Consent in Romantic Relationships

find it at:

https://megjohnandjustin.com/relationships/consent-in-romantic-relationships-2/

In this episode of the podcast we covered consensual romantic/partner relationships: why this is particularly important to talk about right now, and what we can do to move towards a more affirmative model of consent in our relationships.

Non-consent in relationships

The current moment – in summer 2020 when we recorded this – highlights the importance of turning our attention to consensual relationships in several ways.

First, domestic abuse has gone up globally by 20% during the pandemic. In the UK calls for domestic abuse helplines jumped by a half in the first month or so and a further spike is predicted post lockdown. Boots pharmacies began offering safe spaces for people to go if they were in abusive situations, and legislation was put in place to help survivors to escape abusive homes during lockdown. All this led to domestic abuse being called the ‘shadow pandemic’. So we see clearly the scale of non-consensual relationships, and just how important this is to address.

Then #BlackLivesMatter highlighted massive flaws in the policing and criminal justice systems. When some responded to calls to dismantle and abolish these systems by asking ‘what about’ survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault, many pointed out that the criminal justice system has never served survivors. Survivors often experience legal processes as retraumatising and gaslighting, given the minimising, denial, victim blame, and perpetrator defense which often happens in court cases – mirroring how survivors are treated in wider culture. Number of cases passed for charges is low as rates continue to rise. Many have suggested that policing is ill-equipped to deal with sexual and relationship abuse, and that it is actively dangerous when those involved are people of colour. For these reasons, people have turned to alternative models like funding other forms of support for survivors, building accountable communities, and transformative justice.

The UK statistics on non-consensual sex are that 1 in 5 women have had someone try to have sex with them against their will and 1 in 10 women have had someone had sex with them against their will. For men this is 1 in 20 have experienced attempted non-volitional sex on them and 1 in 71 have had sex against their will. In most instances of completed non-volitional sex, the perpetrator was known to the participant, either as a current or former intimate partner (40·6% women, 22·9% men).

This highlights the fact that we need far more focus on how to avoid and address sexual – and other forms of – violence in the home and within known relationships. Instead, media focus tends to be on stranger sexual assault, which potentially puts women at more risk (constraining them to private/home spaces) and makes it harder to speak out about assault with known people when it occurs. Also, non-consensual sex often happens in contexts where other forms of non-consent are normalised, so we need to look to how to cultivate cultures of consent around all our relationships.
Spectrums of consent

The common idea with physical, sexual, and emotional abuse is that the majority of relationships are ‘normal’ and non-abusive, and a minority are abusive and need an entirely different approach. This is unhelpful because it encourages us – as survivors and wider culture – to keep asking the binary question of whether a situation is ‘bad enough’ to count as abuse, and only counting it, and feeling able to address it, if it meets those criteria: often the legal criteria.

Also, this binary perpetuates the idea that there are bad ‘abusers’ and everyone else who is perfectly good and safe. This makes talking about consent in relationships really hard because we feel like we have to present ourselves as perfectly good and safe, and deny or defend any non-consensual behaviours, lest we be seen as an abuser and rejected, called out, or reported.

Also, as with sex, the criteria for ‘abuse’ is a low bar for a relationship. The idea should not be that if it doesn’t meet the legal criteria for abuse/assault it is fine, but more about how it can be as consensual and beneficial for all involved as possible.

A more useful approach is to see these things on a spectrum. In a highly non-consensual culture where non-consensual behaviour is normalised in romantic relationships in particular, it would be unlikely – if not impossible – for any relationship to be entirely consensual. So we might more usefully ask ‘how can we maximise how consensual this relationship is for all involved?’ – as the people in that relationship and as the people around it. Then if we feel like the level of consent is not good enough – if we start feeling unsafe or our freedom constrained for example – we can know that that is enough reason to ask for that to be dealt with, and to step away if the other person isn’t up for that.

Thinking about all the following features on spectrums rather than as legalistic abuse/non-abuse binaries can be helpful:How consensual is physical touch in this relationship (rather than does it count as physical abuse or not)?
How consensual is sex in this relationship (rather than does it count as sexual abuse or not)?
How consensual is money in this relationship (rather than whether someone is entirely controlling of the other’s personal finances)?
How kind are people in this relationship, and are they able to regulate themselves when not feeling kind (rather than do people actively put each other down or diminish each other)?
How safe do people in this relationship feel (rather than are active threats made)?
How free do people in this relationship feel to have other close relationships (not just whether they are explicitly isolated from friends or family)?
Is everyone in this relationship able to meet their basic needs and get support when they need it?
Does everyone in this relationship get the privacy and solitude they need on- and offline without monitoring from the other person/people?
Is everyone free to decide where they go, who they see, what they wear, when they sleep, etc.?

Lockdown has highlighted to many people the areas in their relationships which are not as consensual as they would like. It also potentially presents a good opportunity for us all to start to address our own non-consensual patterns where we have them.
A culture of consensual relationships

The wider culture of romantic relationships normalises non-consent, with common tropes like it being romantic to pressurise or manipulate somebody into a relationship, to attempt to shape them into who you want them to be, to focus on that relationship at the exclusion of others, and to say that you couldn’t live without them and try to convince them to stay with you forever.

There’s also a dangerous idea that romantic relationships are private and shouldn’t be shared with anybody else, and that we should present them as perfect on social media and never talk about the difficult parts.

Ideally we would change the whole culture to depict romantic relationships far more consensually. In the meantime hopefully we can try to shift the consent cultures in our communities and networks.

Moving towards a culture of more consensual relationships could involve things like:At a micro level learning how to notice what non-consent feels like in our body: both when we are at risk of doing it to another person, and when it is done to us. This requires getting enough solitude and privacy to be with our feelings and to check in with ourselves regularly about our needs and boundaries.
Addressing our stuck patterns which make us more likely to behave reactively or non-consensually, and being up for getting support with this when needed. Again some time alone and with others is necessary for doing this work, as is the capacity to take ourselves away to a safe-enough place when we become reactive.
Practising addressing micro moments of non-consent in relationship so it becomes everyday and normalised to do so.
Cultivating systems of support, and consensual relating within those systems, so that it becomes normalised and that we have people to support us in this.
Committing to keeping the windows on our relationship open with our close people and community so we can be alerted if people have concerns, and supported to maximise consent.

So what might consensual romantic relationships look like? Here we’re taking the key ideas that we often talk about around consensual sex and applying them to the whole of a relationship:
Make consent the aim.

With sex making consent the aim, rather than getting sex, enables consensual sex to happen. With relationships we could make mutual consent the aim of the whole relationship, and each encounter: not getting what you want from the other person, or being what they want. This might look like wanting the maximum freedom and safety for you and the other person, regardless of what the relationship needs to look like in order for this to be possible.
Everyone knows that they don’t have to do it (now or ever).

Sex can’t be consensual unless we know that we absolutely don’t have to do it, and that no kind of punishment will occur if we don’t do it. With relationships the same is true for the whole relationship. We need to know that we are free to not be in this relationship, or in this particular way, without fearing that we will be punished or suffer significant loss. Here it can be useful to keep affirming with each other that our whole relationship (and our home, community, security, etc.) isn’t contingent on, for example: having sex regularly, continuing to cohabit, feeling romantic towards this person, our body staying the same, earning a certain amount, etc.
Consent is informed.

In sex this means knowing what’s on the cards before the encounter rather than being surprised with activities we weren’t expecting. In relationships this means having enough information to be able to make a decision about whether this kind of relationship with this person is a good idea for you. It’s important not to hide vital information that you know might make a person think twice or want to go slower. With each step in a relationship people need enough information in advance in order to make a consensual choice. For example it’s good to be clear about your feelings about having kids and childrearing long before you’ve committed to a relationship that would preclude people doing that elsewhere, or not doing it if it’s not what you want. It’s good to be clear about your financial situation and relationship with money long before sharing/borrowing/lending finances in any way. Considering speed of relationships can be helpful for having long enough to ensure informed consent before each step. It’s also important to explore shame and how we cover over shame in presenting ourselves to others.
Consent is ongoing.

In sex this means checking in verbally and/or non-verbally during the encounter that everyone is enjoying it, and pausing or stopping if not. In relationships this means also continuing to check in whether it is working well for everyone, and taking whatever kinds of pauses or breaks are necessary on aspects of the relationship – or the whole relationship – if it isn’t working (if it’s not working for everyone, it’s not working for anyone). The cultural idea of specific vows, promises or commitments can make ongoing consent difficult because they suggest that it’s possible to agree to share your money, body or home in a certain way for the rest of your life, whatever happens in relation to money, health or feelings.
There is no default script, but multiple options.

In sex there is the default script of first to fourth base (or similar). In relationships there is a similar cultural ‘escalator’ model where it is seen as good to get closer, more entwined, and happier over time, checking the points on the relationship checklist (e.g. dating, having sex, becoming exclusive, moving in together, getting married, having a family, etc.) For consent it’s vital to know that all erotic, sensual or sexual activities – and none – are equally valid, so you can choose what works best for everyone. In a relationship all ways of doing relationships – and all aspects of relationships – need to be affirmed as equally valid. Then you can find what works – and doesn’t work – for this particular relationship. It’s important that the person or people whose ways of doing things are the closest to the normative script maximise the agency of those whose ways are further away to articulate their preferences and have them respected.
We’re all mindful of power imbalances and how they constrain consent.

Sexual consent is way harder when one person has a lot of power over the other. For example it is hard to say ‘no’ if you feel at risk in some way if you don’t respond to another person’s sexual advances (career, money, care, safety, etc.) Similarly those with more power in a relationship need to recognise those with less may feel far less able to say what they need and where their boundaries are. It’s good to be open about the power imbalances, and to do what you can to enable those with less power in each area to identify and articulate their needs and boundaries and have them respected.
We try to be accountable.

It’s important to recognise that we won’t always be perfectly consensual and to recognise – as soon as possible – when this hasn’t happened, and to be accountable for that. Micro moments of non-consent can be fairly easy to repair, and the more we make a habit of doing that the more easy it can become. Bigger moments can be much harder, and this is where it’s really good to have a network of support around you to help each person to process what has happened, to enable them to take as much space as they need in order to be ready to address it, and to support them coming together to hear and be heard, and repair if possible.

SOURCE:

https://megjohnandjustin.com/relationships/consent-in-romantic-relationships-2/(accessed 30.12.24)

The childfree: a neglected population?

Ella Rhodes speaks with Psychologists researching conversations and motivations around the decision not to have children.

31 October 2024


Parenthood is often seen as life's ultimate goal, and choosing not to have children can be a radical rejection of an entrenched, universal, social norm. But what impact does that choice have on the people who make it? Are childfree people really a selfish, kid-hating, money-grabbing, homogenous group? As the latest fertility rates for England and Wales drop to the lowest levels since records began, Ella Rhodes investigates a subject close to her heart…

I am 36, and childfree-by-choice. People are extremely quick to judge that choice. I have been grilled about my decision, even in professional settings. I have been told I'll regret it and I've been asked who will look after me when I'm older.

I speak from a place of extraordinary privilege. As a white, cisgender woman, born in the UK, and raised in a non-religious household, I feel lucky to have this choice. But even so, identifying as child free is not an easy thing to do.

Despite a growing number of people choosing not to have children there is a great deal of stigma still attached to the childfree-by-choice. As Ruby Warrington writes in her fantastic book Women Without Kids, women who don't have children are under-represented in mainstream media and are seen as something of an anomaly: 'At best, a woman who is not also a mother is a strange bird, faulty goods,' she says. 'If she can't have kids she is often portrayed as sad and damaged ("Such a shame"); if she simply won't (rarely is it that straightforward) she is either deluded, destined to regret it, or written off as cold-hearted, narcissistic and career obsessed. What a selfish cunt.'
Climate

My reasons for choosing this path are numerous – some are personal, some have shifted over time, while others grow every day. But it's impossible to consider this decision without looking at the broader context, particularly the climate crisis and its impact on reproductive decision-making.

Life has been challenging for my generation, 'millennials' born between 1981 and 1996; and for Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012. We experience higher levels of inequality compared to our parents, we have less financial freedom, and little to no chance of owning a home. But those concerns seem feeble when compared with what the future holds for the planet at large.

In a fascinating series of articles The Guardian explored findings from a survey it ran with lead authors and editors of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 2018. They were asked about their predictions for the future – 77 per cent predicted at least 2.5C of global warming, 42 per cent said warming would reach at least 3C this century. Small numbers with enormous, disastrous consequences. The scientists and experts were also asked about their stance on having children. One fifth of the female climate scientists who responded to those questions, and 7 per cent of males, had chosen to have no, or fewer, children given concerns over the climate.

In a systematic review of 13 studies published in PLOS Climate in 2023, Hope Dillarstone (University College London) and colleagues found there were four main climate-related concerns cited regarding reproductive decision-making – uncertainty of an unborn child's future, the ecological impact of reproduction, meeting family subsistence needs, and contributing to environmental politics and activism. The findings of this study showed a complex interplay between climate-change concern and decisions around reproduction – the majority of reviewed studies found that climate change was causing people not to have children at all, or to plan to have fewer children.

Given growing concerns about the climate, the economics of parenthood, and lower rates of home ownership among reproductive-aged people, it is no wonder that the childfree population is growing. Despite this, there are many outstanding questions about this demographic.
'A unique group in their own right'

Social Psychology Professors and married couple Jennifer Watling Neal and Zachary Neal (Michigan State University) became interested in looking at the childfree population after Jennifer asked her students about their thoughts on having children in a survey used in teaching a research methods class. She was intrigued by the number of students who said they would not have children, and she realised the childfree were something of an invisible population.

Jennifer and Zachary looked at previous research on childfree people – much of which was qualitative. They also looked at big data sets but found that participants were usually split into parents or non-parents. Such a dichotomy does not capture whether a person hopes to be a parent one day, cannot have children, or has chosen not to have children.

The pair became interested in developing better measures for identifying childfree people. In their first study they used three questions to divide participants into parents, not-yet parents, childfree, childless, ambivalent and undecided. Jennifer tells me she was surprised by the number who ended up in the childfree group. 'In our first study we had a childfree prevalence rate of 27 per cent which was really high – we were so surprised by that and wanted to find out more.'

Zachary tells me that, especially compared to parents and childless people, the childfree population is understudied. 'I think that's partly because childfree people are often lumped together in this undifferentiated "non-parent" group but haven't been studied much as a unique group in their own right.'

This does appear to be changing. The National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, has questions which identify childfree people and Pew Research Centre has also run surveys on intentions to have children. One of Pew's studies of US young adults in 2024 found that 15 per cent of men and 21 per cent of women did not want to have children.

While prevalence rates of childfree people do vary, probably due to different methodologies used in research, most ongoing surveys – including the National Survey of Family Growth – have seen a steady increase in the prevalence of people choosing to be childfree. As well as methodological differences, Jennifer tells me this could be due to a number of factors – people may have become more comfortable in openly identifying as childfree or may have been swayed by their peers to remain childfree.

'Others point to economic forces – it is becoming increasingly expensive to raise children. Having children is one of the most harmful things individuals can do to the climate, which is leading to some people choosing not to have children. There are also political forces at play – an increasing move to authoritarianism and a reduction of reproductive rights could lead people to not want to bring children into the world.'
Outside forces

Indeed, around the time the Neals started studying the childfree population, the United States Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs V. Jackson case overturned Roe V. Wade which protected a right to abortion under the US constitution. Individual states became responsible for regulating aspects of abortion, leading to long-term confusion in a number of US states over the standing of reproductive rights.

Jennifer told me that in Michigan following the Dobbs decision there was a series of conflicting court decisions as well as the attempted reenactment of a 'zombie law' which made abortion illegal in the state. Jennifer and Zachary collected further data following the Supreme Court decision and found the proportion of people saying they were childfree increased from 21 per cent in April 2022 to 26 per cent following the Dobbs decision.

Jennifer said they were not sure exactly why this was the case. 'My guess would be that was because there was significant uncertainty around whether reproductive rights were going to remain accessible in Michigan, that some folks just started opting out of having kids maybe some people were shifting from being not-yet parents to become childfree because if they were to get pregnant they weren't sure whether they would receive reproductive healthcare.'

In November 2022 Michigan did pass a proposition which protected reproductive rights in the state. Jennifer said they hope to recollect data to see whether this has changed the numbers of people identifying as childfree.
Navigating the childfree stance

After researching individual differences and close relationships, personality psychologist Dr Tanja Gerlach joined the social psychology group at Queen's University Belfast, where she began to take more of an interest in intergroup relations, prejudice and stigma. Gerlach, who now works at the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories in Bamberg, Germany, explained: 'I had a longstanding interest in people's reproductive choices, including those who, for different reasons, opt out of parenthood. That, in combination with the great work on prejudice and stigma conducted by my colleagues at Queen's reignited my interest in people identifying as childfree and what the decisions against parenthood means for childfree people's everyday lives.'

Gerlach began to think about both how people opt out of parenthood and the conversations people have in communicating that decision. 'In the past, among colleagues, we had heated debates about how common the voluntary decision not to have children might be. I recall an instance where a coworker had suggested that it was only 2 per cent of the population and as such, perhaps even a group too small to study.' Reading the Neals' research, the prevalence rates – above 20 per cent – gave her pause. 'Such a high number, for me, certainly was unexpected at that point. Then I started to think about how people could be so wrong in their estimates – even my own estimate was closer to 10 per cent. I realised something was going on here. Of course, whether you want to have children or not may just be a private choice. Most people do not think very fondly of people who don't want to have children, and you can easily see why childfree people may think twice about when and to whom they reveal how they feel. That's why I got interested in how people disclose their stance.'

In an initial pilot study Gerlach asked a childfree group about the conversations they had about wanting to have children or not. Some qualitative work from the early 2000s found that, although childfree people will disclose they are childfree, there are also different strategies people may use. 'For example, people might imply they may have children later on – this is something that works for younger people. Some people suggest having children sadly wasn't "on the cards" for them – implying that they could not have children, leaving their conversation partner thinking that they are childless instead of childfree. I found that so fascinating and wanted to look into that more.'

Across the conversations people reported, she found around 80 per cent of childfree people simply say they do not want to have children, but also found that other strategies may be adopted. 'Sometimes people just try to get out of these situations and derail the conversation. But we also saw accounts of people privately knowing that they don't want children who, in those situations, implied otherwise.' Gerlach found a majority of these conversations were taking place with family members, around 20 per cent were with acquaintances, 17 per cent with friends, and 10 per cent in the workplace.

'We have since replicated and extended the study to look at these different contexts. There is still a lot of data we haven't fully analysed yet, but some people said their family members were quite demanding or questioning of the childfree stance. The conversations with friends and acquaintances seem a bit easier to navigate. Workplace conversations can be awkward, too, but unlike family conversations – where almost every childfree person was able to report on an episode – some childfree people said the topic was never brought up in their workplace.'

Gerlach said it had been incredibly rewarding to work with childfree people, who often voiced how pleased they were to participate in research where they could share their experiences. 'It was one of the most beautiful things I ever did,' she explained. 'I'd done research on conflict in couples, and participants would sometimes respond by saying things like, "Wow, those questions were so heavy – you must be really cynical to ask them!" This project has been a refreshing change. People genuinely appreciated the studies and were enthusiastic about being a part of this work.'
Individual differences

Childfree people's experiences are, of course, complex and varied. But psychologists have been exploring whether there are any shared characteristics among this demographic.

In a study involving more than 700 people, with more than half of them being childfree, Gerlach and her students looked at the Big Five personality traits. 'Previous studies found that childfree people might be a bit less agreeable than other people, a bit more on the introverted side of the spectrum, and although it's not a consistent finding they may also be more open to experience. In this study we also found that there's a difference in agreeableness, lower levels of extraversion and childfree people are indeed a bit more open to experience.'

However, Gerlach does add that 'sometimes when you read about studies like this it sounds like the differences between groups are very large, but in our data that's certainly not the case. Usually it's small-to-medium sized differences. Some of the differences could also disappear if you took certain demographic variables into account. Jenna and Zak Neal, for instance, looked at personality differences and the only effect that survived controlling for demographic differences like age, gender, and relationship status was a small difference in agreeableness. As a personality trait, agreeableness is very much about maintaining social harmony and being willing to compromise. If you think about what the childfree choice means, you can see how childfree people may be somewhat lower on this trait: People who are less agreeable might be more comfortable standing their ground or saying no, if they feel they have to, even if it means not going along with others. But at the end of the day, it is still not a massive difference.'

Jennifer and Zachary tell me: 'We usually don't focus on personality differences because few are statistically significant, and the differences are too small to be practically meaningful, especially after accounting for other demographic characteristics.' They have also found no major differences in life satisfaction among childfree people in comparison to parents, not-yet-parents, and childless people (those who cannot have children but would like them). 'We did find that childfree people tend to be slightly more liberal and that men are more likely to identify as childfree than women – though this may be down to added stigma for women to identify as childfree.'
The social and romantic lives of childfree people

Another aspect of childfree life which Gerlach explored were social motives – what people want in their social lives. When comparing childfree people with others, she found that, overall, childfree people were much more interested in leading independent lives and are less reliant on other people. Gerlach also found that childfree people were less interested in being included in groups more broadly.

'Of course, these overall group differences do not come as a surprise. Where it got really interesting was when we looked at patterns of motives among the childfree participants. We saw two quite distinct subgroups. One of them, which we called the "independents", seems to be driving a lot of the mean differences that we see between childfree and other people. But then there is second group that looks quite different: childfree individuals who are less concerned with independence and much more attuned to others. We call them the "socials" and, going by what we know about them so far, it seems that they contradict a lot of the common stereotypes on childfree adults.'

The same study also explored what childfree people look for in romantic relationships across three dimensions often used in studies of romantic partners – warmth-trustworthiness, status-resources and vitality-attractiveness and an additional measure of whether they would want a partner who was highly family-oriented. 'Our results were interesting – we saw a huge difference for family orientation. Childfree people are not interested at all in finding a partner that is high in family orientation. But for the other partner preference dimensions there were no differences at all. This included warmth-trustworthiness – a dimension which should equip people to be good parents and is also often discussed along those lines in the literature. Childfree people want, more or less, the same partners as other people do, and very much like everyone else they want a partner who is warm, cooperative and that they can rely on.'
Stereotypes

As psychologists we are aware of the real-world implications of stereotypes and stigma attached to certain populations. Research has found that childfree people are perceived as more selfish, immature, emotionally unstable and deviant than parents and less psychologically fulfilled, happy and loving.

There are many theories as to why this might be the case. Zachary says the expectation for people to become parents, or at least to want to have children, is almost a universal normative expectation. 'A person who says "I don't want to have children" is violating a norm – and not just any norm but a very strongly held norm that's been held for millennia.'

The violation of this deeply-held, global, norm, Zachary suggests, can lead to stigma and stereotypes targeted towards childfree people – directed at both men and women. 'Some of these stereotypes include selfishness, self-centredness, that childfree people are focused on their careers, have no responsibilities or have lots of disposable income. We sometimes see the assumption that they hate children, as opposed to simply not wanting children of their own. They are expected to regret their decision, they're seen as unhappy or unfulfilled.'

Jennifer and Zachary have explored levels of warmth felt towards parents and childfree people – and while childfree people feel as much warmth towards each other as they do towards parents, parents feel much warmer towards other parents than childfree people. 'Parents don't feel negatively towards childfree people but they tend to feel especially warm towards other parents. There's this in-group favouritism going on which can lead to childfree people feeling left out when they're in communities with lots of parents.'

A 2017 study by Dr Leslie Ashburn-Nardo (Drexel University) wanted to uncover whether moral outrage could explain negative attitudes directed towards childfree people. She asked participants to rate targets who had either two or no children in terms of their own reactions to the targets and their perceived psychological fulfilment. The childfree target was seen to be significantly less psychologically fulfilled than the parent target and participants felt greater moral outrage towards the childfree target.

Later, Malin Ekelund and Karl Ask (both University of Gothenburg) set out to replicate Ashburn-Nardo's work across two studies with a UK-sample of participants. In their first study 199 participants were asked to rate targets on levels of the target's psychological fulfilment, likeability, and participants' moral outrage. The second study asked 329 people about expected levels of regret among childfree people and their judgement of childfree targets' moral character.

A childfree researcher herself, Ekelund said she was naturally drawn to working to answer questions about this population. Ekelund told me she was particularly surprised by her finding that those who judged the childfree most harshly – in terms of their perceived likeability and moral character – were those who were not yet parents but intended to have children in the future.

'I also find it quite interesting that there isn't a gender difference… what we experience might tell us that women would be judged harsher than men because even these days we see motherhood and being a woman as if they're the same thing.'

The potential for childfree people to regret their decision is often raised as an argument against being childfree. Ekelund told me that the original Ashburn-Nardo paper she replicated found that childfree people were seen as being less psychologically fulfilled and while her work found a similar pattern she uncovered more nuance in her own findings. 'When we dug into our results we could see that childfree people weren't necessarily seen as lacking general fulfilment or satisfaction with life, but perceivers thought that childfree people would regret not having children in the future, and it was that specifically that which observers thought would make them less satisfied with life.'

Those who wanted to have children, or already had them, were more likely to say that childfree people would regret their decision – although research has found a majority do not. Ekelund suggested this finding may hint at a motivational explanation – that people who feel a need to pass moral judgement on childfree are those who feel more threatened by the option to not have children and may question the validity of their own choices.

Ekelund said she would like to see more in-depth, qualitative research into the not-yet-parent group, who were the harshest judges of childfree people. 'This is a bit of a gap in the literature. There are a few qualitative studies with childfree people but not so much of that particular kind of research on how people perceive the childfree.'
Beyond the Western lens

Jennifer and Zachary are extending their work into other countries, as most of the research on childfree people has been restricted to the US, Canada and Europe. 'We're in the middle of a study looking at the Philippines where in the last five or 10 years the popular media and media personalities have been talking about childfree people a lot more. So far we see similar levels of growth in childfree single women which has increased from 4 per cent to 10 per cent in the last 10 years.'

They are also extending their work into Japan – a country with high levels of social conservatism but also with a declining population and birth rate. 'There's lots of national policies designed to encourage people to have children in Japan and the norm to have children in Japan is very strong. The other thing that makes Japan interesting for us is because of this population crisis they collect an enormous quantity of very detailed demographic information. We can study the childfree population in Japan with even finer-grain detail than we can in the United States and over a much longer period of time. We've just started looking at the childfree population in Japan over the last 30 to 40 years and we are seeing the same kind of growth in the childfree population among married and single people.'
Open questions

We've heard the stereotypes aren't true; that the childfree population is in no way homogenous; and that it can be tough to navigate the conversations we have about our decision to turn our back on such an entrenched societal expectation. I asked the academics I spoke to about the burning questions they still hope to answer.

'As a researcher who has been working on interpersonal relationships for over 15 years, I was struck by how little we actually know about the social lives of people who do not have children', Gerlach said. Together with her PhD student Olivia Crawford, Gerlach has sought to address this gap in a recent review focusing on social networks and support in non-parents. Their latest work now investigates social networks of different types of non-parents, with a focus on childfree individuals – examining whether they have friends who are parents, if being childfree is linked to having childfree friends, and more generally, who the people in their social circles are. The researchers also hope to explore whether people conceal their childfree status and whether social networks are supportive of this decision, along with its impact on wellbeing and adjustment more broadly.

Jennifer and Zachary, who are also social network researchers, echoed this sentiment. 'We'd like to see whether childfree people's networks shrink during the period when most of their friends might be having children, which is something we hear anecdotally from childfree people. We'd also like to look at childfree people's finances – things like retirement planning are different for childfree people so we're starting to collect some data about that in Michigan.'

Ekelund said she still has many questions she would hope to answer about childfree populations. 'The acceptance and recognition of gay fatherhood and lesbian motherhood, in for example the UK, has grown a lot in recent years. So it would be interesting to investigate if the norm for these demographic groups might to some extent be shifting from not having kids towards having kids.'

Of course, as a childfree person I find this area of study fascinating. But the growth in the childfree population, and the potential for childfree people's stories to highlight issues in our society – the economy, the stigma associated with rejecting social norms, or deeply-held concerns about the environment – should be of interest to us all. Ella Rhodes is The Psychologist's journalist. ella.rhodes@bps.org.uk
Send your reactions to this article to psychologist@bps.org.uk; or engage with us on X/Twitter, or on Bluesky.

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/childfree-neglected-population(accessed 27.12.24)

Homeworking – what have we learned?

Gail Kinman and Christine Grant.

22 November 2024


Before the pandemic, remote work was a privilege enjoyed by only a small fraction of workers. This shifted dramatically in early 2020, when public health measures required everyone who could work from home to do so. The number of remote workers in the UK surged to almost 10 million, representing 44 per cent of the workforce (ONS 2020).

We watched this situation unfold with interest due to our long-standing research involvement in homeworking, and also because we (along with our colleagues, family and friends) were experiencing it firsthand. For many years, we have advocated for the benefits of remote working arrangements, providing evidence-based guidance to support its effective implementation. The rapid and widespread shift to home-based working presented a unique opportunity for us and others to observe and analyse this transition in real time, revealing how individuals and organisations adapted, and the challenges and successes they encountered.
Advantages and challenges

The rapid shift to remote working was intended to curb the spread of illness, but it also revealed advantages for employees and organisations. Many employees welcomed the flexibility and comfort of working from home and the opportunity to create a personalised work environment. Working remotely can offer greater flexibility, allowing employees to achieve a better work-life balance and eliminate the need to commute, saving time, money and energy. Productivity improved for many during this time, due to fewer distractions and more flexible schedules.

Additionally, the move to remote work accelerated digital transformation, focusing more on performance than physical presence. The concept of online 'presence' has evolved beyond whether one's video camera is on or off, now including real-time or asynchronous communication, contributing through direct interaction or chat features, or simply viewing content without engaging.

The move to home-based working also presented challenges for some. Organisations with existing remote working arrangements quickly adapted to the changes, with experienced home-workers being better able to manage the transition (Gifford, 2022). Other employees lacked the necessary tools to work remotely and had unsuitable workspaces. Few had the luxury of home offices and people often worked from their kitchen tables, sofas, bedrooms and even their cars. Research conducted early in the pandemic (Parry, 2021) found that some participants initially struggled with home-based working, with merging work and home demands leading to role stress, work-life conflict and exhaustion. Unsurprisingly, other studies revealed that parents faced daily challenges juggling childcare, virtual schooling and work deadlines, significantly impacting their wellbeing (Payne, 2020; Williams et al., 2020).

Organisations had to quickly adapt to virtual technology, as it was essential to maintain communication. Teams accustomed to in-person interactions often faced difficulties with virtual collaboration, leading to feelings of isolation, and decreased visibility to managers. Our work with child-protection social workers during this challenging time revealed their difficulties in recognising when team members were struggling during online meetings, and then providing the emotional support needed to prevent burnout (Kinman, 2021).

As social media users, we observed people sharing their experiences and concerns about homeworking immediately after lockdown began. Using netnography (Kozinets, 2015), a method for exploring naturally occurring online discussions, we explored diverse experiences of adapting to homeworking (Travers et al., 2020), focusing on the challenges people faced and the strategies they employed to balance work and domestic life. Over several months, participants shared their experiences through blogs, videos, photos, memes and other media.

Our findings revealed that this time was marked by contradictions and transitions, with new demands frequently increasing stress and negative emotions, as well as cognitive symptoms such as 'brain fog'. However, many discovered new ways to live and work, finding value in a slower pace and adopting innovative stress-reduction strategies. One participant noted, 'It is very reminiscent of the 1970s when I was growing up. Cooking meals from scratch, baking, hobbies and all of the things I usually don't have time for. My defences against anxiety are going quite well' (p.12).
Survive or thrive

Over time, remote work became normalised. People and organisations found ways to thrive, or at least survive, in this new environment. They quickly embraced new technologies and innovative methods to maintain team cohesion and collaboration. The British Psychological Society played a key role in this transition. As part of the BPS Working Differently Group, we published a guide offering psychologically informed strategies to establish healthy homeworking conditions (Kinman et al., 2022). The group also created a guide to help professionals regularly exposed to distressing material, such as police officers and social workers, prevent vicarious trauma while working from home (Tehrani et al., 2020).

For some remote workers, prolonged engagement with video conferencing platforms resulted in mental and physical exhaustion, communication barriers and misunderstandings. Researchers played a crucial role in identifying the underlying causes of these issues and providing strategies to alleviate what became known as 'Zoom fatigue' (Bailenson, 2021; Ramachandran, 2021). Their guidance included practical recommendations for managing screen time, optimising virtual meeting practices and improving overall digital well-being. Our pre-pandemic research identified key competencies required for effective remote working (Grant & Clarke, 2020; Tramontano et al., 2021) and provided valuable guidance on enhancing digital self-efficacy and resilience for individuals and organisations.

So, five years on what have we learned from what has been termed the 'Great Homeworking Experiment'? Since the pandemic began, research on the implications of remote work for wellbeing and productivity has surged, with around 18,000 articles indexed in Google Scholar from 2020 to date. However, drawing firm conclusions about the effectiveness of homeworking during a global crisis remains challenging. The mental health and well-being of the UK population also declined during the pandemic (ONS, 2020), making it difficult to isolate the effects of homeworking from those of broader changes, uncertainty, and isolation.

The implications of remote working continue to be widely debated, but there is no compelling evidence that productivity and wellbeing declined among homeworkers during the pandemic (Felstead, 2022). In some circumstances, home-based working can provide significant benefits for wellbeing, productivity and job satisfaction. Organisations with effective homeworking policies may experience increased employee loyalty and a more stable workforce (Choi, 2019). Home-based work can also help reduce the carbon footprint by reducing daily commutes and office energy use, supporting efforts to reduce climate change. Remote work can also enhance employment opportunities for people living in remote areas and caregivers (Schur et al., 2020; Grant et al. 2022). In particular, many disabled and neurodivergent workers have benefited from the widespread move to remote work during lockdown (Grant et al., 2022), levelling the playing field for these workers, reducing the stigma associated with home-based work and confirming its acceptability for employees more generally.

However, the effectiveness of remote working hinges on various factors, such as employee demographics, living arrangements and caregiving responsibilities, as well as job type, workload and its intensity and the organisational culture. Support from managers and colleagues, social connectedness outside of work and the effective management of work-home boundaries are also important (Chan & Kinman, 2024). Autonomy over working patterns is crucial for successful remote work, as it allows employees to tailor their work environment to their needs. In contrast, rigid policies or limited options can lead to frustration, decreased engagement and burnout (Kossek, 2016).
A 'woke trend'?

Homeworking presents other challenges that need addressing. While the flexibility associated with some types of remote work can improve wellbeing and work-life balance, it can result in enabled intensification (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). This occurs when the constant connectivity offered by digital tools causes people to work longer and harder than in a traditional office environment, undermining work-life balance and increasing the risk of burnout. Additionally, higher rates of sickness presenteeism have been found among remote workers, attributed to a range of occupational, organisational and individual level factors (CIPD, 2023; Kinman & Grant, 2022). The less visible nature of their work can also make them more likely to push through illness, as symptoms and difficulties are not as apparent to managers and colleagues.

Although many people returned to office-based work after lockdown restrictions eased, remote working remains popular. The ONS (2022) found that employees consider the main advantages of home-based working include improved work-life balance, fewer distractions, faster task completion and better wellbeing, whereas challenges include difficulties collaborating with others and concerns about job opportunities. Employers' attitudes towards remote working evolved from initial scepticism to greater acceptance as the pandemic progressed. Many leaders now recognise the benefits of remote work, such as increased flexibility and cost savings, and have integrated it into their long-term business strategies.

Nonetheless, the continuation of remote working has sparked intense public debate, with opinions being highly polarised and politically charged. Our preliminary analysis of post-pandemic news media shows reveals considerable variability in opinions. Some business leaders and commentators argue that remote workers are less diligent and have even labelled it as a 'woke trend', suggesting that physical presence will inevitably boost collaboration, creativity and productivity. Additionally, homeworking has been criticised as an 'economic disaster' for cities, commercial office premises, the construction industry and the service economy, potentially hindering post-pandemic recovery. A recent survey of over 1,300 global leaders found that most support a return to pre-Covid work patterns, with nearly two-thirds expecting a return to the office five days a week by 2026 (KPMG, 2023). Furthermore, 87 per cent of respondents believe that future financial rewards and promotions will be tied to office presence.

These views may overshadow the established benefits of remote working for both organisations and individuals. To encourage workers back to the office, some employers offer incentives like free lunches, while others resort to extreme measures, such as threats of termination. These actions can be counter-productive, as organisations that mandate a wholesale return to office-based work have seen lower engagement, reduced trust, higher turnover and recruitment difficulties. Additionally, an estimated four million employees have changed careers due to the lack of flexible working options (CIPD, 2023).

The decisions organisations make about working arrangements will have far-reaching consequences. Allowing employees some autonomy over the location and timing of work seems essential for retaining and attracting staff, addressing skills shortages and fostering inclusive workplaces. The future of work is likely to feature flexible, hybrid models that combine the benefits of remote work with the advantages of in-person collaboration. A recent longitudinal study found that hybrid workers were as productive as full-time on-site workers, according to both subjective measures and performance reviews conducted over two years. Hybrid workers also reported better work-life balance, higher job and life satisfaction and had lower attrition rates compared to their counterparts working on site on a full-time basis (Bloom et al., 2024).

In conclusion, the 'Great Homeworking Experiment' has demonstrated that remote work can be effective under certain conditions. However, maintaining productivity, employee well-being and organisational cohesion requires careful management. To maximise the benefits of remote work while addressing its challenges, it is essential to implement the right tools and strategies. A multi-level approach, comprising organisational, team and individual initiatives, is likely to be most effective. Involving employees in co-designing these initiatives through surveys, focus groups and feedback will help ensure that strategies meet their needs and preferences, thereby enhancing effectiveness and engagement.Organisational level: Building the foundation. Organisations should establish an infrastructure and culture that supports flexible working arrangements. This includes establishing clear remote work policies that outline expectations, working hours, communication protocols and performance metrics. Investing in reliable technology, such as collaboration platforms, is crucial. Organisations must also provide training in essential remote working skills, such as virtual communication, time management and using digital tools effectively. Establishing trust between remote workers and line managers will also increase the success of remote working arrangements. It is also crucial to implement initiatives that support the health and work-life balance of remote workers and address the potential risks such as enabled intensification and sickness presenteeism.
Team level: Fostering collaboration and cohesion. The focus here should be on maintaining communication, collaboration and a sense of belonging. Regular team meetings and one-to-one checks will help people stay connected and engaged. Using collaborative tools and a mix of synchronous and asynchronous communication will accommodate different working styles and time zones. Organising virtual team-building activities will strengthen team relationships and implementing support mechanisms will help those who are struggling.
Individual level: Maintaining wellbeing and productivity. Time management tools and clear boundaries between work and personal time can help remote workers maintain focus and prevent burnout. Establishing a dedicated, ergonomic and distraction-free workspace at home is crucial. Taking regular breaks and developing strategies to help switch off from work mode mentally as well as physically will help maintain a healthy work-life balance. Regular communication with colleagues and managers is crucial, and seeking support when needed is vital for sustained well-being and productivity.

Professor Gail Kinman is a Chartered Psychologist and Professor of Occupational Health Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London.

Dr Christine Grant is a Chartered Psychologist, and Associate Professor, Centre for Healthcare Research at Coventry University.

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/homeworking-what-have-we-learned(accessed 27.12.24)

O ρόλος του νονού: Σημασία δεν έχουν τα δώρα, αλλά η επικοινωνία

THE MAMAGERS TEAM02 ΜΑΪΟΥ, 2023

×





Είναι ίσως από τα πρώτα πράγματα που σκέφτεσαι όταν γεννάς. Συχνά το έχεις ήδη κουβεντιάσει (με τους υποψηφίους) όταν το μωρό είναι ακόμη μέσα στην κοιλιά. Για να έχεις το κεφάλι σου ήσυχο.


Ο ρόλος του νονού δεν είναι και ο ευκολότερος στον κόσμο. Ή μάλλον δεν είναι ο ίδιος για όλους τους ανθρώπους.

Άλλοι το έχουν κάνει κάτι σαν επάγγελμα και άλλοι έχουν αποφασίσει να δεσμευθούν για μία μόνο φορά προκειμένου να είναι όσο συνεπείς θα ήθελαν.

Το χειρότερο είναι όταν κάποιος με τον οποίο δεν έχεις και τις καλύτερες σχέσεις σού προτείνει να βαφτίσει το παιδί σου ή να «βάλεις» λάδι εσύ στο δικό του, χωρίς όμως να είναι αμοιβαίο το στοιχείο της εκτίμησης.

ιλάμε για σχέση ζωής, όχι για μια τελετουργία που γίνεται για μία φορά μέσα στην εκκλησία, με λίγους ή περισσότερους μάρτυρες και τελειώνει η ιστορία. Όχι, όχι. Η ιστορία έχει μόλις αρχίσει.


Ο άνθρωπος ή οι άνθρωποι που αναλαμβάνουν να γίνουν νονοί ενός παιδιού θεωρούνται πνευματικοί γονείς του από τη στιγμή που γεννιέται.

Πρόκειται για σχέση στοργής, που απαιτεί δουλειά απ’ όλες τις πλευρές.

Το πρόβλημα είναι ότι η συγκεκριμένη ιστορία δεν έχει πάντα αίσιο τέλος.
Ας δούμε πρώτα την πλευρά των γονιών.

Τι ζητούν οι γονείς από τον νονό. Καταρχάς να έχει επαφή με το παιδί. Να μην το δει για πρώτη και τελευταία φορά στο μυστήριο. Να παρέχει τα απαραίτητα την ημέρα της βάφτισης. Να θυμάται πότε γιορτάζει και πότε έχει γενέθλια. Να έχει ουσιαστική επικοινωνία μαζί του, σε όλα τα στάδια της ηλικίας του. Να μη θεωρεί ότι με ένα δώρο τα Χριστούγεννα και μια λαμπάδα κι ένα σοκολατένιο αυγό ή ένα ζευγάρι παπούτσια το Πάσχα έχει ολοκληρώσει τις υποχρεώσεις του.
Νονοί για κλάματα

Είναι λίγες οι φορές – δυστυχώς – που ο ρόλος του νονού ή της νονάς γίνεται όπως θα έπρεπε, έτσι ώστε και το παιδί να μπορεί να βασιστεί και σε κάποιον τρίτο, σε κάποιον που θεωρεί δικό του άνθρωπο, όταν η μαμά ή ο μπαμπάς δεν μπορούν να το καταλάβουν. Έχουμε δει να χαλούν κουμπαριές επειδή τσακώθηκαν οι ενήλικες. Να ξηλώνονται φωτογραφικά άλμπουμ και να γίνεται φωτομοντάζ για να πιστεύει το παιδάκι ότι ο νονός του είναι κάποιος άλλος τελικά. Να έχει προγραμματιστεί να γίνει βάφτιση σε νησί και να τσακώνεται η μητέρα με τη μέλλουσα νονά και να βρίσκεται τελικά στην κολυμπήθρα η επιλογή της τελευταίας στιγμής.

Έχουμε ακούσει για νονούς που δεν ξανασυνάντησαν τα βαφτιστήρια τους και τους γονείς τους.
Ποιους εξαιρούμε;

Τους νονούς – θείους, μαζί και τις νονές – θείες. Όσους βλέπουν ακόμη τα βαφτιστήρια τους κι ας έχουν ασπρίσει τα μαλλιά και των δύο. Όσους δεν αγοράζουν σταυρό επειδή προσβλέπουν σε μια οικονομική συμφωνία. Τις νονές που πιστεύουν στις καλές νεράιδες του παραμυθιού, όπως τις τρεις στρουμπουλές κυρίες στην «Ωραία κοιμωμένη» και τώρα πιστεύουν στην καλή «ντεϊντέι» και τα βαφτιστήρια τους. Είναι η νονά τους.
Πάντα άξιος! Δύσκολη η ανταπόκριση

Ακόμα κι ένας νονός μπορεί να έχει τα παράπονά του. Να έχει «μετανιώσει» για την επιλογή του ή να μην ήταν έτοιμος για μια τέτοια ευθύνη. Να μην έχει παιδιά, αλλά ούτε και τη διάθεση να μάθει πώς είναι να φροντίζεις και να νοιάζεσαι για ένα μικρό ή μεγάλο παιδί. Να μη θέλει να ξοδεύει μια περιουσία για τα πανάκριβα ρούχα που μπορεί ν’απαιτεί, με διακριτικό τρόπο, η μαμά για το τέκνο της. Ή ν’αγοράσει το – εκτός προϋπολογισμού – ηλεκτρονικό παιχνίδι που ζητάει επίμονα ο 12χρονος Φίλιππος επειδή βαρέθηκε να παίζει με την επαγγελματική κιθάρα που του έκανε δώρο ο νονός τα Χριστούγεννα.

Σίγουρα είναι μεγάλο το βάρος να ξέρεις ότι στην περίπτωση που πάθει κάτι ο γονιός, αναλαμβάνεις εσύ ως πνευματικός πατέρας. Δεν θα έπρεπε να υπάρχουν μόνο καθήκοντα και ευθύνες στον ρόλο του νονού. Είναι βασικό να είναι ένας άνθρωπος που αγαπάει τα παιδιά, γι’ αυτό και δεν κάνει τίποτα καταναγκαστικά. Εκείνος που απλώς πάντρεψε το ζευγάρι και νιώθει την υποχρέωση να βαφτίσει και το πρώτο τους παιδί μπορεί να μην είναι τελικά και ο καταλληλότερος.
Ο «σωστός» νονός θα πρέπει να είναι στο πλάι του παιδιού όσο μεγαλώνει και σε κάθε σημαντική στιγμή γι’ αυτό.

Να είναι ο καλύτερος και πιο έμπιστος φίλος του. Ο ανάδοχος θα πρέπει να ξέρει τι πρέπει να κάνει χωρίς να του το έχει υποδείξει κανείς. Οι κοινωνικοπολιτικοί λόγοι δεν αφορούν κανένα. Ούτε οι οικονομικές συναλλαγές. Σημασία δεν έχουν τα δώρα, αλλά η επικοινωνία. Τα ρούχα δεν ενδιαφέρουν κανένα παιδί και ένα παιχνίδι είναι σίγουρα προτιμότερο. Καλύτερα ακόμη, μια βόλτα ή μια εκδρομή μαζί, πολύ απλά γιατί θα χαροποιήσει στ’ αλήθεια τον άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενο.

Πάντα άξιοι; Όχι απαραίτητα. Δικαιολογίες δεν υπάρχουν. Τουλάχιστον όχι για τα παιδιά, που δεν θέλουν να ακούν λόγια του αέρα. Νονός δεν γίνεσαι με το ζόρι. Αν πεις το «ναι», δεν υπάρχει επιστροφή.



Πείτε καλύτερα «απεταξάμην». Πριν από την εκκλησία.

Γράφει η Σάντυ Τσαντάκη

ΠΗΓΗ:

https://www.themamagers.gr/family/nonos-nona/noni-simasia-den-echoun-ta-dora-alla-i-epikinonia/(accessed 16.12.24)

Homeworking – what have we learned?

Gail Kinman and Christine Grant.

22 November 2024


Before the pandemic, remote work was a privilege enjoyed by only a small fraction of workers. This shifted dramatically in early 2020, when public health measures required everyone who could work from home to do so. The number of remote workers in the UK surged to almost 10 million, representing 44 per cent of the workforce (ONS 2020).

We watched this situation unfold with interest due to our long-standing research involvement in homeworking, and also because we (along with our colleagues, family and friends) were experiencing it firsthand. For many years, we have advocated for the benefits of remote working arrangements, providing evidence-based guidance to support its effective implementation. The rapid and widespread shift to home-based working presented a unique opportunity for us and others to observe and analyse this transition in real time, revealing how individuals and organisations adapted, and the challenges and successes they encountered.
Advantages and challenges

The rapid shift to remote working was intended to curb the spread of illness, but it also revealed advantages for employees and organisations. Many employees welcomed the flexibility and comfort of working from home and the opportunity to create a personalised work environment. Working remotely can offer greater flexibility, allowing employees to achieve a better work-life balance and eliminate the need to commute, saving time, money and energy. Productivity improved for many during this time, due to fewer distractions and more flexible schedules.

Additionally, the move to remote work accelerated digital transformation, focusing more on performance than physical presence. The concept of online 'presence' has evolved beyond whether one's video camera is on or off, now including real-time or asynchronous communication, contributing through direct interaction or chat features, or simply viewing content without engaging.

The move to home-based working also presented challenges for some. Organisations with existing remote working arrangements quickly adapted to the changes, with experienced home-workers being better able to manage the transition (Gifford, 2022). Other employees lacked the necessary tools to work remotely and had unsuitable workspaces. Few had the luxury of home offices and people often worked from their kitchen tables, sofas, bedrooms and even their cars. Research conducted early in the pandemic (Parry, 2021) found that some participants initially struggled with home-based working, with merging work and home demands leading to role stress, work-life conflict and exhaustion. Unsurprisingly, other studies revealed that parents faced daily challenges juggling childcare, virtual schooling and work deadlines, significantly impacting their wellbeing (Payne, 2020; Williams et al., 2020).

Organisations had to quickly adapt to virtual technology, as it was essential to maintain communication. Teams accustomed to in-person interactions often faced difficulties with virtual collaboration, leading to feelings of isolation, and decreased visibility to managers. Our work with child-protection social workers during this challenging time revealed their difficulties in recognising when team members were struggling during online meetings, and then providing the emotional support needed to prevent burnout (Kinman, 2021).

As social media users, we observed people sharing their experiences and concerns about homeworking immediately after lockdown began. Using netnography (Kozinets, 2015), a method for exploring naturally occurring online discussions, we explored diverse experiences of adapting to homeworking (Travers et al., 2020), focusing on the challenges people faced and the strategies they employed to balance work and domestic life. Over several months, participants shared their experiences through blogs, videos, photos, memes and other media.

Our findings revealed that this time was marked by contradictions and transitions, with new demands frequently increasing stress and negative emotions, as well as cognitive symptoms such as 'brain fog'. However, many discovered new ways to live and work, finding value in a slower pace and adopting innovative stress-reduction strategies. One participant noted, 'It is very reminiscent of the 1970s when I was growing up. Cooking meals from scratch, baking, hobbies and all of the things I usually don't have time for. My defences against anxiety are going quite well' (p.12).
Survive or thrive

Over time, remote work became normalised. People and organisations found ways to thrive, or at least survive, in this new environment. They quickly embraced new technologies and innovative methods to maintain team cohesion and collaboration. The British Psychological Society played a key role in this transition. As part of the BPS Working Differently Group, we published a guide offering psychologically informed strategies to establish healthy homeworking conditions (Kinman et al., 2022). The group also created a guide to help professionals regularly exposed to distressing material, such as police officers and social workers, prevent vicarious trauma while working from home (Tehrani et al., 2020).

For some remote workers, prolonged engagement with video conferencing platforms resulted in mental and physical exhaustion, communication barriers and misunderstandings. Researchers played a crucial role in identifying the underlying causes of these issues and providing strategies to alleviate what became known as 'Zoom fatigue' (Bailenson, 2021; Ramachandran, 2021). Their guidance included practical recommendations for managing screen time, optimising virtual meeting practices and improving overall digital well-being. Our pre-pandemic research identified key competencies required for effective remote working (Grant & Clarke, 2020; Tramontano et al., 2021) and provided valuable guidance on enhancing digital self-efficacy and resilience for individuals and organisations.

So, five years on what have we learned from what has been termed the 'Great Homeworking Experiment'? Since the pandemic began, research on the implications of remote work for wellbeing and productivity has surged, with around 18,000 articles indexed in Google Scholar from 2020 to date. However, drawing firm conclusions about the effectiveness of homeworking during a global crisis remains challenging. The mental health and well-being of the UK population also declined during the pandemic (ONS, 2020), making it difficult to isolate the effects of homeworking from those of broader changes, uncertainty, and isolation.

The implications of remote working continue to be widely debated, but there is no compelling evidence that productivity and wellbeing declined among homeworkers during the pandemic (Felstead, 2022). In some circumstances, home-based working can provide significant benefits for wellbeing, productivity and job satisfaction. Organisations with effective homeworking policies may experience increased employee loyalty and a more stable workforce (Choi, 2019). Home-based work can also help reduce the carbon footprint by reducing daily commutes and office energy use, supporting efforts to reduce climate change. Remote work can also enhance employment opportunities for people living in remote areas and caregivers (Schur et al., 2020; Grant et al. 2022). In particular, many disabled and neurodivergent workers have benefited from the widespread move to remote work during lockdown (Grant et al., 2022), levelling the playing field for these workers, reducing the stigma associated with home-based work and confirming its acceptability for employees more generally.

However, the effectiveness of remote working hinges on various factors, such as employee demographics, living arrangements and caregiving responsibilities, as well as job type, workload and its intensity and the organisational culture. Support from managers and colleagues, social connectedness outside of work and the effective management of work-home boundaries are also important (Chan & Kinman, 2024). Autonomy over working patterns is crucial for successful remote work, as it allows employees to tailor their work environment to their needs. In contrast, rigid policies or limited options can lead to frustration, decreased engagement and burnout (Kossek, 2016).
A 'woke trend'?

Homeworking presents other challenges that need addressing. While the flexibility associated with some types of remote work can improve wellbeing and work-life balance, it can result in enabled intensification (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). This occurs when the constant connectivity offered by digital tools causes people to work longer and harder than in a traditional office environment, undermining work-life balance and increasing the risk of burnout. Additionally, higher rates of sickness presenteeism have been found among remote workers, attributed to a range of occupational, organisational and individual level factors (CIPD, 2023; Kinman & Grant, 2022). The less visible nature of their work can also make them more likely to push through illness, as symptoms and difficulties are not as apparent to managers and colleagues.

Although many people returned to office-based work after lockdown restrictions eased, remote working remains popular. The ONS (2022) found that employees consider the main advantages of home-based working include improved work-life balance, fewer distractions, faster task completion and better wellbeing, whereas challenges include difficulties collaborating with others and concerns about job opportunities. Employers' attitudes towards remote working evolved from initial scepticism to greater acceptance as the pandemic progressed. Many leaders now recognise the benefits of remote work, such as increased flexibility and cost savings, and have integrated it into their long-term business strategies.

Nonetheless, the continuation of remote working has sparked intense public debate, with opinions being highly polarised and politically charged. Our preliminary analysis of post-pandemic news media shows reveals considerable variability in opinions. Some business leaders and commentators argue that remote workers are less diligent and have even labelled it as a 'woke trend', suggesting that physical presence will inevitably boost collaboration, creativity and productivity. Additionally, homeworking has been criticised as an 'economic disaster' for cities, commercial office premises, the construction industry and the service economy, potentially hindering post-pandemic recovery. A recent survey of over 1,300 global leaders found that most support a return to pre-Covid work patterns, with nearly two-thirds expecting a return to the office five days a week by 2026 (KPMG, 2023). Furthermore, 87 per cent of respondents believe that future financial rewards and promotions will be tied to office presence.

These views may overshadow the established benefits of remote working for both organisations and individuals. To encourage workers back to the office, some employers offer incentives like free lunches, while others resort to extreme measures, such as threats of termination. These actions can be counter-productive, as organisations that mandate a wholesale return to office-based work have seen lower engagement, reduced trust, higher turnover and recruitment difficulties. Additionally, an estimated four million employees have changed careers due to the lack of flexible working options (CIPD, 2023).

The decisions organisations make about working arrangements will have far-reaching consequences. Allowing employees some autonomy over the location and timing of work seems essential for retaining and attracting staff, addressing skills shortages and fostering inclusive workplaces. The future of work is likely to feature flexible, hybrid models that combine the benefits of remote work with the advantages of in-person collaboration. A recent longitudinal study found that hybrid workers were as productive as full-time on-site workers, according to both subjective measures and performance reviews conducted over two years. Hybrid workers also reported better work-life balance, higher job and life satisfaction and had lower attrition rates compared to their counterparts working on site on a full-time basis (Bloom et al., 2024).

In conclusion, the 'Great Homeworking Experiment' has demonstrated that remote work can be effective under certain conditions. However, maintaining productivity, employee well-being and organisational cohesion requires careful management. To maximise the benefits of remote work while addressing its challenges, it is essential to implement the right tools and strategies. A multi-level approach, comprising organisational, team and individual initiatives, is likely to be most effective. Involving employees in co-designing these initiatives through surveys, focus groups and feedback will help ensure that strategies meet their needs and preferences, thereby enhancing effectiveness and engagement.Organisational level: Building the foundation. Organisations should establish an infrastructure and culture that supports flexible working arrangements. This includes establishing clear remote work policies that outline expectations, working hours, communication protocols and performance metrics. Investing in reliable technology, such as collaboration platforms, is crucial. Organisations must also provide training in essential remote working skills, such as virtual communication, time management and using digital tools effectively. Establishing trust between remote workers and line managers will also increase the success of remote working arrangements. It is also crucial to implement initiatives that support the health and work-life balance of remote workers and address the potential risks such as enabled intensification and sickness presenteeism.
Team level: Fostering collaboration and cohesion. The focus here should be on maintaining communication, collaboration and a sense of belonging. Regular team meetings and one-to-one checks will help people stay connected and engaged. Using collaborative tools and a mix of synchronous and asynchronous communication will accommodate different working styles and time zones. Organising virtual team-building activities will strengthen team relationships and implementing support mechanisms will help those who are struggling.
Individual level: Maintaining wellbeing and productivity. Time management tools and clear boundaries between work and personal time can help remote workers maintain focus and prevent burnout. Establishing a dedicated, ergonomic and distraction-free workspace at home is crucial. Taking regular breaks and developing strategies to help switch off from work mode mentally as well as physically will help maintain a healthy work-life balance. Regular communication with colleagues and managers is crucial, and seeking support when needed is vital for sustained well-being and productivity.

Professor Gail Kinman is a Chartered Psychologist and Professor of Occupational Health Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London.

Dr Christine Grant is a Chartered Psychologist, and Associate Professor, Centre for Healthcare Research at Coventry University.

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/homeworking-what-have-we-learned(accessed 13.12.24)

Μήπως ήρθε η ώρα να πείτε στο παιδί σας την αλήθεια για τον Άγιο Βασίλη;

by Αγγελική Λάλου
6 Δεκεμβρίου 2024



Ποια ηλικία είναι κατάλληλη και πώς να το πείτε χωρίς να χαλάσετε τις γιορτές


Καθώς πλησιάζει η περίοδος των γιορτών, πολλοί γονείς αντιμετωπίζουν το ερώτημα πότε και πώς να αποκαλύψουν την αλήθεια για τον Άγιο Βασίλη. Αυτό το θέμα μπορεί να είναι λεπτό, καθώς ο μύθος του Άγιου Βασίλη είναι βαθιά αναπόσπαστο μέρος της μαγικής εμπειρίας των Χριστουγέννων για τα παιδιά. Εδώ, διερευνούμε σκέψεις κατάλληλες για την ηλικία και ήπιες προσεγγίσεις για τη συζήτηση της πραγματικότητας πίσω από τον Άγιο Βασίλη χωρίς να μειώνουμε το εορταστικό πνεύμα.

Προσδιορισμός της σωστής ηλικίας

Η κατάλληλη ηλικία για να αποκαλύψετε την αλήθεια για τον Άγιο Βασίλη διαφέρει για κάθε παιδί. Γενικά, τα παιδιά αρχίζουν να αμφισβητούν την ύπαρξη του Αϊ-Βασίλη μεταξύ 5 και 8 ετών. Αυτή η περιέργεια συχνά προκύπτει φυσικά καθώς γίνονται πιο παρατηρητικά και σκέφτονται κριτικά για το ετήσιο δώρο του Άγιου Βασίλη. Λάβετε υπόψη τη συναισθηματική ωριμότητα και την ετοιμότητα του παιδιού σας να χειριστεί την αλήθεια, καθώς τα παιδιά αναπτύσσονται με τον δικό τους ρυθμό.

Για ορισμένους γονείς, το να αφήνουν τα παιδιά να καταλήξουν στα δικά τους συμπεράσματα λειτουργεί καλύτερα, επιτρέποντάς τα να κάνουν ερωτήσεις και να εκφράσουν αμφιβολίες όταν είναι έτοιμα. Άλλοι μπορεί να παρέχουν ήπια καθοδήγηση, ειδικά εάν η παραπληροφόρηση από συνομηλίκους ή άλλες πηγές πυροδοτεί σύγχυση.
Πώς να μιλήσετε στο παιδί σας

Επιλέξτε την κατάλληλη στιγμή: Βεβαιωθείτε ότι συζητάτε το θέμα όταν υπάρχει επαρκής χρόνος για συζήτηση και προβληματισμό, και όχι εν μέσω της βιασύνης των γιορτών. Μια ήσυχη, περιστασιακή στιγμή είναι προτιμότερη για να κάνει τη συζήτηση να μοιάζει λιγότερο αποθαρρυντική.

Ενσυναίσθηση με τα συναισθήματά τους: Αναγνωρίστε ότι η εκμάθηση της αλήθειας μπορεί να είναι απογοητευτική. Τονίστε ότι το να νιώθουν λύπη ή σύγχυση είναι εντάξει και μοιραστείτε τις αναμνήσεις σας από την ανακάλυψη της αλήθειας για την ύπαρξη του Άγιου Βασίλη για να συνδεθείτε και να εξανθρωπίσετε την εμπειρία.

Εστιάστε στο πνεύμα της προσφοράς: Διδάξτε ότι, ενώ ο Άγιος Βασίλης μπορεί να είναι φανταστικός, το πνεύμα του Άγιου Βασίλη —αγάπη, γενναιοδωρία και καλοσύνη—είναι πολύ αληθινό. Προσκαλέστε το παιδί σας να γίνει μέρος αυτής της παράδοσης βοηθώντας στη διάδοση της χαράς, κάνοντας τα μέρος της μαγείας.

Βάλτε μια θετική στροφή στην παράδοση: Εξηγήστε ότι η ανακάλυψη του μυστικού του Άγιου Βασίλη είναι μια ιεροτελεστία, ένα συναρπαστικό βήμα προς την κατανόηση των ευρύτερων πτυχών των παραδόσεων των γιορτών και τη δυνατότητα να αναλάβουν έναν νέο ρόλο στις εορταστικές γιορτές.



Συμπεριλάβετέ τα στις προετοιμασίες των γιορτών: Κάνοντάς τα «βοηθούς του Άη Βασίλη», τους επιτρέπετε να συμβάλουν στη δημιουργία οικογενειακής χαράς, είτε τυλίγοντας δώρα, στολίζοντας ή ψήνοντας μπισκότα. Αυτός ο περιεκτικός ρόλος μπορεί να κάνει τη σταδιακή μετάβαση πιο ομαλή και να βοηθήσει στη διατήρηση της γοητείας των Χριστουγέννων.
Κρατώντας τη μαγεία ζωντανή

Να θυμάστε ότι η εκμάθηση της αλήθειας για τον Άγιο Βασίλη δεν χρειάζεται να τελειώσει τη μαγεία των Χριστουγέννων. Ενθαρρύνετε το παιδί σας να ασχοληθεί με τη μαγεία των γιορτών εστιάζοντας στην οικογένεια, τις παραδόσεις και τη χαρά της προσφοράς. Ανακαλύψτε το πνεύμα των γιορτών δημιουργώντας μαζί νέες παραδόσεις, ενισχύοντας ότι οι διακοπές αφορούν την ενότητα, τη ζεστασιά και τη γιορτή.

Προσεγγίζοντας το θέμα προσεκτικά και με ευαισθησία, μπορείτε να βοηθήσετε το παιδί σας να πλοηγηθεί σε αυτό το ορόσημο της παιδικής του ηλικίας με ευκολία, διατηρώντας τον ενθουσιασμό και το θαύμα του για την περίοδο των γιορτών.

ΠΗΓΗ:

https://childit.gr/%cf%80%ce%bf%ce%b9%ce%b1-%ce%b7%ce%bb%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%af%ce%b1-%ce%b5%ce%af%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%b9-%ce%ba%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%ac%ce%bb%ce%bb%ce%b7%ce%bb%ce%b7-%ce%ba%ce%b1%ce%b9-%cf%80%cf%8e%cf%82-%ce%bd%ce%b1/(accessed 9.12.24)

Is not going out the ‘new normal’?

Recent work suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic may have accelerated trends towards staying home.

29 November 2024

By Emily Reynolds


The Covid-19 lockdowns fundamentally changed the way we lived. Many people started working from home; we saw friends and family less; at times, outdoor activity was limited altogether. Many of these behaviours were cited as contributors to low mood and poor mental health. Yet, a new study suggests, we may still be engaging in them to a larger extent than pre-Covid.

To understand the ongoing effect of Covid-19 on our daily lives, a U.S-based team looked at the way Americans chose to spend their time: before the pandemic, during its peak, and since. They find that even after restrictions were lifted, people spent much less time doing activities outside – a lasting consequence of the pandemic.

Data was gathered from 34,018 participants in the American Time Use Survey, which has been looking at the way Americans spend their time since 2003. The team was specifically interested in 12 "out of home" activities like shopping, work, or healthcare, and 16 "in-home" activities like sleep, browsing the internet, or exercise. They also looked at time spent travelling every day.

The team looked at several periods to compare activity levels. Firstly, the unsurprising results: from 2019 to 2021, when Covid-19 restrictions were at their most strict, out of home time decreased by around an hour a day. Yet, in the post-acute pandemic period starting in 2022, this didn't increase much at all. In fact, time spent out of the house only increased by 11 minutes between 2021 and 2022 — meaning, overall, time spent out of the house decreased by 16% between pre- and post-pandemic years. In the same period, there was a similar decrease of 17% in time spent travelling.

Patterns of activity in and out of the house also changed: in fact, 17 out of the 28 activities showed significant changes between 2019 and 2023. Sleep increased, on average, by 16 minutes per day. Out of home shopping, predictably, fell during the pandemic but stayed below pre-pandemic levels by 2023. In fact, most 'discretionary' activities like socialising or eating out saw reductions (though more necessary tasks, like education or caregiving, remained fairly stable).

Again, this shows how severely the pandemic has affected our way of life. Even while many found it hard to spend so much time at home during the pandemic, it seems to have shifted our patterns of behaviour and daily routines: we're sleeping more, going out less, and spending less time on 'non-essential' activities like eating out.

How much of this is related strictly to the pandemic itself, however, is still up for debate. As the authors note, an existing trend towards staying home existed pre-Covid, with the advent of the pandemic seemingly accelerating that trend. In the UK, for example, the cost-of-living crisis and the lasting effects of previous financial crises have hit many people's disposable income hard; this may be a bigger contributing factor to a reduction in eating out or socialising than pandemic-influenced changes in social norms.

The other gap in the study is more qualitative: how people actually feel about the way their lives have changed over the last few years. The pandemic may have refocused people on the things they find meaningful, reshaping their lives in positive ways. On the other hand, shifts to working patterns, sleep, and socialising may be affecting people's wellbeing in a negative way. Future research could explore the nuances of such changes.

The team's acknowledgement that there is no real consensus on when the pandemic 'ended' is also an interesting part of the study. The results seem to back this up, too. Even though lockdowns have lifted and the most serious effects of the pandemic have abated, Covid-19 still continues to impact our lives every day.

Read the paper in full:
Morris, E. A., Speroni, S., & Taylor, B. D. (2024). Going Nowhere Faster: Did the Covid-19 Pandemic Accelerate the Trend Toward Staying Home? Journal of the American Planning Association, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2024.2385327

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/not-going-out-new-normal(accessed 6.12.24)