A research team from Boston Children’s Hospital have recently published a paper on a link between childhood adversity and increased body mass index (BMI) in adolescence.
The project looked at 147 teenagers, 60 of whom had experienced some kind of adversity in childhood.
The results were interesting: a history of sexual or emotional abuse, or of bullying by other children, did not correlate with any increase or decrease in BMI. However, those who had experienced physical abuse or who had seen domestic violence happen in the home had higher BMIs than their peers.
In participants who were witnesses of domestic violence, the likelihood of being overweight as an adolescent was almost six times the average, even after adjusting for potential confounders. There were no significant gender differences – the correlations seemed to be equally prevalent in all genders.
A few months ago, I spoke to Carole Williams, an expert in cyberbullying who speaks at schools and runs training sessions for parents about what to do if their child is being bullied online, and measures they can take to stop it from happening.
But what is cyberbullying? It’s a word that gets thrown around a lot, often without explanation of what it means, and what the effects are on its victims.
A group of researchers at Stanford University have recently been looking into this, and their results bring back some good recommendations for its prevention.
The idea was that the researchers would conduct an interdisciplinary study. I’m an advocate of multidisciplinary research teams – my own is an example of one – because it allows a lot of different perspectives to come together, and you end up with analyses that you might otherwise have missed.
Aboujaoude et al searched through several medical journals as well as using open-source resources such as Google to find data about cyberbullying. They went through government legislation, community responses and books, which must have taken a huge amount of time.
Their initial discoveries were perhaps unsurprising. Cyberbullying is quite prevalent, with up to 40% of young people having been victims to it at some point. The most likely groups to be targeted are females and sexual minorities, with males being the main perpetrators. There is a well-established link to suicidal thoughts and actions, as reported in several previous studies.
The researchers conclude that the importance of taking action to combat cyberbullying cannot be underestimated, particularly in an increasingly connected world.
“Available data suggest a serious problem whose consequences are real and should not be dismissed as a “virtual” by-product of an increasingly digitalised childhood and adolescence.”
So, what can we do about it?
According to Aboujaoude et al, the best approach would be multi-faceted rather than simply relying on a single element, such as government legislation, to deal with the problem.
Recommendations included educational media campaigns; programs in schools to help young people deal with concerns about cyberbullying and learn about its effects; parental awareness and oversight; government legislation; and interventions by health professionals such as doctors and mental health workers.
It is good to see subjects like this beginning to receive the attention they need; too often the problems of the “digital native” generation are dismissed by adults as being somehow less than real, simply because they take place online. But it is important to remember that when the majority of a person’s life is lived interconnected with digital devices, traumatic events that occur via those devices are just as important to address as any that might happen offline.
A very interesting study has recently been published in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, discussing the various subtypes of sexual offenders and their corresponding personalities.
A distinction was made between four groups: paedophilic offenders, non-paedophilic offenders, rapists and a control group of non-sexual offenders.
What is a non-paedophilic offender?
It might sound like an oxymoron, considering that we’re discussing people who commit sexual crimes against children, but a distinction is made in the literature between those who claim to be attracted to children (paedophilic offenders) and those who claim to be attracted predominantly to adults, but who have committed sexual crimes against children. This latter subset are defined as ‘non-paedophilic’, due to the root words from which the term ‘paedophile’ is taken meaning ‘love of children’.
The study aimed to look at different personality types of offenders, with a view to enabling social services and the justice system to provide useful intervention for the people who commit these crimes.
164 male convicted offenders were assessed, of whom 50 were rapists, 20 were paedophilic child molesters, 43 were non-paedophilic child molesters, and 51 were non-sexual offenders.
Four questionnaires were given to each participant: the Adult Attachment Scale, which measures a person’s levels of security, anxiety and avoidance; the Interpersonal Behaviour Survey, which distinguishes between assertive and aggressive behaviours and provides a scale for each; the Brief Symptom Inventory, which provides a brief assessment for psychological problems; and the Socially Desirable Response Set Measure, which evaluates a person’s tendency to give what they perceive to be socially desirable responses, rather than an accurate response.
The results showed distinct differences between each group of offenders.
Paedophilic offenders were more likely to present anxiety in adult relationships than non-paedophilic offenders.
Non-paedophilic offenders were less aggressive compared to rapists and non-sexual offenders, and were less assertive than rapists.
Rapists were the group that scored the highest on aggression.
Further research is required – the group of paedophilic offenders in particular was quite small in comparison to the other groups studied – but the study seems to indicate that different types of offenders have different personality profiles, and therefore any interventions ought to be conducted in different ways depending on the type of offense committed.
The full study can be found in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine via ScienceDirect.
Which Harry Potter house are you in? Ask anyone of a certain generation and you’ll probably receive an answer. J.K. Rowling’s series of books sparked huge international interest, and expanded into films, games, a real-world studio tour… the works.
To cope with this growing demand (or perhaps just because she wanted to), Rowling put together Pottermore, a site where fans can get together, play through challenges and unlock elements of the stories that aren’t mentioned in the books. They can also get sorted into one of the four Hogwarts houses – Ravenclaw, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and Slytherin – to find out about their personality.
But what does your Harry Potter house really say about you?
Without wanting to sound like a clickbait article title, it’s now possible to find out, or at least to measure some associated characteristics.
Crysel et al‘s new research paper in Volume 83 of Personality and Individual Differences aims to answer this question. The researchers asked fans from online Harry Potter groups to tell them which house they’d been sorted into on Pottermore, then asked them to complete a personality measure.
The results were intriguing.
Ravenclaws (my house!) are “known for wit and learning”, according to the books, and the study found that fans who had been sorted into this house on Pottermore scored highly on the ‘need for cognition’ scale.
Slytherins, who are “known for using any means to achieve their ends”, scored highly on Dark Triad traits. What are Dark Triad traits? Narcissim, Machavellianism, and psychopathy. Sound like Bellatrix to you?
Surprisingly, however, the other two houses didn’t bring back the results the researchers had expected. They saw no correlation between Gryffindor (known for bravery) and extraversion or openness, and no correlation between Hufflepuff (known for loyalty) and the need to belong.
Perhaps there’s something about Ravenclaws and Slytherins that just makes us relate even more to our houses than other personality types. But we’ll leave that for future research.
Which house are you in? Do you think your result is accurate?
A lot of the work I do touches on working with young people. Whether it’s mentoring, teaching and training, volunteering at youth groups or my other job which involves child protection cases, I often find myself in situations where I see some of the things the world throws at young people and the ways they have to try to deal with life.
The Scottish Centre for Conflict Resolution also recognise this problem, and they’re working to solve it through a series of initiatives that have been set up since 2011.
In a national survey commissioned by the SCCR, it was discovered that 25% of young people thought about running away on a monthly basis. 5,000 young people each year become homeless due to issues relating to home relationships breaking down. Mediation in the past has been sketchy, with help often only available after the point of crisis.
To address these issues, the SCCR has launched a new public national awareness campaign called Stop. Talk. Listen.The idea is to get people talking about things before they become such huge problems that they prompt a breakdown of the family unit. There are campaigns on Twitter and Instagram using the #StopTalkListen tag, in which young people share the most common sources of consternation in their homes. These can range from the more mundane (“who does the dishes” seems to be a popular choice) to things that cause a great deal of distress.
Even the smaller problems can just be the tip of a bigger iceberg, though, and this is part of the SCCR’s campaign: to get people talking about the more everyday issues before they build into something larger and more unwieldy.
There’s a new interactive website as well, where people can download resources and you can watch video clips of people whose lives have been helped by mediation in the past. There’s also a forum on the website, and a few events and training courses coming up for people who are interested in conflict resolution.
Researchers at a Korean university have been studying the links between perfectionism, motivation and burnout in academic students.
I found the concept interesting because I’ve always been very motivated to study. Not necessarily to acquire pieces of paper with high marks on them, but to further my own learning. As a teenager I was constantly being told by my teachers that I was “doing too much”; advice which I stubbornly ignored as I added more and more A-level subjects to my teetering pile of exam preparation papers.
As an adult I’ve become a little more balanced, though my friends may not entirely agree. I’m still very motivated. I love learning and I enjoy efficiency, and where possible I try to learn at least one new thing every day. Sometimes this is just discovering that a city I’ve never been to before is very beautiful; sometimes it’s checking out a mathematics textbook from my local library and solving equations late into the night.
So I was interested to read the results of a study that focuses on precisely these points: if someone’s really motivated, and studying because they want to, then are they still likely to burn out?
It would seem not.
Chang et al surveyed 283 students, studying three areas: perfectionism, motivation, and academic burnout. The results were interesting (and I particularly like them because they back up my own arguments for being a bit of a workaholic).
They discovered that students who were intrinsically self-motivated – who drew their motivation from within; from a love of the subject they were studying, for example – presented as self-oriented perfectionists and had comparatively lower chances of burning out. In other words, there is a correlation between doing something because you want to, and because you love it, and it not making you ultimately burn out.
On the other hand, students who were socially-prescribed perfectionists – those who were pushed by parents, peers or similar to become “perfect versions” of themselves – were extrinsically motivated and had much higher chances of burning out.
In other words: do what you love, love what you do. That way, you can keep going even when other people might have burned out long ago.