Parents Have Longer to Influence Kids

Parent Cafe
1

<p>This is interesting…</p>

<p>Parents, take note: longstanding theory contends that low self-control is more strongly correlated with crime than any other known factor, and also claims that self-control patterns stabilize and become fixed in children by age 10, persisting thereafter.</p>

<p>Now, a Florida State University study offers strong empirical evidence that supports — and challenges — the “stability thesis,” an idea that suggests parents have just 10 years or less to affect lasting patterns of self-control (e.g., the ability to delay gratification and thoughtfully consider the consequences of actions) in their child. Although it’s one of the central arguments in a decades-old and widely supported theory linking low self-control to crime, the stability thesis itself had gotten relatively little scrutiny from criminologists until FSU researchers took a long look.</p>

<p>“Based on data compiled over a period of eight years from a national sampling of nearly 4,000 U.S. children ages 7 to 15, our conclusion about self-control is clear,” said FSU criminologist Carter Hay. “While the first decade of life is critical to its development, we now know that the period of adolescence remains important as well.”</p>

<p>The findings are described in the November issue of the journal Criminology. Led by Hay, an assistant professor in the FSU College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, and co-authored by FSU criminology doctoral student Walter Forrest, the study offers parents a sort of general time table, a measure of hope and a warning about complacency.</p>

<p>It found that all self-control patterns stabilized by age 10 — frequently as early as age 7 and sometimes even before that — in more than 80 percent of the children tracked. In other words, if self-control was low — or high — early on, it usually stayed that way.</p>

<p>But: In about one in six children, measurable changes in self-control occurred between the ages of 11 and 15, and where they did, positive or negative changes in the quality of parenting during the transition to adolescence were key. Parents who improved or declined in their consistency of supervising behavior, recognizing and correcting wrongdoing, and showing emotional warmth during those years made a difference in their child — for better or for worse.</p>

<p>For the complete article: [url=<a href=“http://www.fsu.com/pages/2006/11/27/stability_thesis.html]Article[/url”>http://www.fsu.com/pages/2006/11/27/stability_thesis.html]Article[/url</a>]</p>

2

<p>Interesting p2noles. A middle school teacher my kids had once told me that in her opinion over her 30+ years of teaching, she felt that the MS years were the most crucial for parenting. She said that she saw so many children that could go either way at that age and that unfortunately that was when many parents bowed out of their kids’ lives.</p>

<p>I never forgot her statement and when I got the “Nobody else’s mom does…” I just ignored it and continued to be involved in any way that I felt was necessary or that I just “wanted” to do.</p>

3

<p>Well, we’re still involved in a decreasing way now that our girls have gone off to school. They let you know when they are ready to leave the nest. The parental instinct to hold off the bumps from them remains strong, but not automatic, as it was when they were younger. </p>

<p>Folks should hang in with their kids longer, I believe. Kids need time and guidance to make good decisions. But there comes a time to let them experience the consequence of their decisions…</p>

4

<p>Agree P2n. As the kids aged we always encouraged them to handle their own problems with coaches, teachers, etc. I think it served them well. What is sad that, at least in our school system, is that at elementary level many parents are involved in PTO, know who their kids’ friends are, meet friends’ parents, etc. When middle school years are reached, parent volunteering drops to almost nothing, many are totally unsupervised and parents don’t follow up on who these new friends are. It almost seems that if one can get their child through middle school years on the “right track”, that high school is not so much of an issue. (which I think goes along with your article)</p>

5

<p>I know what you mean, mkm. Due to our concern for our girls and the nature of my work, we found it best - though financially tough - to have Mrs. p2n stay home and volunteer at the various schools all through the school years. Including Girl Scouts, swimming lessons, you name it.</p>

<p>It paid off well, we think. We would do it again - money is not everything, by a long shot.</p>

6

<p>I agree that middle school is critical. That’s where I saw some of the greatest kids do an about face & begin a downward spiral. Parents simply offered too much freedom. Kids were in a race to see who could grow up the fastest. I think parents who send their 7th graders in limos to school dances have serious authority issues. To a man, those were the kids in trouble.</p>

7

<p>^That reminds me of how we cringed at D1’s hs graduation where the kids gave a public statement about their upbringing. So many kids said stuff like ‘you let me do what I wanted and were my friend’ and we knew what that meant - sex, drugs, booze, whatever.</p>