Jonathan Cooper

Andrew Wood

GSO 110 01 Introductory Sociology

Spring of 2009

The Importance of Parental Presence
and the Helpful Expressions of Parental Presence


Notation: The first page has not been located for this research paper.

“…marital distress and conflict are associated with a wide range of deleterious child outcomes, including depression, withdrawal, poor social competence, health problems, poor academic performance, and a variety of conduct-related difficulties…” (214) In part, these outcomes are due to the pains of negative parenting; according to their research, negative marital interactions bring negative mother-child interactions (resulting in “internalizing behavior problems”) and negative father-child interactions (resulting in “aggressive peer play”). (Gottman, Katz, and Hooven 234) Predictably, wise parenting can “buffer” children from most dangerous outcomes of the tearful trail toward dissolution (226); however, the researchers’ data suggest “that we have yet to find complete buffer from an ailing marriage for children’s daily negative moods of dysphoria and anxiety.” (226) Marital happiness itself influences offspring well being.

Nonetheless, parents should usually be married without regard to happiness. First, commitment combats unhappiness. Years of commitment and relational investment turn most unhappy marriages into happy marriages (O’Neill 14). Second, without the initiation of marriage, single parenthood is more probable. In addition to facing higher chances of financial disadvantage (Lerman 1), unmarried parents face greater chances of relational dissolution. As head of the National Marriage Project of Rutger’s University, David Popenoe observed: “A study in Norway found that children of cohabiting couples were almost two and one half times more likely to face parental breakup compared to children of married couples, and that over several decades this discrepancy has not changed.” (14) Also, “[a] massive British study reports that ‘nearly one in two cohabiting parents split up before their child’s fifth birthday compared to one in twelve married parents,’ and ‘three quarters of family breakdown affecting young children now involves unmarried parents.’” (Popenoe 14) When parents are not married, single parenthood is more likely.

Parents should be present; single parenthood delivers tragic consequences. Since most single parent households are single mother households (“Single-Parent Households”), it may be acceptable to overview the findings on fatherlessness. Writing for the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, Rebecca O’Neill authored a brief synthesis on the implications of fatherlessness for children, teens, and young adults. The following discoveries demonstrate the long term implications of fatherlessness:

“Young adults who grew up not living with their biological fathers [a]re less likely to attain qualifications[, a]re more likely to experience unemployment[, a]re more likely to have low incomes[, a]re more likely be on income support[, a]re more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems[, a]re more likely to develop health problems[, t]end to enter partnerships earlier and more often as a cohabitation[, a]re more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions[, and a]re more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership[.]” (O’Neill 9-11)

These and other tragic correlations are not the manifestations of inadequate financial resources. A longitudinal study was published by the Lancet medical journal in 2003. After tracking nearly one million Swedish children, the four researchers discovered that “…even when a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances are included in multivariate models, children of single parents still have increased risks of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury.” (Weitoft et al. Abstract) The one million children suffered because of a lack of presence, not finance.

Children are designed for parental presence, not parental absence. In 2003, a report was released by the Commission on Children at Risk (Kline et al. vvi) This “panel of leading doctors, research scientists and youth service professionals” includes “leaders and faculty from various institutes and universities including Harvard Medical School, Yale University, UCLA School of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, and The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.” (“Report Calls”) According to this report, entitled Hardwired to Connect, “The mechanisms by which we become and stay attached to others are biologically primed and increasingly discernible in the basic structure of the brain.” (10) To borrow the words of Allan N. Schore of the UCLA School of Medicine, “The idea is that we are born to form attachments, that our brains are physically wired to develop in tandem with another’s, through emotional communication, beginning before words are spoken.” (qtd. In Kline et al. 10) In a book resulting from the Commission for the Children report, psychoanalyst Robert Karen composed the chapter on “Investing in Children and Society: What We Have Learned from Seven Decades of Attachment Research.” Robert Karen envisions the situation of an emotionally abused and “minimally loved and cared for” child as better than the situation of a loved and motherless child (Kline et al. 103). Parental presence meets a deep need.

When parents meet this deep need, children flourish. For example, when children and parents watch television together, morality is promoted; according to a 2008 study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, “Coviewing was a significant negative predictor of initation of sexual behavior.” (Bersamin et al. 97) When children and parents eat together, nutrition is promoted; according to a 2000 study published in the Archives of Family Medicine, “Eating family dinner was associated with healthful dietary intake patterns, including more fruits and vegetables, less fried food and soda, less saturated and trans fat, lower glycemic load, more fiber and micronutrients from food, and no material differences in red meat or snack foods.” (Gillman et al. 235) Furthermore, family meals are associated with positive academic, social, emotional, and moral outcomes, reporting the findings of research by “Psychologists Blake Sperry Bowen, Ph.D., from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and Jennie M. Zeisz, Ph.D., from DePaul University,” ScienceDaily noted, “The adjusted teens – who were less likely to do drugs, less likely to be depressed, more motivated at school and had better peer relations – ate with their families an average of five days a week compared to the nonadjusted teens who only ate with their families three days a week.” (“Frequency Of”) Parental involvement in education is associated with achievement; according to a 2004 study in the British Journal of Educational Psychology, “Father involvement and mother involvement at age 7 independently predicted educational attainment by age 20.” (Flouri and Buchanan abstract) Parental involvement fosters a child’s success.

Furthermore, a single parent is not able to replace an absent parent. In the research summary for the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, Rebecca O’Neill observed, “…the father’s influence cannot be duplicated or replaced easily by the mother, no matter how good a mother she is (note that mothers wield similar unique and independent influence in other ares…).” (13) A deprived child watches television with only a parent, eats meals with only a parent, and edits assignments with only a parent. Both parents should be presence. In summary, David Popenoe states, “…all the evidence we have shows that individuals fare best, both in childhood and in later life, when they benefit from the economic and emotional investments of their natural parents who reside together continuously and cooperate in raising them.” (20)

Happily married parents should be present to understand the child’s feeling and behaviors. As a respected analyst of familial affect, Gotman emphasizes “the process of Emotional Coaching that my research colleagues and I uncovered in our studies of successful parent-child interactions.” (Gottman and DeClaire “Raising” 24) To begin the process, a parent will “become aware of the child’s emotion and recognize the emotion as an opportunity for intimacy and teaching…” (Gottman and DeClaire “Raising” 24). Then, the parent will “listen emphatically, validating the child’s feelings[,...] help the child find words to label the emotion he is having[,...] and set limits while exploring strategies to solve the problem at hand.” (Gottman and DeClaire “Raising” 24) Later, when describing his own research, Gottman observes, “Results of this follow-up study showed us that, indeed, children with Emotion-Coaching parents were better of in areas of academic performance, social competence, emotional well-being, and physical health.” (Gottman and DeClaire “Raising” 38) Emotional awareness consoles children and promotes success.

Behavior awareness protects children from immoral behavior’s initiation and extenuation. A longitudinal sudy of 5041 Scottish tenagers published in the Journal of Adolescence found that “low parental monitoring predicts early sexual activity for both sexes…” (Wight, Williamson, and Henderson 473). Five University of Buffalo researchers discovered, “...monitoring significantly predicted adolescents’ initial levels (intercepts) of alcohol misuse and delinquency.” (Barnes et al. 1084) Finding that parental monitoring also discourages the extenuation of risky activity, the study notes, “Parental monitoring strongly predicted the rates of increase (slope) in all 3 problem behaviors.” (Barnes et al. 1084) Advancing the same message, another study reported, “Adolescents who were closely monitored by their parents were more than their peers… to demonstrate low sexual risk-taking behaviors (to have had only one sexual partner and to use a condom).” (Heubner and Howell 74) Parents comfort and protect children by being present to listen and to question.

With this understanding of their offspring’s emotion and action, happily married parents should be present to affirm with praise and touch. Presence should communicate afirmation. Writing on the website of the Washington State University, Martha Marino, MA, RD, CD and Sue Butkus, PhD, RD commented, “Controlling and dysfunctional parents sitting face-to-face with children can sometimes lead to long-term scars.” The two then noted a study that “linked early mealtime experiences with bulimia nervosa.” The lack of affirmation is dangerous.

On the other hand, praise and touch foster self esteem and wise action. Referencing a 1999 study of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, researchers at the institution’s School of Social Work wrote, “In particular, family activities, including meals and religious services, and parental praise and monitoring, can reduce alcohol use risks…” (Schinke, Schwinn, and Cole 2; emphasis added) In preparation for the 97th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association in 1989, four PH.Ds and one D. Phil prepared a paper entitled Parental Relationship and Adolescent Substance Use Risk: Hugs Not Drugs. In the study’s abstract, the scholars wrote, “Emotional closeness with parents, including physical signs of affection, appears to serve a role in preventing young adolescents from later marijuana use.” (Hendryx et al. 2; emphasis added) Affection is associated with improved affect and outcome.

In addition to understanding an affirming children, happily married parents should be present to instruct children in religion and morality. Silence can communicate misinformation. Consistent with the findings of other scholars, the researchers found that when parents discuss (and restrict) television content, “...[there are] a variety of [associated] positive outcomes among youth, such as increased comprehension of television…, skepticism toward televised news…, and less generalized as well a television-induced aggression….” (Bersamin et al. 108) The study notes, “Findings on coviewing (watching television together without discussion), however, have been mixed.” (Bersamin et al. 108) While parental discussion might transmit wise message about television, “[e]vidence suggests that coviewing in the absence of active mediation [instruction] sends children the opposite messages about television.” (Bersamin et al. 108) Present parents should share wisdom.

It is wise to share religion with children. Drawing from a “total of 498 studies” from “8 fields of study,” Byron R. Johnson charted the “beneficial outcomes” of religion on individuals’ Hypertension, Mortality, Depression, Suicide, Sexual Behavior, Alcohol Behavior, Drug Use, and Delinquency (Kline et al. 191). Drawing from a “total f 171 studies” in “4 fields of study,” Johnson charted religion’s benefits for individuals’ Well-Being, Hope, Self-Esteem, Educational Attainment (Kline et al. 196) Research supports the hypothesis that religious instruction benefits children - when it is offered in unity. In the self-claimed first “nationally representative” study of religion’s influence on child development, Mississippi State University researchers concluded, “Frequent parent-child discussions about religion often yield positive effects on child development, while any effects associated with family arguments about religion are deleterious for children.” (Bartkowski, Xu, and Levin 33)

In addition to describing the Divine Author of reality, wise parents describe tt moral order of reality. For example, the parent is “clearly the preferred source of sex education…” (Somers and Surmann abstract). When this preferred source sensitively provides instruction, the studies in the following statement: “Specifically, parent-teen communication that is open, receptive, and comfortable is associated with less sexual experience and less risky sexual behavior among adolescents…” (387) When parents are present, parents should communicate wisdom.

Fourth, happily married parents should be present to restrict. According to research published by Pediatrics, “We found that early exposure to television as associated with subsequent attentional problems.” (Christakis et al. 710) Furthermore, “[t]his finding was present even while controlling for a number of potential confounding factors, including prenatal substance abuse and gestational age, measures of maternal psychopathology, and socioeconomic status.” (Christas t al. 710) In the previous study regarding coviewing of television, the researchers discovered the behavior implications of television limitation. The authors wrote, “Specifically, parental limitation of television viewing was negatively associated with both [vaginal and oral] sexual behaviors.” (Bersamin et al. 108)

When restrictions are enforced, the enforcement should be reasoned and sensitive. Although “93.2% of college students were spanked as children” and “most [United States psychologists] recommended the use of spanking children, most spanked their own children, and half approved of school personnel spanking children” (25), research suggests that spanking can foster aggression, especially when the parent’s reasoning is absent and the parent’s motivation appears selfish (Gottman, Katq, and Hooven 25). In order to protect children from negative influence the parents should be present to restrict with reason.

Finally, happily married parents should be present to model. Children are genetically inclined toward ancestral behavior. Researchers have observed that “[a]ddictions are among the most heritable of psychiatric disorders…” (Goldman, Oroszi and Ducci 402) Addictions are not alone, however; “...it is becoming clear that susceptibility to several complex diseases--coronary artery disease, obesity, cancer and AIDS--is genetically influenced, but also depends profoundly on lifestyle choices.” (Goldman, Oroszi and Ducci 402) Familial outcomes are partly transmitted to progeny through genetic disposition.

Ancestral behavior might shape genetic dispositions. According to the Commission on Children at Risk, “The old ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is obsolete.” (15) Before noting the existence of the following principle in human scholarship, the commission asserted, “Whether a particular gene or combination of genes ends up helping or hurting these monkeys depends largely on the social context!” (Kline et al. 15) The report stated, “[Social environments] can affect us at the cellular level to reduce genetically based risks and even help to transform such risks into behavior assets. They can also help substantially to raise intelligence and measures of intelligence.” (Kline et al. 15) If hereditary traits are shaped by the “nurturing” nature of the familial environment, as the report claims (Back Cover), then the future behavior of offspring is ultimately influenced more by parental decisions than parental genetics.

Before parents are a great task and a great trust. Parents should invest in marital happiness even when marriage is unpleasant. Parents should be aware of emotion and action, affirm with words and touch, instruct on morality and religion, restrict with love and reason, and model. These are inconvenient steps. When parents love their children, however, children are more likely to walk out into the world free from the scars of family conflict, the grief over parental divorce, the shame of poverty, a disease from premarital sex, the stamp of incarceration, the dungeon of excessive drinking, the heartache over broken romances, the barrier of incomplete education and a nightmare without mom or dad. Love is worth pain.





Works Cited

Ali, Lorraine. “Having Kids Makes You Happy.” Newsweek. 7-14 July 2008 Issue. Accessed April 20, 2009. <http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792>

Barnes, Grace M., Joseph H. Hoffman, John W. Welte, Michael P. Farrell, and Barbara A Dintcheff. “Effects of Parental Monitoring and Peer Deviance on Substance Use and Delinquency.” Journal of Marriage and Family. 68. 4 (2006): 1084-1104. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118586799/PDFSTART>

Bartkowski, John P., Xiaohe Xu, and Martin L. Levin. “Religion andchild development: Evidence from th Early ChildhoodLonitudinal Study.” Social Science Research. 37.1(2008, March): 18-36. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WX8-4NG4C14-1/2/159833ea3b8a75c34e17e5ad71541fd6>

Bersamin, M., M. Todd, D. A. Fisher, D. L. Hill, J. W. Grube, and S. Walker. “Parenting Practices and Adolescent Sexual Behaior: A Longitudial Study.” JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY -MINNEAPOLIS-. 70. 1 (2008): 97-112. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119392990/PDFSTART>

Boden JM, DM Fergusson, and LJ Horwood. “Does Adolescent Self-Esteem Predict Later Life Outcoms? A Test of the Causal Role of Self-Esteem.” Development and Psychpathology. 20. 1 (2008): 319-39. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1642056>

Christakis DA, FJ Zimmerman, DL DiGiuseppe, and CA McCarty. “Early Television Exposure and Subsequet Attenional Problems in Children.” Pediatrics. 113. 4 (2004): 708-13. <http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/113/4/708>

Flouri E, and A Buchanan. “Early Father’s and Mother’s Involvemet and Chid’ Later Educaiol Outcoms.” The British Journal of Educational Psychology. 74. Pt (2004):141-53. <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ69572&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ695672>

“Frequency Of Family Meals May Prevent Teen Adjustment Problems; Teens Less Likely To Do Drugs, More Motivated In School.” ScienceDaily. 21 August 1997. Accessed 17 April 2009. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/08/970821001329.htm>.

Gillmn, M. W., S. L. Rifas-Shiman, A. L. Frazier, H. R. Rockett, C. A. Camargo, A. E. Field, C. S. Berkey, and G. A. Colditz. “Family Dinner and Diet Qulity Among Older Children and Adolescents.” ARCHIVES OF FAMILY MEDICINE. 9 (2000): 235-240. <http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/9/3/235>

Goldman D, G Oroszi, and F Ducci. “The Genetics of Addictions: Uncovering the Genes.” Focus: Th Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. 4.3 (2006): 401-15. <http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprin/4/3/401>
Note: “(Reprinted with permission from Nature Reviews: Genetics July 2005; 6:521-532; © 2005 Nature Publishing Group)”

Gottman, John Mordechai, Lynn Fainsilber Katz, and Carole Hooven. Meta-Emotion: How Families Communicate Emotionally. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associats, 1997.

Gottman, John Mordechai, and Joan DeClaire. Raising an Emotionally Intelligent Child. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Hendryx, Michael, C. Anderson Johnson, Mark D. Weber, Brian R. Flay, and William B. Hansen. Parental Relationship and Adolescent Substance Use Risk: Hugs Not Drugs. 1989.
Note: Paperwas”[p]rresented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at New Orleans. August 11, 1989, 12:00 pm.” <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1f/ab/11.pdf>

Huebner AJ, and LW Howell. “Examining the Relationship between Adolescent Sexual Risk-Taking and Perceptions of Monitoring, Communication, and Parenting Styles.” The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 33. 2 (2003): 71-8. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T80-494G6Y4-4-1&_cdi=5072&_user=6245981&_orig=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2003&_sk=999669997&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkWA&md5=f58dd4d492beb51acb782686470fdc6&ie=/sdarticle.pdf>

Kernis, Michael H., Anita C. Brown, and Gene H. Brody. “Fragil Self-Esteem in Children and Its Associatios With Perceived Patterns of Parent-Child Communication.” Journal of Personality. 6.2 (2000): 225-252. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119036319/PDFSTART>

Kline, Kathleen Kovner. Authoritative Communities The Scientific Case for Nurturing the Whoe Chid. Search Institute series on developmentally attentive community and society. New York: Springer Verlag, 2008. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72721-9>.

---. Johnson, Byron R. “A Tale of Two Religious Effects: Evidence for the Protective and Prosocial Impact of Organic Religion.” Chapter 9: 187-225. Karen, Robert. “Investing in Children and Society: What We Have Learned from Seven Decades of Attachment Research.” Chapter 4: 103-120.

Lerman, Rober I. How Do Marriage, Cohabitation, and Single Parenthood Affect the Material Hardships of Families with Children. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2002. Accessed April 20, 2009. <http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410539_SippPaper.pdf>
Note: “This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluaion under HHS Grant Number 00ASPE359A. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.”

Marino, Martha, an Sue Bukus. “Background: Research on Family Meals.” Washington State University (website). Accessed on April 18, 2009 <http://nutrition.wsu.edu/ebet/background.html#harmful>

O’Neill, Rebecca. Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family. London: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 2002. Accessed 12 April 2009. <http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Experiments.pdf>

Popenoe, David. “COHABITATION, MARRIAGE AND CHILD WELLBEING: A Cross-National Perspective.” National Marriage Project. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. 2008. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/NMP2008CohabitationReport.pdf>

“Report Calls for Community Involvement in Raising Emotionally Healthy Children.” DMS News. September 10, 2003. Accessed on April 19, 2009. <http://dms.dartmouth.edu/news/2003_h2/10sep2003_children.shtml>

Schinke, S., T. Schwinn, and K. Cole. “Preventing Alcohol Abuse Among Early Adolescents hrough Family and Computer-Based Interventions: Four-Year Outcomes and Mediating Variables.” JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND PHYSICAL DISABILITIES. 18. 2 (2006): 149-161.

“Single-Parent Households Showed Little Variation Since 1994, Census Bureau Reports” U.S. Census Bureau News. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/009842.html>

Somers, Cheryl L,, and Amy T Surmann. “Adolescents’ Preferences for Source of Sex Education.” Child Study Journal. 34. 1 (2004): 47. <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb==true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ709589&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ709589>

Weitoft GR, A Hjern, B Haglund, and M Rosen. “Mortality, Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in Sweden: a Population-Based Study.” Lancert, 361 9354 (2003): 289-95. <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancert/article/PHS0140-6736(03)12324-0/abstract>

Wight D, L Williamson, and M Henderson. “Parental Influences on Young People’s Sexual Behaviour: a Longitudinal Analsis.” Journal of Adolescence. 29. 4 (2006): 473-94. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.007>

Powdthavee, Nattavudh. “Think having children will make you happy? Think again, suggests Nattavudh Powdthave - you’re experiencing a focusing illusion.” The Psychologist 22.4 (2008=9