Skip to comments.Dad's Love Can Be Crucial for Happy Childhood, Study Confirms
Posted on 06/17/2012 1:20:13 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Move over, tiger moms. Dads can play an even more significant role in the development of happy, well-adjusted children than do mothers, a new study indicates.
Just in time for Father's Day, findings from a large-scale review of research shed light on how parental acceptance and rejection can affect the personalities of progeny well into adulthood.
"In our 50 years of research in every continent but Antarctica, we have found that nothing has as strong and consistent an effect on personality development as does being rejected by a parentespecially by a fatherin childhood," said study co-author Ronald Rohner, director of the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection at the University of Connecticut, in Storrs.
The study, published recently in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, analyzed 36 studies, from 1975 to 2010, involving almost 1,400 adults and 8,600 children in 18 countries. The children ranged in age from 9 to 18, and adults were between 18 and 89.
All the studies included in the review included an assessment of seven personality traits considered central to what is called "parental acceptance-rejection theory."
Those traitsaggression, independence, positive self-esteem, positive self-adequacy, emotional responsiveness, emotional stability and positive worldviewwere evaluated using self-report questionnaires. Participants were asked about their parents' degree of acceptance or rejection during their childhoods and about their own personality characteristics or tendencies.
"The study shows a strong relationship between those seven traits and the experience of feeling accepted and cared about by your parents," said Dr. John Sargent, a professor of psychology and pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine and chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston.
"What's really important to kids is to know they're accepted by their parents," Sargent said.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
It sounds like you were listening to Dennis Prager. He was just talking about this fact-—and it is true. Men will not grow up to be strong virtuous men if they don’t have a good father-figure in the house.
Male role models in books and in the movies are awful today—they are perverts or brutal—the opposite of what it takes to be a mature, virtuous, strong male.
They have been feminizing men—trying to destroy them through the homosexual and feminist movements. It is intentional. Destroy mature males and they won’t be responsible for any offspring which destroys children.
The cultural Marxists established Sex Ed in schools to destroy Virtue and morality in children so they will treat sex like a commodity—with no meaning which needs to be the glue in marriage. Men do not do well when they have no self-mastery and no will power. Stoics used to be plentiful in America—now it is rare quality. Virtue is being redefined to mean evil....now sodomy is good and if kids don’t like the behavior they are homophobes. Gay is cool in schools now. They have normalized sodomy. Gays target males and destroy the idea of true friendship between males. Trust is destroyed. Males who tie “sex” to friendship are sick and unable to control their base urges. They are mentally ill and we glorify it.
The media demonizes good, righteous men and glorifies the perverted, sick, selfish, immature males-—it is to destroy the family unit and leave children unprotected and emotionally disturbed. They end up getting involved in drugs and sex and crime. The prisons are filled with men who had lousy or no fathers. It has been known for centuries that fatherless children are high risk—both male and female. Children need both a mother and a father to be emotionally healthy.
Don’t get me started...
Definition of Mass Confusion: Father’s Day in the Ghetto....
But I imagine it will just be another ‘normal’ day there for the chilluns’....
Happy BabyDaddy Day!
This study pretty much blows your anecdotal evidence out of the water.
Excellent article. A Dad’s love is precious to both his sons and daughters. For example, a daughter’s sense of self worth because of her father’s approval will protect her for the rest of her life against allowing mistreatment by any other man.
And a son may resent how much is expected of him by his father, but the day will come when he says, “My goal is to be at least half as good a man as my father.”
I speak from experience, having had a GOOD father and seeing how it affected myself and my siblings. If only all men knew.
I personally like this one:
“The greatest gift a father can give to his children is to love their mother”
“Dads can play an even more significant role in the development of happy, well-adjusted children than do mothers, a new study indicates.”
Why do people INSIST on veering HARD one way and then the other? OK, so, moms are disposable now? Right. Got it.
I grew up with neither parent, and my foster parents, while good people, should have taken God at his world when He told them NO to parenthood.
My husband is the best Daddy ever, and there are times I actually envy my children their childhoods. Mine sucked.
That’s a very true statement. My cousins had something embroidered with that on it after my aunt’s husband left her for another woman.
So?....Where are the studies? How about a link or two?
Wow you would think that person that claims to have a medical degreee would think to actually READ THE ARTICLE to find the links. But I suppose that is to much to ask from someone who only claims to be a conservative.
Conclusion #1: If every government school were to close tomorrow the same children getting and education today would get one tomorrow. If every government school were to close tomorrow, the same kids NOT getting an education will not get one tomorrow. Why? Because it is IN THE HOME that kid is getting his education. It comes from his parents, from the student's own hard work in home assignments and informal study, and possibly from paid and unpaid tutors.
Conclusion #2: The **real** education and the **really** hard work of learning is happening IN THE HOME. The government school is merely sending home a very expensive curriculum for the parents, child, and possible tutors ( paid and unpaid) to follow IN THE HOME.
If I am wrong please provide the links to the studies that prove me wrong.
Where are the studies that show exactly **where** knowledge is acquired? Is it in the classroom or in the home due to the hard work of **afterschooling** and **preschooling** done by the parents, and by the study done by the child ( both homework and independent study), and help from paid and unpaid tutors.
Where are the studies that prove conclusively **who** exactly is doing the teaching? Is it the parents due to their home habits, afterschooling and preschooling? Is due to the hard work of the child IN THE HOME. How do tutors ( paid and unpaid) factor into the child's acquiring his knowledge?
Without knowing the Where, Who, and How of the child's acquiring knowledge, we can NOT know if the $20,000 to $30,000 spent per child per year is actually buying anything!
But...We do know one thing! Government school workers are quick to take full credit for the hard work done by the parents and child IN THE HOME, and anoint themselves “good” teachers and and grant themselves the standing of blue ribbon schools, but in a nanosecond will blame the family when there is academic failure.
Where are the links for which I continually ask.
Where are the studies that government schools that distinguish what is learned due to the parents, child, and possible tutors and that which is specifically learned in the classroom and due to the efforts of the government school teachers.
I would think this would be a very **fundamental** bit of information to know before committing the taxpayer to pay $20,000 to $30,000 per child per year for 13 years for an educational program that may be completely ineffective.
Please note the corrections and the question marks at the end of the sentence. At times you have been a bit of grammar Nazi.
Where are the links for which I continually ask? Where are the studies that government schools that distinguish what is learned due to the parents, child, and possible tutors and that which is specifically learned in the classroom and due to the efforts of the government school teachers.?
I **know** that as a **professional** government educator you would **never** resort to name calling with one of your students. I know that you would **never** do this with a student who is in an inferior position of power, and not yet full developed emotionally, socially, and psychologically.
Nope, a **professional** government teacher would **never** do this.
( NO sarcasm tag whatsoever!)
Seriously it is hard enough to make time to read the drivel you write with out having to refer to multiple postings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.