Another recent review of the epidemiological literature presents an alternative, though similar, picture.  According to Angold and Costello (1995), most studies find prevalence rates for children and adolescents at less than 5%, with some as high as 8.9% and others as low as 1.8%.  However, results of epidemiological studies cluster at around 2-3%, which is fairly consistent with the review of Brooks-Gunn and colleagues.  The review of Angold and Costello is more detailed, covering 12 studies instead of 4.  In light of these results, it seems appropriate to consider the prevalence for clinical depression among young adolescents as 3%.  This prevalence rate is important to the present study as a baseline by which to evaluate incidence of depression within the entire sample of children as well as the constituent groups.

Aspects of Early Adolescent Depression Relevant to Commuting

Attachment, Loss, and Mourning

            In the absence of any research focused directly on parental commuting and child depression, the literature concerning adolescent depression will be examined.  On the assumption that a long commute for one or both parents involves decreased time spent with family and children, it is important to explore the notion of loss as it relates to depression.  The work of John Bowlby has provided a conceptualization of child depression as the mourning of losses in attachment relationships to parents or significant caregivers (Bowlby, 1969, 1980, 1994).  In his theory, a child’s attachment to his or her mother is particularly important in providing a secure emotional base for the child entering adolescence (Bowlby, 1986).  For example, the loss of a parent due to death is particularly damaging prior to the age of eleven (Bowlby, 1988).

            Both anxiety and depression are seen by Bowlby as revolving around the loss of warm, supportive attachment relationships, particularly in early childhood.  Anxiety is related to the anticipation of such loss, and depression results from the mourning of the loss once it has happened (Bowlby, 1980).  It is unlikely that decreased time with a parent due to a long commute can be considered a traumatic loss leading to adolescent depression, especially if such loss is viewed within the confines of early childhood attachment theory.  However, Bowlby’s research with children suffering failure to thrive implicates lack of parental attention as a cause of the condition.  The research also suggests that higher risk for depression is an effect when the lack of parental attention is due to maternal death (Bowlby, 1976). 

This might be seen as suggesting a line of inquiry exploring a possible link between a child’s “loss” through the physical absence of parents with long commutes, on the one hand, and adolescent depression on the other.  The question could be posed, “do children entering adolescence have a higher degree of vulnerability to depression if there have been major disruptions in their access to important attachment figures?”  Such disruptions may involve the cumulative losses of leaving a one-teacher classroom for a rotating schedule combined with an increase in parents’ commute time.  Seen in this light, it is possible that young adolescents who have substantially less time with their parents due to a long parental commute and the concomitant stress may experience depression.  Using Bowlby’s theory as a framework, such depression would be a mourning of the partial loss of the benefits of an attachment relationship.  However, this approach is problematic because the empirical foundations of attachment theory become less clear as children of older age groups are considered.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that parents having a long commute can be conceptualized as a traumatic loss for their children in a way that makes sense within Bowlby’s conceptual framework.

            It is possible that adolescents who are depressed may simply perceive their parents as being less caring (Rey, 1995) and that this perception, not the supposed loss, is one factor in adolescent depression.  Under this view, we might hypothesize that children of parents with long commutes may perceive themselves as neglected in some way, whether or not the actual quality of the parenting is affected by the commute.

            Perhaps the aspect of commuting that is more important than the attachment experiences of the young adolescent is the pure loss of time spent together with parents.  There may be, in fact, great variability among both parents and children in their ability to be relationally ‘efficient’ in utilizing what time they have together.  But it would seem reasonable that there exists some theoretical minimum amount of time below which a child misses out on what he or she needs from parents, regardless of whether or not the child perceives this as a loss.  For example, a 12-year-old girl may not mourn the loss of her mother being absent until evening.  Rather, she may enjoy the added freedom and have less “chores” to do.  Yet, the fact that she has so little time with her primary attachment figures may impede the process whereby parents intuitively sense that a problem is developing in their child.  Failing to seek out social support in a direct manner, the child may make dysfunctional behaviors a matter of habit.  Such a condition may indirectly lead to depression (e.g., getting into trouble at school or falling grades).  So then, while “mourning a loss” does not play a role in this example, the sheer loss of time mitigates important benefits of the attachment relationship.  The concept of loss may be significant simply as the loss of time with a parent along with the resulting restriction of social learning opportunities.  Such a view recognizes the importance of loss without a linkage to the conceptual framework of attachment theory.

<< Previous    1  [2]  3  4  5    Next >>