Guaranteed Income Is Linked To Higher Brain Activity In Infants In New Study

9
>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

Infants in households that receive some kind of basic or guaranteed income payment may benefit on a neurological level from the support, a new study suggests.

The study randomly divided a group of 1,000 mothers and their infants into two groups: one received $333 a month, the other $20 according to a report published Jan. 24 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that analyzed data gathered from the Baby’s First Years study. The majority of the mothers were Black or Hispanic and had an average household income of around $20,000. The larger cash gifts boosted annual income for the mothers by about 20%. After one year, neurological activity was marginally higher in the children whose families received more money, the study showed.

The researchers measured the electroencephalography of 435 of the babies and found those whose families received the higher monthly payments exhibited more mid- and high-frequency brain power than the babies whose families received less. The researchers noted that these differences were modest. Future studies will analyze the household expenses for the families participating, parental stress levels and the mothers’ involvement in the workforce and at home.

Kimberly Noble, a professor of neuroscience and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College, cautioned that the study and its findings are still in early days given the length of the Baby’s First Years program.

“Looking at the data now would be a little bit like trying to understand the effect of college after just freshman year,” she said, though she added that “the fact that we are already seeing differences after one year of monthly unconditional cash support really does speak to the remarkable sensitivity of children’s brains to early experience.”

The findings come after the expanded child tax credit expired at the end of 2021, when lawmakers failed to pass a social policy bill that would have given families up to $300 per month per child. Parents used this money to pay for food, rent, and utilities, and the majority of households making less than $50,000 per year used the expanded child tax credit money to pay down debt. The covid-19 pandemic has also caused a rise in child malnourishment, as well as a rise in demand at food banks nationwide.

“What’s frustrating in the debates that continue today is that the only thing that people talk about are behaviors on the part of the mothers and not whether these programs are beneficial or not for kids,” said Greg Duncan, a distinguished professor in the School of Education at the University of California, Irvine. “This child focus is a component of this discussion that is neglected and really needs to be included.”

(c) 2022, Bloomberg · Ella Ceron 

{Matzav.com}


9 COMMENTS

  1. I’ll bet that studies show infants who’s mother receives support from her husband working, the infant may benefit even more on a neurological level then a single mother getting free money from the government.

  2. I remember when I was a mere 3 months old, my mother won a million dollar lottery. I was elated and overjoyed! And when the luxurious crib and the fancy pacifier arrived, I can’t tell you what kind of neurological boost it provided me! If I am what I am today, it’s because of the joy my mother and I felt upon hearing she had won the lottery. Till this day, I still use that fancy pacifier when I’m down.

  3. Oy Vey! Where does one start?

    I guess the big problem is that not only is taxpayer money being thrown out on this utter nonsense, but the nonsense is even discussed among “prestigious” professors. And not only that, but it is even reported in the news media with a tone of credulity. And more than that, it is reported by Matzav, which most readers regard as a model of credibility!

    What is really odd is that the article seems to indicate that the slightly more equanimous temperaments of infants due to the very small improvement in their family living conditions (assuming — as I don’t — that it exists) lends strong validity to granting “unconditional income” to those families. That assumption would lead one to believe that even the proponents of this foolishness recognize that it lacks any true validity or justification. If this reason is the best they’ve got to give away taxpayers’ money, then there really is no good reason…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here