On 8 February 2009 Joan Warmbold wrote in reply to my premature suggestion that Massie may not have included blind controls: > Of course the observers were not told what the future status > of the infants were! If that was not the case, his research > would be useless.
I should have spent more time checking online, and so found the answer, such as here: Henry Massie and Nathan Szajnberg: Lives Across Time: Growing Up (p. 24): http://tinyurl.com/b9mtkp Incidentally, it isn't by any means unknown for similar findings to have been based on published studies without control groups. A classic case is that of Laing and Esterson (no relation!) who purportedly found significant parental deficiencies in communication in the case of the families of schizophrenics they studied. Nevertheless, of course Joan is right that I should have done more homework before making the suggestion. Leaving aside Stephen's citing of heritability studies (I'll leave that area to him!), I still think there remains to be eliminated the possibility that Massie et al's findings could arise from the parents' (I suspect it would be predominantly the mother's at the early age Massie was studying) responding at a subconscious level to subtle signs of an already existing condition. I don't think it is obvious that such subtle signs would necessarily be evident in family videos, viewed from the position of an outside observer in contrast to a mother's experience of direct communication (or deficiencies of such) with her baby, though I'd be interested to hear other TIPSters' views on this. Joan wrote: >Finally, why are we now constantly saying that the responses of >parents to their children is due to the children's behaviors without >empirical support for such? Fairly radical conclusion based on >unproven assumptions. I wasn't "saying" this, I was suggesting it as a possibility to be investigated. Joan wrote: >And I feel we are so intent on ignoring the role of early experience due >to the political incorrectness of such, that we are committing a travesty >against the science of human behavior as well as to parents and their infants. I'm not sure who the "we" is here, but writing from the UK I would say that predominant view on most relevant programmes on the BBC (especially radio) and newspaper articles (especially in the features sections) is to take as a given the decisive role of early experience and completely ignore possible hereditary factors. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ************************************************* Subject: Re: MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism - Times Online From: "Joan Warmbold" <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 19:10:16 -0600 (CST) http://www.springerlink.com/content/r383064374376383/ This is a link to one article in 1976 about Massie's analysis of very early interactions of mothers with their babies. His subjects were obtained from the clients who came to his psychiatric clinic with 'autistic-like' children around the age of 3. He realized that interviews with the parents was rarely of much use so proceeded to ask the parents if they had any early home movies that were available when their child was an infant and many did. He also solicited home movies of parents with their infants who at similar ages (3-4) had no evidence of emotional disorders. When comparing the interactions via a frame-by-frame analysis, he noted a distinct and disturbing pattern in the style of interactions with his parents who had autistic-like children. That is, the interactions revealed an inability to read and respond appropriately to the basic emotional signals of their infants. However, it is very important to point out that Massie presents his case studies in the context of the parent's own family backgrounds as he is clearly wishes to make the scientific community aware that his clients were caring, loving parents who simply didn't have the emotional capacity or awareness at that point in their lives to appropriately respond to the signals of their infants. He clearly did not feel that there was any evidence of intentional rejection. One sad example of such is of a mother (Dad's are usually taking the home movies of course) who wouldn't let her daughter make eye-contact from the get-go. Now, this same mother would hold her baby girl close and snuggle her but would position her head so that the her daughter was continually rebuffed in her attempts to look into her mother's eyes. When Massie questioned the mother about this puzzling behavior, the mother said that she felt self-conscious making eye-contact with her baby girl. Understanding the role of early experiences in the development of children is perceived as 'blaming' parent's for any problems their children develop--a perception I feel we can easily lay at the feet of Bruno Bettleheim and is total nonsense. Most parents do the best they can and some children are more challenging than others. But who is the adult in the interaction between an adult and their child and, therefore, the one that should be capable of encouraging more appropriate and healthy responses from their infants?! Judith Harris's carries this notion of children causing their parents to not parent well to the extreme. Catch this--she actually states something to the effect that 'if parents beat their children, is it not likely due to the fact that their children were more difficult and unlikeable than parents who do not beat their children?' What is more challenging than parenting?! And we parents do the best we can with the emotional sensitivity and resources we bring to the task. But we need to provide parents with far more emotional and informational support than we do at present. And I feel we are so intent on ignoring the role of early experience due to the political incorrectness of such, that we are committing a travesty against the science of human behavior as well as to parents and their infants. Joan [email protected] PS Massie and Szajnberg have a written a relatively recent publication, "Lives Across Time/Growing Up: Paths to Emotional Health and Emotional Illness from Birth to 30 in 76 People. Subject: Re: Massie and autism From: "Joan Warmbold" <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 16:39:51 -0600 (CST) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/48138/abstract The 1997 study above refers to personality differences found in parents of autistic children. It also leans, however, toward a genetic interpretation of the data. We no longer wish or are allowed to do otherwise. Stephen, I noted that you were asking questions about Massie's research implying that you have not bothered to take a look at it. It's not I who is making conclusions about the impact of early interactions on a child's emotional and social health but the videos as analyzed by Massie and his various research assistants. Henry Massie is still alive I believe but clearly performed these studies very rigorously. Of course the observers were not told what the future status of the infants were! If that was not the case, his research would be useless. The correlational data between MZ twins is impressive but not conclusive. Have ANY of you read the research by Henry Massie? Without any knowledge about of what the future of these infants was, the prediction rate of which infants would develop problems was amazingly accurate when the interaction betweeen parent and child was observed but NOT when simply by observing the infant. That is, Massie's data implies that the infants in their early months all appeared normal and similar. However, by age 3 months and definitely by 6 months there were signs of problems. Finally, why are we now constantly saying that the responses of parents to their children is due to the children's behaviors without empirical support for such? Fairly radical conclusion based on unproven assumptions. > Hi > > Do these estimates of heritability control for the different intrauterine > environments of MZ and DZ twins? That is, MZ twins are more likely to > share single placenta and chorion than DZ. I believe controls for this > have been undertaken in some areas, although tremendously challenging > work, as one can imagine. Stephens point still remains with respect to > parental interactions, although interpretation would differ. > > Take care > Jim > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]> 08-Feb-09 11:07:37 AM >>> > On 8 Feb 2009 at 4:00, Allen Esterson wrote: > >> In response to Joan Warmbold's suggestion that >> >Henry Massie, M.D. was onto something with his research >> >in the 1970's in which he analyzed videos of the interactions >> >between parents and children BEFORE the onset of 'autistic-like' >> >behaviors. His analysis determined that there was a distinct lack >> >of appropriate response to the infants' signals... >> <snip>> >> To which question I would add: >> Did Massie do the same research with a corresponding number of (blind) >> controls to eliminate the possibility of confirmation bias in his >> analyses? >> >> Judging by this: >> http://www.childdevelopmentmedia.com/intervention-prevention/91936p.html >> the answer is "No". > > There is a major obstacle to claims that parental interaction is somehow > responsible or predisposes the child to autism. This is that MZ-DZ twin > studies of autism have consistently shown that the heritability of autism > is very high, among the highest of behavioural disorders. These studies > usually have shown as well that there is only a small unshared > environmental component and no contribution of the shared environment. > Claims that autism is caused by the parents would require substantial > input from the shared environment. > > For example, one of the more recent studies (Ronald et al, 2006) > concludes that "extreme autistic-like traits show high heritability, no > shared environment, and modest nonshared environment". Their estimates > vary with the type of model fitting carried out, but ranged from 0.64 to > 0.92. > > Their summary Figure 1 shows MZ correlations around 0.8 with DZ around > 0.3. Using the conventional formula of h2 = (MZ-DZ) x2 gives heritability > of 1.0, which surely doesn't leave much room for parental effects. > > As Allen noted, it seems more plausible that the parents in Massie's > study are reacting to subtle signs of autism in their children rather > than creating them. It's also possible that it is genes that are > responsible both for the autism of the children and the claimed > unresponsive behaviour of the parents. Admittedly, Massie's proposal is > kinder than Bettelheim's pernicious pseudoscience, but it still lays a > heavy load on the parents. It's best to be careful with such claims. > > Source (for the heritability data): > > Ronald, A, Happe, F., Bolton, P., Butcher, L., Price, T., Wheelwright, > S., Baron-Cohen, S., and Plomin, R. (2006). Genetic heterogeneity between > the three components of the autism spectrum: a twin study. Journal of the > American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 691-699. > > Available on-line at http://web.mit.edu/autism/ronald~1.pdf > > Stephen > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
