People who are discriminated against cope with that discrimination in various ways. Although some cope adaptively and use strategies that are constructive and empowering when they are faced with adversity, others turn to maladaptive coping mechanisms. One such mechanism is the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs. Racial discrimination has been shown to be related to increased drug and alcohol use, but has not been proven to be the cause of the increase. So why is it that some people use alcohol and drugs to cope while others do not? Meg Gerrard of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire wanted to explore this question further. In a recent study, Gerrard looked at whether people used drugs/alcohol as a method of coping consistent with their habitual coping strategies, or if they believed that substance use would decrease their feelings of stress and negativity stemming from the discrimination.

Gerrard conducted three separate studies designed to elicit feelings of discrimination among a sample of African-American adolescents. In her third study, she followed the level of substance use for eight years to determine the long-term influence of the discrimination-use relationship. She found that the participants who felt that substance use was an acceptable way to cope with problems were more likely to use drugs/alcohol when they felt discriminated against than those who did not endorse substance use. Over time, the results revealed that those who did support substance use as a method of coping continued to use drugs/alcohol throughout adolescence and into early adulthood, while those who never supported this belief did not. These findings suggest that adopting substance-use behaviors early on can lead to long-term maladaptive coping strategies for some individuals.

The findings from this study were gathered only from African-American participants. Future work should look at the coping-discrimination dynamic among other minority individuals, as evidence exists that prejudice and discrimination increases stress across all ethnicities. Gerrard noted that one domain that was not examined in her study was the effect of parental support. When parents teach their children how to handle stressful situations prior to their occurrence, children have a better chance of dealing with challenges such as discrimination in productive and adaptive ways rather than trying to relieve the stress with drugs or alcohol. Research should explore the buffering effects that family and parental support can have on this segment of the population. Until then, these studies demonstrate that acceptance of maladaptive coping strategies can increase negative behavior in people facing discrimination. “The current studies also provide evidence that use-as-coping is not caused by discrimination—instead, it increases the relation between discrimination and subsequent substance use,” Gerrard said.

Reference:
Gerrard, Meg, Michelle L. Stock, Megan E. Roberts, Frederick X. Gibbons, Ross E. O’Hara, Chih-Yuan Weng, and Thomas A. Wills. Coping with racial discrimination: The role of substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 26.3 (2012): 550-60. Print.

One of the reasons many children do not tell anyone about being sexually abused is because they fear that their loved ones will not believe them. Often, their abuser is a friend or family member, and although children may know that what occurred is wrong, they may be confused and worried that their caregivers will think they have misconstrued the behavior. Children who feel neglected or maltreated by caregivers may feel reluctant to disclose abuse, and many abusers threaten children, creating more reasons for nondisclosure. However, when children do reveal abuse, getting them to explain the abuse in a way sufficient to lead to prosecution can be challenging.

Various methods of interrogation are used on child-abuse victims, including open-ended questions, yes/no questions, “What happened?” questions, and “How did that make you feel?” questions. For the most part, open-ended questions and “what” questions tend to provide the least amount of detail. Children often are unable to articulate the details of their abuse. And while “how” questions that prompt children to reveal their physical reactions and feelings allow them to detail their personal experience in great detail, this is the most rarely used form of interrogation. To explore which method would provide the most accurate recollection of abuse and elicit emotional responses that could demonstrate credibility to jurors, judges, and therapists, Thomas D. Lyon of the Department of Psychology at the University of Southern California recently examined transcripts from more than 100 child-abuse cases.

Lyon discovered that when children were asked closed-ended questions such as yes/no, their responses were narrow and they exhibited little emotion. Similarly, when they were asked “What happened?” they were hesitant to reveal details and appeared emotionally undisturbed. But when children were asked how the abuse made them feel and what their physical reactions were, the responses were extremely vivid and consistent. They demonstrated emotional responses and used words such as angry, sad, afraid, confused, “sick to my stomach,” and dirty. They manifested facial and physical reactions that allowed those interviewing them to see the damage of the abuse in ways that the children could not articulate when prompted with direct questioning. “Children can be surprisingly articulate about their reactions to sexual abuse, despite their apparent lack of affect in describing the abuse itself,” Lyon said. He hopes that these findings will motivate interviewers, prosecutors, and mental health professionals to evaluate physical and emotional reactions of abuse as a means to gather details from child sexual abuse victims.

Reference:
Lyon, Thomas D., Nicholas Scurich, Karen Choi, Sally Handmaker, and Rebecca Blank. ‘How did you feel?’: Increasing child sexual abuse witnesses’ production of evaluative information. Law and Human Behavior 36.5 (2012): 448-57. Print.

What was once considered a rarity—step-siblings, step-parents, and step-in-laws—has become more common than not. When couples marry, there is a very good chance that one of them brings an extended family that branches by halves and steps. And if that couple winds up divorcing, the tree splinters even further. Because there is no biological bond that obligates a step-family member to stay in contact with other steps, the rules of engagement can be confusing and tense. In a recent article, marriage experts explain how to navigate the rocky road of step-relationships after divorce.

Take, for example, the case of an ex-wife who spent decades raising her step-children. Should she continue the relationship with these nonbiological children, even though she has no legal claim to them? Mary T. Kelly, a marriage therapist from Colorado, notes that often step-children can be a contributing factor to divorce. Many blended-family parents disagree over how to raise his, hers, and their children. Tension that exists between step-children and step-parents seems like normal childhood rebellion, but in many cases may actually run deeper.

Paul Hokemeyer, a New York therapist, says couples and children need to determine if they want those relationships to continue after divorce. Many children may not be permitted to make contact with their ex-step-parents while they are minors, but can make the choice whether to have a relationship with that significant person when they reach adulthood. Even step-grandparents get caught in the mix when step-families divorce. Grandparents who become attached to step-grandchildren, only to have them taken away, may not be willing to invest as much into future step-family members.

One Massachusetts psychologist, Patricia Papemow, recommends that clients try to initiate contact through letters rather than personal visits or phone calls. It is important for step-children to be allowed to have time to process the shift in the relationship on their own terms. Letting them know a step-parent is there through cards and letters is a noninvasive and subtle way to continue contact and keep the door open for future communication. Regardless of how an individual chooses to stay in contact with their step-children, Hokemeyer insists that they review their motives so that all parties will be receptive. “Make sure that you are acting out of genuine love and concern for the other person, and not out of anger and attempts to manipulate,” Hokemeyer says. Following these tips could help step-exes maintain important family ties in a world of ever-changing family dynamics.

Reference:
Gootman, Elissa. When branches tangle in a stepfamily tree. (n.d.): n. pag. The New York Times. 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/fashion/-step-family-trees-with-tangled-branches.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Marriages aren’t like fine wines. They are not harvested in vineyards and they do not always get better with age. However, many marriages far exceed any expiration date. According to a recent article by Matt Richtel, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and columnist, modern marriages—which divorce at rates upward of 50%—may benefit from an exit strategy after, say, five, 10, or 20 years. Richtel said that many marriage contracts already exist. Prenuptial agreements are rampant among the wealthy, some couples who live together make paperless commitments to each other, and many celebrities and politicians have legalized business/marriage agreements. In fact, the idea of contractual marriage has been picked up in Mexico, where lawmakers recently introduced the idea of renewable marriages. Good idea or bad, the law didn’t pass.

But should it have? Should the institution of marriage be updated to keep pace with other cultural advances in areas such as medicine and technology? This was the question that Richtel asked several marriage therapists, psychologists, and divorce attorneys. The responses were varied. Author and professor Pepper Schwartz commented that marriage has been getting picked apart for decades and needs to be fully examined. Today’s marriages have less connection to religion and family, which creates a weaker support system, and modern technology encourages people to expect instant gratification from marriage. Schwartz said something like a 20-year marriage contract is an option, and that nuptial contracts including dowries and financial arrangements are not new.

Dr. Robert E. Emery, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, says the problem with marriage is the expectation of longevity that it comes with. Children of divorced parents bear the immediate emotional devastation of losing one parent, or having their family rhythm disrupted. If the possibility of divorce was anticipated, and marriages were not supposed to last past a certain point, it would be more culturally acceptable and emotionally tolerable. Emery says the best way to approach marriage is to understand that it is not a union filled with unlimited sex with someone who is beyond perfect, but rather an investment of every available resource that can reap emotional, sexual, and physical rewards. “There are good reasons to be romantic about marriage,” Emery said. “The big benefit of marriage is precisely the commitment over the long term.”

Reference:
Richtel, Matt. Till death, or 20 years, do us part. (n.d.): n. pag. The New York Times. 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/fashion/marriage-seen-through-a-contract-lens.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A client recently described how thrilling it was to take her daughter to see the Broadway musical Annie.  She recalled that her mother took her to see it when she was a child, and it had been an indelibly wonderful experience. Now she had the pleasure of providing the same thrill for her daughter. I thought how special it was for my client to share this with her daughter and how lucky my client was that her daughter had the same feelings about the experience. It also reminded me that so many parents who want to provide what they believe to be all the right things for their children are not always met with such good feelings.

I recalled another client whose desire to recreate his delight for his son was dashed when he took him to the rodeo and was met with the response, “This is stupid.” In spite of their most nurturing and positive intentions, parents may find that their wishes and rules for their children are met with rejection. This can create painful feelings, including insult, hurt, anger, and disappointment. “Drew,” a 42-year-old client, was in a prolonged struggle with his 8-year-old daughter about piano lessons she adamantly refused to take. He told me, “When I was a kid, I refused to continue piano lessons after a few months. My parents never insisted I continue. I’m not going to let that happen to my daughter. She isn’t old enough to know what she wants or what the consequences of her actions will be.”

As Drew and I explored his feelings, it became clear that he not only felt disappointed, he felt rejected by his daughter. “It feels like she is telling me, ‘Get out of here, you don’t know what’s good for me,’ ” he said. I responded: “I can see how upset you are about this, but I wonder what it is that makes you feel so personally rejected. Is it possible that your daughter is different from you?” Drew’s first response was, “She’s my daughter and she is like me. I just know this is very important for her to do. When I was a child, I didn’t know I was making a terrible mistake. My parents should have known and pushed me to continue.”

It took a lot of talking for Drew to become aware of his many disappointments about the ways his parents had been involved in his life when he was a child. He began to consider that he might not need to protect his daughter from this disappointment. He recognized that his daughter might, like him, regret not learning the piano, but forcing her to take lessons could easily turn her away from the piano. He realized that her experience and development was and will be different from his and she is a different person with her own thoughts and feelings. After all, she has different parents than he did. The more Drew could understand his daughter’s need to differentiate from him, the easier it was not to feel so rejected and hurt.

When parents assert their desires for their children, it is not unusual for them to be met with expressions of different or opposing wants and needs. Pushing back against what parents want is a necessary part of a child’s development. For a healthy sense of self to grow, children need to differentiate from their parents and become unique, separate, individual selves. This doesn’t mean children are totally different from or always in opposition to their parents. It does mean children need to develop minds of their own. Having one’s own mind is about being able to think about your needs and wants without being overly influenced by others. Ideally, the wishes of others are considered, but ultimately one makes his or her own life choices. Obviously, the degree of autonomy for a 4-year-old differs from that of a 13-year-old and again for a 20-year-old. When children are not given the space to differentiate from their parents and don’t develop a self that is confident and strong, they will not have developed the autonomy to make life choices and get what they want as they enter full adulthood.

At age 53, “Anne” was struggling with her teenage son, “Noah.” She came to therapy expressing feelings of anger and insult from their encounters. She explained that he fought her at every turn about anything she asked of him: cleaning his room, doing household chores, getting his college applications completed.  “I don’t believe how he treats me,” she said. “He says things like, ‘Leave me alone and mind your own business.’ Is that any way to speak to your mother? I feel so hurt and insulted. Doesn’t he know I only want what’s best for him?” In great distress, Anne added, “He has become a terrible person. He is so mean and inconsiderate. He seems like a completely different person than the son I felt loved me a year ago.”

As we talked, Anne described how when she was growing up she never went against her parents. When we explored her past and present relationships, Anne began to wonder if her early experiences being compliant are related to her difficulty asserting herself as an adult. She described how difficult it is for her to disagree with her husband and how she doesn’t always feel so good about herself. She realized that it wasn’t just with her son that she felt so badly treated. “I guess I don’t feel very powerful,” she said. “I have a lot of trouble believing that what I think and feel is OK. I always followed the rules with my parents. Maybe I didn’t develop what Noah needs to do—be someone who feels OK asserting himself when there is opposition.” Many parents with teenagers experience difficult feelings in their parent-teenager relationships. For Anne, the feelings of insult and rejection were intolerable. Even worse for her was the terrible shame she felt about her negative feelings toward her son: “I’m the terrible person. Mothers shouldn’t feel this way.”

How to handle this kind of situation with teenagers is controversial. Furthermore, how any parent hears what a child says is open to interpretation and may be related to how the parent differentiated from his or her own parents. While Anne felt insulted and hurt, another parent in these circumstances might shrug and think, “When will these awful teenage years pass?” On one end of the continuum of parental response, parents might believe that a child of any age should never be permitted to say anything that is hurtful, disrespectful, or angry to a parent. At the other end of the response continuum, parents might accept any expression their child makes without intervening. An extreme example might be if a teenager said, “You’re an awful parent, you have no business having children,” and a parent made no protest about being treated that way. On this far end of the continuum, the lack of a parental response to push against doesn’t provide the child with the feeling that there is a strong parental self to separate from. If there is no other out there to individuate from, it becomes difficult for a child to develop a sense of who he or she is and the ability to be autonomous. The child is left wondering, “Who am I?” Potentially more problematic, the child may be left with a feeling of powerlessness. He or she has not been given the experience of successfully asserting his or her developing self in the world.

There is a lot of room along this continuum for parents to develop responses that feel comfortable to them while allowing some room for their children to develop their unique selves. It helps if parents let their children know what behaviors are acceptable. For instance, telling a child, “You can’t talk to me that way” is not the same as saying, “You can’t be angry at me,” or “You are hurting my feelings.”

When children respond to parents in disappointing or unacceptable ways, it is important that parents stop and consider how they will meet that response. Each situation requires thought. Sometimes, interfering with the child’s wishes or experiences provides an opportunity for the child to push back against the parent and feel a sense of his or her developing self. At other times, supporting the child’s differentiation provides the child with a sense of confidence and recognition of his or her developing self. No matter the age of the child, parents who are curious and interested in why there is disparity or opposition are communicating their openness to more than one way of behaving and/or feeling. This openness to difference helps children develop into self-confident, autonomous adults. Moreover, parents are less likely to repeat the dynamics of their own childhoods if they consider their children’s behavior from a developmental perspective. They will be in a better position to not take things so personally and will feel less hurt, insulted, or disrespected by their children.

Cyber bullying has become more common with advances in technology. Messages can be posted on social networking websites, and pictures can be downloaded, altered, and made available to the world in seconds. Although there has been abundant research into the consequences of cyber bullying and traditional bullying, little has been done to determine which type may cause more psychological damage. It is well established that bullying itself—the act of terrorizing, intimidating, and ridiculing another through verbal or physical acts—can have numerous deleterious effects.

Those who endure bullying are at increased risk for internalizing problems such as anxiety, depression, and suicide ideation. Understanding how each type of bullying impacts young people is of critical importance in order to target those most vulnerable and help them deal with the ramifications. To get a better idea of the effects of cyber bullying in comparison to traditional bullying, Sheri Bauman of the University of Arizona’s College of Education recently conducted a study asking college students to rate their levels of distress based on hypothetical cyber and traditional bullying scenarios. The scenarios were similar in nature and differed only in delivery.

Bauman discovered that three main bullying themes emerged, including generalized bullying, name calling, and sexual victimization through explicit sexual images. Although the female participants reported higher levels of distress for all three types of bullying, the method of delivery did not impact emotional response. Specifically, although their responses varied by bullying scenario, all participants reported similar distress levels whether the bullying event was traditional in nature or cyber bullying.

However, Bauman found that one type of bullying was the most distressing. “We … found that bullying with sexual material, whether conventionally or by technological methods, is the most upsetting kind of incident to targets,” she said. This was especially true for female participants. Those with a history of victimization had higher distress than those without. In sum, Bauman believes that these findings demonstrate that it may not be the delivery method of bullying behavior that is most detrimental to young people, but rather the content of the message conveyed.

Reference:
Bauman, S., Newman, M. L. (2012). Testing assumptions about cyber bullying: Perceived distress associated with acts of conventional and cyber bullying. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029867

Play therapy is widely recognized as an effective therapeutic approach for children who are unable or unwilling to communicate their psychological distress. Elementary-aged children represent an especially vulnerable segment of the population when it comes to mental health barriers. First, it is during these formative years that behavior patterns are set. Children who have psychological problems early on tend to have higher rates of substance misuse, aggression, risk-taking behavior, and academic challenges than their peers. Additionally, many young children who have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress, autism, or other difficulties may have significant academic challenges and can benefit greatly from effective and meaningful in-school therapy.

But believing in the viability of play therapy and delivering it are two different things. Many school counselors report significant barriers to play therapy. Christine Ebrahim of the Department of Counseling at Loyola University in New York wanted to take a closer look at the barriers that counselors faced and how they overcame them. Ebrahim enlisted 359 elementary school counselors from the American School Counselor Association and had them complete online surveys regarding barriers to play therapy. The participants reported barriers such as time, space allocation, financial resources, and administrative and parental support. However, nearly all the counselors who cited these obstacles also described how they overcame them. For instance, they used their own money for supplies when they could not get funding, moved sessions to alternative locations when space was limited, and provided education about the benefits of play therapy when administrative and parental support was lacking.

One barrier was more difficult to surmount: the limited availability of play therapy training. “In looking at the data, most counselors identified specifically a lack of training as their primary problem,” Ebrahim said. Play therapy courses are not part of the curriculum at all colleges. Therefore, counselors are forced to learn through textbooks or online, or they must pay for training out of their own pockets. These results are promising in that they suggest that counselors are willing to do whatever it takes to offer play therapy to students in need. However, Ebrahim believes the findings clearly demonstrate that elementary school counselors are in desperate need of more professional play therapy training.

Reference:
Ebrahim, C., Steen, R. L., Paradise, L. (2012). Overcoming school counselors’ barriers to play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029791

The term “hook up” is one modern way individuals, especially young people, refer to casual-sex encounters. Teenagers who are sexually active, but not in romantic relationships, may “hook up” with other teens. But are these encounters damaging to adolescents’ sense of well-being? Research has suggested that teens who date are more likely to experience stress, depression, and emotional conflict than those who do not. However, the level of depression and stress teens experience in committed relationships has not been compared to the depression and stress in teens who “hook up.”

To address this void in research, Jane Mendle, of the Department of Human Development at Cornell University in New York, conducted a study that compared the emotional and psychological well-being of more than 1,500 pairs of siblings ranging in age from 13 to 18. She gauged whether the siblings were romantically involved with another person, engaging in sexual activity with that person, or whether they were sexually active with nonromantic partners. She found that although the teens in committed relationships did have moderately higher levels of depression than those who were single, the teens who participated in “hook-ups” had the highest levels of emotional distress and depression. This was especially pronounced in teens under the age of 15.

Mendle believes that one of the reasons for this finding could be the fact “hook-ups” often involve partners who used to date, or who may want to date each other in the future. In this sense, one of the participants may be more emotionally invested in the encounter than the other. The subsequent dismissal of a romantic relationship may bring on feelings of sadness, disappointment, and even jealousy. The findings in this study are rather robust because they are based on sibling pairs. However, this dynamic can also limit the results, and further family history should be gathered in future work. Additionally, romantic relationships, as defined by the participants, may not necessarily involve sexual intercourse but may include other intimate acts. This should also be explored in future research. “Continued exploration of how the transition to sexual maturity may be moderated by contextual factors can help clarify the particular developmental challenges and stressors of adolescence,” Mendle said.

Reference:

Mendle, J., Ferrero, J., Moore, S. R., Harden, K. P. (2012). Depression and adolescent sexual activity in romantic and nonromantic relational contexts: A genetically-informative sibling comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029816

One of the most common methods for assessing the behavioral and emotional state of a child is a parental report. This type of evaluation usually comprises a parent’s observation and evaluation of the child’s feelings, mood states, and behaviors over a period of time. But just how accurately do parents gauge the emotional temperature of their children? That was the question at the center of a recent study conducted by C. Emily Durbin of the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. Because parental reports can vary quite dramatically from reports obtained by other observers, such as teachers, counselors, and classmates, Durbin wanted to determine what factors, if any, skewed parents’ perceptions.

Durbin chose to focus on the effects of maternal depression on parental reports. She based her decision on the fact that other conditions, such as alcoholism, parental anxiety, and family distress, have been shown to influence maternal reports. Durbin extended the existing research and compared mothers’ reports with those of unbiased observers on a sample of 190 children ranging from 3 to 6 years old. Participants were instructed to rate levels of sadness, fear, happiness, surprise, and anger in the children after they completed 10 emotion-inducing tasks. Durbin found that the mothers with a history of depression or anxiety tended to rate their children as less happy than mothers with no such history. Additionally, these same mothers viewed their children as overly fearful, and rated girls as sadder than boys. This could be a result of maternal sensitivity to emotions such as fear and sadness. However, the outcome showed a significant disparity between observers’ ratings and those of the mothers with a psychological history. “These mothers may have greater difficulty setting aside their perceptions of the child’s typical emotional adjustment to focus solely on rating the behavior the child is currently exhibiting,” Durbin said. Although the sample size was limited to young children and did not contain a large number of mothers currently exhibiting depressive symptoms, the results warrant further investigation. Durbin believes it is essential to expand this research to include older children, comparison to other assessment tools, and evaluation of other aspects of childhood development.

Reference:
Durbin, C. Emily, and Sylvia Wilson. Convergent validity of and bias in maternal reports of child emotion. Psychological Assessment 24.3 (2012): 647-60. Print.

It is normal for adolescents to conflict with family members, especially parents. In fact, this transition from obedient, caring, and emotionally attached child to sometimes distant, moody, and rebellious teenager is often seen as a normal stage of development. Adolescents begin to find their own identities, their own sets of friends, and their own interests during the teen years. During this exploratory period, they begin to pull away from the safety of family and assert their own independence as they start their foray into adulthood. But even though moderate conflict is viewed as relatively normal, researchers have raised questions about the effects of conflict on social functioning. In a recent study, Katherine B. Ehrlich of the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland took this question one step further. Using a sample of 189 adolescents, Ehrlich assessed how parental conflict and peer conflict affected social functioning independently and collectively.

The participants and their two parents, mothers and fathers, were observed as they engaged in conversations about topics that caused conflict. The adolescents were then asked to detail any conflicts in their closest peer relationships. Finally, the participants’ friends were interviewed about the level of social acceptance and general behavior of the participants while in social environments. Ehrlich discovered that although conflict with parents was linked to more aggression and risk taking, this effect was significantly amplified when peer conflicts were occurring simultaneously.

It has been suggested that conflict is a catalyst for social development and that adolescents need to experience disagreements in order to learn how to engage in problem solving and adaptive stress coping strategies. However, Ehrlich believes that when there is too much conflict present in teens’ lives, their resources may become quickly depleted, thus impairing their ability to function socially. It should be noted that the results gathered in this study were only obtained from married, heterosexual parents and were not examined independently. Future work should isolate mother-child conflict and father-child conflict to capture a more in-depth look at the individual influence of each. Additionally, single-parent environments should be examined in relation to parent-child conflict and its effect on social functioning. Ehrlich added, “We encourage researchers to continue using a multimethod approach to explore the ways in which conflict across family and friend relationship contexts influences adolescent development.”

Reference:
Ehrlich, K. B., Dykas, M. J., Cassidy, J. (2012). Tipping points in adolescent adjustment: Predicting social functioning from adolescents’ conflict with parents and friends. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029868

This is the first in a series of articles designed to explore some of the issues and concerns that arise around what is currently called Asperger’s syndrome, which will soon be incorporated into the broader spectrum of autism disorder when the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is published in 2013.

As a therapist, I see clients with a variety of traits clustered at the high-functioning end of autism, now commonly referred to as Asperger’s syndrome, a term I will use until the DSM-5 makes it no longer accurate.

No two clients with Asperger’s syndrome exhibit the same cluster of traits, nor does any one client exhibit them all. However, there is one element that I recognize as pervasively diminished in all Asperger’s clients. This element is called “theory of mind.”

What is theory of mind? It is a person’s ability to imagine the interior life of another person. This includes understanding why someone else does something, how someone might feel in a certain circumstance, what might be important to that person: in short, it is the ability to put oneself in the mind of another person and see the world from that person’s point of view. Theory of mind means being able to create a theory about the way another person’s mind works.

Theory of mind provides the basis for empathy because if you can walk in someone else’s shoes, you also become capable, by extension, of feeling any pain or delight that person experiences. You understand motivation. You catch a glimpse of fears and dislikes. You get to know the other person from the inside out.

According to autism specialist Simon Baron-Cohen, individuals with Asperger’s syndrome typically have delayed access or no access to this phenomenon of human communication and share a problem that is called mind-blindness. Since interpersonal communication is approximately 65% nonverbal, you can quickly see that not being able to formulate a theory of mind leaves these individuals at a distinct disadvantage in relationship with others because the behavior of other people does not make sense to them.

For parents, this gap can create difficulties when they treat their son or daughter with Asperger’s with the same set of interpersonal expectations with which they treat their other children and assume intact theory of mind capabilities. This can lead to incorrect understanding of the child’s behavior as being intentionally hurtful, for example, when in fact it was based in lack of awareness.

A common test used with children suspected of being autistic is called the Sally and Anne Test:

Sally has a basket. Anne has a box. Sally has a marble. She puts the marble into her basket. Sally goes out for a walk. Anne takes the marble out of the basket and puts it into the box. Now Sally comes back. She wants to play with her marble. Where will Sally look for the marble?

Most children will answer that Sally will look in her basket, because that’s where she put it and that’s where she expects it to be when she returns from her walk. Baron-Cohen discovered that only 20% of children with autism were able to answer correctly. A full 80% answered that Sally would look in the box, because that is where the marble is.

This test is often used to demonstrate the theory of mind deficits in children with Asperger’s syndrome. They believe Sally will look in the box for her marble because they know that’s where it is. They are unable to put themselves into Sally’s mind in order to understand that from her perspective the marble should be right where she left it: in her basket. Can you imagine how unpredictable and irrational the world must appear to a child whose logic is denied in such a manner? This is the world of a child with Asperger’s syndrome.

I work with children to help them build bridges toward understanding the behavior of others, so that they can come to anticipate that their own logical view of the world may not apply in all circumstances. This is one of the primary goals of therapy with these children. It is an attempt to help them experience the world as a safer place than it appears when their logical perspective is consistently shattered by experiences that do not align with it.

Destructive parentification is a behavior in which a parent transfers the emotional or physical responsibility of parenting to their child. Some parents turn to their children for emotional support and expect their children to fill emotional voids. Other parents who engage in destructive parentification may expect their children to fulfill physical obligations such as caretaking. These behaviors diminish the appropriate boundaries between a parent and child that are necessary for a child to develop his or her own identity. Additionally, boundaries that are blurred can expose children to events and circumstances that they are emotionally and physically unprepared to handle. This type of parentification can have significantly negative outcomes for children. Research has shown that children who are the victims of parentification, which is considered a form of abuse, have higher rates of externalizing and internalizing problems in childhood and adolescence than those who do not experience parentification.

When victims of parentification become parents themselves, the risk of the cycle continuing is extremely high. However, few studies have examined how maternal behavior in adult victims of childhood parentification affects future generations. To explore the relationship between maternal behavior and childhood psychological development, Amy K. Nuttal of the Department of Psychology at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana assessed 374 pairs of mother-child participants through the first 3 years of the children’s lives. The mothers were evaluated for childhood parentification in their own families of origin and and for mixed histories of emotional abuse, sexual abuse, or physical abuse.

Nuttal found that the women with destructive parentification were less responsive to their children at 18 months than those with no history of parentification. The unresponsiveness was predictive of externalizing behaviors in the children at 36 months. When Nuttal examined the effect of the father’s presence, she discovered that the participants who maintained a relationship with the father of the child had significantly lower levels of prior parentification than those who had no relationship with the fathers. Nuttal also found that previous parentification directly predicted low levels of maternal warmth in the participants, which indirectly predicted negative developmental outcomes for the children. She added, “This finding suggests that facilitating the development of maternal contingent responsiveness among mothers with a history of destructive parentification may promote more adaptive child development in the next generation.”

Reference:
Nuttall, A. K., Valentino, K., Borkowski, J. G. (2012). Maternal history of parentification, maternal warm responsiveness, and children’s externalizing behavior. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029470

Related articles:
Welcome to Your Child’s Brain: Interview With Sandra Aamodt
Importance of Coping Skills, Part 2: Building Resilience
How to Teach Children Emotional Intelligence