According to a social psychologist at the University of Alberta people who do not wear wedding rings are more neglectful of children compared to people who wear them. // In addition Dr. Andrew Harrell, director of the U of A Population Research Lab states that young attractive people who do not wear wedding rings are the most neglectful child caretakers of all.
His conclusions are based on a leading experiment in which 862 caretaker-children combinations were furtively observed in 14 supermarkets in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Estimation were made on the behaviour of the caretaker and neglect was measured according to how often the caretakers or their charges, estimated to be between one and seven years-old, wandered out of sight or were more than 10 feet away from each other--too far to prevent most accidents.
Results were that an average of 14 per cent of the caretakers, with or without wedding rings, lost sight of their charges at least once. However, young attractive female caretakers without rings lost sight of children 19 per cent of the time, and young attractive males lost sight 25 per cent of the time, a "statistically significant" jump, Harrell said.
Dr Harrell said, "Past research suggests that the absence of a wedding ring in North American culture is indicative of a lack of emotional commitment to marriage. Our research shows that it may also be an indicator of a lack of a commitment to one's family, including care of the children. It is our belief that an interest in establishing social, sexual or emotional ties outside of marriage may have the inadvertent consequence of diminishing attentiveness to children. And it's not surprising that this distraction occurs even in a mundane setting like a supermarket, which is more than a place to purchase bananas and cereal. It can also be a place for social encounters and maybe even a romantic rendezvous."
Another finding was that among caretakers wearing wedding ri
ngs, the unattractive ones were more neglectful than the attractive ones.
"The unattractive parents could have health problems or psychological troubles that distract them from their parental duties,” was how he put he results.
As a conciliatory remark ha also added that , "I know these results may sound harsh, but suffice to say it's not good at all to let a child out of sight at a supermarket. We're just trying to determine the causes of accidents, because it's important to be aware of what happens and why it happens so that we can take steps to improve our behavior."
Related medicine news :1
. Teen drinking fuelled by Alcohol-branded Wares2
. The right is responsible3
. Gene responsible for depression
. Gene responsible for immune deficiency discovered5
. Genes responsible for social behavior of us6
. Molecule responsible for muscle repair identified7
. Genes responsible for cancer in women associated with increased cancer risk in men8
. Gene responsible for developing prostate cancer identified9
. Fixational eye movement responsible for visibility10
. Metal traces in infant formula cans responsible for recall.11
. Greater g factor in men responsible for sex differences in general mental ability