Monthly Archives: March 2017

We Lose Too Many Vietnam Veterans to Suicide: Here’s How You Can Help



By Megan Lacy (Doctoral Student, Palo Alto University)


As our Vietnam veteran population ages, many may become increasingly vulnerable for death by suicide. Despite the fact that the Vietnam war occurred approximately 40 years ago, the moral injuries sustained are still felt by many who served our country. It is not unusual for Vietnam Veterans to have coped with difficult times by staying busy at home or at work. As retirement looms, it is not unusual for Vietnam era veterans to experience additional age-related risks such as social isolation, a feeling of burdensomeness, and changes in health status.

These changes can coalesce to hamper coping strategies that previously worked to manage mental distress, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. Alcohol and substance use increases the risk of suicide as the abuse of substances, particularly alcohol, is strongly associated with both suicide attempts and deaths. So what should friends and family watch out for and what could be done in response to warning signs?


Warning signs:

In general, individuals most at risk of suicide are white older adult males who have health issues. As risk factors associated with veteran status converge on risk factors associated with later life , there are a few specific things friends and family should be aware of.


What’s going on in their life?

  • A major change in routine including retirement or loss of a job
  • The death of a spouse
  • A new medical diagnosis
  • A break up, separation or divorce
  • Not having a stable place to live
  • Inadequate family income


How are they behaving?

  • Increase in drinking or drug use
  • Sleeping considerably more or less
  • A loss of interest in things they typically enjoy
  • Social withdrawal
  • Impulsivity – engaging in risky behavior (running red lights, driving recklessly, looking like they have a “death wish”)
  • Becoming aggressive- examples of this are punching holes in walls, seeking revenge, getting into fights
  • Anxiety- worrying excessively about things they cannot control
  • Agitation and mood swings
  • Putting affairs in order such as giving away prized possessions or making out a will
  • Seeking out firearms access to pills
  • Neglecting personal welfare including deteriorating physical appearance or hygiene


What are they saying?

  • A sense of hopelessness:
    • “I have no purpose”
    • “I have no value”
    • “Nothing is ever going to get better”
  • Rage or anger: expressed toward people or things
  • Expressed feelings of excessive guilt, shame or failure:
    • My family would be better off without me”
  • Feelings of desperation:
    • “There is no solution”
    • “I just feel trapped”


What do they have access to?

Familiarity and access to a firearm makes suicide by firearm more likely. Any means by which a suicide can be attempted, including pills, is something that should be asked about. Veterans are more likely to own a gun and be comfortable using one making death by firearm a common means of suicide among this population.


How can you help?

Social support is one of the most effective protective factors against suicide (Cummings et al., 2015). However,  many veterans have isolated themselves and their friends and family struggle to talk to them. Inviting them to an event, writing them a letter or participating in a shared activity (building something, fishing, walking, etc.) are great ways to get things started.

Talk about it. Suicide is an uncomfortable topic but its best to be direct. Ask overtly if they are planning on killing themselves or have had thoughts about killing themselves. Just because they say no doesn’t mean that they don’t still have suicidal intentions so be sure to have additional information to provide such as a suicide hotline number for veterans, apps they could utilize (PTSD Coach), or a therapist’s contact information.

If your loved one has a plan or tell you they are going to kill themselves, call 911. Its better to put their safety first. Demonstrating your support by seeking additional help is always best. If you can, include them in the process of seeking immediate help. Calling 911 or visiting the ER does not have to be a one-sided decision.

These by no means are the only risk factors, signs or solutions for suicidality. However, engagement with friends and family has shown to be extremely effective against suicide. Demonstrating your support with regular calls or visits is an important step toward safety for many veterans.


Related Resources:

APA Psychology Topic: Suicide

Resources for Caregivers of Service Members and Veterans

When Will We Face the Facts about Suicide in Older Men?




Chronic PTSD in Vietnam combat veterans: Course of illness and substance abuse (1996). American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(3), 369–375. doi:10.1176/ajp.153.3.369

Conner, K. R., Britton, P. C., Sworts, L. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2007). Suicide attempts among individuals with opiate dependence: The critical role of belonging. Addictive Behaviors, 32(7), 1395–1404. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.09.012

Conwell, Y., Van Orden, K., & Caine, E. D. (2011). Suicide in older adults. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America , 34(2), . Retrieved from

Cummins, N., Scherer, S., Krajewski, J., Schnieder, S., Epps, J., & Quatieri, T. F. (2015). A review of depression and suicide risk assessment using speech analysis. Speech Communication, 71, 10–49. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2015.03.004

Identifying signs of crisis. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from

Lambert, M. T., & Fowler, R. D. (1997). Suicide risk factors among veterans: Risk management in the changing culture of the department of veterans affairs. The Journal of Mental Health Administration, 24(3), 350–358. doi:10.1007/bf02832668

Lester, D. (2003). Unemployment and suicidal behaviour. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 57(8), 558–559. doi:10.1136/jech.57.8.558

Military Suicide Research Consortium (MSRC) Newsroom. (2017, January 28). Retrieved February 26, 2017, from

Nademin, E., Jobes, D. A., Pflanz, S. E., Jacoby, A. M., Ghahramanlou-Holloway, M., Campise, R., Johnson, L. (2008). An investigation of interpersonal-psychological variables in air force suicides: A controlled-comparison study. Archives of Suicide Research, 12(4), 309–326. doi:10.1080/13811110802324847

Price, J. L. (2016, February 23). Findings from the national Vietnam veterans’ readjustment study. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from

United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (July, 2016) VA Suicide Prevention Program: Facts about Veteran Suicide. Retrieved from

Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Gordon, K. H., Bender, T. W., & Joiner, T. E. (2008). Suicidal desire and the capability for suicide: Tests of the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior among adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(1), 72–83. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.76.1.72

Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Joiner Jr, E. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological review117(2), 575.

Warning signs of crisis. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from


Image source: Flickr user Elvert Barnes via Creative Commons

Filed under: Aging, Violence Tagged: depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide, suicide prevention, trauma, veterans, vietnam veterans

Elder Financial Abuse is Here to Stay and It’s Time We Do Something About It


By Osnat Lupesko-Persky (Doctoral Student, Palo Alto University) and Lisa M. Brown, PhD (Professor, Palo Alto University)


On February 13, 2015, the Elder Justice Reauthorization Act (H.R. 988) was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill addresses the growing problem of elder financial abuse and emphasizes the role the federal government should take in coordinating and leading state support efforts. It provides a legal framework for necessary cooperation between federal and state agencies that handle health, legal and social services.


Sadly, since April 2015, the bill has been buried deep in the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training with no signs of progress in its legislation. In this blog post, we describe the reasons why we believe the Reauthorization Act would benefit millions of older adults and their families.


Financial abuse of older adults has been described as “the crime of the 21st century.” While some readers may consider such statements as hyperbole, the facts speak for themselves.


  • According to a 2011 MetLife Study “elder financial abuse is estimated to be at least $2.9 billion dollars, a 12% increase from the $2.6 billion estimated in 2008.”
  • More recent research from 2015 by True Link, a California-based financial services firm specializing in retirees, argues that MetLife’s financial estimates are significantly underestimated. According to the True Link report, annual losses due to older adult financial fraud reach $36.48 billion and have been identified as a rapidly growing epidemic.


It is of little surprise, therefore, that older adult financial abuse is an area of societal concern for policy makers, law enforcement, clinicians, and researchers.


What sets elder financial abuse apart from other types of financial fraud?


One significant reason that it is in a league of its own is that older adults are highly vulnerable relative to their younger counterparts. For example, those with diminished physical or mental capacity coupled with declined independence are at greatest risk for financial exploitation by:


  1. relatives, friends or caregivers,
  2. business fraud, such as nursing homes, attorneys, insurance or banking,
  3. fraud by strangers, through communication mediums (internet, phone, mail), and
  4. Medicare and Medicaid fraud.


What makes elder financial abuse so prevalent, persistent and ‘contagious’? Why is elders’ financial fraud ‘here to stay’ and even likely to increase?


There are several reasons supporting our conclusion:


  1. Baby-boomers, recently crossing the ‘senior’ threshold, are considered both money-makers and money spenders: According to a Nielsen report from 2012 “Boomers make the most money and they spend what they make”. Indeed, according to the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, persons over 50 control over 70% of the nation’s wealth, and it is expected to increase.
  2. Improved longevity means an increased percentage of older adults with significant financial power: The Nielsen report predicted that by 2017, 50% of U.S. adult population will be aged 50 and older and they will control 70% of the country’s disposable income. Also, by 2050, there will be 161 million adults aged 50 and older, a 63% increase from 2010.
  3. Baby-boomers are a significant consumer force: Boomers account for nearly $230 billion in spending on consumer packaged goods and possess a whopping buying force of almost 50% of total sales. Such strong spending by an aging group of the population is bound to attract fraud attempts.
  4. Baby-boomers are technology-savvy: they account for 40% of wireless customers, and 41% of apple computers clients. In addition, they spend on average 22-25 hours monthly using the internet on a computer, which is 2 hours more than the monthly average of 14-25 years old. As financial fraud through the Internet increases, so will fraud attempts against older adults making purchases online.


How does financial abuse impact older adults?


Studies suggest that financial abuse frequently results in reduced emotional and physical health, in addition to financial damage. The True Link report estimated that almost 950,000 elderly victims are skipping meals as a result of financial abuse. Naturally, when a subset of the population is already more vulnerable physically and emotionally, the impact of a crime would be even more severe.


What is the right approach to address elder financial abuse – prevention or support and assistance after-the-fact?


In the past two decades, researchers and government policy-makers focused mainly on creating methods that law enforcement and other organizations could use to identify fraud attempts in order to preempt them. Far less academic research has focused on the types of support – legal, social, mental health or other – required after the damage was done. As a result, there are no viable policies that address mechanisms of support for older adult victims of financial abuse, and there are no significant mechanisms of coordination and cooperation between the different agencies (e.g., legal, social, health, etc.).


Since we now know that elder financial abuse is a growing problem, it is of paramount importance to expedite this legislation in order to:

  • accelerate collaboration between relevant agencies and
  • develop programs that provide better and more comprehensive care for older adults who are victims of financial abuse.




DaDalt, O. (2016). Older adults and fraud: Suggestions for policy and practice. Journal of Economic & Financial Studies4(03), 38-44.


H.R. 988 Elder Justice Reauthorization Act. Retrieved from:


MetLife (2011).The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse: Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America’s Elders. Retrieved from:


Nielsen and Boomagers, LLC. (2012). Introducing Boomers – Marketing’s most valuable generation. Retrieved from:


True Link. (2015). The True Link report on elder financial abuse. Retrieved from:


U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Elder Justice: Stronger Federal Leadership Could Enhance National Response to Elder Abuse. Retrieved from:




Osnat Lupesko-Persky is a second year PhD student in Clinical Psychology at Palo Alto University and focuses on various areas of intersection between psychology and the law. Prior to her studies, Osnat worked as a criminal defense attorney at the law firm of Brafman & Associates in New York City. Osnat holds a Master’s degree in International Law and Diplomacy from the Fletcher School, Tufts University.

Lisa M. Brown, PhD, ABPP is a professor of psychology and director of the Trauma Program at Palo Alto University. She is licensed in Florida and California and is board certified through The American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) in Geropsychology. Dr. Brown’s clinical and research focus is on trauma and resilience, aging, health, vulnerable populations, disasters, and long-term care. Her research has been funded by the National Institute of Aging, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service, and the Agency for Healthcare Administration.


Image source: Shutterstock

Filed under: Aging, Human Rights and Social Justice Tagged: aging, elder abuse, elder financial abuse, financial abuse, older adults

Corporal Punishment: A Wrong Not a Right


This is the sixth in a series of weekly blog posts addressing discipline and parenting practices. In this series, we will explore reasons that parents choose among discipline approaches, the science behind those techniques, and alternative approaches to discipline.

By Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, JD (Professor of Law, Emory University)

No person has a “right” to strike another, no matter how close the relationship. I remember fifty years ago seeing a mother chase her child with a stick, shouting “I brought you into this world and I can put you in the cemetery!”  Luckily, the child was faster than his mother.  But the idea of a “right” to hit a child is no laughing matter.  It belongs in the dustbin of history along with a husband’s right to “discipline” his wife provided the stick he used was no thicker than his thumb.

Sometimes even good and loving parents can lose patience and resort to a spanking. That doesn’t make them criminals, but it does not make spanking into a right.  As a purely pragmatic matter, spanking is wrong.  Studies have shown that spanking and other harsh methods make children’s behavior worse not better.  But parents in our legal system are given a lot of leeway in how they raise their children.  In most states, corporal punishment only crosses the line into child abuse if it poses a serious risk of physical or psychological harm.

So how can I say that there is no “right” to spank your child?

There is a huge difference between what parents may do without becoming criminals and what they have a “right” to do. Under our constitutional system, a right is a fundamental freedom that deserves special constitutional protection.

Parental autonomy – including the freedom to make individual decisions about child rearing–has long been recognized as essential to American democracy. Individual choice in child bearing and child rearing are considered are fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.

Our family laws presume that parents have their children’s best interests at heart and are in the best position to understand their children’s needs. For these reasons, many aspects of child rearing are constitutionally protected, including parental rights to make decisions about education, medical care and religious upbringing.

But the Supreme Court has never held that parents have an unbridled constitutional right to discipline their child as they see fit. Instead, it has consistently held that parental freedoms end where harm to the child begins (see Prince v. Massachusetts). Those who disagree have tried and repeatedly failed to amend the constitution to add language that would recognize an affirmative right of parents to use corporal punishment.  The majority of parents and teachers, doctors and mental health experts, judges and advocates for abused and neglected children, and experts in constitutional law have defeated all efforts to enshrine spanking as a constitutional right. Corporal punishment too often escalates and ends tragically in child abuse.

There was a time when the slogan “spare the rod and spoil the child” was accepted as common wisdom. But the evidence is mounting that harsh discipline is actually detrimental to children and damaging to society.  Nations around the world now recognize that corporal punishment violates the rights of the child, offends children’s dignity and harms their development. No matter how well intentioned, spanking is a wrong and not a “right”.


Barbara Bennett Woodhouse is among the nation’s foremost experts on children’s rights. She joined the Emory Law faculty in 2009 as the L. Q. C. Lamar Chair in Law. Her scholarship and teaching focus on child law, child welfare, comparative and international family law, adoption, and constitutional law. Read her full faculty profile here.


For more on the outcomes of spanking for children, read this study analyzing 50 years of research addressing this topic.

Image source: Flickr user Jessica Lucia via Creative Commons

Filed under: Children and Youth Tagged: child abuse, child rights, corporal punishment, discipline, parental rights, parenting, physical punishment, spanking

7 Essential Tips to Help You Master Disciplining Your Kids


This is the fifth in a series of weekly blog posts addressing discipline and parenting practices. In this series, we will explore reasons that parents choose among discipline approaches, the science behind those techniques, and alternative approaches to discipline.


By Joan Grusec, PhD (Professor Emerita of Psychology, University of Toronto)


Discipline has a significant role to play in what is arguably the world’s most important job—raising children to be moral and responsible members of society. And, not surprisingly, there’s no shortage of advice about how to do it. Type “disciplining children” into a search engine and you’ll get hundreds of thousands of results. If you want a book about parenting and discipline there are thousands to choose from.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of contradictory advice to choose from—

  • be strict but not too strict,
  • comply with your child’s wishes but don’t give in to them too much.
  • Be a tiger mom, a dolphin mom, a jellyfish mom….

So, what does a substantial body of psychological research, spanning more than 70 years, tell us about the best way to teach moral values to children?


Children learn values, both good and bad, from observing other people including their parents, siblings, friends, teachers, and television characters. They learn values, both good and bad, from talking about those values with parents, siblings, friends, and teachers. When children fail to behave well, however, parents have to turn to discipline.


Check out the seven tips below:

For discipline to work, children have to be clear about what the rules for good behavior are and they have to be willing to go along with or accept those rules.


How should parents make rules clear?

  1. Be consistent—it’s confusing when what was OK yesterday isn’t OK today.
  2. Provide reasons for good behavior that make sense and that the child can understand. Most 4-year-olds won’t comprehend discussions of property rights but they do understand that it feels bad to have your possessions taken without your permission.
  3. Have your child’s full attention. Too much anger and upset (on the part of both parent and child) is not conducive to calm discussion. Wait until tempers have cooled before talking about rules and the reasons for them.
  4. Make sure you don’t end up implicitly condoning unacceptable behavior. For example, in addition to its direct effect on children’s learning of values, discipline provides a model of how to resolve conflict. When your discipline involves calm discussion, exchange of points of view, and explanation, as well as negotiation and compromise if appropriate, you provide a good model for conflict resolution. Discipline that involves yelling, hitting, insulting, or unreasonable requests sends the message that verbal and physical aggression, along with an unwillingness to take into account the other person’s perspective, are acceptable ways to behave.


How should you get your children to accept the rules?               

  1. Let them experience appropriate negative consequences but don’t threaten their feelings of autonomy — no one likes to be forced into behaving in a particular way. Autonomy is supported when you:
    • allow choice where reasonable (for example, “you have to eat vegetables but would you prefer spinach or green beans”),
    • provide good reasons for required behavior,
    • try to understand your child’s perspective, and
    • don’t apply more negative consequences than are necessary to promote good behavior.
  2. Be accepting and caring so that your child wants to please you.
  3. Encourage your child to feel empathy by talking about the effects of their actions on others.



Joan Grusec, PhD, is a Professor Emerita at the University of Toronto. Her research interests throughout her career have focused on discipline and the development of children’s prosocial behavior. She is the author or editor of several books related to the socialization of children, as well as more than 100 book chapters and research publications.


Image source: Flickr user Bethany Petrik via Creative Commons

Filed under: Children and Youth Tagged: child behavior, Children, children's mental health, discipline, parenting, parenting skills, parenting tips, positive parenting

Why Positive Parenting Trumps Physical Punishment When It Comes to Disciplining Kids



This is the fourth in a series of weekly blog posts addressing discipline and parenting practices. In this series, we will explore reasons that parents choose among discipline approaches, the science behind those techniques, and alternative approaches to discipline.


By Gail Goodman, PhD (Director, UC Davis Center for Public Policy Research)


Why do we have children? It could be to bring more love into our lives. Or maybe it’s just because we slipped up one night while in a passionate embrace. Of course, there are many other reasons as well. Some parents are just kids themselves, some are single without another adult for support, some are poor and in great need. Personal situations can make life more difficult, for sure.


Even in the best of circumstances, parenting is super hard work and takes tremendous patience. When we have so many other concerns in life – a bad day, self-doubts, problems at work, or no work at all, not enough money, a rotten neighborhood, or drug addiction – and then we add in a child who is misbehaving, it is tempting to give the child a smack. After all, that was done to most American kids growing up, and most everyone says “I turned out fine,” or “I deserved it,” or “It was better than being yelled at.” And many religious and cultural ideas suggest that kids actually need a good hit. But let me tell you what the research shows: Spanking does not achieve our parenting goals.


In the end, we hope for well-adjusted children who are moral, happy, and loving. To achieve this, children need acceptance, love, and support. Physical punishment does not lead children to feel accepted, loved and supported. John Bowlby (1982) and Mary Ainsworth (1989), in their work on attachment theory, got it right. They emphasized the importance of a positive parent-child relationship for children’s mental health and well-being.


African American father and son

According to attachment theory, important parts of the child’s brain are highly activated under conditions of threat (e.g., separation, physical assault). Spanking is a condition of threat. Even in infancy, the child’s “attachment system” essentially “asks” the following fundamental question: Is the caretaker nearby, accessible, positively responsive, loving, and attentive? If “yes,” the child will feel loved, secure, and confident, and, behaviorally, is likely to explore and learn, to have empathy, to be a leader, and to be sociable. Most parents likely agree that those are good things.


But if the answer is “no,” the child first feels scared, rejected, and then angry, and is likely to develop anxious or avoidant tendencies, be more immature, have lower self-esteem, experience more trouble learning, and to exhibit worse mental health. The child is less likely to feel empathy for others, less likely to be a leader, and less likely to be sociable. This anxious or avoidant response is associated with what we call “insecure attachment.”



Spanking is significantly related to insecure infant attachment1probably because the answer to the question above is “no.” Ideally, you don’t want any “no’s” because a negative is much stronger than a positive. As Baumeister and colleagues (2001) put it, “Bad is stronger than good,” meaning negative experiences in life have a more lasting effect and are remembered better than positive experiences. Children are just forming their impressions of themselves and others, so negative things, like a whooping, can have a whopping negative effect.


These early attachment relationships follow us into adulthood2,3,4. The attachments we have with our own parents affect how we raise our children. Parents’ attachment insecurities (as assessed by self-report scales) are associated with heightened use of physical punishment inflicted on their children5. Theoretically, the parent’s attachment insecurities relate to the parent’s own childhood experiences.


When a child is distressed, avoidant parents (e.g., ones who are uncomfortable with close emotionally intimate relationships due to their own childhoods) become less supportive, more likely to hit. We can see that tendency even in doctor’s offices when children are getting shots6 or before and after invasive medical procedures7.


 Facts of Life

Research confirms that positive parenting has much better outcomes than physical punishment or than other negative approaches, like belittling kids8,9. Using physical discipline with children sets many up to have trouble in school, to have problems with authority figures, to act out aggressively toward others, to be prejudiced and depressed, to take drugs or alcohol to self-medicate, and to build psychological (if not real) walls for emotional defense10,11.


Positive child outcomes are more likely when parents refrain from using physical punishment and other negative parenting practices, and instead treat their children with warmth, reasoned communication, and nurturing. Studies find that this type of positive parenting can foster positive psychological outcomes, such as high self-esteem and cooperation with others, as well as improved achievement in school.

See, for example:


Parents can be brave and bold—Take a positive approach, even if it means going against how you were raised. Children will be more cooperative and better off, parents are likely to be happier, and the world will finally be a kinder place.




Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.  (Original work published 1969)

2Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Handbook of attachment, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Guilford.

5Coyl, D. D., Newland L. A., Freeman H. (2010). Predicting preschoolers’ attachment security from parenting behaviours, parents’ attachment relationships and their use of social support. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 499-512.

1Coyl, D. D., Roggman L. A., & Newland, L. A. (2002). Stress, maternal depression, and negative mother–infant interactions in relation to infant attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal,23, 145-163.

10Durrant, J., & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: Lessons from 20 years of research. CMAJ, 184, 1373-1377.

6Edelstein, R. S., Alexander, K. W., Shaver, P. R., Schaaf, J. M., Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S. (2004). Adult attachment style and parental responsiveness during a stressful event. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 31-52.

8Gershoff, E. T. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 133-137.

11Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453-469.

7Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Riddlesberger, M., & Kuhn, J. (1997). Children’s reactions to and memory for a stressful experience: Influences of age, knowledge, anatomical dolls, and parental attachment. Applied Developmental Sciences, 1, 54-75.

3Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

4Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104.

Sanders, M. R. (2008). “Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting”. Journal of Family Psychology. 22 (3): 506–517. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506

9Silva, J. (2007). Parents Raising Safe Kids: ACT 8-week program for parents. Washington, D.C.:  American Psychological Association.



Dr. Gail S. Goodman is Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Public Policy Research at the University of California, Davis. Her research concerns memory development, child maltreatment, trauma and memory, and children in the legal system. She has received many awards for her research and writings and has served as President of Division 7 (Developmental Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Goodman has published widely and has received many federal, state, and foundation grants. Her research has been cited in U.S. Supreme Court decisions. She obtained her PhD in Developmental Psychology from University of California, Los Angeles and conducted postdoctoral studies at the University of Denver and the Université René Descartes in Paris, France. Dr. Goodman has served on the faculty of the University of Denver, the State University of New York, and the University of Oslo, Norway. She has consulted with numerous governments and agencies throughout the world on policies and research concerning child victims in the legal system.

Image sources: Flickr via Creative Commons (1 & 3), (2 & 4)

Filed under: Children and Youth Tagged: attachment, attachment theory, child development, children's mental health, discipline, parenting, physical punishment, positive parenting, spanking