The Current Economic Crisis: Positive and Negative Consequence for Children

The United States economy has plummeted to its lowest point since the Great Depression, with the unemployment rate currently at an astonishing 8.1 percent—the highest over the past twenty-five years. In such a financial upheaval, many adults slump into just precisely that—a great and woeful depression. Fifty-three year old Wanda Dunn, whose house had recently fallen into foreclosure, set her home ablaze before committing suicide inside of it. Even more shocking is the story of Ervin Lupoe, the unemployed father of five who shot his children and wife to death before taking his own life. Clearly the turmoil of the economy has caused extreme stress and tragedy for many Americans over the past year. And yet, as much as we hear about the wretched suicides and job layoffs in the media, we rarely are informed of how the current economic state is affecting the children of our country. From abortion, to childhood depression, to substance abuse, it seems that the economy does take its toll on the younger demographic, and not at a pretty cost. While some on the other side of the argument contend that the doomed economy can actually benefit children positively, causing them to become more resilient and allowing them to learn to connect with others and appreciate more, the negative factors of a meager economy greatly outweigh the positive. Only those who have the resources and time to succeed in a down-falling economy will triumph, but the reality is that most families are not opportunely fortunate during a recession.

As a result of layoffs and salary cuts, children and adolescents are impacted on various levels. In fact, some babies are not even seeing the light of day at all, as many couples are postponing pregnancy due to their slimmed down bank accounts. According to Melissa Schorr, birth rates tend to drop in times of economic uncertainty, and how far the birth rate falls depends on how severe the financial crunch turns out to be. On the same note, abortions are on the rise even though some women are struggling to afford contraception and other related medical procedures. It is a double-edged sword with less women eligible to pay for birth control, but more abortions being requested as a result of couples unable to afford families. However, as for those that are forced to deal with the reality of the present economy, it appears even children are no strangers to the stressors of the financial crisis. Towards the end of the past year, as the country slumped further into a recession, an article found online clearly describes an unfortunate phenomenon—childhood depression. It involves persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness as well as mood changes (see image right). Unlike adults though, depression may be expressed more so through persistent anger or irritability as well as angry ‘acting out’ behaviors. Significant changes in peer relationships, self-mutilating behavior and abuse of alcohol or drugs may also be seen in those who are extremely depressed.

Children are prone to depression and/or substance abuse when exposed to familial changes like job loss or move. The Henry Ford News describes them as often able to "detect signs that something is wrong at home and if left uninformed about their parents' employment or economic status, [they] may become overwhelmed with negative thoughts.” Similarly, as found in “Youth at Risk,” it is hypothesized that adolescents enmeshed in a struggling economy are more at jeopardy for experimenting with drugs and alcohol (compared to usual circumstances). One reason may be that while under extreme financial pressure, parents care most about making ends meet and tend to focus less on the everyday activities and the whereabouts of their sons and daughters. Robin Testerman, the director of Children Center in Surry County, laments, “We are seeing parents having to leave their young [kids] unsupervised because they cannot afford daycare and have little or no family support.” The outcome is that some are finding themselves involved in unfortunate situations. Says Testerman, “kids are exposed to more things like text messaging and the influence of the Internet. Parents are the anti-drug— [children need] positive parental involvement that deters drinking and substance abuse.” And yet, the entirety of the problem is that parental involvement is what lacks during these hard times. Moreover, what makes the situation even direr is when they themselves turn to drugs such as prescription pills to deal with daily tension. If mothers and fathers indulge in substance abuse, their children may soon follow, viewing it as a coping mechanism that is simply acceptable.

Even adolescents that are not as harshly impacted by the economic downturn still must make regrettable adjustments to their futures. Minnpost.com described yesterday how college-bound seniors are coping with the current state of affairs. While one enthusiastic high schooler once aimed for a racially diverse university that would provide him “flavor,” he is now scouring for affordable schools that grant scholarships. Another bright-eyed senior dreamed of attending college in Colorado, where she would “set [her] own trail.” However, with the price of tuition steadily rising, she is going to have to settle for a cheaper in-state school. Evidently then, adults are not the only ones feeling the weight of the financial crisis bear down on them. With parents being able to give less, their children are even more worried than ever about getting jobs at an earlier age and providing for themselves. Is this a good thing? Some advocates (like Anderson Cooper) argue that yes, it is, believing that the economic slump actually presents positive opportunities for children. John Rosemond of the Detroit Free Press candidly wrote last week that we are a generation of consumers not contributors, and perhaps the economy will “force parents to cut back on after school trivia, let their home cleaning and yard maintenance services go, and put their kids to work.” It is true that maybe the financial crisis can help young people learn the value of a dollar, and may force them to start performing “chores” again (see image left). Also, children learn how to deal with adverse situations when they do not receive all the material goods they once did, a forum for building resilience according to “4 Ways Bad Economy Benefits Children.” Says the author, “Research shows that children who grow up receiving a never-ending stream of stuff are less grateful for what they have.” He believes that having less superfluous material goods will implement more familial connectedness and bonding. And, while this surely may be true for those parents who have the resources to spend more time at home and focusing on their parenting skills, it is probably more realistic that, as of now, the majority of parents are working double time and are not there to supervise and ingrain moral values into their offspring.

Essentially the financial crisis we are currently experiencing has a dark and light side, a yin and yang of both positive and negative factors affecting children, depending on the individual situation of each family. Some may thrive under the neo-simplistic nature of current living, while others may bear the brunt of these struggling times. Unfortunately though, the latter situation is probably more realistic given the amount of stress that families are under due to the failing nature of our once glorious economy. While it would be fantastic if all parents could use their withering budgets to get their children to engage in more activities outdoors (rather than purchasing pricy videogames for them), and spending more time as a family unit, this is probably only a possibility for a small minority of the population. The rest of the country will have to hang on tightly until the future starts to look brighter.

To Eat Or Not To Eat: Exploring Food Disorders in Young Children

When constantly surrounded by college students, it is easy to notice and to point out the prevalence of eating disorders among young women. This is not new information, and most people are aware of the deteriorating natures of such diseases. According to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, anorexia is the third most common chronic illness among adolescents. And while one would think that weight would not be an issue in the younger demographic, unfortunately, that view is wrong. Fifty percent of girls between the ages of eleven and thirteen see themselves as overweight, while eighty percent of thirteen year olds have attempted to lose weight. Even more shocking states mirror-mirror.org (a website for eating disorders): "40% of nine year olds have already dieted and we are beginning to see four and five year olds expressing their need to diet.” With these staggering statistics in mind, my purpose this week was aimed at exploring the blogosphere for information concerning eating disorders in younger children—an issue rarely discussed but extremely relevant to developmental psychology in contemporary society. This is especially true since our culture highly values thinness, an ideal that is rapidly seeping its way into the minds of young children.

First, I commented on a blog post by Amy Graff, a dedicated mother and community leader with a large reader following. Her blog is called the Mommy Files and the post is titled "Are Parents Overly Obsessed With Their Kids' Diets?" Additionally, my second comment can be found on a "Bulimia Anorexia" blog written by William Webster, an Australian researcher in the neurobiological treatments for eating disorders. The post is titled: "Eating Disorders Are the Reverse Side of the Chilhood Obesity Campaign." My responses can be seen below, or directly at the blogs which I commented.

"Are Parents Overly Obsessed With Their Kids' Diets?"
comment

Scouring the blogosphere for recent and informative posts concerning childhood eating disorders, I was pleased to stumble upon your page. I am intrigued by the prospect that parents may contribute to a child’s anxiety and maladaptive outlook towards food. I agree with your position that there is nothing wrong with feeding your child in a healthy and green way. Similarly, I too recognize that the New York Times article may drive a mother to rush out to the nearest grocery store in search of the well-marketed “sugar cereals” meant to satisfy the saccharin needs of children (see image right). Like others, I think the most balanced approach would be simply to allow children to eat what they please in moderation—for we all know too well the notion of “you always want what you can’t have.” However, while it may be true that the story in the New York Times focuses on extreme cases of uber-regulating parents, one should not be too quick to discard the information. Anecdotal evidence surely does not take into account true experimental studies and causation, but this does not mean that accounts such as these do not have major implications for the onset of eating disorders in children.

In exploring your argument, I see that you quote Nina Planck, food author, when she said, “It’s a total cop out to lay blame on schools and parents for children’s eating disorders. The eating disorder comes out of a disordered psyche…” Whether you personally believe this yourself or not, I do not think that Planck’s perspective paints a full picture of the development of disorders in children. Developmental psychologists will always note the vital importance of complex interactions between psychological, social, and genetic factors in determining the outcome of disorders. In an article titled, “Young Girls Start Eating Disorders Early,” researchers point out that “the causes range from genetics and family problems, to lack of self-esteem and the media’s portrayal of thin women as ideal.” So yes, you are right when you say that neither parents nor school are the sole factors to blame when children’s anxieties about food manifest into more serious issues. However, I hope you realize that how you talk about food and think about food yourself, will probably affect your children, as you are their primary influence. Children are very susceptible to imitating the role models around them. Similarly, it is important not to believe that one can place all blame on a “disordered psyche,” because in doing this, one limits the ability to take hold of the situation by deeming it out of the realm of control.

"Eating Disorders Are the Reverse Side of the Childhood Obesity Campaign"
comment

I admire your unique and innovative perspective as to how children come to experience full-blown eating disorders later in life. In fact, in researching childhood eating disorders and risks, I continue to find the repetitively obvious and common discourse associated with the subject: that eating problems arise from family problems and the media, among various other sociocultural, biological, and behavioral perspectives. While these standpoints are legitimate and have been studied for years, it is refreshing to see a new take on the issue at hand.

Firstly, I think you raise a very important point in shedding light on the fact that programs designed to promote health and to combat obesity may sometimes backfire. New Guidelines for Childhood Obesity Prevention Programs on the Academy for Eating Disorders have been recently posted and discuss that a mere “emphasis on appearance and weight control can promote eating disordered behaviors.” By stressing weight and appearance, children begin to think more about such issues and in consequence, may start diet clubs and embark on unhealthy journeys towards shedding pounds (see image left). With the focus centered on being skinny, those children that are overweight tend to stand out even more so than before, in contrast. Additionally, other factors like the media only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Secondly, I agree with your idea that the pessimistic attitudes that overweight children acquire throughout their childhood can lead to full blown eating disorders later on. This is especially true since these negative schemas are formed when the child’s brain is most “plastic.” The idea is that while children’s development systems are still malleable to change, they will acquire negative views towards food and the self, which will then become molded into their brains as they become adults. You note that there have been major breakthroughs in the treatment of eating disorders via “neuroplasticity”, “using the fact that our brains remain plastic even into adulthood.” This idea appears to be a pioneering approach to the treatment of eating disorders, and I am very interested to see its development. You are honest in candidly noting that treatment is difficult and not meant for everyone. However, your argument would be more convincing if you implemented sufficient data and/or empirical research in your discussion of neuroplasticity. Your readers would gain a lot by knowing the facts, how many people this type of treatment has worked for, and the scientific and psychological implications. It would only benefit you to include more evidence. Nevertheless, I applaud your intuitive and modern approach to a historically old problem.

Divorce as it Impacts Children: What and What Not to Believe

I am, similar to approximately every  one out of two kids, a product of divorce (see image right). Divorce is a constant and perpetual machine that tears through people’s lives. It is a present and ongoing issue that is sure to persist well into the future assuming that people continue to marry. And yet, because divorce shatters every notion of the American Dream, we do not take much interest in pondering it lest it directly affect our families and us. It is not important until we become its victim. Additionally, divorce is something so prevalent and “normal” in our culture that we cease to deem it significant and rather see it as an unfortunate inevitability of life for some. Because the turmoil resulting from divorce often affects the children involved, there is a clear developmental-psychological component to divorce. Most of the research that has been done concerning children of divorced parents depicts the child as extremely fragile and vulnerable. A kid is thought to be indelibly scarred by the prospect of his or her parent’s divorce—the damage said to be irreparable. Having been through it myself, I cannot help but be skeptical towards the available literature. While I recognize that a smooth and friendly separation like that of my parents is a rarity, I fervently believe that the existing information concerning children of divorce is flawed. Not all children react to their parent’s divorce the same way: age, emotional stability, and the circumstances and reasons for the divorce all need to be taken into account. It is wrong to lump all children into one uniform category.

Last Saturday, an article posted on the MormonTimes titled, “The greatest gift you can give your children,” argued that what children want and need the most is a mother and father who love each other. The article discusses the negative effects of divorce, stating that ill fortune invariably spills into all areas of their life as a result. Among a laundry-list of negative consequences are that “divorce sows lasting inner conflict in children’s lives even when their parents did not fight”, “children of divorce are forced to grow up too fast”, “children often lose contact with their fathers”, “children must learn to worry about child abuse, sexual abuse and kidnapping by the non-custodial parent”, “children will worry about their stuff, because it is often lost in the constant traveling”, and “children become a keeper of secrets.” While some of these outcomes may possibly be accurate for certain individuals, it is hard to believe that these dire consequences would be true for all or even most kids. The statements are nonsensical and overly exaggerated, failing to take into account the individual differences that exist among humans. Rather than research and accrue sound data and accurate statements on the subject, the author seems to be using false overstatements in order to promote the idea of marriage as being the sole way to protect children.

Surprised at finding such a recent and yet uninformed article, I continued to search the web to see what other information is available to those interested in the impact of parental divorce. I was astonished with what I found: myriad articles discussing the same inflated and exaggerated results. “An Exploration of the Ramifications of Divorce on Children and Adolescents,” boldly states, “divorce is an intensely stressful experience for all children, regardless of age or developmental level” (see image right). It is hard to imagine that even a young infant would be able to comprehend the complex nature of relationships, let alone divorce. From my own experience, I do not recall any feelings of stress or vulnerability when my parents separated. I was two years old. It depends largely on how the parents decide to involve or even better, not to involve their children in the tangled environment of their divorce. Not all children will harness the same reaction. Similarly, not everyone will endure the “long term consequences on psychosocial functioning,” nor a “life altering impact on the well being and subsequent development.” Most of all, it is not necessarily true that “the consequences of divorce impact all aspects of a child’s life, including the parent child relationship, emotions and behavior, psychological development, and coping skills.” From simply looking around, it is evident that on average, children are able to develop normally despite the fact that every one out of two kids have experienced divorce in their lives. If facts like the ones quoted were true, we would see many more maladjusted kids and people in society. Granted this particular website lists information that is a few years old, it is still readily available to all who seek information regarding the subject, and is not very different from the data just recently posted within the past week.

In another article dated from February 22nd, 2009, the author poses the question as to whether the state should be able to restrict divorce, being that it has such negative effects on children. As in the column written for the Mormon Times, this too appears to be propaganda for promoting and sanctifying traditional marriage rather than to actually provide information on children dealing with divorce. It contends that divorce laws are too relaxed and need to become more strident in order to preserve marriage since children are “devastated” by divorcing parents. Moreover, in yet another new opinion piece from the Seattle Times (February 25th, 2009), it is said that “children of divorce are our most fragile social statistic: over 70 percent of high-school dropouts and pregnant teens girls come from fatherless homes as well as the 80-85 percent of male teens in juvenile justice centers.” Nowhere in the piece is there proof or studies cited of where the statistics are obtained. It seems there is a lot left to learn on the topic of parental divorce and the psychological effects on children. There is similarly a lot left to learn on how to provide information with credible evidence.

Fortunately, upon further investigation, a small number of resources arose finally boasting reliable information. Most notable was a study called “Life-Span Adjustment of Children to Their Parents’ Divorce.” In it, the author carefully seeks to extricate and identify all aspects that interact in a divorce and the resulting impacts on children. While he does illustrate that children of divorce do indeed encounter more issues in their daily lives, he emphasizes that the overall group differences between children of divorce and other children are small, “with considerable diversity existing in children’s reactions to divorce.” As a true researcher, this author presents all the nitty-gritty details and stresses that there are several factors that determine a child’s outcome after a divorce. The important ones include the amount and quality of contact with noncustodial parents, the custodial parents’ psychological adjustment and parenting skills, the level of interparental conflict that precedes and follows divorce, the degree of economic hardship to which children are exposed, and the number of stressful life events that accompany and follow divorce. All these aspects are what culminate and interact to determine a child’s outcome. If there is anything that I learned from statistics class, it is that we should never believe the first bit of information that we find and the data that is listed. When searching for answers to imperative and life-related questions, like the psychological impact that divorce may have on children, make sure that the information is backed with dependable data. Analyze who is presenting it, where it is coming from, and what the potential motives may be. A credible online journal does not necessarily always yield purely accurate results.

Perhaps now we can rest assured that we may not necessarily be forever scarred and doomed by the prospect of divorce—like many life experiences, the end product depends largely on a multitude of factors.