I love science. First, because I love to learn and understand how things work. Second, because I love puzzles, and at the frontline of every new finding there is a new puzzle, or three, to contemplate. Third, because I like intellectual surprises. Hey, I wasn’t expecting that!
Science is frequently portrayed as the sterile act of collecting data to “prove”/support (test, really) already held ideas. Hmm. Variable A seems to be linked to B, let’s find out. Yet scientists frequently bump into variables of the C, D and even Q sort. Hey, what is that doing here?! Oh, yes, science involves quite a bit of head scratching.
Consider some recent research described this way [all emphases mine]:
In a longitudinal study of recovery patterns of children affected by Katrina, researchers at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center and the St. Bernard Parish Public Schools looked at 400 mostly White elementary- and high-school-aged children (from ages 9 to 18) between 2005 and 2008. The children lived in a New Orleans school district that was heavily damaged by the hurricane.
In paragraphs about the findings, I encountered a couple “Q” variables: things that caused me to scratch my head and ask questions.
But this work in progress also found that more than a quarter of the children continued to have significant trauma symptoms of post-traumatic stress and depression three years later. Children who reported these symptoms were more likely to be younger, female, have seen a mental health professional, and also report family or school problems. They also reported being exposed to more traumas.
That’s a bit of a surprise tucked in there. More symptoms associated with having seen a mental health professional? Why is that? I can think of a few reasons.
Male and female teens who experienced the hurricane showed distinct patterns of behavioral stress as well as gender differences in how they regulated physiological stress, the study found. Specifically, compared to the children who weren’t exposed to Katrina, girls who survived the hurricane were more depressed and boys showed lower levels of aggression and higher levels of confidence. Heightened stress hormonal reactions were likewise associated with depression in girls and confidence in boys.
Huh. Following the stress of the hurricane and living in a devastated region, girls were more depressed. And boys had lower levels of aggression and higher levels of confidence. The girls part is understandable, perhaps predictable. The boys’ increase in confidence . . . now that’s a surprise. And it raises all sorts of questions and possibilities.
And so I am left eagerly awaiting more . . . science.
—
Source: Hurricane Katrina’s effects on children: Resilience and gender
> Related Posts
Tags: gender, mental health
July 19th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
The age range in that study was far too broad. It covers many kids in the lower part of the range who are not yet pubescent (9-14 with variations in age of onset). Girls in telarche and menarche are more prone to depression generally, which is seen as an estrogen effect primarily and a cultural effect secondarily. The age of onset for andrenarche varies for boys but is known to come later generally, than the counterpart in females. And, in females, by age eighteen, in some studies, a lessening of the depressive effects of estrogen can be seen, while, in males, that age can mark the period of highest testosterone effect. I would want to see confidence scores and aggression scores compared to non-traumatized subjects. I would think that very broad age range would skew the data, wouldn’t you?
Kids who have seen a mental health professional for PTSD WOULD be more likely to report symptoms in a clear fashion, wouldn’t they? Their consciousness has been raised to those symptoms. Also, some of the older treatments for PTSD have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms with re-traumatization.
Those are just some of the Q’s that run through my head.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Nance – Excellent points and info in the first paragraph, and your second fully reflected my own unstated Q’s.
Glad to read your intelligent ruminations, as always.