Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | January 6th 2009 12:00 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
If your mother smoked, you're more likely to be an aggressive kid, according to a new Canada-Netherlands study published in the journal Development and Psychopathology.

And mothers who smoke, give birth under 21 and are poor should have caused North American to be overrun by the societal equivalent of Middle East dictators by now -  so take what you want from that.  While previous studies have shown that smoking during gestation causes low birth weight, this research claims mothers who light up during pregnancy predispose their offspring to an additional risk: violent behavior. 

As mentioned above, the research team also says the risk of giving birth to aggressive children increases among smoking mothers whose familial income is lower than $40,000 per year.

Farther in, they finally mention the risk factor for aggressive behavior in offspring most likely to be the case;  mothers with a history of antisocial behaviour: run-ins with the law, high school drop-outs and illegal drug use.   Smoking is often common in that group too.

Psychiatry professor and researcher Jean Séguin, of the Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center, co-authored the study with postdoctoral fellow Stephan C. J. Huijbregts, now a researcher at Leiden University in the Netherlands, as well as colleagues from Université Laval and McGill University in Canada.

"Mothers-to-be whose lives have been marked by anti-social behaviour have a 67 percent chance to have a physically aggressive child if they smoke 10 cigarettes a day while pregnant, compared with 16 percent for those who are non-smokers or who smoke fewer than 10 cigarettes a day," says Dr. Séguin. "Smoking also seems to be an aggravating factor, although less pronounced, in mothers whose anti-social behaviour is negligible or zero."

The research was carried out as part of a wider investigation of children, the Quebec Longitudinal Study, which examined behaviors of 1,745 children between the age of 18 months to three and a half years. Aggressive offspring were characterized by their mothers as quick to hit, bite, kick, fight and bully others. 

Other risks for aggressive behavior

Although physical aggression is most common in preschool children, the researchers identified other prenatal factors associated with aggressive behavior in children: mothers who are younger than 21, who smoke and who coerce their children to behave. The researchers also found that children from families who earned less than $40,000 per year were at an increased risk for aggressive behavior. 

In this category, heavy smokers had a 40 percent chance of having highly aggressive children, compared with 25 percent for other mothers who were moderate or non-smokers. When income was greater than $40,000 annually, the gap between heavy smokers and others fell to 8 percent. 

The effect of smoking on aggression in offspring remained significant – even when other factors were removed such as divorce, depression, maternal education and the mother's age during pregnancy. Smoking during pregnancy is one factor that could be curbed to decrease risks of aggression and violent behavior.

The research team recommends that low-income women, who are heavy smokers and who have a history of anti-social behavior become a screening criterion for prenatal testing to determine what families need extra support to prevent development of aggressive behavior.

Comments

Hank's picture
We should have a new category.   'Studies that are crap and we should make fun of' - but we don't want to offend anyone so we need a nicer, shorter term than that.   Suggestions are welcome.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
STACAWSMFO is nonsensical, so we could just stick with STACs. Has a nice ring to it. Speaking of, thanks to the hilarious Waistland  blurb in Mother Jones:

Recent studies have attributed obesity to low-fat foods, lack of sleep, ear infections, intestinal bacteria, pollution, plastics, poverty, air conditioners, socializing with obese people, your mom's age when you were born, and your maternal grandmother's diet. And Playboy Playmates of the Year selected during tough social and economic times are heavier and have larger waists.

If science isn't your forte and you prefer the religious route, fear not - you're screwed too: 

ChastitySF.com, a Catholic site, tells dieters to imagine a "Purgatory where every unnecessary mouthful of food you have ever taken will be purged from you as flaming vomit."



Becky Jungbauer's picture
Oh, and another fun anecdote (and this is a true story): in one of my undergrad bio classes we were discussing smoking's effect on fetal development, and a friend of mine (who is one of those amazing people that everyone wishes their daughter could grow up to be) raised her hand and said that her mom smoked while she was pregnant and she (my friend) turned out just fine. My teacher said, "Yes, but think about how great you could have been."

Hank's picture
That is terrific (and so was flaming vomit above) - when smoking is your hammer, you can find a lot of nails.

jtwitten's picture
I reject the evidentiary power of both your anecdote and your professors asinineness.  Flaming vomit, however, is OK.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Hmm. You reject direct evidence but accept the pyrogastrointestinal machinations of a patriarchal oligarchy?

jtwitten's picture
Anecdotes are not evidence.  Flaming vomit, on the other hand, seems to be immune to the scientific method.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Direct observation = observational study = draws inferences about the effect of a treatment on subjects. See "evidence"; also see: "correlation does not imply causation."

Flaming vomit is pretty fricking cool, though. Not as cool as purple tater tot vomit after watching the presidential debates. But still cool. So I concede.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.