Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday May 04 2015, @01:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the won't-someone-think-of-the-children dept.

I found this recently-published article, Children who are bullied suffer worse long-term mental health problems than those who are maltreated interesting. Here are some excerpts:

A new study published in The Lancet Psychiatry shows that children who have been bullied by peers suffer worse in the longer term than those who have been maltreated by adults.

The research is led by Professor Dieter Wolke from Warwick's Department of Psychology and Warwick Medical School. The study is due to be presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in San Diego on Tuesday 28 April.

[...] Professor Wolke said: "The mental health outcomes we were looking for included anxiety, depression or suicidal tendencies. Our results showed those who were bullied were more likely to suffer from mental health problems than those who were maltreated. Being both bullied and maltreated also increased the risk of overall mental health problems, anxiety and depression in both groups."

An abstract and full article (pdf) are available.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday May 04 2015, @01:55PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @01:55PM (#178491) Journal

    Some people firmly believe this isn't true in spite of copious empirical evidence. Usually on broad extrapolation from anecdotal evidence like "My parents hit me and I turned out alright."

    A lot of internet pedophile defenders ignore the evidence that childhood sexual abuse tends to have substantial long-term psychological consequences as well.

    And in this case, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are going to write off the long term harm bullying as "just stand up for yourself" all over the internet too.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by t-3 on Monday May 04 2015, @02:14PM

    by t-3 (4907) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:14PM (#178502)

    Hitting a child is not maltreatment. Hitting a child for no reason, or using excessive force and severity, is maltreatment. I'm not too surprised bullying tramautizes kids more than their parents though. Most people grow to understand their parents eventually, or at least get to look down at them in contempt while they slowly age and die.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday May 04 2015, @02:21PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @02:21PM (#178505) Journal

      Do you really think abusive parents hit their kids for "no reason"?

      No. Fuck no. They think they're being disobedient or inappropriate to whatever standard they happen to hold them to. Now I'm not arguing a zero shades of gray position, but I think you would do very well to be extra goddamn fucking careful with what you consider what a "good reason" to hit a child is. Otherwise you're taking a shortcut towards teaching right from wrong and instead just teaching what angers daddy(or mommy).

      And if that sounds sanctimonious, then you're already way off track.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by t-3 on Monday May 04 2015, @02:58PM

        by t-3 (4907) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:58PM (#178526)

        Um, yes, some of them do. My dad used to hand out whoopings for no reason, or throw me around by the neck just for being in the same room as him. I've seen many parents do similar, and I've also seen many parents responsibly discipline their children. I've also seen the "no-spanking" crowd and their tyrannical brats running everywhere and yelling and hitting them.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:16PM (#178578)

          It's sad that you've obviously seen no single child that was responsibly brought up. That is, without spanking, but yet also not in an "everything you do is great" attitude which is all to common.

          No spanking doesn't mean no rules, nor does it mean no punishment. It just means no spanking.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:43PM

            by vux984 (5045) on Monday May 04 2015, @08:43PM (#178746)

            No spanking doesn't mean no rules, nor does it mean no punishment. It just means no spanking.

            Depends... if you aren't willing to physically restrain and/or literally drag your child out of a situation as part of your interpretation of "no-spanking" then you are pretty powerless as parent. The child is misbehaving, you attempt to intercede, the child turns their back on you and walks away and continues to misbehave. A lot of the no-spanking crowd seem to be in this camp -- where "no spanking" means "no physical force" at all. And that's shitty parenting; because the child will figure out they can just ignore you and that any consequences you might have... they can just ignore them too.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday May 04 2015, @04:14PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 04 2015, @04:14PM (#178577)

        Do you really think abusive parents hit their kids for "no reason"?

        A kid often gets hit for reasons completely unrelated to anything the child has done. For example, a parent who has had a bad day at work may well swat their child for behavior which yesterday was laughed off or even fun. Because there is no clear standard of behavior that may induce the violent response, the violent response does at best nothing to instill discipline, and its real purpose is parental stress relief, regardless of what the parent is telling themselves. For example, a big strong man who just had his boss make him feel like a completely powerless working stiff might well hit his child in order to feel powerful again.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday May 04 2015, @05:32PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @05:32PM (#178642) Journal

          Sure, but in the moment, they very frequently also excuse it with some minor or imagined misbehavior. There's no disputing that it frequently lacks complete rational thinking, but there's a "for their own good" attitude sometimes that's fully unjustified.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday May 04 2015, @07:14PM

      by frojack (1554) on Monday May 04 2015, @07:14PM (#178703) Journal

      Hitting a child is not maltreatment.

      Tell that to CPS when any random report of even the mildest swat on the behind is sufficient to get your kids taken away from you.

      Kids these days know no boundaries. My dad had a glare that could set my hair on fire. Why? Because of the few times I learned early in life what comes after the glare.

      Neither the glare or the swat is acceptable today.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:57PM (#179299)

        There are states where spanking is allowed. There are even a few where the schools are allowed to spank.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:21PM (#178821)

      There is a difference between discipline and abuse.

      FTFY, in much less words.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:19AM (#178893)

      Also, when a child gets older they can move away from their parents. They can't avoid their peers or the anxiety of social situations that was imprinted in them.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday May 04 2015, @02:23PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:23PM (#178507)

    A lot of people ignore essentially all long-term effects, and another significant chunk of people ignore all harm happening to people other than themselves or those that appear to be like themselves.

    The people who ignore all long-term effects are frequently either too stupid to recognize them, or spending so much of their time trying to get to the next paycheck that they can't even begin to think about what happens beyond that point.

    The people who ignore harms to other people or other kinds of people are either straight-up sociopathic, or unable to imagine themselves as the other kind of person because their brain can't handle hypotheticals very well.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 04 2015, @02:27PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:27PM (#178511) Homepage

    As somebody who during alternate periods was bullied and also a bully, it's totally true. The problem is, what do you do about it? How severe do you let it become before adult intervention? Do you think it's fair that students be disciplined for things they do outside of school, like Facebook posts?

    When I was hired by my current employer, my immediate supervisor was a callous rude bully to everybody, and after a straight year of going home pissed off, I lead a coup against him, and once my coworkers saw me rebel they felt safe in doing so themselves and my department ended up psychologically and professionally attacking him. Consultants were called in.

    And I'm still here. He's now our gopher. They're too chickenshit to get rid of him because he's in 2 or 3 protected catagories, but he doesn't cause us any trouble. Even my own family told me I was fucking crazy for rebelling against the corporate machine in the way I did.

    Somewhat related -- traditionally, during companywide meetings, HR told us that management were allowed to yell and be assholes as long as they didn't touch protected catagories like age, gender, and race. Only a few months ago a new policy was released -- a total reversal of previous policy. The new policy forbids even looking at somebody funny, and no disrespectful speech is allowed, period. I wonder why? Was there too much workplace violence in other units? Too much disability leave as a result of stressed-out workers?

    I'm not arguing that the kinder and gentler policy is a bad change, because it's a good change and long overdue -- but since it's so broad it makes me wonder if it's just a justification to get rid of people more easily for being "threatening" or whatever.