The survey included more than 1,000 youths from around the nation aged 12 to 17 and about half of their parents. On a typical day, [...]]]> Teenagers who use social networking sites and watch “suggestive” TV shows are more likely to use drugs and alcohol than teens with little exposure to such media, a new survey found.

The survey included more than 1,000 youths from around the nation aged 12 to 17 and about half of their parents. On a typical day, about 70 percent of teens said they used social networking sites.

Social network users were five times more likely to report using tobacco (10 percent versus 2 percent), three times more likely to say they used alcohol (26 percent versus 9 percent) and twice as likely to admit using marijuana (13 percent versus 7 percent). Researchers said the association held even when accounting for the age of the teens. For example, about 20 percent of 16- and 17-year-olds who regularly used social networking sites reported trying marijuana compared to 11 percent of kids
who did not use social networking sites regularly.

About one-third of teens also said they regularly watch teen TV shows such as “Jersey Shore,” “16 and Pregnant,” “Skins” and “Gossip Girl.” Regular viewers of any of those programs were about twice as likely to use tobacco or alcohol, according to the survey, commissioned by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York City.

“The results are profoundly troubling,” the authors wrote in the report, released Aug. 24. “This year’s survey reveals how the anything goes, free-for-all world of Internet expression [and] suggestive television programming … put teens at sharply increased risk of substance abuse.”

But the survey doesn’t prove that watching “Jersey Shore” or spending time on Facebook leads to substance abuse, only that kids who watch those shows and use social networking sites are more likely to report smoking or alcohol use, said Michael Gilbert, a senior fellow at University of Southern California’s Center for the Digital Future. And yet, that’s not to say that what kids see on TV or on the Internet doesn’t affect them, Gilbert said.

“There is no question the Web makes information available to youngsters. They know how to get information on drugs. There is also no question that through social media like Facebook they can see what other students are doing,” Gilbert said. “If they see that, in fact, others are smoking dope, it makes it seem to be a rite of passage.”

Teens were also asked if they agreed with any of these statements: “If a friend of mine uses illegal drugs, it’s none of my business,” “I should be able to do what I want with my own body” or “It’s not a big deal to have sex with someone you don’t care that much about.” Teens who supported any of those beliefs were three times more likely to use marijuana, twice as likely to drink alcohol and much more likely to smoke cigarettes than teens who disagreed with the statements.

Jennifer Goodwin, USA Today

New research presented on [...]]]> Science Daily (May 1, 2011) — With all of the media attention on young people being tormented by bullies and cyberbullies, parents may wonder what they can do to protect their children. The question they may want to ask instead is how can they prevent their child from becoming a bully.

New research presented on May 1, at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in Denver shows that parents can play a key role in decreasing the chances that their son or daughter will harass or intimidate other children.

Researchers, led by Rashmi Shetgiri, MD, FAAP, examined the prevalence of bullying reported by parents who took part in the National Survey of Children’s Health from 2003-2007. They also looked at factors that were associated with an increased or decreased risk that a child bullied others.

The survey showed nearly one in six youths 10-17 years old bullied others frequently in 2007, according to Dr. Shetgiri, assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Dallas. While the rates of parents who reported that their children harassed others frequently (defined as sometimes, usually or always) decreased from 2003 to 2007, these rates remain high, Dr. Shetgiri said. Survey results also showed that 23 percent of children had bullied another youngster in 2003 compared to 35 percent in 2007.

Some factors that increase the likelihood that a child will bully others have persisted from 2003 to 2007. For example, children are more likely to be bullies if their parents frequently feel angry with them or feel their child bothers them a lot. In addition, children with an emotional, developmental or behavioral problem and those whose mothers report less than very good mental health also are more likely to be bullies. In fact, about one in five bullies has an emotional, developmental or behavioral problem, more than three times the rate in non-bullies, Dr. Shetgiri noted.

Other factors that seem to protect a child from becoming a bully also have persisted from 2003 to 2007. Parents who share ideas and talk with their child, and who have met most or all of their child’s friends are less likely to have children who bully, Dr. Shetgiri said.

“Targeting interventions to decrease these persistent risk factors and increase the persistent protective factors could lead to decreased bullying,” she said.

For example, parents can increase involvement with their children by meeting their friends and by spending time talking and sharing ideas with their children, Dr. Shetgiri suggested. “They also can find effective ways to manage any feelings of anger toward their child and can work with health care providers to make sure any emotional or behavioral concerns they have about their child, as well as their own mental health, are addressed.”

The new findings, tallied by the federal government’s Substance [...]]]> Some 2 million adolescents experienced a bout of major depression last year, but only about a third of them got any help in dealing with the sadness, irritability,  anxiety, guilt and loss of interest and energy that are the hallmarks of such episodes, a report says.

The new findings, tallied by the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, were issued Thursday to kick off a month of national activity aimed at raising awareness of childrens’ mental health. With about 15% of high school students in the United States reporting they have seriously contemplated suicide in the past year, many of those efforts are geared toward identifying those at risk and intervening early to prevent self-harm.

Each year, 4,400 Americans between the ages of 10 and 24 commit suicide, and 149,000 seek emergency care for self-inflicted injuries, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While shocking, these acts rarely come without some early warning: Researchers have found that 9 of 10 young suicide victims suffered from diagnosable mental illness at the time of their death, and that 63% showed overt symptoms of mental illness in the year before their suicide.

The latest study found that roughly 8.1% of the population between 12 and 17 years old reported experiencing a period of depressed mood lasting two or more weeks in the preceding 12 months. As he or she ages from 12 to 17, the report found, a child grows more likely to have a depressive episode. Almost 15% of girls 15 to 17 years old described to survey-takers a major depressive episode in the preceding year, compared to an average of 6.4% of boys 15 to 17 years old who did so. Teenage boys were consistently less likely to report depression — or to get help for it — than were girls, a pattern that continues into adulthood.

Young teens who experienced such depression were far more likely to have abused prescription drugs in the past month than those who were not depressed (19.2% vs. 6.6%), to smoke cigarettes daily (3.6% vs. 1.9%), and to report heavy alcohol use in the preceding month (4.2% vs. 1.9%). The report is based on a national survey of drug use and health conducted in 2009.

Pamela S. Hyde, administrator of the agency releasing Thursday’s findings, said they underscore the importance of catching and treating mental health problems early in kids. Doing so, she said, “can turn a life around and reduce the impact of mental illness and substance abuse on America’s communities.”

Currently, relatively few get help, the survey found. Some 34.7% of those reporting depression in the past year said they have received treatment of any kind. In that group, 58.5% said they had seen or talked to a physician or other professional about depression, but did not take any medication in treatment of it. Another 34.7% saw or talked to a physician or professional and took prescription medication for depression. The remaining 6.7% took prescription medication, but did not consult a professional about their mood disturbance.

The report comes against the backdrop of building momentum for efforts to identify youngsters who are at higher risk of mental illness and steer them toward early help. In Massachusetts, a statewide program requiring all primary care physicians to screen children insured under Medicaid for mental illness risk has helped boost such screening to 74% of all teens, up from 20%. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Society for Adolescent Medicine all recommend routine screening of adolescents for early signs of depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses.

Teen Screen, a standardized mental health screening test designed by physicians at Columbia University, is now offered to adolescents with parents’ permission at more than 550 school and community sites across the country, and is widely used by physicians to identify kids who may be at higher risk of depression or other mental illness.

“We know the earlier we identify these conditions, the prognosis for an adolescent is so much better,” said Leslie McGuire, deputy executive director of Teen Screen. With earlier warning of a child’s psychological suffering, psychotherapy may be all that’s needed, and more intensive therapies, including prescription medication, can be avoided, she said. “But we have
to find them first.”

Melissa Healy, LA Times

“At 3, 4, 5 and 6, they’re playing with toys [...]]]> Hannah Zelinger just gave her doll collection to her 3-year-old cousin — and now Hannah’s bedroom in Long Beach, N.Y., is going from all pink to a black-and-white geometric design that’s more mature. After all, she’s 9. And by today’s standards, she’s leaving childhood behind.

“At 3, 4, 5 and 6, they’re playing with toys and dolls and puppet shows and crafts. It stops at 7. Says Hannah’s mother, Jennifer Zelinger. “She talks about boys asking her out and who’s going to like her.” Zelinger says Hannah wants some independence. But as a mother, Zelinger says, she’s so torn about that idea that when Hannah rides her bicycle around the block to see a friend, the moms are on the phone for the entire journey. “We’re actually monitoring how long it takes and checking in, and I think it’s sad,” Zelinger, 46, says. “I want her to have that freedom, but the stories that I hear — I would never live with myself if anything happened.”

Today’s kids may never know the no-cares time of innocence, exploration and imagination that their parents recall about childhood. Many parents rarely let their kids roam the neighborhood, use public transportation or walk to school alone. Play and sports are organized into play dates and teams, and extracurricular activities eat up kids’ free time. Hannah’s schedule at one point included Hebrew classes, ceramics, gymnastics, Zumba, trapeze and softball.

Even the lazy days of summer aren’t so slow anymore, with many kids in structured camp programs, often focused on academics. The cost, some analysts say, is not just rising concern that kids won’t look back fondly on their childhoods. Analysts say there are increasing signs that a lack of independence fuels stress, anxiety and depression among young people. Many child-development specialists and others worry that it’s just not as much fun to be a kid anymore.

“Kid time today? That time is filled,” says Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a developmental psychologist at Temple University in Philadelphia. “We’ve lost the sense of allowing children to be children, to have that period of time in their lives where we don’t burden them with a zillion things to do,” says Malcolm Goldsmith, professor emeritus of health education at Southern Illinois University.

Zelinger says she grew up with “a lot of free time to play outside and put on roller skates and play kickball. In many ways, I do feel they don’t have time just to play games and play with their friends and go to the park.” She says she’s skipping the gym so she can pick up her daughter an hour earlier from her after-school program so Hannah can have an hour before dinner to unwind. She’s also cut back on the weekend schedule and activities that Hannah wanted to pursue. “We made some changes to have downtime,” Zelinger says. “I’m blocking out a few hours of just nothing — maybe even a whole day and night — which I never used to do.”

Childhood specialists say parents’ fears — ranging from concern about their child being harmed or abducted to worries about their child’s future education or career — seem to be driving much of the change. “It’s the reality of contemporary life,” says historian Steven Mintz of Columbia University in New York. “We think we live in a pretty dangerous world, and kids who are naive are vulnerable.” “It’s not that their lives are more hazardous, but perceptions of the hazards have increased a lot,” says historian Paula Fass of the University of California-Berkeley, co-editor of Re-Inventing Childhood in the Post World War II World, due out this fall. “When that happens, we close down on the children and make it less possible for them to act informally, and worry that we need to have somebody watching over them.”

Whether these fears are real or imagined, parents take them to heart, analysts say. But those who study childhood say kids were in a lot more danger 30 or 40 years ago. “Research shows very clearly that kids are safer today,” says Michael Ungar, a professor of social work at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and author of Too Safe for Their Own Good. He credits public health campaigns, such as car-seat legislation and anti-drug and anti-smoking efforts.

“We’ve created safer worlds for our children, and now we need to make sure we don’t hold (them) back so they don’t get disadvantaged,” he says. “Children need manageable opportunities to experience risk and responsibility in their lives. If we take away all these opportunities to suffer natural consequences, then where are they going to learn the skills they need to become well-functioning adults?”

“We think of our kids in constant peril from a lot of things, starting with predators on down to the peril of not getting into a good college,” she says. Educators add to the pressure by expecting more from students and parents, Pettus says. “When my oldest started school, all you had to bring was a pencil box and some crayons,” she says. “Now, if you don’t know your letters and the sound your letters make, then you’re already behind.” These increased educational and social pressures may be taking a toll on kids’ mental health, suggests Laurence Steinberg, psychology professor at Temple University.

“We don’t have large-scale surveys that ask kids about fun, but we do have them about depression and anxiety,” he says. “A lot of kids are reporting being depressed or anxious. It’s partly because they feel under a lot of pressure to do well, whether in school or on the athletic field or at piano class or whatever it is.” One in five kids ages 9 to 17 grapple with mental illness such as depression or symptoms of anxiety, and 80% go untreated, says the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Kids need unstructured time to unwind and relax, just to play without worrying about their performance,” Steinberg says. “There is no question there’s a lot of stress in the lives of children and particularly teenagers,” he says. “We need to reduce the stress by taking some of the pressure off while at the same time preparing kids to manage life’s inevitable stressors.” One of the larger efforts is the Ultimate Block Party, a large-scale play date in the park organized by various play advocates, including Hirsh-Pasek. The first event was last fall in New York City’s Central Park, and others are scheduled around the country to focus on the science and educational value of play.

Kenneth Ginsburg, an adolescent-medicine specialist in Philadelphia, is among a group of child experts trying to refocus attention on the benefits of play. “Play is a vital piece of childhood under challenge by a variety of forces in society,” he says.

Sharon Jayson, USA Today

Bringing up a child in the 21st century [...]]]> Most parents say they wouldn’t have it any other way. Children cause them financial hardship, eat up their time and cause untold worry… but mums and dads insist they are worth every penny, wrinkle and grey hair. But according to scientists, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

Bringing up a child in the 21st century is so expensive parents have no option but to tell themselves it is all worthwhile, they say. In times gone by, there was no need to idealise parenthood because children would begin working at an early age and provide for their parents.

But today this ‘reward’ is not as likely. So parents have to invent other justifications for the trials of having children, the Canadian researchers say.

For their experiment, the psychologists gave three groups of parents passages about the economic cost of parenting to read. One group was given sheets that focused on the financial layout and included a U.S. government calculation that it costs £120,000, on average, to raise a child. Others were given the same figure but told that parents are often more financially secure in old age because their children support them. The remainder read a passage that had nothing to do with costs.

The men and women, who all had at least one child under 18, were then questioned about how much they idealised parenting. They were asked whether they believed it possible to be truly happy without having children – and whether parents are happier and more satisfied with their lives than childless couples. Finally, they were asked to rate spending time with their children against meeting friends or their partner and how much time they hoped to spend with their children on their next day off work.

Those who read about the financial hardship idealised parenting the most. They were more likely to say they enjoyed spending time with their children. This group also said that they intended to spend more time with their children on their day off, the journal Psychological Science reports.

A similar experiment using different parents backed up the theory that mothers and fathers idealise parenthood to justify the costs of bringing up a family. The researchers, from the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, said: ‘The motivation to rationalise the costs of parenting apparently not only increases parents’ idealisation of parenthood, but also leads them to believe that spending time with their children is more rewarding than other activities. This belief then motivates parents to want to spend more time with their children.’

They say the belief is likely to have gained currency as parenthood has become more costly. Put bluntly, today’s children leave home later and have expensive tastes – making it more important for parents to justify their existence. Cynical as the theory is, it may have its advantages.

Wray Herbert, of the Association for Psychological Science, said: ‘We may be uneasy thinking of our families as dollars and cents but bank accounts don’t lie. If knowing the bottom line makes us want to spend more time on kids instead of, say, TV or golf or work, that sounds like a healthy bargain for all involved.’

However, Siobhan Freegard, of the parenting advice website Netmums, said that if parenthood was as bad as the study suggests, most couples would stop at one child.

Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail

In studies at Temple University, psychologists used functional magnetic resonance imaging scans on 40 teenagers and adults to determine if there are differences in brain activity when [...]]]> Why do otherwise good kids seem to make bad decisions when they are with their friends? New research on risk taking and the teenage brain offers some answers.

In studies at Temple University, psychologists used functional magnetic resonance imaging scans on 40 teenagers and adults to determine if there are differences in brain activity when adolescents are alone versus with their friends. The findings suggest that teenage peer pressure has a distinct effect on brain signals involving risk and reward, helping to explain why young people are more likely to misbehave and take risks when their friends are watching.

To test how the presence of peers influences risk taking, the researchers asked 14 young teenagers (ages 14 to 18), 14 college students and 12 young adults to play a six-minute video driving game while in a brain scanner. Participants were given cash prizes for completing the game in a certain time, but players had to make decisions about stopping at yellow lights, and being delayed, or racing through yellow lights, which could result in a faster time and a bigger prize, but also meant a higher risk for crashing and an even longer delay. The children and adults played four rounds of the game while undergoing the brain scan. Half the time they played alone, and half the time they were told that two same-sex friends who had accompanied them to the study were watching the play in the next room.

Among adults and college students, there were no meaningful differences in risk taking, regardless of  whether friends were watching. But the young teenagers ran about 40 percent more yellow lights and had 60 percent more crashes when they knew their friends were watching. And notably, the regions of the brain associated with reward showed greater activity when they were playing in view of their friends. It was as if the presence of friends, even in the next room, prompted the brain’s reward system to drown out any warning signals about risk, tipping the balance toward the reward.

“The presence of peers activated the reward circuitry in the brain of adolescents that it didn’t do in the case of adults,” said Laurence Steinberg, an author of the study, who is a psychology professor at Temple and author of “You and Your Adolescent: The Essential Guide for Ages 10 to 25.” “We think we’ve uncovered one very plausible explanation for why adolescents do a lot of stupid things with their friends that they wouldn’t do when they are by themselves.”

Dr. Steinberg notes that the findings give a new view of peer pressure, since the peers in this experiment were not even in the same room as the teenager in the scanner.

“The subject was in the scanner, so the friends were not able to directly pressure the person to take chances,” Dr. Steinberg said. “I think it’s helpful to understand because many parents conceive of peer pressure as kids directly coercing each other into doing things. We’ve shown that just the knowledge that your friends are watching you can increase risky behaviour.”

Dr. Steinberg notes that the brain system involved in reward processing is also involved in the processing of social information, explaining why peers can have such a pronounced effect on decision making. The effect is believed to be especially strong in teenagers because brain changes shortly after puberty appear to make young people more attentive and aware of what other people are thinking about them, Dr. Steinberg said.

The study results are borne out in real-world data that show teenagers have a much higher risk of car accidents when other teenagers are in the car. More study is needed to determine if the effect shown in the game study is the same when teenagers are in the presence of an opposite-sex friend or romantic interest. In the study, there were no meaningful differences in risk taking among boys and girls. However, some real-world driving data suggests that teenage boys take more risks behind the wheel when one or more boys are in the car, but drive more carefully if they are with a girlfriend.

For parents, the study data reinforce the notion that groups of teenagers need close supervision. 

“All of us who have very good kids know they’ve done really dumb things when they’ve been with their friends,” Dr. Steinberg said. “The lesson is that if you have a kid whom you think of as very mature and able to exercise good judgment, based on your observations when he or she is alone or with you, that doesn’t necessarily generalize to how he or she will behave in a group of friends without adults around. Parents should be aware of that.”

Tara Parker Pope, New York Times