Psychobabbling

Given the major events that will be occurring in my life in the next few weeks, it was quite fortunate/interesting/random to come across these studies.  One encouraging:  Having a sister makes you happier and more optimistic.  And one not so much: Giving birth hurts. End of story.

I’m interested in finding out more about how exactly happiness, psychological health, and cohesion were measured in the first story, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt.  And I also don’t like that the explanation the researchers come to is that families with girls are better off because girls talk more and are more emotionally open, resorting to using stereotypes to drive the point home.  It’s also plausible that because we are less accepting of emotional expression and dependence in boys, we discourage their closeness to one another, which contributes to decreased cohesion.  But, you know, that’s not as good of a story as “boys will be boys.”    

As for the second story, I’m not even going to get into it.

No Comments | In: articles, gender, research | | #

I’m in the middle of a great book about prenatal and early childhood brain development, that I may not finish before the little girl arrives, so I thought I would mention it now.  It’s called What’s Going On in There: How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life, and it is a great, if dense, read for anyone interested in actual research on this stuff.  It’s written by a neuroscientist and parent, Lise Eliot, Ph.D., and I’ve been particularly impressed by her thorough discussions of data on so many things that one hears during pregnancy, like “you shouldn’t drink coffee” (just not more than three cups a day) and how different types of labor and childbirth (drug-free, c-sections, etc) actually affect a newborn (rather than focusing on judgements about how a baby should be brought into the world).   I’m getting a little bogged down in the chapters about hearing and vision, but I’m really looking forward to her discussions of socio-emotional growth and the development of language.  I just hope I get there in time!   

No Comments | In: media, research | | #

My little dude will become a big brother in a few short weeks, and I’ve been thinking a lot about how sibling order can be such a formative influence (not to mention gender, since little dude will be having a little sister, but that is a WHOLE other post).  There are so many ideas about being a first-born, middle, or last-born child, and there is actually some research to back up some of these differences.   

Some interesting findings:

• first-born children have been found to be more conscientiousand higher achievers, while later-born siblings have been found to be more rebellious, agreeable, and liberal (Paulhus et al., 1999, Psychological Science).
• higher-rank (born earlier in the family) children have also been found to attain professional positions with higher prestige, and tend to complete moreyears of school, leading to greater economic success (Herrera et al., 2003, Journal os Personality and Social Psychology).   
• earlier-born children have been found to have higher IQ scores than later-born siblings, explained by the fact that the earlier-born children have more exposure to adult conversation and the benefit of tutoring younger siblings to reinforce their learning (Zajonc, 1976, Science).
• people tend to gravitate toward long-term relationships, romantic or platonic, with others of similar birth order within their families (Hartshorne et al., 2009, Journal of Individual Psychology). 

No Comments | In: personal, research | | #

It’s been a while, but I found this to be a worthy article (from the New York Times) and important to read for anyone who parents.  Several parenting “experts” have continued to propose that the withholding of praise and affection is an effective form of discipline, while research seems to be supporting that such “conditional parenting” may not be the best approach:

“It turned out that children who received conditional approval were indeed somewhat more likely to act as the parent wanted. But compliance came at a steep price. First, these children tended to resent and dislike their parents. Second, they were apt to say that the way they acted was often due more to a “strong internal pressure” than to “a real sense of choice.” Moreover, their happiness after succeeding at something was usually short-lived, and they often felt guilty or ashamed.”

The authors offer an alternative to conditional parenting,

“In practice, according to an impressive collection of data by Dr. Deci and others, unconditional acceptance by parents as well as teachers should be accompanied by “autonomy support”: explaining reasons for requests, maximizing opportunities for the child to participate in making decisions, being encouraging without manipulating, and actively imagining how things look from the child’s point of view.”

I’ve always had a bad feeling about that Dr. Phil, but now there’s some data to back me up.

No Comments | In: articles, research | | #

Among the heap of unsolicited advice and declarations I received while pregnant, I found the predictions of my child’s gender based on belly shape and heartburn the most hilarious.  This feature from Scientific American has undertaken the task of dispelling these and several other myths using, if you can imagine, actual scientific research.  Thanks to Rational Moms for the link.  By the by, I had major heartburn when I was pregnant, and the dude was born with hardly any hair on his little head.   So there goes that one.

No Comments | In: articles, personal, research | | #

Here’s a little essay about why we moms should not be working outside of the home from Opposing Views:

“Raising children is a full-time job, one that dramatically alters the paths women were on prior to becoming mothers. Therefore, working full time while trying to raise young children is impossible. This is not anti-feminist, nor is it a matter of one’s politics. It is just a fact. No matter how much women would like to balance work and family, the endless demands of children don’t allow mothers to dedicate themselves fully to someone or something else. This doesn’t mean mothers must be out of the workforce permanently. But it does mean they’ll need to sequence their lives — plan their lives in such a way that they’ll be able to pursue work and motherhood, but at separate times. Or do them simultaneously when their children are older, as women have historically done.”

There are several good critiques of this argument in the comments section of this post, but I can’t help but add my own.  There is no mention of the responsibility of fathers in contributing to the care of their children and the author does not cite any research to back up the “fact” of the assertion that it is impossible to work full-time and raise a child.  Certainly, our culture needs to be more supportive of the integration of parenting in general with work outside the home (longer parental leave, for a start).  But balancing work and home responsibilities in a meaningful and healthy way is a real possibility.  To suggest that women need to stop everything to have kids neglects the fact that many families are not financially able to do so, and that women who want to work are happier and better parents when they are able to do so (which I posted about here).  Also, in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce, allowing for women to have greater financial means and to be less dependent on their husbands will undoubtedly improve their circumstances if and when their marriages end (and similarly, it makes it more possible for wome to feel able to leave bad marriages).   In fact, this study found that women’s standard of living actually decreases 27% after a divorce, while for men it increases 10%.         

And, I’m sorry, is this 1950?  Did we gain nothing from second wave feminism?  I can’t believe people still buy into this crap.  I’m not arguing that mothers (or fathers, for that matter) should absolutely work outside of the home, but there is not only one good way to raise a child.  Like anything, I’m skeptical of either-or arguments, life is way more complicated than that.

No Comments | In: commentary, gender, research, work/family balance | | #

Since shortly after my little dude was born, I have periodically had this odd and disturbing experience of fearfulness that he will drown.  Specifically, I get flooded with anxiety when an image of him falling off a boat comes into my mind.  He has never been on a boat, and has no plans to do so any time soon, but I still have an intense fear that he’s going to drown.   His helplessness and vulnerability, coupled with my overwhelming sense of protecting him from any danger that could befall him, is a powerful force that exceeds any rationality I can muster.  At this point, I can’t even go on boats, and will be enrolling the dude in swimming lessons as soon as he is old enough. 

This seemed to come out of left field, and I couldn’t figure out where this image came from, until a few months ago during the season premiere of LOST when it all came back to me.  At the end of the last season, when I was 5 months pregnant or so, several of the characters are in a helicopter crash into the ocean, and one of them was holding a baby.  They all survived (spoiler alert), but I remember thinking, “how and the heck are you supposed to swim with a baby in your arms?”  During the recap at the beginning of this season, I had a serious a-ha moment and my fear made a bit more sense.  And then, when a plane landed in a river very close to my home, I think it kind of kicked everything up a notch.  There was a woman with a 6-month-old baby on the plane, and there were reports that she had difficulty handing her child over when she was being rescued, she was holding on to her baby for dear life.   

A psychoanalyst might say that this fear stems from my own aggressive impulses and hatred toward my dude, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that maternal feelings do not always entirely consist of rainbows and sunshine.  He can be frustrating and make me feel totally inept at times, to be sure, but I think it’s more helpful to think of this as part of a process ratcheting up my protective instincts and the anticipation of any possible danger to those ends.

It turns out, I’m not alone in this.  I found this study of 100 new mothers assessing the presence of such fears, “New mothers’ thoughts of harm related to the newborn” (Fairbrother & Woody 2008; Archives of Women’s Mental Health).  From the abstract:

“Participants were assessed prenatally and at 4 and 12 weeks postpartum using questionnaires and a semi-structured interview about unwanted thoughts of harm related to the newborn. Postpartum intrusive thoughts of accidental harm to the infant were universal, and close to half of the sample reported unwanted thoughts of intentionally harming their infant. Compared with intentional harm thoughts, accidental harm thoughts were more frequent and more time consuming, but less distressing. High parenting stress and low social support predicted the occurrence of thoughts of intentional harm. Little evidence of an association between these thoughts and aggressive parenting was found. Unwanted intrusive thoughts of harming one’s infant are a relatively normative experience during the early postpartum period, particularly in association with greater parenting stress and low social support.”

Thanks to Rand for the awesome pic.

1 Comment | In: personal, research, theory | | #

Apparently, it matters.  In this study discussed in the New York Times today, mothers were found to talk and interact with their babies more frequently when they were pushing their babies around in strollers which faced in towards them, as opposed to facing forward.  This makes sense in that face-to-face positioning provides more opportunity for interaction, and the researcher suggests that this may have implications for language development, which is highly dependent on early parent-child communication.  The sample size was quite small, but this seems like a study worth replicating on a larger scale.   I also wonder about the benefits of facing out as well; would this encourage a greater sense of independence and curiosity in the world?

2 Comments | In: articles, psychonerd, research | | #

So, you know how many parents are freaked out about giving the MMR vaccine to kids because of the the possible link to autism?  It turns out that the original study that this link was based on has some serious flaws.  As reported in the Sunday Times of London:

“The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.”

The blogosphere, as you would expect, is abuzz with responses, as chronicled at I Speak of Dreams.  It seems that this has really upset those who believe that the vaccine-autism link is definitive, and they’re not buying it.  And both sides are looking for information to confirm their views while discrediting anything that doesn’t.

1 Comment | In: articles, research | | #

The New York Times has a parenting blog?  How come no one told me?  It’s called Motherload, and it has just made my job much easier.  I’ve definitely posted stuff Lisa Belkin has written before, but didn’t know about this blog thing.  Or maybe I did and forgot, that’s very possible. 

Here is a particularly interesting post about how mothers of young children were fond to be very angry at their husbands (according to an online poll - bias noted), usually stemming from feelings that their husbands are not as active/supportive/competent in the child care department.  Sounds like that co-parenting thing isn’t working out so well, or maybe it’s not something that these families are striving for.  

Here’s a link to the original story at parents.com.   Who are these lazy, sort of idiotic dads in this story?  They must be related to all of those guys in the commercials who are essentially overgrown children, that have to order pizza when mom isn’t home to cook or hide spills on the carpet so that they don’t get in trouble with mom (whose mom are we talking about here, anyway?).  Yeah, I’d be pretty pissed if I lived with one of those guys too, I already have a 6-month-old to take care of.   I just thought those guys were a marketing ploy, like the too-hot-to-be-believed-she-would-never-be-with-that-guy-in-real-life woman they’re usually married to.  Life imitating art?  

More than anything, it makes me sad that people are so unhappy and disappointed in their relationships, and they don’t feel that they have the space or energy to sit down with their partners and negotiate a better arrangement.  And it does take two to tango.  I certainly feel sympathy for the women in this article, but they are also to a certain degree allowing this to happen.  If you take on more responsibility and put yourself in charge of child care, then you are in charge of child care.  If you marry a guy who can’t scramble an egg or fold his boxer shorts, you know what you’re getting yourself into.  I’m not trying to place blame here, but instead I’m trying  to point out that these situations are co-created, and no one made you marry that incompetent buffoon.  It’s unfortunate that instead of feeling like they have the power to change the situation, the women in this article sit on their anger until it explodes.  That doesn’t seem good for anyone.

1 Comment | In: articles, gender, research, work/family balance | | #