U of M News Wire: May 24, 2007

 
U of M teen sex and depression study finds most teens' mental health unaffected by nonmarital sex

Youngest teens who lose virginity most susceptible to depression if in uncommitted relationship
 
By Mark Cassutt
U of M News Wire

For a decade, the legislative push for "abstinence only" sex education has suggested that nonmarital sex negatively affects a teen's mental health. But a new study shows that the negative mental side effects of a teen's loss of virginity are confined to a small proportion of those who have sex -- specifically, young girls and both boys and girls who have sex earlier than their peers and whose relationships are uncommitted and ultimately fall apart.
 
Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Ann Meier, University of Minnesota assistant professor of sociology, studied 8,563 seventh- through 12th-graders over an 18-month period, measuring for depression and low self-esteem. Meier compared the mental health of teens who didn't have sex to teens who were virgins at the beginning of the study, but who lost their virginity during the 18-month period.
 
She found that while the majority of teens did not experience depression as a result of first-time sex, some did -- those being the youngest teens (girls who had sex before age 15 and boys who had sex before 14) and whose relationship was not emotionally close and dissolved after sex. Girls in this group were particularly vulnerable to depression.
 
Meier believes it's the combination of these factors that make young teens most vulnerable to depression or low self-esteem after first-time sex. "Being female or younger than the average age at first-time sex among your peers increases the chance of depression, as does a lack of commitment or intimacy within the relationship and what happens to the relationship after first-time sex," said Meier. "For girls in uncommitted relationships, ending a relationship with sex has more of an impact on mental health than ending that same relationship if it did not involve sex."
 
The risk of suffering mental health problems from having sex as a teen is relatively low, but Meier said low risk still represents a large group of teens affected, as half the teen population is having sex. She cautioned that the study does not suggest that positive effects result from first-time sex among teens and said she hopes it will help policy-makers focus help on those most vulnerable rather than promoting a one-size-fits-all approach. Meier's study, "Adolescent First Sex and Subsequent Mental Health," will be published in the May issue of the American Journal of Sociology.
 
 
----------
 

U of M sociologist’s new research shows that civil wars are nearly three times longer than they were 60 years ago
 
U of M News Wire

Long before she ever made war one of her primary academic interests, University of Minnesota sociologist Ann Hironaka was busy taking a stand against it. As an undergraduate during the 1980s, she was active in a variety of peace related causes; she even served a stint at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, though she says she was enlisted mostly as a diligent copier and coffee fetcher, not as a policy analyst.
 
As Hironaka became interested in sociology, it might have made sense for her to leave war to the political scientists, who more commonly study the subject. But she was convinced that sociology would offer a unique perspective on conflict. As her new research demonstrates, her instinct was right.
 
From the beginning, Hironaka has been especially interested in the phenomenon of civil war. When she began her studies, she recalls, "There seemed to be a lot of civil wars going on in any given year, so I just assumed there were more civil wars breaking out than there were years ago."
 
But once she began digging through the actual data, Hironaka realized the reality was much more nuanced. In fact, the number of new civil wars each year hasn't changed much over the course of two centuries--what's changed is their length. During the first half of the 20th century, the average civil war lasted about a year and a half. By the second half, that average had nearly tripled.
 
A new kind of war
 
By way of context, Hironaka explains that the vast majority of civil wars are fought in developing countries, which tend to be in flux as political entities. They're what social scientists refer to as "weak states" -- countries with very limited economic, organizational, and political strength. Unlike a strong state (the United States or France, for example), a weak state typically has a government that rebels can easily exploit. Since the rebels are likely to be just as weak as the government they overthrow, however, power may move back and forth for years--or even decades.
 
That process of exchanging power isn't something with which most Americans are familiar, Hironaka notes. "Americans see civil wars through the lens of Western history," she says. "We assume a prototypical war is like one of the French civil wars--there are rebels and there is the government, and whoever gets Paris takes over and that's it. It's decisive and short. But that's not how they work in the developing world."

In Chad, for example, which "can't even provide its people with food, clean water, and health care," civil war has raged for nine years, Hironaka observes. "It doesn't make sense that they can afford to have a costly civil war that goes on for so long," she says. The missing piece, she explains, is intervention by other countries.
 
"The international system plays a much more important role in states and their activities than it used to," Hironaka says. According to her data, 70 percent of civil wars involve intervention on one or both sides. In the case of Chad's ongoing conflict, France and Libya have helped fund the opposing groups, pouring resources into the war to achieve their own foreign policy ends. As with many other civil wars, support from partisan international sources has lengthened Chad's conflict.
 
While such intervention isn't new to civil wars, its impact has changed over time, particularly since World War II, Hironaka says. Years ago, intervention tended to be cooperative. "In the 19th century, great powers agreed where they were going to intervene, and they crushed movements," Hironaka says. "That doesn't mean we should encourage such actions, but it is one way to end a war."
 
The intersection of academia and Iraq
 
Hironaka is careful not to adopt a moral or political stance on these changes, but she does believe it's important to understand why they're happening. "As a scholar, I believe the first step is to correctly diagnose the problem," she says.
 
As the newspaper stories about Iraq have continued to pile up, Hironaka's research has become even more relevant than she initially imagined. "I feel like I can see my academic arguments unfolding in real time," she says. "Iraq had a brutal, repressive regime, but it was also a strong state. The United States created a weak state out of a strong state by taking out the central government, and now it's realizing how difficult it is to rebuild a strong state." Civil war, rare under Saddam Hussein's rule, now has the potential to last for years, she adds.
 
Although prospects for Iraq's near future may seem bleak, Hironaka points out that weak states can be built into strong states over time.
 
"The American state was disorganized for many years before becoming a strong state, and European states took centuries to develop stable organizational structures," she says. "Strong states don't just naturally occur."
 
As for the role of academia in the debate about Iraq, Hironaka says it's important for academics to "question the basic assumptions of what a state is, what a war is, and what wars are about--instead of relying on intuitive assumptions about these things. By doing that, I think we can gain an understanding of wars that will help lead to better policy."
 
Hironaka's findings about civil war are detailed in her new book, Neverending Wars: The International Community, Weak States, and the Perpetuation of Civil War.
 

----------


Growing Concerns
A childrearing question-and-answer column with Dr. Martha Erickson
of the University of Minnesota
(This column is from the Growing Concerns archive)
 
Question: Four months ago we adopted a two-year-old boy. He often wakes up crying in the middle of the night, his moods are unpredictable, and, even when he's not fussing or fighting, he rarely smiles.   We have given him a stable, loving home, but it doesn't seem to be enough.     

Answer:   The arrival of a new family member is a challenge and a big adjustment under any conditions, but your situation poses some special issues. You do not mention anything about the circumstances of the adoption. Was he removed from an abusive home? Did he lose his parents through death?  Was he in a foster home and now has "lost" those parents as a result of his placement with you?  Or was he perhaps moved from place to place without any opportunity to form strong relationships?
 
Whatever his history and whatever the circumstances of the adoption, this little boy brings that history with him. In the first two years of life, children normally are building a sense of trust through their attachments to the adults who love and care for them. When that does not happen, it can take much time and patience to gradually establish that sense of trust. Four months is really not a very long time to undo what happened during the first two years of life. If his experience tells him that people disappear after a while - or that they cannot be counted on to care for him - then he may be very slow to trust in the love you offer him. His crying in the night is an opportunity for you to reassure him that you are there for him.  
 
Beyond the psychological effects of his life history, it is possible that there are physiological effects as well. Poor nutrition, chemical use by parents prior to or during the pregnancy and general quality of care can have an impact on a child's behavior. Your pediatrician or family physician can work with you to monitor your son's development carefully, making sure that any problems are identified and addressed as early as possible.
 
Some of what you are seeing in your son also reflects his stage of development.  Most two-year-olds are moody and unpredictable.  They are going through rapid changes in motor skills, language ability and learning what they can and cannot do. They swing from wanting to be big and all-powerful to wanting to just curl up and be little babies.  It will take time for your son to learn what is expected of him and to know that you will be there to love and guide him.  
 
All parents need support to see them through the ups and downs of a child's development. And adoptive parents need and deserve special support to address the unique issues they face. I'd suggest that you contact the agency through which you adopted the child or a mental health agency in your community and ask about resources for adoptive parents. Many communities offer support groups or can link you with national networks that provide information and support specifically for adoptive parents.