Growing up (traumatised) in NZ?

The media’s hysterical coverage of the latest research on families is a "manufactured crisis". The academics have done nothing to help their cause either.

You probably heard this news during the summer break.

According to the NZ Herald, it screamed

Nine in 10 Kiwi kids endure trauma by age 8 - new research

Nearly nine in 10 Kiwi kids endure some kind of trauma before turning 8 – be it bullying, parental drug or alcohol addiction, violence or family break-ups. But positive experiences and care can help insulate children from lasting harm.

Wow! You’ll be thinking by now. 9 out of 10 kids. Trauma. Kids in NZ are stuffed. Childhood must be shocking for them.

Just hold that thought. We’ve got some research to do on the “research”.

Back to our article…

That’s according to a major new study that draws a link between childhood trauma and developing obesity later in life. Using data from nearly 5000 children tracked by the Growing Up in New Zealand Study, the researchers looked at what they consider “adverse childhood experiences”.

That included being bullied or abused; having parents split up, imprisoned, or addicted to drugs or alcohol; or living in homes with family violence or mental illness. Earlier studies suggested that about half of Kiwi adults had such episodes in childhood.

But the latest findings, out today, put that prevalence much higher, at 87%, with disproportionate rates among Māori and Pasifika children, and those living in deprivation.

Children who’d had at least one of those traumatic experiences were twice as likely to be obese by the age of 8 as those who hadn’t – and that risk worsened as the numbers of setbacks mounted. Children who’d had four or more of them, for instance, were nearly three times more likely to develop obesity, which in turn could lead to serious mental and physical health issues.

The research also turned up some positives. Factors like parents being in committed relationships, mothers interacting with their children and being involved in social groups - and children having good early educations, and living in homes with routines and rules – could help counter the negative experiences. But children needed at least four of those insulating factors to offset the risk of obesity.

One of the authors wrote an article for the 1News website

Childhood traumatic experiences are alarmingly common. Our analysis of data from nearly 5000 children in the Growing Up in New Zealand study revealed almost nine out of ten (87%) faced at least one significant source of trauma by the time they were eight years old. Multiple adverse experiences were also prevalent, with one in three children (32%) experiencing at least three traumatic events.

Note the terminology – “significant source of trauma” – and by the age of 8.

Childhood trauma includes a range of experiences such as physical and emotional abuse, peer bullying and exposure to domestic violence. It also includes parental substance abuse, mental illness, incarceration, separation or divorce and ethnic discrimination…

Connecting trauma to obesity

One potential explanation could be that the accumulation of early stress in children’s family, school and social environments is associated with greater psychological distress. This in turn makes children more likely to adopt unhealthy weight-related behaviours.

This includes consuming excessive high-calorie “comfort” foods such as fast food and sugary drinks, inadequate intake of nutritious foods, poor sleep, excessive screen time and physical inactivity. In our research, children who experienced adverse events were more likely to adopt these unhealthy behaviours. These, in turn, were associated with a higher risk of obesity.

I just have a simple question here. Eating crappy and excessive food, poor sleep, excessive screen time and physical inactivity. Who’s fault is that? Is it the “trauma” or is it just bad parenting?

That doesn’t seem to be asked.

Despite these challenges, our research also explored a promising area: the protective and mitigating effects of positive experiences. We defined positive experiences as: parents in a committed relationship; mothers interacting well with their children; mothers involved in social groups; children engaged in enriching experiences and activities such as visiting libraries or museums and participating in sports and community events; children living in households with routines and rules, including those regulating bedtime, screen time and mealtimes;

In other words, traditional family structure with commitment and functionality. So traditional… Those darn trad-mums that the Disinformation Project mocked.

But here was the interesting one

children attending effective early childhood education.

As we will see, there is an academic push for putting kids in ECE. Perhaps they could research the effects of long periods of ECE of very young children and the effect this has.

We have. This report. Which says that attending daycare for an extended time, and the consequent separation from parents, is a significant source of stress for many young children which could have potential long-term consequences for their mental and physical health as adults. There is growing evidence of profound beneficial neurobiological effects a mother’s physical presence has on her young child that cannot be achieved by anyone else including paid childcare workers,” says the author. “Mothers have been undervalued. NZ should undergo a timely and long overdue re-evaluation of motherhood.”

But back to this research from Auckland University screaming that 9 in 10 kids in NZ endure “trauma” before they’re 8.

I know the immediate question you’re asking is “how do they define trauma?” Very good question.

Let’s dig into the research.

We’ve previously talked about this. The Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study (GUiNZ) is New Zealand’s largest ongoing cohort study. It recruited 6,846 New Zealand children born between 2009 and 2010 in Auckland and the Waikato. Although, interestingly, that number has dropped to just 4,500 now. Losing people in such a massive and lengthy study is understandable, but it’s appears to be a much larger attrition rate than the Christchurch longitudinal study and the Dunedin Study based on a comparable time. (72% GUiNZ retention, 90% Chch & Dunedin retention rates)

The last time we talked about this study was in a McBlog called “Growing up (Trans) in NZ” in April 2023. This is some of the questioning for children which we think is both confusing and harmful questioning of young children.

Not only the “do you see yourself as a boy, girl, or somewhere in between?” – which can’t be defined objectively - but another equally vague distorted question – “Thinking about other people, do you think THEY see you as a boy, a girl, or somewhere in between?”

This is being asked of 8 year olds. Is an 8 year old going around asking people that?! Of course not. “Yeah I like some girly things, I like some guy things. Wow – I must be non-binary. My friends are all guys. My friends are mostly girls. Some of my mates called me a sissy on the soccer field last week. I must be transgender.”

In fact, we think parents may want to withdraw their involvement after watching this analysis. Our concern is that it’s been captured by gender ideologues and activists. Have a watch of that episode.

But back to this latest one.

So this study is surveying almost 5,000 children at the age of 8 and their mother.

They say that the basic premise is that positive childhood experiences can less the impact of negative childhood experiences – and thereby reduce the risk of obesity. Early on they say

ACEs include indicators of child abuse and family dysfunctions (e.g., mental illness, substance abuse, incarceration, parental separation or death, and intimate partner violence)

Those are all serious things, aren’t they. Drugs, alcohol, family breakdown, violence – you know, all the things that we always said were risk factors for child abuse. We’ve been saying that for the past 20 years.

By the way, the 2,000 families they’ve lost? Most likely to be lower socio-economic group, non-European, younger mothers, and children already overweight before they’re five years old.

So here’s the first key point for dumb journalists to think about before shouting “Nine in 10 Kiwi kids endure trauma by age 8”. Perhaps they should read the research, ya think?

Because of the attrition rate of 2,000 families, they say

our findings should not be considered representative of the NZ children population at-large.

Let me repeat that.

our findings should not be considered representative of the NZ children population at-large.

Hey, NZ Herald, wanna rethink that dramatic heading again?

Another limitation is that this is self-reporting by mothers which they admit can lead to answers that are socially desirable – answers they think the questioners want to hear – and more importantly answers given by eight year olds. Yes – 8 year olds. Just keep that in mind.

So what is defined as “trauma” for young children? They say:

Specifically, we constructed dichotomous indicators of exposure for nine ACEs: child exposure to emotional abuse, physical abuse, parental substance (alcohol/drug) abuse, parental mental illness, parental incarceration, parental separation/divorce, intimate partner violence (IPV) against the mother, maternal experience of ethnic discrimination, and peer bullying.

There’s some serious adverse childhood events. But how do they define “emotional abuse” or “physical abuse”, “parental mental illness”, “maternal experience of ethnic discrimination”, “peer bullying”.

Glad you asked. You have to dig deep into the data to find this on the Ministry of Social Development website.

Emotional abuse eg "mother very often shouted, yelled, raised their voice when child was naughty”

Physical abuse eg "Mother reported smacking the child ‘half the time’ ‘often’ ‘very often’ when child was naughty."

Parental substance abuse eg " Mother or partner reported using amphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy, opiates, hallucinogens or party pills since the birth of the child”

Interestingly there’s no mention of the most used drug cannabis, and I thought the Drug Foundation said party pills and drugs were okay as long as you got them tested to ensure that the illegal drug you’re consuming was the pure form of the illegal drug you’re consuming.

Parental mental illness eg " Mother or partner was classified as moderately or severely depressed" Does that include postnatal depression which many mothers experience?

Interestingly, parental separation and divorce included “Mother was not in a relationship with this same partner when her child was two years old” or “Mother did not have a current partner during 54months, 2 years, or 9 months interviews. “ In other words, a solo mother.

Are they insinuating that fatherlessness, and solo mothering, is an adverse experience for a child?

Wow! That’s an admission.

Mother discrimination eg mother felt – (felt!) "She has ever been treated unfairly in New Zealand because of her ethnicity.” Kept waiting by a health professional because of your ethnicity. Treated unfairly when applying for a credit card, by the police, or when attending a place of education.

And then for the 8 year olds to answer….

Peer bullying eg eight year olds were asked, " Do other children put you down, call you names, or tease you in a mean way? Do other children leave you out in a mean way? Do other students hit, push, or hurt you in a mean way? - Are other children mean to you because you learn in a different way to them? Do other children use cell phones (like texting) or the Internet (like Facebook) to be mean to?”

Um… this is 8 year olds. And its self reporting.

Remember that the researchers and the media were shouting that almost 9 in 10 reported at least one of these.

Why is it not 100%? 87% had at least one. Were the remaining 13% home schoolers or something? Were they kept in the freezer? Just on the bullying question, every child in NZ has suffered “trauma” according to these researcher.

Based on that list, I’ve could probably get to 4 at least.

No comments about my weight – ok!

Do these all qualify as “trauma”? What do you think of when you hear the word “trauma”?

What I found interesting was that the researchers chose to exclude “Experience of death including death of a parent, close family member or close friend or even a pet.”

Are these not traumatic? I think death of a parent is hugely traumatic! When we put down our almost-15 year old labrador in December, there was a lot of tears.

But what’s worse is that there appears to be no weighting between watching a parent punch the other parent, or consuming drugs in the lounge versus being given a smack on the bum for swearing at your mother or being teased at school by having a name like mine that rhymes with blob, gob and slob.

Here’s the numbers - %’s – under each category. This info wasn’t in the main research publication, surprisingly. You had to go searching through a couple of links to find this – and its on the Ministry of Social Development website

It averages about 20% for each category except incarceration which is very low and IPV which is fortunately lower as well – but still too high.

But then you get to ethnic discrimination and its 33% - 1 in 3 – and then bullying, just under 60%. I’m surprised that 40% of 8 year olds say they haven’t experienced any bullying or teasing or put downs or being left out of games etc.

So what were the positive experiences (and once again) it simply confirms what we’ve always been saying.

• parents in a committed relationship, (oh – so marriage does matter)

• mother interacted well with child,

• mother involved in social groups,

• child engaged in experiences and activities,

• child lived in a house with routines and rules,

• and child attended effective early childhood education.

Apart from that last one, any thinking person would know that those are just Parenting 101.

Interestingly, “routines and rules” were questions around is there rules for watching television, do you go to bed at a similar time each night – and do you have family meals all together.

Once again, we’ve written a report on that also. For some reason the researchers didn’t point to this.

Regarding pre-school, they say “No involvement in ECE may limit children from opportunities to learn in safe environments, especially for those who have experienced ACEs. It has been previously contended that children’s involvement in quality childcare can have a protective effect for the impacts of ACEs”

Yeah nah. Read our report. You’ve made that conclusion up.

Just one thing to note about the positive experiences. Maori and Pacific families were less likely than European to have a mother in a committed relationship. It was 70% overall – which is still encouraging. Maori and Pacific families were also less likely to live in a home with rules and routine. But parental interaction was similar. Pacific families were less likely to engage in experiences and activities.

So what was the conclusion of all this research?

You probably could have written this – within surveying 5,000 families.

the importance of healthily enforced rules and routines should be emphasised for parents, healthcare workers, and educators…

…research has shown that early family environments and effective parenting (including responsiveness, warmth, and discipline) can influence developmental outcomes related to flourishing [44], resilience [17], and obesity…

[Direct] attention towards neighbourhood and community-level contributors to obesity (such as lack of access to green/recreational spaces, social/community activities, and healthy foods)

… strategies for preventing ACEs often align with identified PCEs, such as promoting and investing in public settings like education, healthcare services, and community and recreational activities (e.g., after-school programs, libraries, pools, and social groups)

And finally, some critical theory

Higher prevalence rates of ACEs among ethnic minority groups, particularly Māori and Pacific peoples who also face the compounded effects of racism and colonization​, may contribute to and further entrench inequities in obesity rates and related health outcomes. Prevention of ACEs, particularly for Māori communities, also requires addressing and healing the intergenerational and historical impacts of trauma.

Probably not surprisingly, there was no commentary from the researchers on the important on committed relationship, how society can encourage these, the important role of fathers as a protective factor, the importance of mothers nurturing their child, or (shock, horror) why marriage matters so much.

The word “marriage” is not mentioned once in both the research publication and in the analysis by the Ministry of Social Development. Even “committed relationship” wasn’t discussed.

Oh - Except to minimise it by saying

“mother in a committed relationship” is not an infallible construct; mothers may have responded positively to these questions where, for instance, intimate partner violence may have been present, and many children grow up happy and healthy in households with separated parents.

There’s only so much “traditional” that they can stomach eh.

So… their argument is that trauma can lead to obesity.

But their definition is so wide that it’s surprising NZ is not the fattest most morbidly obese nation on the planet.

Interestingly, the New Zealand Health Survey 2020/21 found that around 1 in 8 children (aged 2–14 years) were classified as obese (12.7%), up from 9.5% in 2019/20. 12%.

Here’s the other problem.

This is from two months earlier. Same researchers involved. Same longitudinal study.

Setting screen time rules lowers childhood obesity risk — study

Families who set screen time rules for their children promote healthier childhoods with better sleep patterns which could reduce the risk of obesity, according to a new study.

Research from the University of Auckland and City St George's, University of London used data from 5733 children and their mothers, derived from the Growing Up in New Zealand study to investigate how family screen time rules at age two affected childhood obesity at age four-and-a-half.

.. the findings suggest that adhering to family screen time rules effectively reduced young children's screen use by ensuring they got enough sleep. Inadequate sleep has been previously associated with obesity, and children who spend less time on screen devices usually sleep better according to previous studies.

Hashemi said establishing simple, consistent screen time rules early in a child's life was a helpful strategy to support healthier habits and address obesity on a larger scale.

No kidding, Sherlock.

Let me just conclude by quoting researcher Lindsay Mitchell who has written a number of reports for us on the link between family breakdown and an increase in cohabiting and single-parent families with poverty, incarceration, and child abuse – blogged this in response to the research being published, and the media’s hysterical coverage.

Academics crying wolf

…Trauma is what I expect refugee children from war-torn countries to have experienced. Turns out though trauma can now include a child answering ‘yes’ when asked, "Do other children put you down, call you names, or tease you in a mean way?"… Some of the experiences are serious, for example, having a parent sent to prison, but others are just part and parcel of being a child. Being shouted at by Mum for being naughty or having a Mum who believes she’s been treated unfairly because of her ethnicity. To describe the latter two as experiencing trauma destroys the word’s meaning…

What bothers me even more is the bastardization of a rich language abundantly capable of intricate and nuanced description. It has happened with many words beyond trauma. For instance, words like ‘assault’ and ‘violate’ get regularly employed in totally overblown and inappropriate ways. Guilty parties risk being accused of ‘crying wolf’ – a timeless adage that describes how repeated exaggeration will only result in them being ignored or worse, laughed at.

When it comes to children, New Zealand has enough real problems without manufactured crises.

Money spent on more of this melodrama is money misdirected.

Academics crying wolf. Exactly.

This is the same manipulation of the language that we had during the anti-smacking debate. Studies cited by opponents of smacking do not adequately distinguish the effects of smacking as practiced by non-abusive parents from the impact of severe physical punishment and abuse.

And you’ll note that “smacking” is equated with “physical abuse” in this GUiNZ study – which is equated with “trauma”. An open hand smack on the bum or hand is equated with punches in the head or a severe beating of a child by someone high on drugs.

What the researchers don’t tell you is that a 2007 Otago University study found that children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all. A study by the Christchurch School of Medicine found there was no difference in outcomes between no smacking and moderate physical punishment. They said; “It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences.”

Other studies have shown that expressing disappointment and yelling or scolding were associated with as many significantly adverse outcomes as smacking, and time-out and shaming were also significantly associated with internalising problems. Psychotherapy for children and using Ritalin for ADHD appear just as harmful as smacking when using the best research methods used in anti-smacking studies.

It is this manipulation of the language (a smack is child abuse or violence, being teased or treated unfairly is as traumatic as death of a parent or drug use or family violence) which has weakened this research into what works for parents when raising good functioning children.

It also doesn’t help their cause when they can’t bring themselves to admit that marriage matters, and fathers matter.

But we already know that, don’t we.