Current Affair Forums

Posted: 16 October 2007 at 3:46pm | IP Logged

Just read this on Yahoo - what are your thoughts?

Parents who fail to stop their toddlers lashing out at other children risk creating the next generation of violent criminals, scientists have warned.

Mothers who smoke during pregnancy and parents on low incomes are also more likely to find their children become aggressive, the researchers found.

Professor Richard Tremblay, from the University Of Montreal in Canada, said violent behaviour in children was an indicator of aggression in adulthood.

He said: "It also leads to other serious behavioural problems such as alcohol and drug abuse, violent crimes and continues the cycle of abusive parenting."

Efforts to prevent child violence should focus on improving parenting, the professor said.

Studies show infants aged three to four years old are more physically aggressive than adults.

He said: "Learning how not to be violent, which mostly takes place during the pre-school years, is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors.

"These range from the type of parental care a child receives to whether its mother smoked when pregnant.

"Research has shown, for example, that nicotine affects the development of areas of a baby's brain which are responsible for emotional control.

"The early years of human development are on 'fast forward' and it is during this time period that physical aggression increases most dramatically and environment plays a very important role in the extent to which physical aggression develops or is controlled."

Posted: 16 October 2007 at 3:53pm | IP Logged

I think that violence breeds violence and it is a simple case of monkey see monkey do.

I do think that smoking and drug's play apart to, not only drug abuse but other medication too, and the only way, i believe, to stop our lo's growing into violent adults is to lead by example.

Posted: 16 October 2007 at 6:17pm | IP Logged

I kind of agree with this BUT........what I disagree with is the massive generalisation of "low income"

There is a difference between the family who allow there children to have early exposure to drugs  and alcohol abuse, compared to the family who are low income earners who work hard for eveything they have, yet endorse a strong moral and ethical backbone within there children. How can these professors categorise so broadly?

I agree that by not disciplining a 3 or 4 year old does create bigger problems, as they have learnt there are no consequences thus a disrespect for authority.

I suppose it goes back t the nature nurture debate.... BUT if a child sees physical abuse surely this is renforcing the behaviour as "normal" it really is up to the parent to highlight this is Not accpetable behaviour

Posted: 16 October 2007 at 8:50pm | IP Logged

I think this is the crutch of it all, if you don't get respect at home how can you expect children to respect others outside the home.

Another area which i think to blame is that children aren't allowed to be children for as long now days (god i feel old saying that) but playing and phrasing kids sounds so simple and silly but it's the foundation of everything, it gives the children the self confidence they need to face life (think of a piggie bank filling up,) and when you have to set them straight and hand out a consequence it doesn't knock them down to much (as they have more left in the bank, and are not left feeling like they can't do anything right.)

So in summary, in my opinion it's down to disapline (sp?) and playing time with the kids, not how much money you have, if you spend time with them they will do well, learn the value of right and wrong and the real meaning of love.