Posted on 07/14/2006 9:22:53 AM PDT by presidio9
A new study finds that unborn babies regularly exposed to cigarette smoke in the womb are much more likely to have behavioral problems as young children.
The study, detailed in current issue of the journal Child Development, is the first to show a link between smoking during pregnancy and child behavior problems in the first years of life.
The researchers found that 2-year-olds whose mothers were exposed to cigarette smoke while pregnant were nearly 12 times more likely to show clinical levels of behavioral problems compared to their unexposed peers.
The researchers looked at 93 children between their first and second birthdays. Forty-four were exposed to cigarette smoke before birth; among those exposed, nearly half of their mothers reported smoking more than half a pack a day.
As any parent will tell you, behavioral problems in toddlers are nothing new. There is even a name for it—the "terrible twos." But the behavior of toddlers exposed to cigarette smoke got progressively worse between 18 and 24 months of age compared to unexposed toddlers.
In psychology, symptoms of disruptive behavior include aggression, irritability, rule breaking and poor social skills. The exposed toddlers were significantly more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior and stubbornly refuse following directions. They were also less likely to seek out and socially interact with their mothers.
The one symptom that the exposed toddlers did not exhibit was increased irritability. This is important, the researchers say, because different components of disruptive behavior reflect functioning within different parts of the brain.
"By pinpointing which behaviors are involved, it sets the stage for the next set of studies which can more precisely characterize the relevant behaviors and their associated brain regions in exposed children," said study leader Lauren Wakschlag of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Wakschlag and her colleagues previously found a link between prenatal smoking and antisocial behavior in older youth. The new study suggests that for some children, the roots of their behavioral problems might occur before they are born.
While the study supports the theory that smoking can lead to long-term problems later in life, Wakschlag cautions that it does not prove it.
"However, our findings do move us one step closer to answering this question by generating ideas regarding what areas of the brain might be affected by exposure," she said.
I smoked while I was pregnant with my first 2 children. They are now 35 and 34. My daughter, the first born, was and is the most mellow, sweet tempered person you would ever want to meet. Her brother ,on the other hand, was a tough child to raise. He's now a Dad himself and a wonderful, responsible adult.
By the way, when I was pregnant 36 years ago all the Dr.s were concerned with was weight gain. They had no problem with my smoking. Quit cold turkey when I was pregnant with my 3rd.
Times have changed.
Too bad I used my GI Educational Benefits to go to College, or I might just think of taking up a sideline business (is 62 too old?) study tattooing?
Of course my eyesight is not what it used to be, so I guess it would have to be along the lines of "touchy-feely"?
I could go on with this, but as this is a "family-oriented" site, I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Gee, and all this time I thought it was kids eating lead paint.
This is true........and it's amazing how many of them show up on these threads....amazing.
The title is confusing... was daddy smoking and blowing the smoke up mommmys .....?!?! I'll refrain from completing the question.
The stated findings may have merit, but where was all of that research in the 70's and 80's when the first generation of marajuana mommies dumped their ADD and AHADD kids on the public schools and then blamed the schools for their kids' behavior problems? Even today do we see any published findings on that aspect of smoking? If they've been there and I missed them, I apologize.
Therefore, I let my fingers do the walking and shzaam, I was right.
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11
Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis.
Jason W. Osborne and Anna B. Costello
North Carolina State University
Why size matters
Larger samples are better than smaller samples (all other things being equal) because larger samples tend to minimize the probability of errors, maximize the accuracy of population estimates, and increase the generalizability of the results.
Unfortunately, there are few sample size guidelines for researchers using EFA or PCA, and many of these have minimal empirical evidence (e.g., Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988).
In multiple regression texts some authors (e.g., Pedhazur, 1997, p. 207) suggest subject to variable ratios of 15:1 or 30:1 when generalization is critical. But there are few explicit guidelines such as this for EFA or PCA (Baggaley, 1983). Two different approaches have been taken: suggesting a minimum total sample size, or examining the ratio of subjects to variables, as in multiple regression.
Comfrey and Lee (1992) suggest that “the adequacy of sample size might be evaluated very roughly on the following scale: 50 – very poor; 100 – poor; 200 – fair; 300 – good; 500 – very good; 1000 or more – excellent” (p. 217). Guadagnoli and Velicer (1988) review several studies that conclude that absolute minimum sample sizes, rather than subject to item ratios, are more relevant. These studies range in their recommendations from an N of 50 (Barrett & Kline, 1981) to 400 (Aleamoni, 1976).
Thus there sample of 93 would lead to a "very poor" to "poor" results. Nuff said.
As an aside, would be curious to see results of those women who smoked pot. Wonder if the little rug rats end up being mellow and skip entirely terrible two's? LOL
You're undoubtedly right. My mother smoked, I'd NEVER let her hug me, they say, not even as a newborn.
>>Thank goodness my Mom chewed Red Man.<<
LOLOLOLOL!
"A heck of a lot more likely: many smokers tend to be the sort of trashy low-lifes who don't discipline their children properly, leading to behavior problems."
Thanks for showing me your intelligence level, laddy.
That sounds like something a pissed off sixth-grader would say in a playground argument.
NYHA NYHAA YOUR MOMMY'S DUMB 'CAUSE SHE SMOKES DOODY-HEAD!
And just LOOK at the stupid $hit that flows from their lips.....
O.K. But, under the axiom that correlation, by itself, is not causation, did the study also study the behavior of the smoking mothers and compare it with the behavior of the non-smoking mothers.
Certainly, regardless of pregnancy, to smoke or not to smoke is demonstrably a behavioral difference. Is that difference only one reflection of a range of behavioral differences that smoking mothers have.
Given how important the mother and her behavior (regardless of the smoke) influences the behavior of the developing infant, can the research be sure that the difference is "the smoke" and not the "smoking mothers". I don't think so.
I think their study is flawed. It did not ask enough questions or collect enough data to ask those questions. It took one point of posssible correlation, decided that was definitive and then simply sought enough input to match; ignoring a large variety of other inputs that could also correlate to the child's behavior.
This is typical of science today. Scientific research has become to science what proof-texting is to religion - junk.
I agree completely.
That's what I was getting at -- not that smoking somehow turns responsible, upstanding people into low-lifes.
That must be one hardcore mom to put smoke in the womb. It's for the children!!!!
I'm not one to minimize the health hazards of tobacco smoke (first- or second-hand), but there's nothing here to suggest that the toddlers' unruliness wasn't caused by general parental irresponsibility, for which smoking during pregnancy is a pretty solid marker (and which also has some genetic roots in many cases). There's lot of solid research showing the harm that tobacco smoke can cause, but this is not such research.
Or a 3rd grader to a kindergartener on the school bus.
Interestingly enough the 3rd grader who said something similar to my daughter 2 years ago lives in one of the trashiest trailer parks in this part of the county, her 2 siblings all have different fathers than she does, I've met the mother, who is unemployed, illiterate, and on welfare. But she thinks she's better than I am because she doesn't smoke. She's also a fat slob, as are the 3 kids, one of which was placed in an alternative program because of unruly behavior in the classroom..........
Yup, smokers are trashy and anti-smokers are such pillars of the community. BWAAHAAAHAAAAAAAA
What's really sad is that they really believe it.it's like a religion to them. Smokers are the infidels that must be done away with at all costs.
I am truly starting to believe these people have a mental dis-order.
I've heard of 'blowing smoke up your a$$', but never that!
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.