|
|
|
| The Mother Load | |
|
|
|
|
April 18, 1999 Moms everywhere, and especially those who struggle to make ends meet while raising young kids, got some happy news last month: Leaving their youngsters while they're on the job does not shortchange child development. This stunning news, so counter to myriad studies saying exactly the opposite, has been widely noted by the media, no doubt eager to report some "good" news after a year of sex scandals. But is it accurate? Well, not really. The basis for this startling conclusion was supposedly found in a study that appeared in the academic journal Developmental Psychology. As the media shorthanded it, the study, which evaluated the thought processes and behavior of 6,000 children ages 3 to 12, purportedly showed that it doesn't matter how early in a child's life a mother's absence begins or whether moms are gone only a few hours a week or as many as 40. That is, the kids were all right even when mom wasn't there — at least according to the things psychologists can easily assess. It seemed as if guilt could be banished forever. Problem is, the individuals studied were not representative of the population. The sample was heavily skewed toward mothers who were young, poor and ill-educated. That means the findings may not be applied with confidence to the wider American population. These crucial methodological factors were duly noted by the study's author, Elizabeth Hardy. "These results," she said, "may not be generalized to older, higher [status] parents." That qualification never made it into most news accounts, yet it could not be more important to understanding what's really going on here. A key point is that many of the children evaluated may already have been at risk for poor performance on cognitive and behavioral tests because of the difficulties posed by their social and economic deprivation. As a result, potentially negative effects of a mother's absence may have been diminished. Equally important is what was not studied. Because this survey did not examine the type of day care children received in their mother's absence, we can't gauge whether the lack of negative effects might be a product of the alternative care provided by day care, or by fathers or other family members. Once again, the author herself scrupulously noted this limitation. But that didn't prevent papers such as the Boston Herald, in a typical reach, from headlining, "Working Moms Don't Spoil the Child with Day Care." Ironically, the absences of working moms may have even indirectly helped their children, by providing additional income used to enrich their environment. Again, Harvey recognized this factor, and again most of the media ignored it. Needless to say, this positive impact would likely be greatest for low-income families. Further, studies overwhelmingly show that the most significant factor in a child's behavior and well-being is the quality of interactions with its mother. Research also shows that a mother's cognitive abilities are important in determining this quality. So the absence of culturally deprived moms may not have as great an effect on a child's performance if the alternative care is of higher quality than the mother can provide. For many moms, outside work contributes to their well-being, which studies show can offer collateral benefits for their children. So what's the bottom line? Should moms worry when they leave a young kid in someone else's care? To date, we simply don't know. But rushing to say it doesn't matter, as the media have, simply isn't supported by social science. There still is no more important bond than that between a mother and child. Sometimes, common sense makes sense. David Murray is research director |
|
|
|
|
|
If you are interested in additional information, or would like to set up a Families Worldwide Chapter in your community, please feel free to contact us via e-mail. Families Worldwide Send comments and mail to Webmaster |
Home