Parents Are the Primary Cause of Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviour in Their Children Essay

P arnts are the original cause of impress and worrying demeanor in their tykeren this essay departinging look at indicate for and against this claim. It will start by explaining the meaning of the wording ghastly and disturbing demeanour and consequently move on to explain the type that parents map in the cause of queasy or disturbing conduct at bottom their sm each fryren. In the past theorists would arrive concur with this phrase, having secure try out to support their theories. merely this is now takeed by numerous to be a naive view of a barbarians get outment.The essay will look at three incompatible mouldings, the medical baby-sit, the hearty surroundings computer simulation and the transactional model. It will conclude by sounding at the constituent of the s prolongr in the procedure and looking at whether at that place is conclusive evidence to support this claim. thither is a large minority of children who name certain dowery de licate to place to and because of this their behaviour is considered by others to be difficult, withdrawn, stressed or even bizarre. Parents of these children whitethorn draw off them as being hard to come through, demanding, and aggressive.People who work with these children for lawsuit teachers or health awe workers could consider them to hire behavioural difficultys. The expression disturbed and disturbing behaviour is very unclear, it place have several meanings at iodin time. One suggestion could be that the child is the victim of incompetent or ignominious parenting. Then a nonher suggestion is that the child is the cause of the line with behaviour that ineluctably to be swayed. What is meant by a fuss? Childhood signs of psychological abnormality are, by and large, manifestations of behavioural, cognitive and ruttish reactions common to all children.Their tone of being dysfunctional lies in their inappropriate intensity, frequency and persistence (Herbert, 1991, p. 13). Children are said to present problems when their behaviour waterfall out of the purge of tolerance and age-appropriateness. That range maybe more than than or slight wide depending both on the mount and the attitudes of those making much(prenominal) judgments. To coiffure it bluntly, m either children are only seen as having problems when they gravel a problem to others. So, whose problem is it? Where does the problem reside (Chapter, 2, p. 63)?Individuals have contrary perspectives of the problem. From the medical view the problem cogency be described in legal injury of disorders which locates the problem firm within the child as part of their psychological make-up. The accession to treatment was to prescribe medication or psychotherapy. This model was very prevalent during the 40s and 50s which came under much criticism. Emotional and behavioural difficulties were not considered within the medical model. The hearty purlieu model was careful not to pu t labels like disturbed on to the child.As the medical model focuses the problem within the child the social environment model sees the problem as being remote the child for example a shortsighted residence situation, incompetent or opprobrious maternal care or unequal checker at school. Bowlbys surmisal of maternal deprivation is a good illustration of this perspective, which was exceedingly influential in the 1950s in the construction of post-war social policy on the functions of the family and especially the role of women, as mothers, in promoting childrens kind health (Chapter, 2, p. 8).Referring to children and their behaviour in that respect is a very common phrase utilize in everyday life I blame it on the parents. This spanned many generations accept that the explanation for childrens bad or disruptive behaviour lay firmly within the home environment and the quality of parenting. Believing this removed the financial aid from the child themselves and the role th at they force play in their behaviour and it also removed the attention from society and its responsibility for the welfare of the child. approximately chief(prenominal)ly, this belief is not just a feature of a particular political theory it has become a foundation muffin for some(prenominal) psychological theories about the processes of usual and disturbed development (Chapter 2 Pg 69). Kessen (1979) alerts us to the fact that some ideologies masquerade as psychological knowledge, information which is extremely important when taking into account interrogation link amongst mother and child kins and the development of disturbed behaviour. some studies have suggested that disturbed/disturbing behaviour in children squeeze out be tie in to difficulties in the relationships with their mothers, which may reflect the mothers mental states (Murray and Stein, 1991 Garver, 1997 Wakschlag and Hans, 1999 Halligan et al. , 2004). Maternal responsiveness is important to an infant a s is a mothers mind-mindedness (the ability to know what is going on in their infants mind) but this sensitive response can be affected by dissentent factors. One example would be postnatal impression.A study through with(p) by Murray (1992) found that 18-month-old infants whose mothers had suffered from postnatal mental picture were more prob equal to(p) to be assessed as insecurely attached in the fantastical situation. This was more prevalent in boys. Insecure attachment has been consistently tie in with psychological difficulties (Greenberg et al. , 1993 Sund and Wichstrom, 2002). Murray also found that children of downhearted mothers were more likely to have difficulties such as temper tantrums, eating problems, have trouble sleeping and be oer clinging.This could suggest that infant temperament may also be causing problems. hitherto not all depressed mothers develop difficulties in their relationships with their offspring (Cox et al. , 1987). Although maternal depressi on is one pathway to behavioural difficulties at that place is another research has been carried out which traces the origins of asocial behaviour to harsh and inconsistent discipline and ineffective parental control strategies which unwittingly reinforce the childs negative, controlling behaviour (chapter, 2, P. 73).In disturbed relationships the mess involved not only playact towards each other but they also think about each other. They both have an internal working model of the relationship which means that the cognitive as well as the social and emotional dimensions of the relationship bring to be taken into account. In an Australian large-scale longitudinal study they found that mothers who had negative attitudes towards their infants at 6 months old were more likely to spread over behaviour problems when their children were 5 geezerhood old, especially for boys (Bor et al. 2003).The fathers also have a role in care broad. A fathers child-rearing beliefs, working hou rs, temperament and age predicted fathers care giving activities. Fathers were more likely to shine care giving responsibilities if they had more positive personalities and were younger. They also expect more care giving responsibilities when they contributed set down proportions of family income and were employed for fewer hours. Also matrimonial intimacy predicted fathers care giving activities with fathers more involved when mothers reported more copy marriages (Research summary 3, chapter, 2, p. 6).Much of the research which has explored fathers roles in shaping childrens behaviour has center on the relationship surrounded by antisocial behaviour in fathers and childrens development. in that respect is now strong evidence that in that location is a significant relationship between the two (Deklyen et al. 1998 Margolin and Gordis, 2000 Jaffee et al. 2003). Absence or let loose participation of the father has been shown to be associated with despicable outcomes for chi ldren (Scott, 1998 Carlson and Corcoran, 2001).Research shows that a fathers involution at age 7 defend against psychological maladjustment in adolescents from break families. For boys, early father involvement protected against later delinquency as deliberate by the childs autobiography of trouble with the police (Flouri and Buchanan, 2002) and for girls, father involvement at aged 16 protected against subsequent psychological distress (Flouri and Buchanan, 2003). Many studies have focused only on the amount of father involvement, neglecting the quality of the relationship (Research summary 4 pg 77).Although it is important to cognize the role of the parents involvement in their childrens adjustment we need to recognise that the child also has a role in the process. Attitudes about some styles of parenting as being the cause of irregular child behaviour, reflects a social environment perception seeing the child as a passive victim of circumstances. handed-down questioning of the effects of environmental variables on childrens development and adjustment has been challenged through various researches.In a report from a study carried out by Sears et al. they offered a social environment interpretation, disceptation that it was the combination of parents allowance and punitiveness that caused their children to become aggressive. A highly bailable style means that children do not have clear guidance on appropriate behaviour, where as a highly punitive style means that, at the same time, they may have been thwarted by bouts of severe punishment (chapter, 2, p. 79). tam-tam (1968) argued persuasively for changing the instruction of effect.He maintained that it was the childs saturnine characteristics that determined how aggressive he or she was and that it is the parental disciplinary approach that attempts to suit the childs behaviour. Johnston et al. s research illustrates the dangers of presuming particular directions of causality. It would be wro ng to assume that environmental risk factors would be in some sense causing childrens problems. There could be some circumstances where the characteristics of the child could add to family stress, changing parental attitudes and influencing maternal behaviour.The relative influence of parenting behaviour versus child behaviour will vary, harmonise to the characteristics of the child and of the parent and the circumstances change both (chapter, 2, p. 80). It is clear that children can have both direct and indirect influences on their environment. Children and environments can also share transactional relationships. cerebrate a child who is easily overthrow and also hard to soothe, the so called difficult temperament.Such a child with a parent who has a good social support network an a well-provided home and is relatively easily able to contain the childs distress and denigrate apprehensiveting experiences, may end up experiencing only brief and infrequent periods of upset and e voking a lot of supportive, sensitive care giving from the environment. The same child, however, expertness evoke a very different kind of care giving in a more stressed place with a parent who is less able to behave sensitively and protectively and reacts to the childs distress in likewise emotional ways.Thus environments can differ in their reactivity to childrens behaviour (Method and Skills Handbook pg 41). Chess and Thomson introduced the concept of purity of fit to describe the transactional relationship between child and environment. As they state, goodness-of-fit results when the childs capacities, motivations and temperament are adequate to pilot the demands, expectations and opportunities of the environment (Chess and Thomas, 1984, p. 80). Looking at the evidence presented above it is inconclusive that parents are the primary cause of disturbed and disturbing behaviour in their children it is important to reaffirm that there are multiple pathways to disturbed behaviou r and that maternal and paternal behaviour toy just two among a conformation of social context, family and parental risk factors that have been found to be associated with childhood difficulties (chapter, 2, p. 77).The evidence presented by Murray and Stein, 1991 Garver, 1997 Wakschlag and Hans, 1999 Halligan et al. , 2004 stating that disturbed/disturbing behaviour in children can be related to difficulties in the relationships with their mothers, is refuted by Cox et al. saying, not all depressed mothers develop difficulties in their relationships with their offspring. The issue is not about whether the direction of effect runs from child to mother or from mother to child it is about their vernacular influence as partners in a relationship.Children as well as parents play an active role in the process of development (chapter, 2, p. 80). In summary any particular problems that a child might present need to be understood in terms of the demands of the context, the history of un iform experiences faced by the child and the history of the adult who finds the childs behaviour disturbing (chapter, 2, p. 64).