Worst Case Scenario Moms

For most of us, when we make plans we take into consideration a small number of logical problems that might occur. In this case, a little bit of anxiety helps us make logical choices to keep ourselves safe. For example, if you are planning a road trip it is a good idea to use Google maps or your GPS to navigate without getting lost. 

For some individuals who struggle with anxiety that list of possible problems would not only be lengthy, it might also include some very unlikely and illogical problems. For example, if the weather report predicts sunny skies and you are very worried about a million things - including that you will have to drive through massive thunderstorms - this is probably a sign of an anxiety disorder. Even worse, when your friend tells you that you don't need to worry, you are still convinced that your concern is based in reality.

Our meme uses a good key word to help you understand one aspect of anxiety disorders:  catastrophically. Catastrophic thinking is a cognitive bias that is associated with anxiety disorders. It causes people to generate and fear many possible, even if unlikely, worst case scenarios. This might lead a person who fails one exam to believe, "I am going to fail out of school and be homeless;" a person who has a sore throat would think, "I am going to die from throat cancer;" and a person going through a break-up could fear, "I am going to die alone because nobody will ever want me."

In addition to worrying about themselves, people who are very anxious may also worry about catastrophes that could occur in others' lives. Based on this, Lester, Field, & Cartwright-Hatton (2012) wanted to clarify the relationship between anxiety and catastrophic thinking as they relate to mothers. This is very sensible as parents are charged with protecting their children from harm and teaching children how to be careful: all parents are expected to envision what could go wrong for their kids. 
 

 

As well, we know that anxiety disorders are caused by an interplay of genetic and environmental influences. If parents model catastrophic thinking it may be that their children will start to have the same cognitive bias.

In the study, 300 English mothers of elementary school children were tested for their baseline level of anxiety, or trait anxiety. Overall, they were not particularly anxious - only 5% or so were anxious enough to meet the criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder - but there were some moms who scored higher than others.

Next, the mothers were interviewed to measure their tendencies toward catastrophic thinking, or catastrophic processing. Almost 200 of the moms were asked to imagine that a person doing something dangerous was their own child; about 100 of the moms were instead asked to imagine themselves as the person doing the dangerous thing. For example (p. 759), the participants were asked to imagine their child or themselves as the man standing atop this high column.

They were then asked to state what worried them about that situation. The interviewer continued with follow-up questions based on these answers to generate a list of possible worst case scenarios. The mothers who came up with more of these had a larger bias toward catastrophic thinking.

All of the mothers participated in another test to see if they were simply biased to see danger in general. They read 20 descriptions of ambiguous situations - situations that could be interpreted as being dangerous or safe. Examples are not given in the Lester at al. article, but I can imagine a situation like, "Walking alone to a friend's house." Half of the situations were described as applying to them (my version: "You are walking alone to a friend's house....") and the other half were described as applying to the participants' children (my version: "Your child is walking alone to a friend's house....").

Bias toward seeing danger was assessed through a test of recognition memory. Recognition memory is what you use to complete multiple choice exams: you simply pick out the choice that matches what you remember. In this case the mothers' memories for the 20 situations were tested: for each one they had to choose between a version that was dangerous and a version that was safe. So if we use my made-up example of "walking alone to a friend's house" the choices might include:

a) ...walking alone to a friend's house and a man jumps out of a car with a knife...

b) ...walking alone to a friend's house and a rabbit jumps out from behind a bush...

Having a bias toward seeing danger would lead participants to choose the memory that depicted a threat as the correct answer.

The results confirmed that mothers who are higher in trait anxiety generated more possible worst case scenarios: anxious mothers were more likely to demonstrate catastrophic thinking. This was equally true regardless if they were asked to envision outcomes for their children or for themselves. This suggests that anxious mothers may generalize their own anxiety to their children's experiences.

Likewise, Lester et al. found that mothers who are higher in trait anxiety were more likely to remember ambiguous situations as including threats: they were biased to see danger. This was especially true when they were asked to imagine themselves in those ambiguous situations; it was true to a lesser extent when they were asked to imagine their children in the situations. Some further analyses led to the suggestion that higher trait anxiety leads to a bias of seeing danger as it might affect you personally; this self-directed bias in turn increases your likelihood to imagine danger for your child.

Lester at al. were careful to point out that their methods do not allow them to state that these biases cause children of anxious parents to become anxious themselves. However they raise the possibility that kids could be at risk of anxiety if they grow up with parents who engage in catastrophic thinking and who are led to envision danger in their children's lives. The authors also offer another possibility based on their results: parents of anxious children may develop these cognitive biases, such as catastrophic thinking, as a result of raising their fearful offspring. Talk about an ambiguous situation!

Further Reading:

The Lester et al. (2012) article can be accessed through your local college library.

For a humorous look at worst case scenarios and parenting, try this book by Piven, Borgenicht, & Jordan (2003). You can find an excerpt from the chapter on "long car journeys" here.

If you are concerned about your anxiety or the anxiety of your mother a loved one, the Anxiety and Depression Association of America offers good information on treatment. This includes a podcast about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, a common treatment to combat irrational thoughts, including a bias toward catastrophic thinking.

Your right prefrontal cortex is working SO well today!

A quick way to annoy a professor is to miss a class, come back the next day and ask this teacher, "Did I miss anything important?" Out of anger or to be funny your professor might smile and answer sarcastically, "Oh, NOOOOOO...we NEVER do anything IMPORTANT in here. All we did was waste our time so you didn't miss ANYTHING important."  If you understand that this is sarcasm you will a) understand that you did miss something important and b) your professor is probably annoyed with you.

On the other hand, if you don't understand that this is sarcasm you would believe that you did not miss anything important and also not catch that your professor is irritated by your question. This latter situation is frustrating for everyone involved and it is also the topic of today's memes:

Sarcasm is a form of irony that requires some sophisticated cognitive processes to understand it. Most children do not understand sarcasm until their pre-teen years (and then it is SO fun for the parents when their kids say sarcastic things to them) and people with autism struggle with this throughout their lives. We also see that people with Alzheimer's Disease and individuals with certain types of brain damage may not catch when something is said sarcastically.

Shamay-Tsoory, Tomer, and Aharon-Peretz (2005) conducted a neuroscience study to pinpoint locations in the brain that are associated with the understanding of sarcasm. They compared 17 healthy people to 41 people who had brain lesions in very specific areas. The lesions were mostly the result of head injuries but a few were due to tumors or stroke, but none of the affected individuals had problems with speech or "general intellectual functioning" (reasoning ability and verbal fluency).

All participants were tested on their abilities to identify emotions communicated by vocal tone and facial expression, to recognize mistakes in social situations (faux pas), and to interpret sarcasm. Reading people's emotions from their tones and facial expressions is a necessary part of understanding sarcastic statements in which those things conflict with the literal meaning of what is said. Recognizing when a person has committed a faux pas is considered to be a good test of Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is the ability to understand what another person is thinking - a skill that is required to decode sarcasm. 

The sarcasm task consisted of four stories that were always told in two ways: one that depicted a sarcastic remark and one that depicted a literal remark. For example (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2005, p. 300):

             Joe came to work, and instead of beginning to work, he sat down to rest. His boss 

             noticed his behavior and said, "Joe, don't work, too hard!"

            Joe came to work and immediately began to work. His boss noticed his behavior and

            said, "Joe, don't work, too hard!"

The participants listened to the stories and after each version they were asked comprehension questions ["Did Joe work hard (p. 300)?"] and questions to assess sarcasm understanding ["Did the manager believe that Joe worked hard (p. 300)?"].

Shamay-Tsoory et al. reported small but statistically significant results: specifically, the participants who had the worst problem understanding sarcasm tended to have lesions in their right side prefrontal cortices. This was especially true for participants whose lesions went into the ventromedial portions of this area. Participants whose lesions were located in the posterior part of their brains did not have problems understanding sarcasm: they scored the same as the healthy individuals.

The authors state that these findings make sense in relation to the functions of these locations. The entire prefrontal cortex is associated with understanding language pragmatics or the social aspects of language. The right prefrontal cortex in particular helps us to: decode the parts of language related to feelings; to understand the parts of language that are not literal; to recognize faux pas; and to "get it" when somebody is being funny. The ventromedial area adds to our experience of empathy: being able to feel the emotions of other people. These cognitive skills are necessary to understand that a speaker is saying one thing but trying to communicate another - often angry or humorous - message.

This relationship was further reinforced because the participants with right prefrontal lesions also struggled with Theory of Mind (problems recognizing faux pas) and emotion identification (problems matching tone and facial expression to particular feelings). In past research these two skills were required to understand sarcasm.

So the next time an adult (who does not have autism or brain damage) does not understand your sarcasm...

instead of getting annoyed you can smile and simply remark, "Your right prefrontal cortex is working SO well today."

Further Reading:

You can access a pdf of the Shamay-Tsoory et al. (2005) article here thanks to the American Psychological Association.

A blogpost from the Gottman Institute: sarcasm might be fun when you are joking and having a good time, but if you are sarcastic when arguing with your partner this may predict the end of your relationship.

National Geographic Channel's "Brain Games" offers an online, interactive experience of the brain and language.

Parenting: Free-range tigers in helicopters?

Throughout June we addressed the four styles that psychologists most often use to classify parents: Authoritative (the best); Authoritarian; Permissive; and Indifferent-Uninvolved (the worst). However, an Internet search reveals that many memes feature controversial styles of parenting whose names are less academic - it seems that everyone is an "expert." So how could so-called Free-range, Tiger, and Helicopter parents relate to psychology's four types?

Free-range parents advocate allowing children to spend time alone: both in the home and outdoors. These parents may equip their children with bracelets that read, "I'm not lost, I'm a free-range kid." The argument behind this parenting is that the risk of kidnapping and molestation has declined but parents' fear of those things has increased resulting in children being constantly supervised by adults. Free-range children are supposed to benefit by having unsupervised time to explore their world and by having to negotiate arguments with other children or other dilemmas on their own.

In the best possible case the Free-range parent could be Authoritative. They would be very loving toward their children but balance that love with age-appropriate rules and consequences. In this case the children would have very clear rules about when and where they could go, their expected behavior when they are out on their own, and an understanding of what age-appropriate and fair consequences would occur if they broke those rules. This would produce a situation where the child is only granted the freedom that he or she can handle based on age and individual maturity. This would also mean that the child is given guidelines for what is acceptable behavior and has had past practice thinking through moral and other types of dilemmas with the parents. Indeed Authoritative parenting teaches age-appropriate independence.

On the other hand, it is also possible that Free-range parents could be Permissive or Indifferent-Uninvolved. A Permissive parent is very loving but has very few rules or consequences for their children. One criticism of Free-range parents is that their children cause problems to property or fight with kids - but when confronted by other parents the children either do not care or state that their parents have said that they do not need to listen to other adults. Children raised by Permissive parents may have bad behavior and also struggle when confronted by situations that include rules.

In the worst-case scenario, Free-range parents could be Indifferent-Uninvolved, meaning that the parents have such little interest in the children that they don't express love to them and they don't bother giving them rules or consequences. Controversy has occurred when concerned neighbors have called the police when they saw Free-range children by themselves. To an outside observer it may be very difficult to tell the difference between a child who is granted more freedom than is the norm and a child who is neglected by his or her parents. Neglected children suffer a host of psychological and developmental problems including substance abuse and trouble with the law.

Another type of parent that seems legendary on the Internet is the so-called Tiger Mother. This type of parenting was highlighted by Amy Chua who suggested that Asian (and certain other immigrant) parents will produce more successful and productive children because they relentlessly push academic and extracurricular activities. Chua is critical of Western parenting's focus on protecting children's self-esteem and of the Western concept that an individual child's likes and dislikes need to be considered.

In relation to psychology, a Tiger parent would most likely be considered to be Authoritarian. This means that the parent does not express a lot of love to the children (even if they feel a lot of love for them) and primarily interacts with them by controlling their behavior through rules better suited to older children and consequences that are harsh. Children parented this way may have low self-esteem and  feel resentful and angry which leads to sneaky, bad behavior when the parent is not around. They may also struggle as adults when they do not have that parent around to tell them what to do.

Recently, there has been a lot of hype about a final type of parent: the Helicopter parent. Features on this topic tend to focus on stories from college professors or administrators who fear that today's young adults are too close to their parents and cannot make any decisions without phoning or texting them. The parents are also criticized for treating their college students as if they were elementary students: even I have been contacted by parents wanting to discuss their adult children's work in my college classes! These news reports about college students usually go on to generalize that parents with small children should not be "too involved," they should not "hover" because children need unsupervised time to work things out on their own, and that they should "allow their kids to fail" - all to prevent them from growing into these adults who cause consternation at university.

It is possible that Helicopter parents are Permissive parents: they are very loving but do not attempt to set limits on their children's behavior; instead they act as if they want to be the kids' friends. In this scenario, the parent has always focused on keeping the child happy - maybe doing their homework for them or assuming that any behavior problems at school are silly things made up by the teachers (their "angel" can do no wrong). As their children become young adults, these parents continue to fail at having age-appropriate expectations for them, so they coddle their college students and intrude into their affairs. Again, Permissive parenting is associated with children who have problems.

On the other hand, if we only consider parents with young children and adolescents, what seems like Helicopter parenting may actually be good, Authoritative parenting. Authoritative parents are very loving toward their children but they have age- and individual- appropriate expectations for their behavior. Average children can have large individual differences, for example, some five-year-olds can be dropped off at a birthday party and have a wonderful time while other five-year-olds still need a parent to stay throughout the party to function. There are also children with hidden struggles such as anxiety or Sensory Processing Disorder:  parents of these children may appear to be hovering or "Hoovering" (vacuuming up any potential problems in the situation) when in fact they are doing what their individual children need to be successful in that situation.

By definition, an Authoritative parent is interested in teaching age-appropriate independence, including how to think through moral dilemmas about behavior. So by definition, an Authoritative parent would not do their children's homework and would not expect their child to avoid failure. Likewise, an Authoritative parent would not intervene in a young adult's life the way that is portrayed in stories about Helicopter parents. Moreover, they would not need to because they have equipped their now grown child to deal with things on their own.

These three pop culture parenting styles bring us back to what we know is associated with the best outcomes for children: lots of expression of love and affection combined with age-appropriate and fair discipline that teaches kids to reason their way through questions of right and wrong. Some Free-range parents and some of who may appear to be Helicopter parents are likely this sort of Authoritative parent.

These pop culture parenting styles also can remind us of what is associated with problems for children. Clearly children who do not receive a lot of love and who are always left to figure out right and wrong on their own will have problems: it is possible that some Free-range parenting may fall into this Indifferent-Uninvolved style. Likewise, we know that parents who just want to be their kids' friends - they are very loving but set very few rules for their children's behavior - are also associated with kids who struggle. It could be that some Free-range parents and the stereotypical Helicopter parent would fit this Permissive profile. Finally, children who are constantly controlled by stern parents who expect too much of them also demonstrate problems. We would expect that Tiger parents may be examples of this Authoritarian category.

Another concern is that parents read about these pop culture styles and stop doing the things we know are good for their children because they don't want to be judged. Taken together the message from Free-range and Helicopter parenting seems to be, "Don't get involved in your child's life; don't help your child." On the other hand the message from Tiger parenting is, "Your child is not an individual, all children can be shaped into adults with high-paying, prestigious jobs if you are involved in all of their choices and control their choices." Not only are those messages conflicting, they get the idea of Involvement wrong.

In psychology, Involvement is not just spending quality time with your children, it is also really knowing who your child is as an individual: their likes/dislikes; their abilities/struggles; and the people and experiences that make up their daily lives. High Involvement is associated with the best outcomes for children and it is usually seen along side of good levels of Warmth and Control.  For example, Authoritative parenting is high in Warmth:  parents who freely expresses love to and try to remain positive with their children are going to be involved in their lives.  Authoritative parenting is medium in Control: to have age- and individual appropriate rules parents need to really know their children, which is high Involvement. Another part of medium Control is having fair, age-appropriate consequences if a rule is broken - to know that a rule has been broken and to know that the punishment is fair the parent has to be involved with their children. Part of this involvement includes dialoguing with older kids and teens about the rules which teaches them to think through moral dilemmas on their own; this is very different than expecting children to mindlessly obey authority figures.

It may not have a trendy name, but Authoritative parenting is the way to go.

Further Reading:

An article in The Atlantic magazine: The real problem with helicopter parents: there aren't enough of them.

WebMD has advice for knowing when your child is ready to stay home alone or to babysit younger children.

The American Psychological Association published a press release: Reducing academic pressure may help children succeed.

Parenting with Style: Warmth; Control; Involvement

School's out for Summer!  The kids are home all day and parents are growing in appreciation for teachers with each passing moment!

In honor of this, That's Psych! will focus on Parenting Styles for the month of June.

Psychologists usually evaluate parenting based on three dimensions: Warmth; Control; and Involvement.  Warmth has to do with how much parents express the love that they feel for their children. This love can be expressed through praising children when they do something well, hugs and kisses, saying, "I love you," and keeping things positive around the kids - shielding them from the ups and downs of the adults' own lives.  If parents frequently do these things, they are getting it right!  These parents would be considered to be High in Warmth.

On the other hand, parents who are Low in Warmth, may love their children, but they do not show it very much.  Instead they may appear stern, they are not very affectionate and rarely say "I love you," and if they have a bad day, they take it out on their kids by being grumpy around them.

Control has to do with discipline:  does the parent have rules and, if those rules are broken, is there some kind of consequence?  The parents who get it right, are considered to be Medium in Control.  This means that they have rules, but these are age-appropriate and sensible.  It also means that when these rules are broken, there is some sort of consequence, but this punishment is also age-appropriate and sensible.  These parents are really interested in teaching children the moral, or the reason, behind the rules.  For example, you don't hit people because it is not okay to hurt others.

In contrast, parents who are High in Control have too many rules and they often expect their children to behave as if they are older than they really are.  If expectations are too high, it means that the kids will often fail at following these rules; a parent who is High in Control also gives very harsh punishment as a consequence.  These parents are really interested in their children obeying authority: it does not matter why there is a rule, if an adult tells you to do something you must do it.

We can also find parents who are very Low in Control.  These parents either don't have rules or have very few rules for their children.  It may be that they don't expect enough from their children as they grow up.  If a rule is broken, these parents rarely have consequences for their children, or the punishment is so light that it has little effect.  These parents aren't interested in playing a role in shaping their children's behavior by teaching right from wrong.

In addition to Warmth and Control, parents can also differ in the amount of Involvement that they have in their children's lives.  Parents who are High in Involvement really know their children:  they know what is happening in their daily lives and in their inner lives.  For example, a parent who is High in Involvement would know the names of the child's friends and teachers, the child's favorite and most despised foods,  and what scares the child the most.  These parents spend quality time with their children and, just like Involvement, usually get Warmth and Control right.

A parent who is Low in Involvement would not know the details of the child's daily life or emotional life.  Often these parents spend little quality time with their children, and are likely to show problems with Warmth and Control.

In the next four blog posts, we'll feature the different types of parents and how they stack up on Warmth, Control, and by association, Involvement.  Parenting styles are in fashion this June!

Further Reading:

Want some ideas about showing High Warmth to your kids?  The Baby Center has ideas for young children and Psychology Today has ideas for teens.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a website for parents: healthychildren.org .  Look here for good suggestions about discipline and how to be Medium in Control.

Related to Involvement, here is an article from The Daily Telegraph that includes 25 questions to ask your children. 

So gifted...

In the 1971 movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," Gene Wilder plays a much more menacing version of Willy Wonka than you may be familiar with from the 2005 remake. Spoiled children are his biggest pet peeve and he watches them die candy-related deaths with nonchalance (see the demise of Augustus Gloop here) much to the horror of their parents.  So it is no surprise that Wilder's Wonka stars in this week's meme:

Why is this funny?

One possibility is that people believe that giftedness should imply a high level of all skills, including social and behavioral skills (the "harmony hypothesis").  So if a child is labeled as "Gifted" in school, it would be very funny to find that child eating sand at the playground.  This harmony hypothesis is not supported by research.  Intellectual giftedness usually means that the child is a quick learner, has an IQ that is unusually high, and is often able to complete schoolwork at a level that is more advanced their grade level.  Thus, a child who is gifted but has low social skills can exist.  In addition, children who are "Twice Exceptional" are examples of how intellectual giftedness can coexist with learning disabilities and behavior issues that require intervention.

Another possibility is that people believe that gifted children are weirdos who all have emotional and behavioral problems (the "disharmony hypothesis").  For example, in a 2013 study of German school teachers, their implicit stereotypes about gifted students included that they are, "less emotionally stable...less agreeable" (p. 40).  The authors, Baudson and Preckel, point out this stereotype does not match reality: gifted children do not have higher rates of emotional or behavioral problems than average children.

At the same time, reviews of Giftedness research remind us that these children are often very sensitive, which may be misperceived as being over-emotional.  They also may struggle with perfectionism - for example, getting very upset if they receive an A- instead of an A.  Gifted children, like all children, become friends with kids who are similar to them, so these reviews also suggest that gifted children will be most socially successful with other gifted kids.  So maybe these traits have been misunderstood to mean that Gifted children have emotional and behavioral problems.

The final possibility is that this meme is funny because it is making fun of parents who brag that their children are Gifted and exceptional without any evidence to support that claim.  This is my favorite interpretation because the humor is not based on a misperception of gifted kids.

Brummelman, Thomaes, Neleman, Orobio de Castro, and Bushman (2015) detail the creation of their Parental Overvaluation Scale (the POS, which is ironic in American slang).  Overvaluing means viewing your child as somehow more deserving of good things and of being a better person than the average child.  In fact, the paper's title includes the phrase, "My child is God's gift to Humanity" to demonstrate how extreme this perception can be.  The authors found that this warped view was often, but not always, reported by narcissistic parents.  For all parents, overvaluing was demonstrated by irrationally high evaluations of their children's knowledge, compulsive praising of their children's efforts, and over-estimation of their children's intelligence.

For example, Brummelman et al. had parents rate how likely it was that their children were familiar with certain important, historical concepts.  Some of these were real, like "Vietnam War," but others were made up, like "Storming of Austria" (p. 679). The parents who overvalue their children were not only more likely to believe that their kids would be familiar with the real examples, they were also more likely to believe that their children would be familiar with the fictional examples!

The authors also recorded parents' behaviors as they helped their children solve mathematics problems:  overvaluing parents praised their children 62% more often.  This praise was not related to how accurately the problems were solved, so it was not reflecting reality!

Most relevant to our meme, Brummelman et al. asked parents to evaluate their children's intellect, including how much they agree with this statement: "I see my child as gifted" (p. 672).  Even though their children's IQ scores were not higher than other children's, the overvaluing parents were more likely to agree that their children are gifted!

Parents who overvalue their children may be doing more harm than simply being annoying to Willy Wonka:  these behaviors may turn entitled children into adult narcissists who believe that they are superior humans.  Bushman, one of the creators of the POS, has recently gotten wide media attention in the United States for his suggestion that parents lay off of so much praise to avoid creating little narcissists.  Over-simplified headlines reading, "Don't praise your child!  Don't tell your child that he is special!" seemed to spring up overnight!

This parent-blaming reminds me of a song from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory":

However, Bushman's claims are guesses in the longterm - we don't know if overvalued children actually turn into narcissistic adults - and the average parent is unlikely to be an overvaluing parent.  You also know that irrationally excessive praise is only one part of overvaluing behaviors.  So if your praise is justified and if you tell your child that he or she is special because EVERY human is unique and special, it is unlikely to cause a problem.

Either way - Gifted or not - if your children are eating sand like Augustus Gloop eats chocolate, you should talk to their pediatrician about pica!  This can be a sign of nutritional deficiencies.


 Further Reading:

The Brummelman et al. (2015) article in JPSP is available through your college library, but a version of the authors' related study that spawned Bushman's media frenzy is available online.  The published version in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States can also be accessed through your college library.

Hoagies Gifted Education Page and the National Associate for Gifted Children are good sources for parents and teachers who want to learn more about intellectual giftedness.

Have to deal with overvaluing parents?  Help from WebMd: Talking to parents who brag about their kids.

This man claims that his biggest phobia is a fear of Willy Wonka!