It’s been well established that poverty hurts the well being of children. Bad health, obesity, mental illness – these are associated with childhood poverty and everybody knows it. What we’re discovering now is that a lack of community engagement and connections caused by poverty might be a cause.
A new study published in Psychological Science, looked at the long term outcomes for children who were living in poverty in rural upstate New York. Over ten years ago a research team lead by Gary Evans of Cornell University were looking for an answer to the question “What is it about poverty that leads to these negative outcomes?” Their research study shows that the lack of financial capital isn’t the only factor.
The Annual Meeting of the Society for Humanistic Psychology, April 14-18, will Feature the Symposium:The New Existentalists: A Revival in Existential Thought and Practice02/02/2011
The New Existentialists: A Revival in Existential Thought and Practice The annual meeting of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 in the American Psychological Association) will be held April 14-18 at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. The Chicago Symposium will be on The New Existentalists: A Revival in Existential Thought and Practice Existential psychology...
The PHS Saybrook Alumni Association will be hosting dinners with Saybrook University President Dr Mark Schulman and PHS Director of Alumni Affairs Dr George Aiken in the coming months. These dinners will be great opportunities to meet and hear from Dr. Schulman, and to reconnect with old Saybrook friends and meet new ones. The dinners will be held in the following locations: Orlando, FL...
At least, we didn’t. As it happens, somebody predicted exactly what was going to happen in those countries ... and in Iran, and in Jordon.
In fact, three academics developed a model of predicting political turmoil that is now 7 for 7 on predictions of global unrest.
The Predictive Societal Indicators of Radicalism Model of Domestic Political Violence Forecast was developed by two Kansas State University professors, Sam Bell Amanda Murdie in collaboration with Professor Cingranelli at SUNY Binghamton University. It lists 37 nations that the model believes will see domestic political uprisings in the next five years – and so far all seven nations to do so since the 2010 predictions were made (including Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt) are, in fact, on the list.
The tool was developed for an Open Innovation company called Milcord that builds knowledge management systems for federal governments. The researchers compiled a database based on public information on 150 countries. The data cover the amount and intensity of politically motivated domestic violence spanning two decades from 1990-2009. The violence includes a full spectrum from non-violent sit-ins that go over the edge to politically motivated bombings.
The trouble with the debate sparked by Amy Chua’s book is that it assumes that the only relevant questions in parenting are: how authoritarian are you?
There’s no question Chua went over the top: when she writes about forcing her children to sit for hours with threats of no food, no water, no bathroom, until you perform perfectly ... doesn’t that sound like torture? But there’s also no evidence to suggest that lax parenting is a good thing. Authoritarian ... permissive ... is this really what matters in how happy and well adjusted children become?
A recent study out of Hong Kong suggests it's not. This 2010 longitudinal study of 346 Hong Kong 7th graders found that the degree to which 7th graders thought their mothers cared about them was more relevant to their long-term life satisfaction than how strict their mothers were.
In other words, how “authoritarian” and “permissive” mothers were didn’t actually matter all that much – but their relationship with the child, how loved the child felt and how much the children thought they mattered – was pretty important.
In a report entitled The Children Left Behind, UNICEF reported its findings on how children in the richest country are being cared for.
A UNICEF report (PDF) called “The Children Left Behind” shows that one fourth of American children are in poverty.
Does that matter? Morally and ethically, of course it does – but it also matters developmentally, as new research shows that while spending money for already well-off kids does little to improve their brain power, growing up in poverty can cause significant drops in intellectual capacity
Money doesn’t increase intelligence, but poverty can decrease it.
Here is a glance at the research:
Do you know what ruins intimate partner relationships? If you are thinking the obvious, cheating, try again. You very well might not guess this one – but you should know it, because it ranks up in the top three reasons couples split, relationships end, and divorce proceedings occur.
The culprit? Financial Infidelity.
Yup, it is about that pesky almighty green dollar bill. And, researchers tell us it is one of the biggest stressors for middle-aged Americans.
Money + relationships = volatile territory. Financial infidelity involves lying to one’s significant other about any aspect of money or finances.
Here is the clincher—it may be just as damaging to a couple’s relationship as sexual infidelity.
Harris Interactive, Redbook, and Lawyers.com researched this delicate subject and found startling results. Out of the over 1,700 couples studied, twenty four percent believed financial infidelity was worse than sexual infidelity. Twenty-nine percent admitted lying to their partner regarding finances; most often because of excessive spending on personal shopping. And more-- twenty five percent reported being lied to by their partner regarding some aspect of their combined financial state. If you do the arithmetic, over fifty four percent of couples lie to each other about their spending habits and earnings.
It may be telling a story ... as long as it’s the right kind of story.
This was recently proven in studies addresing one of the most common, and most difficult, medical conditions to treat : high blood pressure.
Treatment plans require that people take their medications, follow a specific diet and see their physicians on a regular basis – which is more than many people are willing to do. When they don’t look after their own health the mortality rate for those with high blood pressure goes up. The work of overcoming hypertension is especially hard on the African American community. Reports have come to show that social and cultural barriers have made it challenging to treat this illness in the community, and that African Americans are more likely to suffer from the long list of complications that often come with hypertension such as heart disease and stroke.
A recent study published in the January 2011 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, “Culturally Appropriate Storytelling to Improve Blood Pressure: A Randomized Trial” draws on the cultural strength of the African American community as a way to help patients initiate and maintain their treatments.
That’s too bad, not just because it’s cold and cruel – but because a large body of evidence is showing that empathy in conventional medical settings can make a big difference in patient outcomes.
In 1997 Dr. Art Bohart and Dr. Leslie Greenberg published a book entitled “Empathy Reconsidered.” This text presented research that supported the theory that empathy in therapy room can aid in improving outcomes for individuals. Since then additional research has shown that empathy can promote healing on the physical level, as well as the psychological. Now the new University of Toronto study has shown that clinical empathy (empathy within the confines of traditional clinical setting like hospitals and doctors’ offices), can improve a patients’ satisfaction with their care and encourage them to follow through with their treatment plans. Hospital administrators would be most interested in an additional fact the study found: increases in patient empathy lowered malpractice complaints.
A program on MTV that debuted January 17, Skins got three million viewers and launched six million arguments with its depictions of wealthy suburban teenagers who engaging in illicit drug use, sexually mature behavior, and violence. Emotions run high as the characters deal with divorced parents, substance abuse, and one night stands—while facing grave consequences from their actions.
The cast consists of teens, some as young as fifteen, who are portrayed in sexually explicit ways; the premier also contained over forty references to street drugs and alcohol. The Parents Television Council is among many who are protesting the show claiming that it violates anti-child pornography laws in the United States.
As of today, six major retailers have yanked their sponsorship of Skins including: Subway, H&R Block, Taco Bell, and GM. The show’s racy content has even reached capital hill; with the Parent Television Council asking the Senate, House Judiciary Committee and Department of Justice to open a federal investigation to evaluate if the show violates laws.
Behind the stormy debates, lies the real question: do shows like Skins actually affect teenage development? Is it just a show, or does it become real life?