Arguing in front of a small child is something that classically always has been discouraged for the problems that it can cause for the minor himself. And this is something that is not nonsense, because a child seeing this scene does not think that he is witnessing the conflict between two adults, but rather he thinks that it is his fault.
And it is not an exaggeration that has always been done, but developmental psychology and neuroscience have been explaining for decades why something as human as this happens.
Self-blame. The minds of little ones function very differently from those of adults, and it is logical because they are developing over time. And this is something that was already defined by Jean Piaget, who attributed he “egocentric thinking“to children who are in their first years of life.
In it, children interpret the world through their own perspective, and psychologists Wesley Rholes and John Finchman they showed it in the nineties when seeing that minors tend to take responsibility for conflicts family members, especially when they do not understand the causes or why.
This causes minors to interpret the situation in a very emotional way without thinking about the reasons why it is causing this (which could be friction between two adults). And it is logical, because at an early age the mind is not yet learning to distinguish between what is internal and what is external.
The impact. When these discussions are intense or frequent, children may develop anxiety, stress or guilt. It is something that is proven also by Edward Cummings and Patrick Davies, from the University of Notre Dame, who pointed out that unresolved conflicts between parents affect children’s ability to regulate their emotions and maintain a sense of security.
Other studies reinforce this idea, showing that family tension can increase a child’s risk of have emotional problems with the passing of the years.
The solution. So… Shouldn’t we argue in front of minors? This may become impossible in some situations, especially when living together. That is why the secret is not in avoiding them, but in how adults manage them and explain it later.
This is something where psychologists agree when they point out that the strategy should be for the parents to clarify that the dispute has nothing to do with the child, to help neutralize feelings of guilt and strengthen the emotional bond with them.
What the brain says. From neuroscience, we know that when a person (whether adult or child) is angry, the brain strongly activates the amygdala, which is the center where emotions are processed in the brain. Although logically we have a brake which is the prefrontal cortex as it has the activity of reducing this activity.
Based on this, science suggests that in moments of intense anger, one cannot ask for calm because physically there are no neural resources that can calm someone down. Therefore, parental calm acts as a brain “anchor.” Its serenity not only calms, but also offers the child a model of self-regulation that his own brain cannot yet achieve alone because it does not have this brake.
The link. Ultimately, understanding emotions—your own and those of others—is a shared learning process. Children don’t need arguments to go away, but rather to understand that these tensions do not threaten their safety or self-worth. This understanding does not arise by instinct: it is cultivated with words, presence and emotional coherence.
And science backs it up. From Piaget to modern neuroimaging, everything indicates that the true antidote to childhood guilt is not adult perfection, but the opportunity to teach, with each conflict, that love and disagreement can coexist without breaking the bond.
Images | Vitaly Gariev Marcus Neto
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings