I found this wonderful article in a magazine I like called The 
Skeptical Inquirer (magazine for science and reason). Unfortunately the 
magazine doesn't have a very good web presence and so I decided to post 
this article from the May/June Issue. I am going to put each myth in 
its own item.

---------------------

Common Myths of Children's Behavior

A number of false beliefs about children's behavior are very common 
among parents and the lay public. This article summarizes scientific 
findings and applies critical thinking to show what's tripped up so 
many of us.

by Catherine A. Fiorello

No one considers parenting a pseudoscience, but many of the "truths" 
that parents believe are contradicted by scientific knowledge. 
Discussion of these myths can shed light on our knowledge of children's 
behavior. In addition, the discussion illustrates some basic scientific 
principles that can also be applied elsewhere.

14 responses total.

Myth Number One: "Don't give Sheldon that candy- sugar makes him so 
hyper!"

May parents and teachers report that childrens' consumption of sugar 
results in hyperactivity. But the empirical research is clear: 
consumption of sugar has no effect on children's behavior as rated by 
objective observers (Milich, Wolraich, and Lindgren 1986). So why are 
parents and teachers convinced it has such devastating effects? They 
are not aware of the need to *control for covariates." A covariate is 
another variable that is associated with the variable of interest, in 
this case sugar consumption, but that might be as noticeable. What 
variables might be overlooked by parents and teachers in judging the 
effects of sugar? Well, think about the situations in which children 
eat a lot of sugar, like birthday parties and Halloween- these are 
situations that are likely to excite children.

There's another possible covariate too. Children whose parents don't 
restrict sugar at all, letting their children eat whatever they want 
whenever they want it, are also more likely to let their children run 
wild in other ways. And parents who restrict sugar (it is bad for your 
teeth, after all) are also more likely to teach self-restraint and 
obedience. But we often see the child without seeing the parenting. So 
we see an association between the sugar and the behavior, instead of an 
association between parenting style and behavior.

Myth Number Two: "She's writing her letters backward- it must be 
dyslexia."

Many parents and teachers become concerned when a child is reversing 
letters, afraid that this is a sign of dyslexia. But the empirical 
research indicates that the primary indicator of reading disabilities 
such as dyslexia is difficulty with auditory processing and phonemic 
awareness- breaking words down into their component sounds (Beitchman 
and Young 1997; Shaywitz 1996). Dyslexia isn't a visual disability at 
all, but an auditory one. Parents and teachers should be concerned 
about a child who can't generate rhyming words, not one who is 
reversing letters.

So why are people so concerned about reversals? They are not aware of 
the effect of *base rate* in interpreting behavior. The base rate is 
the percentage of the general population that has a given 
characteristic. In this case, all children start out making reversals. 
After all, letters and numbers are the only things that we draw where 
the direction the figure is facing makes a difference in its name. (A 
dog facing right instead of left is still a dog: a 'd' facing right 
instead of left is now a 'b'.) Children gradually learn which way the 
letters face and by second or third grade they are no longer making 
reversals. The same percentage of children make reversals, whether they 
are having difficulty with reading or not (Black 1973; Pemberton et al. 
1993), although children with reading disabilities may keep it up a 
little longer. But people only notice with the kids who are having 
trouble- and never compare it to the base rate.

Myth Number Three: "Tanisha is just immature. If we have her repeat 
first grade, she'll do better in school."

Many parents and teachers are convinced that some children are too 
young or too immature for their grade placement, and that retention 
will help them catch up. But the empirical research indicates the 
opposite- retention not only has no long-term benefits, it can actually 
harm children emotionally (Jimerson, et al. 1997). In fact, children 
rate retention as the third most horrible thing they can imagine 
happening to them- after losing a parent and going blind (Yamamoto, et 
al. 1987). So why are parents and teachers convinced that it is 
helpful? Lack of long-term followup and lack of a control group. In 
most cases, a teacher judges the outcome of retention the next year, 
when the child is actually repeating the same grade. At that point, the 
child may be doing well academically. But the following year, when the 
child starts to fall behind again, the teacher isn't following up any 
more. And the parent says, "Well, the retention helped for a while, but 
now we need to try something else." And without a comparison to 
children who weren't retained, it's hard to see the benefits of 
promotion- and the costs of retention.

Myth Number Four: "Praise doesn't work. After I compliment John, his 
performace goes downhill. It's yelling whenever he messes up that 
really gets results!"

Many parents and teachers are convinced that punishment is more 
effective in changing behavior than praise. But the empirical research 
indicates that positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment 
in changing behavior and especially in teaching new skills (Alberto and 
Troutman 1999). So why are parents and teachers convinced that 
punishment is better? They aren't familiar with the statistical concept 
of *regression to the mean.* When you are first learning something, 
there is a large element of random chance in how good your performance 
will be. Statistically, this random variation causes an interesting 
effect. After a particulary good performace, the chances are the next 
one will be worse, no matter what happens. And after a particularly bad 
one, the chances are the next one will be better, no matter what 
happens. So it looks like the praise caused your performace to 
deteriorate, and the yelling caused you to do better. But really, it 
was just random variation bringing you closer to the average. (For more 
on the regression effect, see "Superstition and the Regression Effect," 
by Kruger, Savitsky, and Gilovich, SI 23[2] March/April 1999.)

Myth Number Five: "I was spanked as a kid and I turned out okay."

Many parents and teachers are convinced that occasional spanking is 
necessary, or at least not harmful. But the empirical research 
indicates that, while most children who are spanked do turn out all 
right, children who are not spanked do better, and for a significant 
minority of children, spanking is harmful and abusive (Hyman 1990; 
Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims 1997). So why are parents and teachers 
convinced? They aren't aware of the necessity of an appropriate 
comparison group. They look at their own experience without 
considering "what would I have been like if I hadn't been spanked as a 
child?" Of course, children can't be exactly equated. But when you 
randomly select large groups of children, you can compare the groups 
and draw some conclusions. As a group, children who are never spanked 
are in better shape psycholgically- they are less likely to be 
aggressive or depressed later in life. There is even some evidence that 
they may be smarter (Straus and Paschall undated). Of course, we don't 
know if parents who spank are different in other ways from parents who 
don't- they might reason verbally with their children instead of 
spanking, or be more educated overall. The only way to directly test 
the effects of just spanking would be to randomly assign children to be 
spanked- and we couldn't ethically do that.

Myth Number Six: "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder doesn't 
really exist. After all, we're all fidgety and inattentive sometimes."

Many parents and teachers are convinced that ADHD isn't a "real" 
disorder, but an excuse for bad behavior or poor parenting, or just a 
way to label normal kids as having a problem. ADHD may, indeed, be over-
diagnosed in this country. But the empirical research indicates that 3 
to 5 percent of children have such severe symptoms that it affects 
their functioning in almost every area, including school performance, 
making friends, and getting along in the family and community (Barkley 
1998).

So why are parents and teachers convinced? They're not familiar with 
the process of diagnosis and the importance of norms. Parents and 
teachers may have read an article or heard a speaker that presented a 
list of symptoms, including items such as that the child "often does 
not seem to listen when spoken to directly" and "often fidgets with 
hands or feet or squirms in seat." The part that seldom gets presented, 
though, is the fact that diagnosticians must determine that the 
symptoms "have persisted for at least six months to a degree that is 
maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level" and 
cause "clinically significant impairment" in functioning (American 
Psychiatric Association 1994). In other words, we are not diagnosing 
children who are normally fidgety; we are comparing children to others 
of the same age and gender and diagnosing those who have extreme 
symptoms (often the most extreme 2 percent). We only diagnose children 
whose functioning (usually in school, with peers, and at home) is 
significantly impaired by their inattention, impulsivity, and 
hyperactivity. And in addition we rule out other causes of the symptoms-
 such as reactions to grief, trauma, or abuse; hearing difficulties; or 
physical illness.

Myth Number Seven: "We're in the middle of an ADHD epidemic! Ten to 
twenty percent of all children should be on Ritalin!"

This myth is the converse of the above. Because there is no objective 
test for ADHD, actually diagnosing it can be tricky. Many pediatricians 
diagnose ADHD based on a short office visit and good response to a 
trial of Ritalin (Copeland, et al. 1987). This process overlooks many 
common problems that can mimic ADHD, including depression, anxiety, 
medication side effects, abuse, lead poisoning, hearing impairment and 
more. True, ADHD isn't caused by bad parenting, but children from a 
chaotic home may never have learned to focus and pay attention. Making 
the diagnosis based on a good response to Ritalin can be especially 
dangerous, since some of the disorders that mimic ADHD can be made 
worse (including tic disorders and anxiety disorders).

In addition, since Ritalin is a stimulant, it can improve performace in 
*anyone* who takes it, and up to 30 percent of children properly 
diagnosed with ADHD do not have a positive response (Barkley 1998). The 
diagnosis of ADHD is as much a process of ruling everything else out as 
it is a process of identifying ADHD. We don't really know if there is a 
physical difference in the brain wiring or chemical makeup of a child 
with ADHD; we just rule out every other possible cause of the 
inattention, impulsivity, and the hyperactivity. So if a child gets a 
diagnosis of ADHD from a professional who has only seen the child 
briefly, or if a physician suggests trying Ritalin "just to see if it 
works," or if a well-meaning teacher says that she "knows" a child has 
ADHD because she's seen it so many times, a parent should remain 
skeptical and request a comprehensive evauluation. And even if a full 
evaluation identifies a child as having ADHD, a rush to Ritalin isn't 
necessarily called for.

The benefits of scientific thinking are not limited to questions that 
seem scientific. Many aspects of parenting are intuitive, but an 
awareness of what science says about children's behavior can still be 
helpful. In addition, the principles of scientific thinking illustrated 
in these examples may be useful elsewhere in daily life. Remembering 
regression to the mean the next time you are teaching your spouse to 
drive a standars transmission car may save some wear and tear!

---
There is a long list of references I am not going to include.

ADHD can also be mimiced by chemical intolerance.  We had Damon tested at
Child Physc when he was 3.5 because of behavioral problems.  Not ADHD, just
boredom.  We had been treating him like an intellegent 3 year but
developmentally he was around 5-6.  When he started school at public school
in the second half of 1st grade we started having problems again.  Second
grade was particularly bad and ADHD with Ritalin was suggested.  I told them
no way it had to be something else and refused to have him put on any drugs
just because the teacher couldn't cope.

This was re-enforced when he started 3rd grade with no problems.  When the
school called one day to have me come and deal with this child that is out
of control STeve put two and two together.  The previous week or so had been
extremely hectic at home and I had gone from cooking from scratch to
pre-packaged foods.  We went back to from scratch and the out of control
behavior went away.  (The period of the testing was also bad cooking time as
Staci had just been born.)  This was just before Winter break so during break
we did some experimenting.  Within a matter of hours of ingesting food
containing artificial ingredients, particularlly red dyes, Damon would go
completely out of control.  It would take between 12-48 hrs to come back to
his normal happy self.

Almost every episode of control problems since then can be traced straight
back to artificial color, artificial flavor or preservatives in something he
ate.  We have talked to him about the problem since discovering it and he
stated that he knew he was out of control, didn't like being out of control,
but that no matter how hard he tried to get back into control he just
couldn't.  It was like someone outside him had taken over and was pulling the
strings, and he couldn't cut them loose.

Chemicals aren't always the answer, sometimes they are the problem.

Love this item, but I think your original idea of entering each example in
its own item, not just its own response, was a good one for generating 
discussion.
Glenda- is your family on the Feingold diet then, or did you just sort it out
for yourselves? 

The basic gist of all these examples, that folks make false correlations, etc.
is valid.  And yet, I think each of these examples is sufficiently complex
that even the "best scientific evidence" is not enough to determine
parenting/educational choices.  Example: retention- so, if you have a kid who
appears to do better when repeating a grade, then slips again, should they
be taught using more repetitious, intensive methods? HOw could this be
determined, without putting them in a situation to have their confidence
undermined?  This particular research hasn't answered that question yet.

We just sorted it out for ourselves.  We shop at the Co-op and Whole Foods
mostly, though we have added Hiller's to the main list.  We cook almost
everything from scratch.  It wasn't too big a deal since that was the way we
did things at home when I was a kid.  The only problems we run into are when
I get to tied up with things like evening classes.

Damon is now 17 and pretty much monitors things himself.  We have taught him
how to read labels and say "No thank you" and to add "I am allergic" if
pushed.

It is amazing how many simple things have dyes and artificial flavors in them.

Hopefully you've taught him to cook for himself.  (From scratch, food
that works for him, nutritionally complete, etc., ad nauseum, ...)

Hillers?

We're having a bit of trouble with the guys, around "self monitoring"- they're
8 and 11, and don't always recognize when they're having a reaction to a poor
food choice, rather than the world being obnoxious.  They really want to eat
school breakfast and lunch, and assured me that they had found enough "safe"
food there.  Somehow, I doubt that. But I hate to be on their cases all the
time, about what's ultimately a personal choice. <sigh>

Our ten year old *never* seems to recognize when he's in overreactive-allergic
mode.  But he has learned that appearances are deceiving, and he reads labels
now.  I took the boys grocery shopping last week, and Paul was pleased-and-
astonished to find a corn-free package of cookies-or-something (then he looked
at the price, so we didn't get it anyway).  Some commercial pizzas are
corn-free and some aren't ...   At one point he wanted to have school lunch
on pizza days, and I meant to investigate their ingredients, but I never got
around to it and it wasn't a big deal to him.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss