Baby Name Game: How a Name Can Affect Your Child's Future

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

All parents like to think that their baby is unique — the cutest, brightest, most engaging infant ever born. And one way parents seek to reflect their child's uniqueness is by bestowing them with equally distinctive, sometimes weird, names.

How best to ensure your child's moniker is special? Google, of course.

Last week, the New York Times wrote about how parents-to-be routinely use the search engine to evaluate baby names. Worried about their unborn child's future digital footprint, parents are also using online searches to vet the spellings of names they're considering. "A quick search can help ensure that a child is not saddled with the name of a serial killer, pornography star or sex offender," wrote the Times. One couple shunned "Kalia" in favor of their own creation, "Kaleya," after the former popped up images of busty women in thongs.

Parents have struggled with what to name Junior for eons, and for good reason. According to Judaism's Talmudic tradition, a baby's name is its first gift. Though it has always been an important decision, the Times suggests the digital age has made it even knottier:

[W]hat's new is the level of complexity that Google and other search engines have brought to the name game. Some parents want names that are unique so their child will rise to the top of future search results. Others want names that are uncommon enough to bestow uniqueness, but not so exotic that they would be considered weird on the playground. A rare few want their child's name to get lost in a virtual crowd…

Uniqueness seems to be a primary motive and has spurred an unspoken competition among parents to find the most original names, said Laura Wattenberg, author of The Baby Name Wizard, a guide for selecting a name. "Parents thinking of a baby name will type it in and say: 'Oh, no, it's taken. There are already three others with that name.'"

If the scientific research on the topic is any indication, parents may be doing the right thing by stressing over name selection. Names can have profound and lasting implications over the course of a person's life. "Name your kids what you love, but be aware there are consequences," says David Figlio, an economics and education professor at Northwestern University who has researched the effect of names on children.

MORE: Who's Your Baby Daddy? New Paternity Test Can Tell at 12 Weeks

In one study, Figlio analyzed the effects on children with so-called "linguistically low-status" names. Across all races and ethnicities, there are certain letter combinations that are more likely to be given by high-school-drop-out moms. Among white families, Alexandra may be spelled Alekzandra; the "kz" combo is almost never seen in middle-class families. For African Americans, it may mean use of the prefix "Sha" rather than the more highly regarded "La."

Figlio found that teachers treat kids with low-status names differently: they're more likely to be referred for special education, less likely to be recognized as gifted and they perform poorer on tests, according to research published in 2005 by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Names may even help predict career paths. When Figlio studied sisters who were both good at math, he discovered that those with more linguistically feminine names were more likely to shy away from math and science and stick with humanities classes compared to their siblings with linguistically androgynous names. If you're set on your daughter Anastasia becoming a doctor, you'll have to be extra vigilant to fight any cultural stereotypes. "She may become the English major and her sister, Jordan, may become the bio major," says Figlio. "That's happening at rates that are too big to ignore."

And think twice before you give your son a girlie-sounding name: boys with names such as Ashley, Shannon, Jamie and Courtney tend to have more behavior problems in middle school, according to Figlio's 2006 study in Education Finance and Policy.

You could always look to pop culture for inspiration, as did 50% of parents surveyed by BabyCenter.com, which just released its list of the 100 most popular baby names for 2011 (Sophia and Aiden topped the girls' and boys' lists, respectively). Nearly 1 in 5 parents surveyed refused to succumb to the cult of celebrity, however, electing instead to go maverick. They said they'd consider inventing a name or plucking one from the dictionary to ensure their child would stand out.

MORE: What's in a Baby Name: 2011's Most Popular Monikers

That's not a bad idea, says Figlio, although his prime recommendation — each year, he fields about 100 emails from parents seeking advice on what to name their kids — is to bequeath a name that's both resonant and meaningful.

That's what my husband and I tried to do when choosing Hebrew names for our three kids. In doing so, we've all but guaranteed that they won't find their names emblazoned on a rack of personalized mugs in the local toy store, but we've also given them names that we hoped would capture their essence — "spring," "song" and "my light."

As a fringe benefit, we seem to have also secured somewhat of a singular identity for them. Even though I know other people with my kids' names, it's almost certain that they'll be the only ones of their ilk in class. (Of course, the Times notes, there's never any guarantee, citing the case of a Jewish lesbian couple who intentionally selected the Hebrew names Asher and Levi for their boys after making sure they didn't appear on the Social Security Administration's most-popular list, only to run into another Asher being parented by two different Jewish lesbian moms.)

Selecting a unique name is paramount for today's parents, says Linda Murray, editor-in-chief of BabyCenter.com, but with 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year, unique can be hard to come by. BabyCenter does what it can to help, offering up the most popular names as a reference — so you'll know what not to name your baby. "We put the list out as a service," says Murray, "so parents know what other parents are doing."

Bonnie Rochman is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @brochman. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

News

Debt Financing

Read More

BPA Exposure in Pregnant Women May Affect Daughters' Behavior

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

A new study finds that exposure to bisphenol A before birth may lead to behavior problems in girls by age 3. The findings, published in Pediatrics, promise to heat up the debate over the safety of BPA, the ubiquitous chemical found in water bottles, linings of cans and even on the register receipts we get at the checkout stand.

Led by Joe Braun, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, the study suggests that exposure to BPA, especially in developing fetuses, may be long-lasting. Among a group of 244 mothers and their 3-year-olds whose BPA levels were measured in their urine, moms who had higher BPA levels during pregnancy were more likely to have children who were aggressive, anxious and hyperactive and showed poor emotional control, compared with moms with lower levels of BPA. The children's own BPA levels did not have an effect on their behavior patterns.

MORE: Pregnant Women Awash in Chemicals. Is That Bad for Baby?

The results highlight how important the pregnancy period is to early brain development, and suggest that there are critical windows during which exposure to chemicals like BPA can perhaps permanently influence a child's emotional and behavioral state. "It's possible that the brain is more vulnerable to the effects of BPA during certain parts of pregnancy, such as the early stages, and not as vulnerable later," says Braun. "Certain events take place in the brain, and once they take place, they are done."

Earlier studies in animals have linked BPA exposure in the womb to aggressive and anxious behavior among offspring, and studies in young children have linked the chemical to asthma.

The scientists tested pregnant women for BPA at 16 and 26 weeks gestation and at birth. Their children were tested annually until age 3. About 97% of the moms and children showed some BPA in their urine, confirming previous data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which show that nearly all Americans have a measurable amount of the chemical in their systems.

SPECIAL: The Perils of Plastic

The results held strong even after the researchers adjusted for other possible contributors to the children's behavior, such as breast-feeding, mother's education, depression and marital status, and possible study confounders such as differences in the strength of the urine samples. The results were the first to look at how BPA may affect executive functions of the brain, which regulate reasoning and planning as well as control of emotions. For every 10-fold increase in the mothers' gestational BPA concentrations, the children showed a 9-to-12-point increase in impulsivity and a lack of emotional control.

"The data suggest that at exposures that humans are typically exposed to, there seems to be an effect of BPA on behavior," says Braun.

The effect was more striking in girls than in boys, which hints at differences in the hormonal factors that may regulate development of executive and behavioral activities of the brain. Girls in the study were more than twice as likely as boys to show anxiety and depression if their mothers had been exposed to BPA. It's possible that BPA may be boosting levels of the hormone estradiol in female fetuses, disrupting the normal sexual differentiation of the brain, leading it to become more masculine. In animal studies, the female hormone estradiol has been shown to convert to testosterone in males, resulting in masculinization.

MORE: Even 'BPA-Free' Plastics Leach Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Braun says it's not exactly clear yet why BPA may affect girl and boys differently, but he is hoping to investigate these results further to find out. More studies will also reveal whether there is a threshold level of BPA that triggers these changes in fetal brain development.

In the meantime, how should an expectant mom reduce her exposure to BPA? The Food and Drug Administration stands by its claim that current use of the chemical in food packaging is safe, but Braun says moms-to-be may reduce their exposure by avoiding canned and packaged foods. Whether or not pregnant women should also avoid handling thermal register receipts is less clear; there's a study currently underway that is investigating whether day-to-day handling of these receipts can significantly increase exposure. "To be precautionary," Braun says, especially for those who work at registers, "it's reasonable to wear gloves."

MORE: Dirty Money: Traces of BPA Found on Currency

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

News

Debt Financing

Read More

Eating solid foods early doesn't affect baby growth

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Linda Thrasybule

NEW YORK | Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:18am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Infants raised on formula who are introduced to solid foods before four months of age tend to gain more weight within the first year than infants who start later, a recent study suggests.

But the age at which babies were given solid foods didn't seem to influence much of their longer-term growth.

"It's not about how fast they grow, but whether the children are likely to be overweight," said Dr. Berthold Koletzko, a study co-author who studies nutrition at the Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital in Munich, Germany. "And they're not more likely to be overweight by two years if they receive solids earlier."

Researchers tracked nearly 700 European infants for two years. Infants between six and seven pounds raised on formula received solid foods starting a little over three months, between three and four months, between four and five months, or six months or later.

Babies who started solid foods at three months weighed less but caught up in growth within six months compared to those who started solid foods at six months and grew slowly within three months.

By two years, there were no differences between groups in weight or length.

Infants eating solid foods also consumed more calories during the first eight months.

Among children born at lower weights, "researchers found an association between lower birth weight and introducing solid foods earlier," said Dr. Lindsey Sjaarda, a researcher at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, who was not part of the study.

"It's something that needs to be explored. Recent research seems to indicate that catch-up growth isn't always a good thing," she told Reuters Health.

The study applies to populations in industrialized countries, where "a large fraction of children" have "already been introduced to solid foods before four months of age," according to the authors, not developing countries.

Previous studies have shown conflicting results on whether infants who start eating solid foods earlier are more likely to become obese.

Childhood obesity has tripled over the past three decades, with about 12.5 million American children and adolescents obese, according to a 2007-2008 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Though Koletzko agreed that children who grow faster will demand more food, and possibly gain more weight, he didn't think they will likely become obese.

He recommended introducing solid foods when a baby shows interest by sitting up and reaching for food or opening their mouths when they see their parents eating. But he cautioned that some infants may need more calories than others.

"At this age, communication happens between infants and parents," he told Reuters Health. "They give a lot of signals to parents. But if the baby is not signaling, don't force it, just wait."

SOURCE: bit.ly/qZMqeA American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online September 14, 2011.

New Automobile

Health Management

Read More