Plays Well with Others (Nurture Shock)

Before I get into this chapter, I am thinking about declaring this week Nurture Shock Week.  Seems like it has been forever since I first started writing about this, and I never intended for it to take this long.  So let's see if I can do it!  And now on to the next chapter . . .

Why modern involved parenting has failed to produce a generation of angels

So let me start this post by saying that when I first read this chapter (several months ago now), I remember thinking, "How am I going to blog about this?" There is an awful lot to cover, and this chapter really jumped around with different approaches, studies and theories.   It seemed pretty controversial to  me then, so let's see how I feel at the end of this post!

The first part of this chapter discussed children's aggression and the effects of media exposure.  I won't  go into the studies' details here because I would just end up re-writing the chapter, but the initial thought that the more violent TV kids watch, the more violent they will be just didn't work out here.  In fact, the more educational media the children watched, the more relationally aggressive they were.  (Relational aggression for preschool-age children was defined by ignoring a child who wanted to play or withdrawing friendship, i.e., "I won't be your friend anymore!")  After replicating the study several times with diverse children, the results were the same.  The researchers then studied the actual TV shows themselves and found that 66.7% of the prosocial shows studied contained insults.  Dr. Jamie Ostrov, one of the main researchers on this subject, theorizes that "many educational shows spend most of the half-hour establishing a conflict between characters and only a few minutes resolving the conflict.  Preschoolers have a difficult time being able to connect information at the end of the show to what happened earlier."

The next section of the book discussed parental fighting in front of children and the effects that that can have.  Interestingly enough, these studies showed that children are definitely in tune with parents fighting, whether they actually witness it or not.  But one thing that made it less detrimental to the children was seeing the parents resolve the conflict.  The level of tension in the children decreased when they saw the resolution.  In one study by Dr. E. Mark Cummings, he found that "children's emotional well-being and security are more affected by the relationship between the parents than by the direct relationship between parent and child."

There was a very interesting discussion about studies done by Dr. Kenneth Dodge, a professor at Duke University, on culture and corporal punishment too.  While I'm not going to into detail about that either, the fascinating findings were that if corporal punishment was seen as "the normal thing that goes on in this culture when a kid does something he shouldn't," these children were actually less aggressive than those who were spanked as a last resort.

The authors then went on to discuss "The Nurture Paradox" wherein parents want to protect their children.  According to Dr. Joseph Allen, a professor and clinician at the University of Virginia, "To protect kids is a natural instinct.  But we end up not teaching them to deal with life's ups and downs.  It's a healthy instinct, and fifty years ago parents had the same instinct, just that they had no time and energy to intervene.  Today, for various reasons, those constraints aren't stopping us, and we go wild."  Because of this, the "zero tolerance" policies have been adapted at schools.  No one is saying that bullying is OK, but a task force of the American Psychological Association reminds us that many incidents involve poor judgment which is developmentally normal.

Other studies have shown that it is not just the "bad" kids who are bullying their peers, but "good" kids doing it too, just sometimes in a more subtle way.   University of Kansas professor Patricia Hawley studies children from preschool through high school.  She calls children who are able to use both prosocial and antisocial tactics to get their ways "bistrategic controllers."  Another researcher says of these kids, "They're just socially busy."

And now my two cents worth . . . I have to admit that I felt incredibly challenged by the info about the types of TV that kids watch and their ensuing levels of aggression.  I just kept thinking, "How could Sesame Street possibly be involved with this?"  And maybe it wasn't.  There was no list of the shows they researched.  I suppose I could look up the studies and see if they are listed.  But I will also say that both of my kids can be pretty bossy!  Of course, their dad attributes that to the fact that both of their parents are bosses.  So who knows?  But this TV thing definitely threw me!

As for the parents fighting?  Everything I read there felt pretty right on to me--as a parent and a psych grad.  I know my kids are totally in tune to our emotions!  And zero tolerance?  I agree that there need to be limits to behaviors, but I do think that our kids are not really given opportunities to work some of their "issues" out.   Of course, if either of my kids were being bullied, I would probably feel totally different.  And I completely agree that "good" kids can be "bullies" as well.  I found it ironic that Dr. Hawley can't get a grant to follow "bistrategics" long-term because they are so successful in school and life in general. 

So now--what do you think?

Comments

[Rerto Jordans]

The blog article very surprised to me! Your writing is good. In this I learned a lot! Thank you!

[mamabee43]

Bronwyn,
I am SO glad that you clarified that about Sesame Street! (As one of the first group of children who watched the show, I am particularly attached to it!!!) Your info about the shows made sense. Do you happen to remember the article that you read? This topic does make me curious to know a bit more. Thanks for the kudos AND for being a faithful reader!

[bronwyn]

I've read about the same studies involving so-called educational TV shows having a negative effect. What I read, and this has similarities to what you mentioned, was that TV shows that involve a social problem (like bullying of some kind)introduce the problem through the first part of the show. Kids in general can't follow closely enough to even realize a problem has been solved at the end. Then, what kids internalize is the behavior showcased in the first 10 minutes of the program (like the name-calling or being left out). In the article I read, the TV consumers are the parents so the storylines are written for them, we do afterall make the choices in our homes. A good example of a TV show that follows that type of storyline is Barney. Sesame Street and shows like that really focus more on literacy or science and steer away from social issues.

Good post, Kim.