trusted.

Clearly psychologists needed to observe the caregiver and baby interacting.

It was well-known child psychologist Mary Ainsworth and colleagues who came up with what has now become standard procedure for investigating the emotional attachment styles between children and caregivers (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Some have argued that this is the most powerful experiment for studying a child’s social and emotional development.

Ainsworth’s strange situation

Ainsworth based her test of attachment styles on fear, one of the most basic human emotions.

As the baby becomes attached to its caregivers, after about six months, it starts to display fear in two easily repeatable situations:

  • Stranger anxiety: some time after six months of age children usually start to become scared of strangers. This is particularly pronounced when their caregiver is absent.
  • Separation protest: from around the same time, at about six months, children also start to get upset when their caregiver leaves them.

To investigate how infants and their caregivers interact Ainsworth devised a series of interactions which were designed to test how the baby reacted to both stranger anxiety and separation anxiety.

The procedure is like a carefully choreographed ballet, each act lasting about 3 minutes:

  1. Caregiver and infant are placed in the experimental room by the experimenter, who then leaves.
  2. Caregiver does nothing while the infant explores.
  3. A stranger enters, saying nothing for 1 minute, then starts talking to the caregiver. Then, after a further minute, the stranger approaches the infant.
  4. Caregiver then leaves as discreetly as possible so that the stranger and the infant are left alone together.
  5. Caregiver then returns to comfort the infant, then leaves again.
  6. Infant is left all alone.
  7. Stranger enters and begins to interact with the infant.
  8. Caregiver returns and the stranger leaves.

As you can see the strange situation is designed to get more strange for the infant as it goes on.

For a start the infant is in an unfamiliar room, then a stranger enters, then the stranger starts trying to talk to them, then their caregiver is nowhere to be seen.

Each time the stress on the infant is ramped up.

The attachment styles

Analysing the results after repeating the experiment with many infants, Ainsworth discovered a fascinating pattern in the data.

It turned out that the most interesting aspect of the interactions observed was how the baby reacted when the caregiver returned.

This analysis of the infant’s reaction to the mother’s return led to a distinction between three separate types of attachment, one of the ‘good kind’ and two so-called ‘disordered attachment styles’.

1. Secure attachment style

Infants considered securely attached will be reasonable upset when their caregiver leaves but will be happy to see them return and will be quickly soothed.

Extensive research has found that around 70 percent of infants fall into this category.

2. Avoidant attachment (insecure attachment)

Infants with this attachment style show little interest in their caregivers, although they will cry when they leave the room.

Strangely, though, they don’t seem that pleased when their caregivers return, often turning their backs on them and trying to get away.

Around 20 percent of infants fall into this category.

3. Ambivalent attachment (insecure attachment)

Infants with this attachment style initially don’t want to leave their caregiver to explore the room.

Then, like the insecure/avoidant, they cry when their caregiver leaves but then when they return seem to want to be consoled, but resist it.

They seem angry.

About 10 percent of infants fall into this category.

4. Disorganised attachment (insecure attachment)

Later research also identified a further insecure attachment style of disorganised attachment.

These infants don’t show much of a pattern: they seem constantly afraid of and confused by their caregiver.

The stress is often too much for the infant.

This type of attachment style has been associated with depressed caregivers or instances of child abuse.

Causes of attachment styles

An enormous amount of research on attachment styles has gone into examining what factors cause infants to be attached in these different ways.

Much emphasis has been placed on the way the caregiver treats the infant.

Secure attachment styles have been associated with caregivers being (Papalia & Olds, 1997):

  • Sensitive and responsive.
  • Encouraging of mutual interaction.
  • Warm and accepting.

Clearly the reverse of these tends to result in insecure attachment styles.

Some research has also found that the infant’s temperament (personality) is also an important factor in attachment styles.

Consequences of attachment styles

Many researchers have argued that attachment styles have important social, emotional and cognitive consequences.

Some have argued that the more positive an infant’s early attachments are, the more likely it is to successfully separate from the caregiver later in life.

Other benefits of secure attachment styles include (Papalia & Olds, 1997):

  • More self-confidence.
  • More friends.
  • Better adult relationships.

Meanwhile insecurely attached children tend to:

  • Display more negative emotions.
  • Have behaviour problems.
  • Be hostile towards other children.

Attachment styles are a window to the future

Critics of the ‘strange situation’ have argued that it is just too strange.

For example:

  • Why would caregivers specifically resist interacting with their infant?
  • Can infants really keep track of all these comings and goings during the study?
  • Is it valid in different cultures?

Despite these criticisms the ‘strange situation’ has fared relatively well in answer to many of these questions.

It provides a standardised way of examining the very earliest relationships we form with our caregivers.

It is a way of revealing the answers infants have arrived at to four major questions their social and emotional selves are asking:

  1. How do I have good relationships with other people?
  2. What happens when I explore my environment?
  3. What can I achieve?
  4. What do others do when I show that I’m unhappy?

It’s infant’s attachment styles that give us a clue to what answers they’ve formulated to these questions and so a window on both their past and their future.

→ This article is part of a series on 10 crucial developmental psychology studies:

  1. When infant memory develops
  2. How self-concept emerges in infants
  3. How children learn new concepts
  4. The importance of attachment styles
  5. When infants learn to imitate others
  6. Theory of mind reveals the social world
  7. Understanding object permanence
  8. How infants learn their first word
  9. The six types of play
  10. Piaget’s stages of development theory

.

Get free email updates

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.