document_title: Sibling

question_text: if you have the same mom but different dad

question_tokens: if you have the same mom but different dad

text: Sibling

text: Types[edit]

text: Full[edit]

text: Full siblings (full brothers or full sisters; or brother and sister) have the same biological parents and are 50% related (full siblings share 50% of their genes out of those that vary among humans).[2][3] Identical twins by definition are 100% related.[2]

text: Twins[edit]

text: There are two types of twins: identical and fraternal. Identical twins have exactly the same genes; fraternal twins are no more similar than regular siblings. Often, twins with a close relationship will develop a twin language from infanthood, a language only shared and understood between the two. Studies suggest that identical twins appear to display more twin talk than fraternal twins. At about 3 years of age, twin talk usually ends.[4]

text: Researchers were interested in subjects who were in the later years of life. They knew that past studies suggested that genetics played a larger role in one's personality in the earlier years of their life. However, they were curious about whether or not this was true later on in life. They gathered subjects with a mean age of 59, who included 99 pairs of identical twins, and 229 pairs of fraternal twins who were all reared apart. They also gathered twins who were reared together: 160 pairs of identical twins, and 212 pairs of fraternal twins. They studied the most heritable traits in regard to personality, which are emotionality, activity level and sociability; also known as EAS. This study found that identical twins resembled each other twice as much as fraternal twins, due to genetic factors. Furthermore, environment influences personality substantially; however, it has little to do with whether they are reared together or apart. This study also suggests that heritability is substantial, but not as substantial as for younger subjects; it has less significance later on in life.[5]

text: Half[edit]

text: Half-siblings are people who share one parent but not both. They may share the same mother but different fathers (in which case they are known as uterine siblings or maternal half-brothers/half-sisters), or they may have the same father but different mothers (in which case, they are known as agnate siblings or paternal half-brothers/half-sisters. In law, the term consanguine is used in place of agnate). They share only one parent instead of two as full siblings do and are on average 25% related.[3]

text: Theoretically, there is a chance that they might not share genes. This is very rare and is due to there being a smaller possibility of inheriting the same chromosomes from the shared parent. However, the same is also theoretically possible for full siblings, albeit (comparatively) much less likely.[3]

text: Half-siblings can have a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, from a bond as close as any full siblings[citation needed], to total strangers.

text: In law (and especially inheritance law), half-siblings have often been accorded treatment unequal to that of full siblings. Old English common law at one time incorporated inequalities into the laws of intestate succession, with half-siblings taking only half as much property of their intestate siblings' estates as siblings of full-blood. Unequal treatment of this type has been wholly abolished in England,[6] but still exists in the U.S. state of Florida.[7]

text: Three-quarter[edit]

text: Three-quarter siblings have one common parent, while their unshared parents have a mean consanguinity of 50%. This means the unshared parents are either siblings or parent and child (similar terminology is used in horse breeding, where it occurs more frequently). Three-quarter siblings share more genes than half siblings, but fewer than full siblings.

text: Horizontal[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In this case the unshared parents are full siblings. Furthermore, the three-quarter siblings are also first cousins.

text: In the case where the unshared parents are identical twins, the children share as much genetic material as full siblings do.

text: Examples[edit]

text: Real:

text:
Charles Lindbergh's children with his mistress Brigitte Hesshaimer, and his children with her sister, Marietta Hesshaimer.[8]
Jermaine and Randy Jackson, of the Jackson 5, who have both fathered children with Alejandra Genevieve Oaziaza.[9]
Sultan bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan and Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan who share Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan as their father, but their mothers are sisters.
Jigme Singye Wangchuck, former king of Bhutan, who married four sisters and had children with each of them.

text: Fictional:

text:
In the TV series Pretty Little Liars, Spencer Hastings and Jason DiLaurentis share the same father, Peter Hastings, and their mothers, Mary Drake and Jessica DiLaurentis, are identical twins.[10]
In the TV series Gossip Girl, Serena van der Woodsen and Lola Rhodes share a father, William van der Woodsen, and their mothers, Lily van der Woodsen and Carol Rhodes, are sisters.[11]

text: Vertical[edit]

text: In this case, a woman has children with two men who are father and son, or a man has children with two women who are mother and daughter. These children will be three-quarter siblings. Furthermore, the two offspring will have an aunt/uncle-nephew/niece relation. An historical example of this is actress Gloria Grahame. She bore children with her second husband Nicholas Ray, and her fourth husband Anthony Ray, who was Nicholas Ray's son by another marriage.[12]

text: Step[edit]

text: "Stepsiblings" (stepbrothers or stepsisters) are the children of one's stepparent from a previous relationship. They are unrelated by blood.

text: Foster[edit]

text: "Foster siblings" are children who are raised in the same foster home, foster children of the person's parents, or foster parents' biological children.

text: Adoptive[edit]

text: Two "adoptive siblings" are raised by a person who is the adoptive parent of one and the adoptive or biological parent of the other. Adoptive siblings are legally related but need not be blood-related or biologically related.

text: Study[edit]

text: Research was done to see what factors affected IQ, specifically family environment and genetics. Segal (1997) was interested in siblings of no biological relations. He found that intellect and behaviour is associated with rearing situations. Rearing situation refers to being raised apart, in opposite environments; so that could be high vs. low socioeconomic status. Unrelated siblings (two adoptees, or an adoptee and biological child) that are reared together from infancy showed results that resemble those of dizygotic twins. This could be because, despite genetic differences and different personalities and behaviours, they are still raised in the same environment. The study suggests that IQ and rearing status did, in fact, have a significant relationship. That is to say that biological siblings had higher mean scores as compared to unrelated siblings. Age was also a factor that affected the siblings resemblance in IQ. At about age 3, they become dissimilar as they begin to follow their genetic growth curve. Their family environment having less and less of an effect as they grow. However, it does affect spatial and perceptual factors.[13]

text: Cousins[edit]

text: "Sibling cousins" are those who share one parent (as half siblings do) while the unshared parents are themselves siblings or cousins. That is, their fathers are brothers or cousins but they share the same mother, or their mothers are sisters or cousins and they share the same father. This is a broader category than, but inclusive of, the 3/4 sibling above.

text: In-law[edit]

text: One's sibling-in-law is the sibling of one's spouse or the spouse of one's sibling.

text: God[edit]

text: Godsiblings (godbrothers or godsisters) are the children of one's godparent. If the godparents are not chosen within the family, then they are unrelated by blood.

text: Milk[edit]

text: In cultures with milk kinship, a milk sibling is a person who is not one's biological sibling but was nursed by the same woman as oneself. The concept exists in Islamic law and Jewish law.

text: Blood[edit]

text: Not to be confused with a consanguineous sibling, a blood brother or blood sister is a person to whom one has sworn loyalty through a ritual blood oath. The custom is rare in Western culture.

text: Birth order[edit]

text: Birth order is a person's rank by age among his or her siblings. Typically, researchers classify siblings as "eldest", "middle child", and "youngest" or simply distinguish between "firstborn" and "later-born" children.

text: Birth order is commonly believed in pop psychology and popular culture to have a profound and lasting effect on psychological development and personality. For example, firstborns are seen as conservative and high achieving, middle children as natural mediators, and youngest children as charming and outgoing. Despite its lasting presence in the public domain, studies have failed to consistently produce clear, valid, and compelling findings. Therefore, it has honed the title of a pseudo-psychology amongst the scientific psychological community.[14]

text: History[edit]

text: The theorizing and study of birth order can be traced back to Francis Galton's (1822–1911) theory of birth order and eminence and Alfred Adler's (1870–1937) theory of birth order and personality characteristics.

text: Galton[edit]

text: In his book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture (1874), Galton noted that prominent composers and scientists are over-represented as first-borns.[15] He theorized three main reasons as to why first-borns are generally more eminent:

text:
Primogeniture laws: first-borns have access to their parents' financial resources to continue their education.[15]
First-borns are given more responsibility than their younger siblings and are treated more as companions by their parents.[15]
First-borns are given more attention and nourishment in families with limited financial resources.[15]

tag: ol

text: Adler[edit]

text:
First Borns: Fulfilling family roles of leadership and authority, obedient of protocol and hierarchy. Seek out and prefer order, structure and adherence to norms and rules. They partake in goal-striving behaviour as their lives are centred around achievement and accomplishment themes. They fear the loss of their position in the top of the hierarchy.[16]
Middle Children: Feel like outcasts of families as they lack primacy of the first child and the "attention garnering recency" of the youngest. These children often go to great lengths to de-identify themselves with their siblings, in an attempt to make a different and individualized identity for themselves as they feel like they were "squeezed out" of their families.[16]
Youngest Children: Feel disadvantaged compared to older siblings, are often perceived as less capable or experienced and are therefore indulged and spoiled. Because of this, they are skilled in coaxing/charming others to do things for them or provide. This contributes to the image of them being popular and outgoing, as they engage in attention-seeking behaviour to meet their needs.[17]

text: Contemporary findings[edit]

text: Today, the flaws and inconsistencies in birth order research eliminate its validity. It is very difficult to control solely for factors related to birth order, and therefore most studies produce ambiguous results.[16] Embedded into theories of birth order is a debate of nature versus nurture. It has been disproved that there is something innate in the position one is born into, and therefore creating a preset role. Birth order has no genetic basis.[18]

text: The social interaction that occurs as a result of birth order however is the most notable. Older siblings often become role models of behaviour, and younger siblings become learners and supervisees. Older siblings are at a developmental advantage both cognitively and socially. The role of birth order also depends greatly and varies greatly on family context. Family size, sibling identification, age gaping, modeling, parenting techniques, gender, class, race, and temperament are all confounding variables that can influence behaviour and therefore perceived behaviour of specific birth categories.[19] The research on birth order does have stronger correlations, however, in areas such as intelligence and physical features, but are likely caused by other factors other than the actual position of birth. Some research has found that firstborn children have slightly higher IQs on average than later born children.[20] However, other research finds no such effect.[21] It has been found that first-borns score three points higher compared to second borns and that children born earlier in a family are on average, taller and weigh more than those born later.[14] However, it is impossible to generalize birth order characteristics and apply them universally to all individuals in that subgroup.

text: Contemporary explanations for IQ findings[edit]

text: Resource dilution model[edit]

text: (Blake, 1981) provide three potential reasons for the higher scoring of older siblings on IQ tests:[15]

text:
Parental resources are finite, first-born children get full and primary access to these resources.[15]
As the number of a children in a family goes up, the more resources must be shared.[15]
These parental resources have an important impact on a child’s educational success.[15]

text: Confluence model[edit]

text: Robert Zajonc proposed that the intellectual environment within a family is ever-changing due to three factors, and therefore more permissive of first-born children's intellectual advancement:[15]

text:
Firstborns do not need to share parental attention and have their parents' complete absorption. More siblings in the family limit the attention devoted to each of them.[15]
Firstborns are exposed to more adult language. Later-borns are exposed the less-mature speech of their older siblings.[15]
Firstborns and older siblings must answer questions and explain things to younger siblings, acting as tutors. This advances their cognitive processing of information and language skills.[15]

text: In 1996, interest in the science behind birth order was re-sparked when Frank Sulloway’s book Born To Rebel was published. In this book, Sulloway argues that firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to later-borns. While being seemingly empirical and academic, as many studies are cited throughout the book, it is still often criticized as a biased and incomplete account of the whole picture of siblings and birth order. Because it is a novel, the research and theories proposed throughout were not criticized and peer-reviewed by other academics before its release.[22] Literature reviews that have examined many studies and attempted to control for confounding variables tend to find minimal effects for birth order on personality.[23][24] In her review of the scientific literature, Judith Rich Harris suggests that birth order effects may exist within the context of the family of origin, but that they are not enduring aspects of personality.[25]

text: In practice, systematic birth order research is a challenge because it is difficult to control for all of the variables that are statistically related to birth order. For example, large families are generally lower in socioeconomic status than small families, so third-born children are more likely than first-born children to come from poorer families. Spacing of children, parenting style, and gender are additional variables to consider.

text: Regressive behavior at birth[edit]

text: The arrival of a new baby is especially stressful for firstborns and for siblings between 3 and 5 years old. Regressive behavior and aggressive behavior, such as handling the baby roughly, can also occur. All of these symptoms are considered to be typical and developmentally appropriate for children between the ages of 3–5.[citation needed] While some can be prevented, the remainder can be improved within a few months. Regressive behavior may include demand for a bottle, thumb sucking, requests to wear diapers (even if toilet-trained), or requests to carry a security blanket.

text: Regressive behaviors are the child's way of demanding the parents' love and attention.

text: The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests[citation needed] that instead of protesting or telling children to act their age, parents should simply grant their requests without becoming upset. The affected children will soon return to their normal routine when they realize that they now have just as important a place in the family as the new sibling. Most of the behaviors can be improved within a few months.

text: The University of Michigan Health System advises[citation needed] that most occurrences of regressive behavior are mild and to be expected; however, it recommends parents to contact a pediatrician or child psychologist if the older child tries to hurt the baby, if regressive behavior does not improve within 2 or 3 months, or if the parents have other questions or concerns.

text: Rivalry[edit]

text: "Sibling rivalry" is a type of competition or animosity among brothers and sisters. It appears to be particularly intense when children are very close in age or of the same gender.[26] Sibling rivalry can involve aggression; however, it is not the same as sibling abuse where one child victimizes another.

text: Sibling rivalry usually starts right after, or before, the arrival of the second child. While siblings will still love each other, it is not uncommon for them to bicker and be malicious to each other.[27] Children are sensitive from the age of 1 year to differences in parental treatment and by 3 years they have a sophisticated grasp of family rules and can evaluate themselves in relation to their siblings.[1] Sibling rivalry often continues throughout childhood and can be very frustrating and stressful to parents.[28] One study found that the age group 10–15 reported the highest level of competition between siblings.[29] Sibling rivalry can continue into adulthood and sibling relationships can change dramatically over the years. Approximately one-third of adults describe their relationship with siblings as rivalrous or distant. However, rivalry often lessens over time and at least 80% of siblings over age 60 enjoy close ties.[1]

text: Each child in a family competes to define who they are as persons and want to show that they are separate from their siblings. Sibling rivalry increases when children feel they are getting unequal amounts of their parents' attention, where there is stress in the parents' and children's lives, and where fighting is accepted by the family as a way to resolve conflicts.[28] Sigmund Freud saw the sibling relationship as an extension of the Oedipus complex, where brothers were in competition for their mother's attention and sisters for their father's.[30] Evolutionary psychologists explain sibling rivalry in terms of parental investment and kin selection: a parent is inclined to spread resources equally among all children in the family, but a child wants most of the resources for him or herself.[29]

text: Relationships[edit]

text: Jealousy[edit]

text: Jealousy is not a single emotion. The basic emotions expressed in jealous interactions are fear, anger, relief, sadness, and anxiety.[31] Jealousy occurs in a social triangle of relationships which do not require a third person. The social triangle involves the relationships between the jealous individual and the parent, the relationship between the parent and the rival, and the relationship between jealous individual and the rival.[31]

text: Newborn[edit]

text: First-borns attachment to their parents is directly related to their jealous behaviour. In a study by Volling, four classes of children were identified based on their different responses of jealousy to new infant siblings and parent interactions. Regulated Exploration Children: 60% of children fall into this category.[31] These children closely watch their parents interact with their newborn sibling, approach them positively and sometimes join the interaction.[31] They show fewer behaviour problems in the months following the new birth and do not display problematic behaviours during the parent-infant interaction.[31] These children are considered secure as they act how a child would be expected to act in a familiar home setting with their parents present as secure bases to explore the environment.[31] Approach-Avoidant Children: 30% of children fall into this category.[31] These children observe parent-infant interaction closely and are less likely to approach the infant and the parent. They are anxious to explore the new environment as they tend to seek little comfort from their parents.[31] Anxious-Clingy Children: 6% of children fell into this category. These children have an intense interest in parent-infant interaction and a strong desire to seek proximity and contact with the parent, and sometimes intrude on parent-child interaction.[31] Disruptive Children: 2.7% of children fall into this category.[31] These children are emotionally reactive and aggressive. They have difficulty regulating their negative emotions and may be likely to externalize it as negative behaviour around the newborn.[31]

text: Parental effect[edit]

text: Children are more jealous of the interactions between newborns and their mothers than they are with newborns and their fathers.[31] This is logical as up until the birth of the infant, the first-born child had the mother as his or her primary care-giver all to his or herself. Some research has suggested that children display less jealous reactions over father-newborn interactions because fathers tend to punish negative emotion and are less tolerant than mothers of clinginess and visible distress, although this is hard to generalize.[31]

text: Children that have parents with a better marital relationship are better at regulating their jealous emotions.[31] Children are more likely to express jealousy when their parents are directing their attention to the sibling as opposed to when the parents are solely interacting with them.[31] Parents who are involved in good marital communication help their children cope adaptively with jealousy. They do this by modelling problem-solving and conflict resolution for their children. Children are also less likely to have jealous feelings when they live in a home in which everyone in the family shares and expresses love and happiness.[31]

text: Implicit theories[edit]

text: Implicit theories about relationships are associated with the ways children think of strategies to deal with a new situation. Children can fall into two categories of implicit theorizing. They may be malleable theorists and believe that they can affect change on situations and people. Alternatively, they may be fixed theorists, believing situations and people are not changeable.[32] These implicit beliefs determine both the intensity of their jealous feelings, and how long those jealous feelings last.[32] Malleable Theorists display engaging behaviours, like interacting with the parent or sibling in an attempt to improve the situation.[32] They tend to have more intense and longer-lasting feelings of jealousy because they spend more time ruminating on the situation and constructing ways to make it better.[32] Fixed Theorists display non-engaging behaviours, for example retreating to their room because they believe none of their actions will affect or improve the situation.[32] They tend to have less intense and shorter lasting feelings of jealousy than malleable theorists.[32]

text: Different ages[edit]

text: Older children tend to be less jealous than their younger sibling.[31] This is due to their ability to mentally process the social situation in a way that gives them more positive, empathetic feelings toward their younger sibling.[31] Older children are better able to cope with their jealous feelings toward their younger sibling due to their understanding of the necessary relationship between the parent and younger sibling.[31] Older children are also better at self-regulating their emotions and are less dependent on their caregivers for external regulation as opposed to their younger siblings.[31] Younger siblings' feelings of jealousy are overpowered by feelings of anger.[31] The quality of the relationship between the younger child and the older child is also a factor in jealousy, as the better the relationship the less jealous feelings occurred and vice versa.[31]

text: Conflict[edit]

text: Sibling conflict is pervasive, and often shrugged off as an accepted part of sibling dynamics. In spite of the broad variety of conflict that siblings are often involved in, sibling conflicts can be grouped into two broader categories.[33] The first category is conflict about equality or fairness. It is not uncommon to see siblings who think that their sibling is favored by their teachers, peers, or especially their parents. In fact it is not uncommon to see siblings who both think that their parents favor the other sibling. Perceived inequalities in the division of resources such as who got a larger dessert also fall into this category of conflict. This form of conflict seems to be more prevalent in the younger sibling.[34]

text: The second category of conflict involves an invasion of a child’s perceived personal domain by their sibling. An example of this type of conflict is when a child enters their sibling’s room when they are not welcome, or when a child crosses over into their sibling’s side of the car in a long road trip. These types of fights seem to be more important to older siblings due to their larger desire for independence.[35]

text: Warmth[edit]

text: Sibling warmth is a term for the degree of affection and companionship shared by siblings. Sibling warmth seems to have an effect on siblings. Higher sibling warmth is related to better social skill and higher perceived social competence. Even in cases where there is a high level of sibling conflict if there is also a high level of sibling warmth then social skills and competence remains unaffected.[36]

text: Negative effects of conflict[edit]

text: The saying that people "fight like siblings" shows just how charged sibling conflict can be and how well recognized sibling squabbles are. In spite of how widely acknowledged these squabbles can be, sibling conflict can have several impacts on the sibling pair. It has been shown that increased levels of sibling conflict are related to higher levels of anxiety and depression in siblings, along with lower levels of self-worth and lower levels of academic competence. In addition, sibling warmth is not a protective factor for the negative effects of anxiety, depression, lack of self-worth and lower levels of academic competence. This means that sibling warmth does not counteract these negative effects.[37] Sibling conflict is also linked to an increase in more risky behavior including: smoking cigarettes, skipping days of school, contact with the police, and other behaviors in Caucasian sibling pairs with the exception of firstborns with younger brothers. Except for the elder brother in this pair sibling conflict is positively correlated with risky behavior, thus sibling conflict may be a risk factor for behavioral problems.[38] A study on what the topic of the fight was (invasion of personal domain or inequality) also shows that the topic of the fight may have a result on the effects of the conflict. This study showed that sibling conflict over personal domain were related to lower levels of self-esteem, and sibling conflict over perceived inequalities seem to be more related to depressive symptoms. However, the study also showed that greater depressive and anxious symptoms were also related to more frequent sibling conflict and more intense sibling conflict.[39]

text: Parental management techniques of conflict[edit]

text: There are several different techniques used by parents to manage their children’s conflicts. These techniques include parental non-intervention, child-centered parental intervention strategies, and more rarely the encouragement of physical conflict between siblings. Parental non-intervention included techniques in which the parent ignores the siblings conflict and lets them work it out between themselves without outside guidance. In some cases this technique is chosen to avoid situations in which the parent decides which sibling is in the right and may favor one sibling over the other, however, by following this technique the parent may sacrifice the opportunity to instruct their children on how to deal with conflict. Child-centered parental interventions include techniques in which the parent mediates the argument between the two children and helps them come to an agreement. In this technique parents may help model how the children can deal with conflicts in the future; however, parents should avoid dictating the outcome to the children, and make sure that they are mediating the argument making suggestions thus do not decide the outcome. Techniques in which parents encourage physical aggression between siblings may be chosen by the parents to help children deal with aggression in the future, however, this technique does not appear to be effective as it is linked to greater conflict levels between children. Parental non-intervention is also linked to higher levels of sibling conflict, and lower levels of sibling warmth. It appears that child-centered parental interventions have the best effect on sibling’s relationship with a link to greater levels of sibling warmth and lower levels of sibling conflict.[40]

text: Long-term effects of presence[edit]

text: Previous studies done on whether there are any social skills or personality differences between children with siblings or only children seem to suggest that overall the presence of a sibling does not seem to have any long-term effect on the child by the time the child reaches adulthood.[41] This study, however, failed to take into account the type of relationship that the siblings had and as such it is still unclear if siblings and their different forms of relationships have long-term effects.

text: Gender roles[edit]

text: There has not been an extreme amount of studies done on gender role differentiation between siblings; however there are very interesting concepts to observe in the studies that have been conducted. For one, how do parents help shape gender oriented tasks and how does it affect children in the future? Another interesting thing to observe is the relationship mothers have towards their young infants.

text: Among children and parents[edit]

text: There has always been some type of differences between siblings, especially different sex siblings. Often, different sex sibling may consider things to be unfair because his/her brother/sister is allowed to do certain things just because of his or her gender, while he or she gets to do something less amusing or just plain different. McHale and her colleague conducted a longitudinal study using middle age children and observed the way in which the parents contributed to stereotypical attitudes in their kids.[42] In their study the experimenters analysed two different types of families, one with the same sex siblings, and the other with different sex siblings, as well as the children’s birth order.[43] The experiment was conducted over phone interviews, in where the experimenters would ask the children about the activities they performed throughout their day outside of school.[44] Surprisingly, the experimenters found that in the homes where there were mixed gender kids, and the father held traditional values, the kids also held traditional values and therefore also played gender based roles in the home.[45] In contrast in homes where the father did not hold traditional values the house chores were divided more equally among his kids.[46] However, if fathers had two male children, the younger male tended to help more with household chore, but as he reached his teenage years the younger child stopped being as helpful around the house.[47] There are two important factors that need to be taken into account from this study. First, in cases where the father figure had more traditional values it was found that he also had less education than the other dads who participated in the study, and secondly the mother’s attitudes did not have a noticeable impact on her children’s gender role values.[48] Altogether this experiment is a good example of the way in which environment and kinship help develop certain perspectives on gender role association in children.

text: In a similar study, Croft and her colleagues observed the mother and father gender roles and examined whether their attitudes would have a long-term effect in the future occupation of their children.[49] In this study mothers and fathers were asked a series of questions regarding their work hours and their chores at home, including who looked more after the children?[50] The study demonstrated that mothers felt like they were performing more household duties and they tended to look more after the children.[51] Something that is quite remarkable in this experiment is the way in which the kids perceive their parents gender roles. When the kids were asked which parent they would be like when they grew up, some kids did not associate themselves with either male or female occupations, but rather remained neutral, while other leaned on being more like their same gender parent, but this, just like in the study conducted by McHale and her colleagues, depended on the father’s traditional values.[52][53] It was also found that girls who observed their parents playing out a gender type role envisioned themselves playing a role similar to their mothers', while daughters who lived in a home where parents did not have sex oriented tasks viewed themselves as a working women and family oriented females in the future.[54] Altogether Croft and her team agreed that in order to create more equality, regarding work occupation the house work also needs to be divided equally.[55]

text: Mother interaction between different gender children[edit]

text: Mothers tend to spend a significant amount of time with their kids, especially throughout their children's first years of life. An experiment conducted by Goshen-Gottstein studied how Israeli mothers socialized with same-age siblings from newborns to three years of age.[56] Goshen paid attention to the differences mothers had regarding aggression and encouragement between their sons and daughters.[56] The experiment was conducted inside the home under natural observation.[57] In her research Goshen observed thing such as:

text:
"Proximity Seeking:" It was found that both sons and daughters seek their mothers equally, but boys tend to be more encouraged to do so.[58]
"Aggressive Behavior:" It was discovered that boys exhibit more "aggressive behavior" towards their elders than girls. The mothers however did not demonstrate any differences in their reinforcements, between their sons and daughters.[59]
"Helping:" The experimenter noticed that when mothers needed help they would often ask for help from their daughters.[60]
"Mother’s Gender Linked Talk:" It turned out that mother’s showed a similar amount of "gender linked talk" to all their children (meaning they used words that differentiated between boy and girl), but they emphasizes more "gender linked labels" for the children who were in the sex minority in their family.[61] Goshen suggest that whenever the mother emphasized on "gender linked labels" it was because the mother was seeing that her child had different qualities than his or her siblings.[62] An example of this would be referring to a girl as a ballerina and a boy as a police officer.

text: Altogether, children were treated almost equally until their third year of life when mothers began dressing them according to their gender.[63] From this experiment it is evident that mothers do not show much differentiation between different sex siblings at a young age. However, as they begin to grow the mother begins regarding her children differently based on their gender.

text: Westermarck effect and its opposite[edit]

text: Anthropologist Edvard Westermarck found that children who are brought up together as siblings are desensitized to form sexual attraction to one another later in life. This is known as the Westermarck Effect. It can be seen in biological and adoptive families, but also in other situations where children are brought up in close contact, such as the Israeli kibbutz system and the Chinese shim-pua marriage.[64][65]

text: The opposite phenomenon, when relatives do fall in love, is known as genetic sexual attraction. This term is used primarily for cases where blood relatives met only later in life, such as adoptees who are re-united in adulthood.[66][67] For cases when the siblings did grow up together, see sibling marriage and incest.


document_title: List of most subscribed YouTube channels

question_text: who was the most subscribed person on youtube in 2011

root

text: Top channels[edit]

text: All-time[edit]

text: The following table lists the top 50 most subscribed channels on YouTube, with each total rounded down to the nearest million subscribers, as well as the network, country and language of each channel. Channels marked as "Auto-generated by YouTube" (such as Music, Gaming, Sports and Movies) are not included. As of September 18, 2017, 30 out of the 50 top channels originate from English-speaking countries (21 from the United States) and 35 are English-language channels.[1]

tag: p

text:
Rank
Chg
Channel name
Network
Country
Language
Subscribers[4]
(millions)

1.

PewDiePie[5]
N/A
 Sweden
English
57

2.

HolaSoyGerman.[6]
HolaSoyGerman
 Chile
Spanish
32

3.

JustinBieberVEVO[7]
Vevo
 Canada
English
31

4.

elrubiusOMG[8]
Mixicom
 Spain
Spanish
25

5.

YouTube Spotlight[9]
Google
 United States
English

6.

RihannaVEVO[10]
Vevo
 Barbados

7.

KatyPerryVEVO[11]
 United States
24

8.

TaylorSwiftVEVO[12]

9.

T-Series[13]
tseriesmusic
 India
Hindi

10.

Fernanfloo[14]
BroadbandTV
 El Salvador
Spanish
23

11.

EminemVEVO[15]
Vevo
 United States
English

12.

whinderssonnunes[16]
N/A
 Brazil
Portuguese

13.

Smosh[17]
Break
 United States
English
22

14.

OneDirectionVEVO[18]
Vevo
 United Kingdom

15.

Dude Perfect[19]
N/A
 United States
21

16.

JuegaGerman[20]
HolaSoyGerman
 Chile
Spanish

17.

VanossGaming[21]
N/A
 Canada
English

18.

Ed Sheeran[22]
WMG
 United Kingdom
20

19.

TheEllenShow[23]
Time Warner
 United States

20.

nigahiga[24]
N/A

21.

Yuya[25]
 Mexico
Spanish
19

22.

VEGETTA777[26]
Mixicom
 Spain

23.

Spinnin' Records[27]
Spinnin Records
 Netherlands
English
18

24.

Markiplier[28]
Maker Studios
 United States

25.

Canal KondZilla[29]
ONErpm
 Brazil
Portuguese

26.

ArianaGrandeVevo[30]
Vevo
 United States
English
17

27.

WWE[31]
WWE

28.

JennaMarbles[32]
N/A

29.

KSI[33]
StyleHaul
 United Kingdom

30.

Bruno Mars[34]
WMG
 United States

31.

jacksepticeye[35]
Maker Studios
 Ireland
16

32.

shakiraVEVO[36]
Vevo
 Colombia
English /
Spanish

33.

DanTDM[37]
StyleHaul
 United Kingdom
English

34.

Skrillex[38]
N/A
 United States

35.

FBE[39]

36.

Trap Nation[40]
15

37.

WatchMojo.com[41]
WatchMojo
 Canada

38.

AdeleVEVO[42]
Vevo
 United Kingdom

39.

enchufetv[43]
N/A
 Ecuador
Spanish
14

40.

SET India[44]
SET
 India
Hindi

41.

David Guetta[45]
Vevo
 France
English

42.

Vevo[46]
 United States

43.

ERB[47]
Maker Studios

44.

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon[48]
NBCU Shows

45.

Maroon5VEVO[49]
Vevo

46.

SelenaGomezVEVO[50]
13

47.

Werevertumorro[51]
sevenludus
 Mexico
Spanish

48.

Felipe Neto[52]
N/A
 Brazil
Portuguese

49.

CanalCanalha[53]
Endemol beyond Brasil

50.

PTXofficial[54]
N/A
 United States
English

As of September 18, 2017

tag: table

text: By country[edit]

text: The following table lists the YouTube channels with the greatest number of subscribers by the country or territory that their channel originates from.[1] Only countries that have at least one channel with over 1 million subscribers are included.

text:
Rank
Chg
Country
Channel name
Subscribers
(millions)

1.

 Sweden
PewDiePie[5]
57

2.

 Chile
HolaSoyGerman.[6]
32

3.

 Canada
JustinBieberVEVO[7]
31

4.

 Spain
elrubiusOMG[8]
25

5.

 USA
YouTube Spotlight[9]

6.

 Barbados
RihannaVEVO[10]

7.

 India
T-Series[13]
24

8.

 El Salvador
Fernanfloo[14]
23

9.

 Brazil
whinderssonnunes[16]

10.

 UK
OneDirectionVEVO[18]
22

11.

 Mexico
Yuya[25]
19

12.

 Netherlands
Spinnin' Records[27]
18

13.

 Ireland
jacksepticeye[35]
16

14.

 Colombia
shakiraVEVO[36]

15.

 Ecuador
enchufetv[43]
14

16.

 France
David Guetta[45]

17.

 Russia
Get Movies[55]
12

18.

 Puerto Rico
LuisFonsiVEVO[56]

19.

 Ukraine
EeOneGuy[57]

20.

 South Korea
SMTOWN[58]
11

21.

 Venezuela
Dross Rotzank[59]

22.

 Finland
Clash of Clans[60]

23.

 Thailand
GMM GRAMMY OFFICIAL[61]
9

24.

 Australia
HowToBasic[62]

25.

 Argentina
El Reino Infantil[63]
8

26.

 Norway
Alan Walker[64]

27.

 South Africa
Caspar Lee[65]
7

28.

 Italy
Marzia[66]

29.

 Turkey
netd müzik[67]
6

30.

 Austria
Red Bull[68]

31.

 Philippines
ABS-CBN Entertainment[69]

32.

 Belgium
Tomorrowland[70]
5

33.

 Germany
freekickerz[71]

34.

 Japan
はじめしゃちょー (hajime)[72]

35.

 Jordan
toyoraljanahtv[73]
4

36.

 Saudi Arabia
Rotana[74]

37.

 Portugal
SirKazzio[75]

38.

 Peru
whatdafaqshow[76]

39.

 UAE
MBC GROUP[77]

40.

 Vietnam
POPS MUSIC[78]
3

41.

 Iraq
الرماس ميوزك[79]

42.

 Romania
Cat Music[80]

43.

 Uruguay
dosogas[81]

44.

 Poland
SA Wardega[82]

45.

 Morocco
Saad Lamjarred[83]

46.

 Latvia
TrapMusicHDTV[84]

47.

 Denmark
LEGO[85]

48.

 New Zealand
Shaaanxo[86]

49.

 Israel
TuTiTuTV[87]

50.

 Czechia
ViralBrothers[88]
2

51.

 Indonesia
Raditya Dika[89]

52.

 Croatia
2CELLOS[90]

53.

 Egypt
Albernameg[91]

54.

 Pakistan
Coke Studio[92]

55.

 Belarus
tellblog.net[93]
1

56.

 Taiwan
B'in Music[94]

57.

 Bulgaria
Bodil40[95]

58.

  Switzerland
Typhoon Cinema[96]

59.

 Kuwait
Swar Shuaib[97]

60.

 Kazakhstan
Saspens[98]

61.

 Malaysia
Les' Copaque Production[99]

62.

 China
Hunan Television[100]

63.

 Slovakia
GoGoManTV[101]

64.

 Serbia
IDJVideos.TV[102]

65.

 Palestine
M.A TUBE[103]

66.

 Qatar
Al Jazeera Arabic قناة الجزيرة[104]

67.

 Algeria
Oum Walid[105]

68.

 Slovenia
Tiger Productions[106]

69.

 Dominican Republic
Carlos Montesquieu[107]

70.

 Panama
Windy GirkTV[108]

71.

 Nigeria
MarkAngelComedy[109]

72.

 Lebanon
Elissa[110]

73.

   Nepal
Music Nepal[111]

74.

 Jamaica
JavierNathaniel[112]

75.

 Singapore
Clicknetwork[113]

76.

 Hong Kong
蘋果動新聞 HK Apple Daily[114]

As of September 18, 2017

text: Historical most subscribed channels[edit]

text: The following table lists the last 16 channels to become YouTube's most subscribed channel, from May 2006 to present.

text:
Channel name
Network / owner
Country
Date achieved
Days held
Reference

PewDiePie[5]
Felix Kjellberg
 Sweden
Dec 22, 2013
1,366
[115]

YouTube Spotlight[9]
Google
 USA
Dec 12, 2013
10
[116][117]

PewDiePie[5]
Felix Kjellberg
 Sweden
Dec 8, 2013
4
[115]

YouTube Spotlight[9]
Google
 USA
Nov 2, 2013
36
[118]

PewDiePie[5]
Felix Kjellberg
 Sweden
Aug 15, 2013
80
[119]

Smosh[17]
Defy Media
 USA
Jan 12, 2013
215
[120][121]

Ray William Johnson[122]
Ray Johnson
Jun 28, 2011
564
[123][124]

nigahiga[24]
Ryan Higa
Aug 20, 2009
677
[125][126]

Fяᴇᴅ[127]
Lucas Cruikshank
Oct 6, 2008
318
[128]

nigahiga[24]
nigahiga
Sep 24, 2008
12
[128]

Smosh[17]
Defy Media
Apr 26, 2007
517
[129]

lonelygirl15[130]
Mesh Flinders
Sep 17, 2006
221
[131][132][133]

geriatric1927[134]
Peter Oakley
 UK
Aug 17, 2006
31
[135]

Brookers[136]
Brooke Brodack
 USA
Jul 3, 2006
45
[137][138]

Judson Laipply[139]
Judson Laipply
Jun 12, 2006
21
[115][140]

Smosh[17]
Defy Media
May 17, 2006
26
[141]

As of September 18, 2017

text: Timeline[edit]

text: Timeline of Most Subscribed Channels (May 2006 – Sep 2017)

text: Reactions[edit]

text: In late 2006, when Peter Oakley, also known as Geriatric1927, became most subscribed, a number of TV channels wanted to interview him on his rise to fame. The Daily Mail and TechBlog did an article about him and his success. In 2009, the FRED channel was the first to have over one million subscribers.

text: Following the third time that Smosh became most subscribed, Ray William Johnson collaborated with the duo.[142] A flurry of top YouTubers including Ryan Higa, Shane Dawson, Felix Kjellberg, Michael Buckley, Kassem Gharaibeh, The Fine Brothers, and Johnson himself, congratulated the duo shortly after they surpassed Johnson as the most subscribed channel.[143]


document_title: Official Languages Act (Canada)

question_text: when was the official languages act passed in canada

text: Official Languages Act (Canada)

text: Summary of main features[edit]

text: The Act[3] provides, among other things,

text:
that Canadians have the right to receive services from federal departments and from Crown corporations in both official languages;
that Canadians will be able to be heard before federal courts in the official language of their choice;
that Parliament will adopt laws and to publish regulations in both official languages, and that both versions will be of equal legal weight;
that English and French will have equal status of languages of work within the federal public service within geographically defined parts of the country that are designated bilingual (most notably in National Capital Region, Montreal and New Brunswick), as well as in certain overseas government offices and in parts of the country where there is sufficient demand for services in both official languages. In remaining geographical areas, the language of work for federal public servants is French (in Quebec) and English (elsewhere);

tag: ul

text: The Federal government has set in place regulations establishing linguistic categories (anglophone, francophone, bilingual) for some job functions within the public service. Departments and agencies of the federal government are required to fill these positions with individuals who are capable of serving the public in English, in French, or in both languages. Unilingual public servants are given incentives to learn the other official language, and the government provides language training and offers a "bilingualism bonus".

text: Part VI of the Act mandates that English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians not be discriminated against based on ethnic origin or first language learned when it comes to employment opportunities and advancement.[4]

text: The law also created the Commissioner of Official Languages, an officer of Parliament charged with receiving complaints from the public, undertaking inquiries, and making recommendations regarding the status of the two official languages.

text: Section 32 of the Official Languages Act authorizes the Governor in Council (i.e., the federal cabinet) to issue regulations defining the geographic regions in which services will be offered by the federal government in the relevant minority language (English in Quebec and French elsewhere).[5] This provides a legal definition for the otherwise vague requirement that services be provided in the minority official languages wherever there is "significant demand." The definition used in the regulations is complex, but basically an area of the country is served in both languages if at least 5,000 persons in that area, or 5% of the local population (whichever is smaller), belongs to that province's English or French linguistic minority population.[6] The regulations were first promulgated in 1991.[7]

text: Political context[edit]

text: The Official Languages Act was one of the cornerstones of the government of Pierre Trudeau. The law was an attempt to implement some of the policy objectives outlined by the federally commissioned Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which had been established in 1963 and since that time had been issuing periodic reports on the inequitable manner in which Canada’s English-speaking and French-speaking populations were treated by the federal administration. At that time, only 9% of jobs within the federal public service were occupied by Francophones,[8] even though French-speakers formed a quarter of the Canadian population. The proportion of jobs designated bilingual grew to 14% in 1978, and to 25% in 2004.[9]

text: One of the most important features of the 1969 act was to ensure that federal government services would be provided in both official languages, wherever population size warranted it.

text: Its principles were later incorporated into the Constitution of Canada, in Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

text: A new Official Languages Act was enacted in 1988 in order to achieve two objectives.

text: First, it was necessary to update the 1969 law to take into account the new language-related obligations that the federal government had undertaken under Sections 16-23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which had been enacted in 1982. For example, Section 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of the Canadian public to communicate in English and French with any central government office or with regional offices where there is "a significant demand for communication with and services from that office." Significant demand is not defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the purposes of the Official Languages Act of 1988 was to remedy this omission.

text: Second, the new law included provisions for the promotion by the government of Canada of Quebec’s English-speaking minority and of the French-speaking minorities in the rest of the country. The programs that fall under the "promotion" umbrella are often designed to encourage each provincial government to offer services to its official-language minority community, and contain a mechanism for transferring funds to the provincial governments in order to finance a part of these programs. Under Canada’s federal constitution, many important services, such as education and health, fall under provincial jurisdiction and are therefore off-limits to any direct federal spending. The transfer of federal funds, conditional upon the fulfilment by each provincial government of detailed conditions laid out in a funding agreement, is a constitutionally permitted method of dodging this jurisdictional constraint.

text: This would suggest that the Official Languages Act and Quebec's Charter of the French Language (also known as "Bill 101") are fundamentally at cross-purposes with each other. However, that perspective is not universally accepted. For example, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has stated that "Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act are not in opposition, they are complementary."[10]

text: Reactions[edit]

text: Provincial legislatures[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In 1969, the law was adopted with all-party support in the House of Commons. Despite this, there was not universal support for the law. The premiers of the three Prairie provinces requested, early in 1969, that the Official Languages Bill be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine its constitutionality. They maintained, along with JT Thorson, the former president of the Exchequer Court of Canada, that the bill was outside the powers of the Parliament of Canada.[11] The reference to the court was never made, but the legal question was resolved in 1974, when the Supreme Court ruled, in Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick, that the subject matter of the bill was within federal jurisdiction.

text: In subsequent decades the response from provincial governments to the example set by the federal government has been mixed:

text:
New Brunswick, which is home to Canada’s second largest French-speaking minority population, adopted the federal government policy and adopted its own Official Languages Act shortly thereafter. The bilingual status of New Brunswick was strengthened in 1993 by the addition of section 16.1 to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ontario, which is the home to Canada’s largest French-speaking minority, opted instead to enact a law (the French Language Services Act) which provides for services of the provincial government to be made available in certain geographically designated regions, but which does not give the French language either a symbolic or an authoritative status as an equal "official" language of Ontario.
Manitoba, which is home to Canada’s third-largest French-speaking minority, refused to overturn its ban on the use of French in both the provincial legislature and its courts (which had been in effect since 1890), until it was forced to do so in 1985 by a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada (Reference re Manitoba Language Rights) that the province was under a constitutional obligation to enact laws in French as well as in English.
Quebec, which is home to an English-speaking minority of over half a million, had traditionally been the only province which was generous in its treatment of its minority-language population, and for this reason had been cited by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as the model to be emulated by other provinces. But in the 1970s the provincial legislature adopted two laws, the Official Language Act (also known as "Bill 22") and the Charter of the French Language (also known as "Bill 101"), reducing the access of Quebecers to English-language services, preventing immigrants and Francophones from enrolling their children in English schools, requiring that French be made the language of the workplace, and restricting the use of English on commercial signs.

text: Public reactions[edit]

text: Public support for bilingual services had dramatically increased between the mid-1960s and the end of the 1970s. There was no direct polling on the popularity of the Official Languages Act itself at the time, but poll data on related questions gives an indication of a significant shift in the attitudes of English-speaking Canadians. A 1965 poll showed that 17% of Canadians living outside Quebec favoured the use of public funds to finance French-language schools. This proportion had risen to 77% by 1977 (albeit in response to a slightly different question about support for provincial governments offering services in French "where possible").[12]

text: Within Quebec, changes to the treatment of French-speakers within the federal public service were met with approval mixed with a scepticism that this actually helped the unilingual French-speaking majority of Quebecers, who continued to be excluded from all federal jobs designated "bilingual", since by definition a "bilingual" job requires the use of English, and is therefore closed to a unilingual Francophone.

text: However, the changes found some opposition in English Canada. Toronto Telegram columnist Braithwaither sums up the position of the opponents of the bill like this: "We are not afraid of any aspect of the language bill, we simply regard it as unnecessary, politically-motivated, costly to implement, divisive, and, as it affects the non-English, non-french third of the population, wholly discriminatory."[13]

text: As per the bill, some positions in the public sector were designated as bilingual. At the implementation of the bill, if a bilingual position was held by an unilingual anglophone, this person was allowed to keep its position at the condition that they attempted to learn French, and all subsequent holders of this positions must be bilingual. Under these circumstances, there were fears that, because of the higher rate of bilingualism among Francophones, people whose first official language is French would become overrepresented in the public sector. However, this has not become the case. The ratio of French first official language speakers to English first official language speakers in the public sector is almost the same as in the general population.[14][15]

text: At any rate, the adoption of official bilingualism at the federal level did almost nothing to slow the rise of the sovereignist movement. The nationalist Parti Québécois made its first significant electoral breakthrough less than a year after the Official Languages Act was adopted, winning 23% of the vote in Quebec’s 1970 provincial election and replacing the Union Nationale as the main electoral vehicle for Quebec nationalism. Six years later, the Parti Québécois came to power in the 1976 provincial election.

text: Failure to implement all provisions of the Official Languages Act[edit]

text: From time to time, the Official Languages Commissioner draws attention to the fact that federal agencies subject to the law are failing to live up to their legal obligations regarding official languages. In a report published in 2004 on the 35th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, Commissioner Dyane Adam noted that only 86% of posts designated "bilingual" in the federal public service were occupied by persons who had effectively mastered the two official languages. This nevertheless was an increase over the comparable figure of 1978, when only 70% of the incumbents in posts that had been designated "bilingual" were capable of speaking both languages at accepted levels.[16]

text: In January 2017, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages had received 14 complaints related to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's use of English and French during public town hall meetings.[17] Eleven of the reports came following a session in Sherbrooke, Quebec, where Trudeau, whose father had enacted the Official Languages Act fifty years prior, answered in French when he was asked in English to address a lack of government-provided mental health services for English-speaking persons.[18] The remaining three were attributed to Trudeau answering in English to a question asked in French while in Peterborough, Ontario.

text: Opinion polls[edit]

text: According to a poll conducted in 2002, 98% of Quebecers consider official bilingualism to be "very important" or "somewhat important". This proportion drops to 76% in the Atlantic provinces, 72% in Ontario, 67% in the Prairie provinces, and 63% in British Columbia.[19] Another poll, conducted in 2000, shows that more than half of Canadians outside Quebec believe that too much effort has gone into promoting bilingualism. By contrast, only 26% of Quebecers shared this view.[20] A poll conducted in 2012 found that 63% of Canadians were in favour of bilingualism for all of Canada, a 9% increase since that same poll was last conducted in 2013.[21]

text: In 2016, another poll was conducted, showing increasing support for Official bilingualism in every province. Among telephone respondents, 88% of Canadians said they "strongly support" or "somewhat support" the aims of the Official Languages Act: 91% in the Atlantic, 94% in Quebec, 87% in Ontario, 83% in the Prairies, 90% in Alberta and 84% in British Columbia. 84% of telephone respondents also said they personally "strongly support" or "somewhat support" official bilingualism. The results were more mixed in the online portion of the poll, where 78% of respondents said they "strongly support" or "somewhat support" the aims of the Official Languages Act, and 73% said they personally "strongly support" or "somewhat support" official bilingualism. In another poll conducted on this topic in the same year, 67% of respondents across Canada answered "yes" to the question "Are you personally in favour of bilingualism for all of Canada?" while 31% said "no".[22]


document_title: List of 400-plus innings scores in One Day International cricket matches

question_text: most runs in one day cricket in one innings

text: Listing notation[edit]

text: Team notation

text:
(300/3) indicates that a team scored 300 runs for three wickets and the innings was closed, either due to a successful run chase or if no overs remained (or are able) to be bowled.
(300) indicates that a team scored 300 runs and was all out, either by losing all ten wickets or by having one or more batsmen unable to bat and losing the remaining wickets.

text: Batting notation

text:
(100*) indicates that a batsman scored 100 runs and was not out.
(175) indicates that a batsman scored 175 runs and was out after that.

text: Bowling notation

text:
(5/40) indicates that a bowler has captured 5 wickets while giving away 40 runs.
(49.5 overs) indicates that a team bowled 49 complete overs (each of six legal deliveries), and one incomplete over of just five deliveries.

text: List in chronological order[edit]

text: As of August 2018, only six teams have reached the 400 run mark in ODIs:

text:
South Africa: scored 400+ on six occasions, winning all six matches
India: scored 400+ on five occasions, winning all five matches
England: scored 400+ on three occasions, winning all three matches
Sri Lanka: scored 400+ on two occasions, winning one match and losing the other
Australia: scored 400+ on two occasions, winning one match and losing the other
New Zealand: scored 400+ on one occasion, winning the match

text:
Number

Score

By

Opposition

Venue

Season

1
434/4 (50 overs)
 Australia
 South Africa
Johannesburg
2005–06

2
438/9 (49.5 overs)
 South Africa
 Australia
Johannesburg
2005–06

3
443/9 (50 overs)
 Sri Lanka
 Netherlands
Amstelveen
2006

4
418/5 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 Zimbabwe
Potchefstroom
2006–07

5
413/5 (50 overs)
 India
 Bermuda
Port of Spain
2007

6
402/2 (50 overs)
 New Zealand
 Ireland
Aberdeen, Scotland
2008

7
414/7 (50 overs)
 India
 Sri Lanka
Rajkot
2009–10

8
411/8 (50 overs)
 Sri Lanka
 India
Rajkot
2009–10

9
401/3 (50 overs)
 India
 South Africa
Gwalior
2009–10

10
418/5 (50 overs)
 India
 West Indies
Indore
2011–12

11
404/5 (50 overs)
 India
 Sri Lanka
Kolkata
2014–15

12
439/2 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 West Indies
Johannesburg
2014-15

13
408/5 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 West Indies
Sydney
2014–15

14
411/4 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 Ireland
Canberra
2014–15

15
417/6 (50 overs)
 Australia
 Afghanistan
Perth
2014–15

16
408/9 (50 overs)
 England
 New Zealand
Birmingham
2015

17
438/4 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 India
Mumbai
2015–16

18
444/3 (50 overs)
 England
 Pakistan
Nottingham
2016

19
481/6 (50 overs)
 England
 Australia
Nottingham
2018

text: Source: CricInfo[8]

text: Match summary of the 400+ totals[edit]

text: 1st & 2nd 400+ scores[edit]

text: 12 March 2006    Scorecard

text:
Australia 434/4 (50 overs)

v

 South Africa438/9 (49.5 overs)

Ricky Ponting 164 (105) Roger Telemachus 2/87 (10 overs)

Herschelle Gibbs 175 (111) Nathan Bracken 5/67 (10 overs)

text: South Africa won by 1 wicket New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg Umpires: Aleem Dar (Pak) and Brian Jerling (RSA) Player of the match: Herschelle Gibbs (RSA) & Ricky Ponting (Aus)

text:
Australia won the toss and elected to bat.
Australia scored the first ever team total over 400 in ODIs.

text: 3rd 400+ score[edit]

text: 4 July 2006    Scorecard

text:
Sri Lanka443/9 (50 overs)

v

 Netherlands248 (48.3 overs)

Sanath Jayasuriya 157 (104) Billy Stelling 2/77 (10 0vers)

Tim de Leede 51 (42) Kaushal Lokuarachchi 3/41 (9.3 overs)

text: Sri Lanka won by 195 runs VRA Cricket Ground, Amstelveen Umpires: Steve Bucknor (West Indies) and Shahul Hameed (Indonesia) Player of the match: Sanath Jayasuriya (SRL)

text: Sri Lanka won the toss and chose to bat.

text: 4th 400+ score[edit]

text: 20 September 2006    Scorecard

text:
South Africa 418/5 (50 overs)

v

 Zimbabwe247/4 (50 overs)

Mark Boucher 147* (68) Tafadzwa Kamungozi 2/70 (10 0vers)

Terry Duffin 88 (134) Roger Telemachus 2/33 (8 overs)

text: South Africa won by 171 runs Sedgars Park, Potchefstroom Umpires: Daryl Harper (Aus) and Brian Jerling (RSA) Player of the match: Mark Boucher (RSA)

text:
South Africa won the toss and chose to bat.
The score of 247 by Zimbabwe was their highest total against a top-eight nation in ODIs.

text: 5th 400+ score[edit]

text: 19 March 2007    Scorecard

text:
India 413/5 (50 overs)

v

 Bermuda156 (43.1 overs)

Virender Sehwag 114 (87) Delyone Borden 2/30 (5 0vers)

David Hemp 76 (105) Anil Kumble 3/38 (9.1 overs)

text: India won by 257 runs Queens Park Oval, Port of Spain Umpires: Aleem Dar (Pak) and Ian Howell (RSA) Player of the match: Virender Sehwag (Ind)

text: Bermuda won the toss and chose to field

text: 6th 400+ score[edit]

text: 1 July 2008    Scorecard

text:
New Zealand 402/2 (50 overs)

v

 Ireland112 (28.3 overs)

Brendon McCullum 166 (135) Phil Eaglestone 1/60 (7 overs)

Peter Connell 22* (26) Tim Southee 3/23 (6 overs)

text: New Zealand won by 290 runs Mannofield Park, Aberdeen, Scotland Umpires: Paul Baldwin (GER) & Steve Davis (AUS) Player of the match: Brendon McCullum (Nzl)

text:
Ireland won the toss and chose to field.
New Zealand's victory set a new world record for the biggest margin of victory by runs

text: 7th & 8th 400+ scores[edit]

text: 15 December 2009    Scorecard

text:
India 414/7 (50 overs)

v

 Sri Lanka411/8 (50 overs)

Virender Sehwag 146 (102) Chanaka Welegedara 2/63 (10 overs)

Tillakaratne Dilshan 160 (124) Harbhajan Singh 2/58 (10 overs)

text: India won by 3 runs Madhavrao Scindia Cricket Ground, Rajkot Umpires: Marais Erasmus (SA) & Shavir Tarapore (Ind) Player of the match: Virender Sehwag (Ind)

text:
Sri Lanka won the toss and elected to field.
This match was only the second occasion where both teams put up totals in excess of 400.

text: 9th 400+ score[edit]

text: 24 February 2010D/N Scorecard

text:
India 401/3 (50 overs)

v

 South Africa248 (42.5 overs)

Sachin Tendulkar 200* (147) Wayne Parnell 2/95 (10 overs)

AB de Villiers 114* (101) Sreesanth 3/49 (7 overs)

text: India won by 153 runs Captain Roop Singh Stadium, Gwalior Umpires: Ian Gould (Eng) and Shavir Tarapore (Ind) Player of the match: Sachin Tendulkar (Ind)

text: India won the toss and elected to bat first.

text: 10th 400+ score[edit]

text: 8 December 2011 14:30 (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
India 418/5 (50 overs)

v

 West Indies265 (49.2 overs)

Virender Sehwag 219 (149) Andre Russell 1/63 (7 overs)

Denesh Ramdin 96 (96) Ravindra Jadeja 3/34 (10 overs)

text: India won by 153 runs Holkar Cricket Stadium, Indore Umpires: Tony Hill (NZ) and S Ravi (Ind) Player of the match: Virender Sehwag (Ind)

text: India won the toss and elected to bat

text: 11th 400+ score[edit]

text: 13 November 2014 02:30 PM   Scorecard

text:
India 404/5 (50 overs)

v

 Sri Lanka251 (43.1 overs)

Rohit Sharma 264 (173) Angelo Mathews 2/44 (8 overs)

Angelo Mathews 75 (68) Dhawal Kulkarni 4/34 (10 overs)

text: India won by 153 runs Eden Gardens, Kolkata, West BengalAttendance: 50,389[9] Umpires: Bruce Oxenford (Aus) and S. Ravi (Ind) Player of the match: Rohit Sharma (Ind)

text: India won the toss and elected to bat.

text: 12th 400+ score[edit]

text: 18 January 2015    Scorecard

text:
South Africa 439/2 (50 overs)

v

 West Indies291/7 (50 overs)

Hashim Amla 153* (142) Andre Russell 1/78 (10 overs)

Denesh Ramdin 57 (55) Morne Morkel 2/43 (10 overs)

text: South Africa won by 148 runs New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg Umpires: Steve Davis (Aus) and Adrian Holdstock (SA) Player of the match: AB De Villiers (SA)

text:
West Indies won the toss and elected to field.
South Africa scored their highest ODI score.

text: 13th 400+ score[edit]

text: 27 February 2015  (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
South Africa 408/5 (50 overs)

v

 West Indies151 (33.1 overs)

AB de Villiers 162* (66) Chris Gayle 2/21 (4 overs)

Jason Holder 56 (48) Imran Tahir 5/45 (10 overs)

text: South Africa won by 257 runs Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Umpires: Steve Davis (Aus) and Ian Gould (Eng) Player of the match: AB de Villiers (SA)

text: 14th 400+ score[edit]

text: 3 March 2015  (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
South Africa 411/4 (50 overs)

v

 Ireland210 (45 overs)

Hashim Amla 159 (128) Andrew McBrine 2/63 (10 overs)

Andrew Balbirnie 58 (71) Kyle Abbott 4/21 (8 overs)

text: South Africa won by 201 runs Manuka Oval, Canberra Umpires: Steve Davis (Aus) and Ranmore Martinesz (SRL) Player of the match: Hashim Amla (SA)

text:
South Africa won the toss and elected to bat.
South Africa became the first team to score 400 in two consecutive ODI innings.

text: 15th 400+ score[edit]

text: 4 March 2015  (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
Australia 417/6 (50 overs)

v

 Afghanistan142 (37.3 overs)

David Warner 178 (133) Shapoor Zadran 2/89 (10 overs)

Nawroz Mangal 33 (35) Mitchell Johnson 4/22 (7.3 overs)

text: Australia won by 275 runs WACA Ground, Perth Umpires: Kumar Dharmasena (SL) and Michael Gough (Eng) Player of the match: David Warner (Aus)

text:
Afghanistan won the toss and elected to field.
Australia's score of 417/6 is the highest in World Cup history as of August 2018. The winning margin of 275 runs is, as of August 2018, the highest in a World Cup match.[10][11]

text: 16th 400+ score[edit]

text: 9 June 2015 14:00 (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
England 408/9 (50 overs)

v

 New Zealand198 (31.1 overs)

Jos Buttler 129 (77) Trent Boult 4/55 (10 overs)

Ross Taylor 57 (54) Steven Finn 4/35 (7 overs)

text: England won by 210 runs Edgbaston, Birmingham Umpires: Michael Gough (Eng) and Bruce Oxenford (Aus) Player of the match: Jos Buttler (Eng)

text: New Zealand won the toss and elected to field.

text: 17th 400+ score[edit]

text: 25 October 2015 14:00 (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
South Africa 438/4 (50 overs)

v

 India224 (35.5 overs)

Faf du Plessis 133 (115) Suresh Raina 1/19 (3 overs)

Ajinkya Rahane 87  (51) Kagiso Rabada 4/41 (6.5 overs)

text: South Africa won by 214 runs Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai Umpires: Anil Chaudhary (Ind) and Kumar Dharmasena (SL) Player of the match: Quinton de Kock (SA)

text: 18th 400+ score[edit]

text: 30 August 2016 14:00 (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
England 444/3 (50 overs)

v

 Pakistan275 (42.4 overs)

Alex Hales 171 (122) Hasan Ali 2/74 (10 overs)

Mohammad Amir 58  (27) Chris Woakes 4/41 (5.4 overs)

text: England won by 169 runs Trent Bridge, Nottingham Umpires: Simon Fry (AUS) and Richard Kettleborough (ENG) Player of the match: Alex Hales (ENG)

text: England won the toss and elected to bat.

text: 19th 400+ score[edit]

text: 19 June 2018 14:00 (D/N)  Scorecard

text:
England 481/6 (50 overs)

v

 Australia239 (37 overs)

Alex Hales 147 (92) Jhye Richardson 3/92 (10 overs)

Travis Head 51 (39) Adil Rashid 4/47 (10 overs)

text: England won by 242 runs Trent Bridge, Nottingham Umpires: Kumar Dharmasena (SL) and Tim Robinson (Eng) Player of the match: Alex Hales (Eng)

text:
Australia won the toss and elected to field.
England set a new record for the highest innings total in ODIs. This was also the first instance where a men's team scored more than 450 runs in an ODI.[12]


document_title: National Institute of Mental Health

question_text: when was the national institute of mental health founded

text: National Institute of Mental Health

text: Research priorities[edit]

text: NIMH has identified four overarching strategic objectives for itself:

text:
Promote discovery in the brain and behavioral sciences to fuel research on the causes of mental disorders
Chart mental illness trajectories to determine when, where and how to intervene
Develop new and better interventions that incorporate the diverse needs and circumstances of people with mental illnesses
Strengthen the public health impact of NIMH-supported research[4]

text: History[edit]

text: Mental health has traditionally been a state responsibility, but after World War II there was increased lobbying for a federal (national) initiative. Attempts to create a National Neuropsychiatric Institute failed. Robert H. Felix, then head of the Division of Mental Hygiene, orchestrated a movement to include mental health policy as an integral part of federal biomedical policy. Congressional subcommittees hearings were held and the National Mental Health Act was signed into law in 1946. This aimed to support the research, prevention and treatment of psychiatric illness, and called for the establishment of a National Advisory Mental Health Council (NAMHC) and a National Institute of Mental Health. On April 15, 1949, the NIMH was formally established, with Felix as director. Funding for the NIMH grew slowly and then, from the mid-1950s, dramatically. The institute took on a highly influential role in shaping policy, research and communicating with the public, legitimizing the importance of new advances in biomedical science, psychiatric and psychological services, and community-based mental health policies.[5]

text:
Part of a series on

Psychology

Outline
History
Subfields

Basic types[show]

Abnormal
Behavioral genetics
Biological
Cognitive/Cognitivism
Comparative
Cross-cultural
Cultural
Differential
Developmental
Evolutionary
Experimental
Mathematical
Neuropsychology
Personality
Positive
Quantitative
Social

Applied psychology[show]

Applied behavior analysis
Clinical
Community
Consumer
Counseling
Critical
Educational
Environmental
Ergonomics
Forensic
Health
Humanistic
Industrial and organizational
Interpretive
Legal
Medical
Military
Music
Occupational health
Political
Religion
School
Sport
Traffic

Lists[show]

Disciplines
Organizations
Psychologists
Psychotherapies
Publications
Research methods
Theories
Timeline
Topics

 Psychology portal

text: In 1955 the Mental Health Study Act called for "an objective, thorough, nationwide analysis and reevaluation of the human and economic problems of mental health."[citation needed] The resulting Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health prepared a report, "Action for Mental Health", resulting in the establishment of a cabinet-level interagency committee to examine the recommendations and determine an appropriate federal response.

text: In 1963, Congress passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act, beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. NIMH assumed responsibility for monitoring the Nation's community mental health centers (CMHC) programs.

text: During the mid-1960s, NIMH launched a campaign on special mental health problems. Part of this was a response to President Lyndon Johnson's pledge to apply scientific research to social problems. The Institute established centers for research on schizophrenia, child and family mental health, suicide, as well as crime and delinquency, minority group mental health problems, urban problems, and later, rape, aging, and technical assistance to victims of natural disasters.

text: Alcohol abuse and alcoholism did not receive full recognition as a major public health problem until the mid-1960s, when the National Center for Prevention and Control of Alcoholism was established as part of NIMH; a research program on drug abuse was inaugurated within NIMH with the establishment of the Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse.

text: In 1967, NIMH separated from NIH and was given Bureau status within PHS. However, NIMH's intramural research program, which conducted studies in the NIH Clinical Center and other NIH facilities, remained at NIH under an agreement for joint administration between NIH and NIMH. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner transferred St. Elizabeths Hospital, the Federal Government's only civilian psychiatric hospital, to NIMH.

text: In 1968, NIMH became a component of PHS's Health Services and Mental Health Administration (HSMHA).

text: In 1970 the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 91-616) established the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism within NIMH.

text: In 1972, the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act established a National Institute on Drug Abuse within NIMH.

text: In 1973, NIMH went through a series of organizational moves. The Institute temporarily rejoined NIH on July 1 with the abolishment of HSMHA. Then, the DHEW secretary administratively established the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) – composed of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and NIMH – as the successor organization to HSMHA. ADAMHA was officially established in 1974.

text: The President's Commission on Mental Health in 1977 reviewed the mental health needs of the nation and to make recommendations to the President as to how best meet these needs in 1978.

text: In 1980 The Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study, an unprecedented research effort that entailed interviews with a nationally representative sample of 20,000 Americans was launched. The field interviews and first wave analyses were completed in 1985. Data from the ECA provided a picture of rates of mental and addictive disorders and services usage.

text: The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 – based on recommendations of the President's Commission on Mental Health and designed to provide improved services for persons with mental disorders – was passed. NIMH participated in development of the National Plan for the Chronically Mentally Ill, a sweeping effort to improve services and fine-tune various Federal entitlement programs for those with severe, persistent mental disorders.

text: In 1987, Administrative control of St. Elizabeth's Hospital was transferred from the NIMH to the District of Columbia. NIMH retained research facilities on the grounds of the hospital. The NIMH Neuroscience Center and the NIMH Neuropsychiatric Research Hospital, located on the grounds of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, were dedicated in 1989.

text: In 1992, Congress passed the ADAMHA Reorganization Act, abolishing ADAMHA. The research components of NIAAA, NIDA and NIMH rejoined NIH, while the services components of each institute became part of a new PHS agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The return to NIH and the loss of services functions to SAMHSA necessitated a realignment of the NIMH extramural program administrative organization. New offices were created for research on Prevention, Special Populations, Rural Mental Health and AIDS.

text: In 1994 The House Appropriations Committee mandated that the director of NIH conduct a review of the role, size, and cost of all NIH intramural research programs (IRP). NIMH and the National Advisory Mental Health Council (NAMHC) initiated a major study of the NIMH Intramural Research Program. The planning committee recommended continued investment in the IRP and recommended specific administrative changes; many of these were implemented upon release of the committee's final report; other changes — for example, the establishment of a major new program on Mood and Anxiety Disorders — have been introduced in the years since.

text: In 1996 NIMH, with the NAMHC, initiated systematic reviews of a number of areas of its research portfolio, including the genetics of mental disorders; epidemiology and services for child and adolescent populations; prevention research; clinical treatment and services research. At the request of the National Institute for Mental Health director, the NAMH Council established programmatic groups in each of these areas. NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) continued to implement recommendations issued by these Workgroups.

text: In 1997, NIMH realigned its extramural organizational structure to capitalize on new technologies and approaches to both basic and clinical science, as well as changes that had occurred in health care delivery systems, while retaining the Institute's focus on mental illness. The new extramural organization resulted in three research divisions: Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Research; Services and Intervention Research; and Mental Disorders, Behavioral Research and AIDS.

text: Between 1997 and 1999 NIMH refocused career development resources on early careers and added new mechanisms for clinical research.

text: In 1999 The NIMH Neuroscience Center/Neuropsychiatric Research Hospital was relocated from St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C. to the NIH Campus in Bethesda, Maryland, in response to the recommendations of the 1996 review of the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) Intramural Research Program by the IRP Planning Committee.

text: The first White House Conference on Mental Health, held June 7, in Washington, D.C., brought together national leaders, mental health scientific and clinical personnel, patients, and consumers to discuss needs and opportunities. The National Institute on Mental Health developed materials and helped organize the conference.

text: U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher released The Surgeon General's Call To Action To Prevent Suicide, in July, and the first Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health, in December. NIMH, along with other Federal agencies, collaborated in the preparation of both of these landmark reports.

text: Since the appointment of Thomas R. Insel as Director of NIMH in 2002, the institute has undergone organizational changes to better target mental health research needs (the expansion from three extramural divisions to five divisions, with the two new divisions focusing on adult and child translational research). NIMH also weathered several years of controversy due to conflict of interest and ethics violations by some of its intramural investigators. This situation cast light on an area that affected all of NIH, and resulted in more stringent rules about conflict of interest for all of NIH. Recently, Congressional interest turned to ethics and conflict of interest concerns with external investigators who receive NIMH or other NIH support. Current federal law has responsibility for managing and monitoring conflict of interests for external investigators with their home institutions/organizations. NIH responded to these new concerns by initiating a formal process for seeking public input and advice that will likely result in a change to the rules for monitoring and managing conflict of interest concerns for externally supported investigators. Finally, the past decade has also been marked by exciting scientific breakthroughs and efforts in mental illness research, as new genetic advances and bioimaging methodologies have increased understanding of mental illnesses. Two notable consequences of these advances are the Institute's collaboration with the Department of Army to launch the Study To Assess Risk and Resilience in Service Members (STARRS), a Framingham-like effort scheduled to last until 2014 and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) effort, which seeks to define basic dimensions of functioning (such as fear circuitry or working memory) to be studied across multiple levels of analysis, from genes to neural circuits to behaviors, cutting across disorders as traditionally defined.[6][7]

text: A collection of interviews with directors and individuals significant in the foundation and early history of the institute conducted by Dr. Eli A. Rubenstein between 1975 and 1978 is held at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland.[8]

text: Noted researchers[edit]

text: In 1970, Julius Axelrod, a NIMH researcher, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for research into the chemistry of nerve transmission for "discoveries concerning the humoral transmitters in the nerve terminals and the mechanisms for their storage, release and inactivation." He found an enzyme that terminated the action of the nerve transmitter, noradrenaline in the synapse and which also served as a critical target of many antidepressant drugs.

text: In 1984, Norman E. Rosenthal, a psychiatrist and NIMH researcher, pioneered seasonal affective disorder, coined the term SAD, and began studying the use of light therapy as a treatment.[9][10][11][12] He received the Anna Monika Foundation Award for his research on seasonal depression.[13]

text: Louis Sokoloff, a NIMH researcher, received the Albert Łasker award in Clinical Medical Research for developing a new method of measuring brain function that contributed to basic understanding and diagnosis of brain diseases. Roger Sperry, a NIMH research grantee, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology for discoveries regarding the functional specialization of the cerebral hemispheres, or the "left" and "right" brain.

text: Eric Kandel and Paul Greengard, each of whom have received NIMH support for more than three decades, shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Sweden's Arvid Carlsson. Kandel received the prize for his elucidating research on the functional modification of synapses in the brain. Initially using the sea slug as an experimental model but later working with mice, he established that the formation of memories is a consequence of short and long-term changes in the biochemistry of nerve cells Greengard was recognized for his discovery that dopamine and a number of other transmitters can alter the functional state of neuronal proteins, and also that such changes could be reversed by subsequent environmental signals.

text: Nancy Andreasen, a psychiatrist and long-time NIMH grantee, won the National Medal of Science for her groundbreaking work in schizophrenia and for joining behavioral science with neuroscience and neuroimaging. The Presidential Award is one of the nation's highest awards in science.

text: Aaron Beck, a psychiatrist, received the 2006 Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research. Often called "America's Nobels", the Laskers are the nation's most distinguished honor for outstanding contributions to basic and clinical medical research. Beck developed cognitive therapy—a form of psychotherapy—which transformed the understanding and treatment of many psychiatric conditions, including depression, suicidal behavior, generalized anxiety, panic attacks and eating disorders.[14]

text: In 2010, Mortimer Mishkin was awarded the National Medal of Science. Mishkin is chief of the NIMH's Section on Cognitive Neuroscience, and acting chief of its Laboratory of Neuropsychology. He is the first NIMH intramural scientist to receive the medal. Due in part to work spearheaded by Mishkin, science now understands much about the pathways for vision, hearing and touch, and about how those processing streams connect with brain structures important for memory.[15]

text: NIMH directors[edit]

text:
Name
Years served

Robert H. Felix
1949–1964

Stanley F. Yolles
1964–1970

Bertram S. Brown
1970–1977

Herb Pardes
1977–1984

Shervert H. Frazier
1984–1986

Lewis L. Judd
1988–1992

Frederick K. Goodwin
1992–1994

Rex William Cowdry (acting)
1994–1996

Steven Hyman
1996–2001

Richard K. Nakamura (acting)
2001–2002

Thomas R. Insel
2002 – 2015

Bruce Cuthbert (acting)
2015 – 2016

Joshua A. Gordon
2016 – Present

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: A children's novel Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH by Robert C. O'Brien, published in 1971, features a society of intelligent rats that had presumably escaped from a laboratory at NIMH. The novel was later adapted into a critically acclaimed animated feature film entitled The Secret of NIMH by animator and director Don Bluth. The book was followed by a sequel in 1986, Racso and the Rats of NIMH.