MAH RESPONDS TO MEDIA: MAH Challenges American Psychological Association Reporting of Study

April 27, 1999

Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer
Ms. Shirlene Archer, Director, Administration and Board Operations
  Public Interest Directorate
Ms. Susan Knapp, Senior Director of Publications
  Publications Administration
Ms. Rhea Farberman
  Public Affairs Office
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20002

Dear Dr. Fowler, Ms. Archer, Ms. Knapp, and Ms. Farberman:

I am writing on behalf of Mothers At Home, a national not-for-profit organization supporting women who are raising their children at home, to protest the misleading manner in which the American Psychological Association recently publicized a study by Dr. Elizabeth Harvey concerning the effects of early maternal employment on the development of children.  ("Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Early Parental Employment on Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth," Elizabeth Harvey, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 445-459.)

The Harvey study received widespread media attention, apparently based largely on an APA Public Affairs Office press release that inaccurately described the study.  Although the author based her study on a sample of predominantly low-income, disadvantaged families, stated in the published article that the study results may not be generalized to higher-income families, and failed to address numerous potential effects of parental absence, the APA press release announced "New Longitudinal Study Finds That Having A Working Mother Does No Significant Harm To Children" -- suggesting that this was a conclusive study generalizable to all working mothers.  We believe that the APA has seriously misrepresented the conclusions and significance of the Harvey study to the potential detriment of children and families across the country, and in doing so has acted contrary to the standards of professionalism and ethics that the APA claims to embrace.

On March 1, The Washington Post's front page reported "Mothers' Employment Works for Children."  The Post's national weekly edition proclaimed "Good News for Working Moms" (3/8/99).  Both editions drew heavily from the APA press release.  Other major publications and several national television networks also picked up the story.  The Associated Press version appeared in newspapers across the country, frequently on the front page, with headlines such as "Keep Your Day Job, Mom:  New Study Suggests Kids Will Be Fine" (The Star-Ledger, NJ, 3/1/99), "Study Offers Good News For Working Mothers" (The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, CA, 3/1/99), and "Children OK Despite Mom's Job" (The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, IA, 3/1/99).  It was big news.  The news media stressed the "comprehensive" nature of Dr. Harvey's study, which the APA press release stated was "based on data collected over a longer period and with a larger, more representative survey sample" than prior studies reporting negative effects from early maternal employment.  The strong implication of both the APA press release and the news stories was that the Harvey study puts to rest any responsible debate about whether children fare better when raised by a parent at home than by a full-time paid caregiver.  Mothers from across the country sent us copies of articles such as these and asked us to look into the issue.  The Christian Science Monitor reported that Dr. Harvey's "findings have received worldwide attention, generating hundreds of requests for interviews from reporters in the United States, Canada, Britain, and even Brazil."  "Search for a Truce in the ‘Mommy Wars'" (The Christian Science Monitor, 4/20/99).

Time-starved working parents who eagerly scanned these triumphant articles -- or just glanced at the headlines -- did not learn that the "larger, more representative survey sample" was in fact not at all representative of the average American family, much less of the higher-income two-professional families that doubtless made up the news stories' most avid audience.  Neither the APA press release nor the articles it spawned contained that information.  The average income of the sample families was $15,000 to $24,000 per year, half the national norm; a disproportionate number of the mothers surveyed were single mothers; the mothers' median I.Q. was in the 70s; and more than half belonged to a minority group.  They were also young -- the mothers' median age at time of childbirth was only about 23.  Dr. Harvey noted the limitations of her research, stating:
 

 "These results should be interpreted within the context of the limitations of the  study.  Although the sample in the present study was more representative of the general population of mothers than previous studies, the sample is still  younger and of lower SES [socioeconomic status] than average; these results may not be generalized to older, higher SES parents." [Emphasis added.]

Given the nature of the sample studied, the study's outcome makes sense.  It seems plausible that children of low-income, disadvantaged families where there may be no father at home and where the mother is working to provide the basics -- food, shelter, and medical care -- may fare as well or better with high-quality paid child care than they would if the mother did not work. Dr. Harvey's consideration of the mother's income as a benefit to be taken into account seems justifiable for this sample group.

Dr. Harvey's study does not address, however, the question whether children of middle- or higher-income families where the mother's income is not required to provide basic necessities do as well with paid child care as they would with a parent at home during their early years.  Indeed, to the extent Dr. Harvey's finding that there is no net negative impact on children depends on the "benefit" provided by the mother's income outweighing the negative impact of her absence, Dr. Harvey's study suggests that in families where the mother's income is not truly needed (for example, is paying for extras or luxuries instead of essentials), one should expect to see an overall negative impact.  In any event, while it may be worthwhile to conduct studies of higher-income families that have the option of keeping a parent at home to see whether there are measurable benefits, Dr. Harvey's study does not serve that purpose -- but the APA has promoted it as doing so.

Moreover, while the APA press release stated flatly that based on the Harvey study "[a] mother's employment outside of the home has no significant negative effect on her children," there are numerous crucial aspects of a child's development that may be affected by the presence or absence of a parent during the early years but that Dr. Harvey did not study.  Dr. Harvey's study focused exclusively on behavior, cognitive and academic development, and self-esteem.  However, as any thoughtful psychologist would agree, a child's capacity to love, ability to sustain intimate and committed relationships, spiritual strength, and system of values -- not to mention basic happiness -- are all critical to his or her growing into a well-functioning individual, but these may be seriously compromised when a child is raised primarily by paid caregivers.  Dr. Harvey's study does not speak to these issues at all.  Nor did Dr. Harvey study the effects of early maternal employment on children older than 12, although in some cases problems may not surface until adolescence or adulthood.

Mothers At Home is hardly alone in noting the discrepancies between the Harvey study and the manner in which the media have portrayed it. I enclose for your information just a few of the critical articles that have appeared recently, including "When Science Serves Politics" (Investor's Business Daily, 3/5/99), "Clouding the Issue for Working Moms" (Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, 3/2/99), and "Parenting Study Defies Common Sense" (syndicated column).

We are disappointed that "the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States" (as the APA describes itself in its web site) would issue to the news media such an inaccurate and misleading description of its published research.  The APA Public Affairs Office surely realizes that news reporters cannot be expected to read a scientific study in detail and prepare their own findings.  Even the very best reporters may not be in a position to check their facts, and many may not be qualified to evaluate scientific data, assumptions, and conclusions.  The purpose of news releases is to facilitate those tasks.  While news outlets certainly bear some responsibility for the inaccurate way in which the Harvey study has been reported to the public, we believe that APA has acted irresponsibly in issuing its press release.  Section I.1 of the APA's bylaws calls for the APA to "advance psychology as a science and profession and as a way of promoting human welfare by . . . the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the association," and to advance "the application of research findings to the promotion of the public welfare."

The APA's issuance of a misleading press release on such a sensitive, controversial, and important issue as the use of paid caregivers to raise young children is inconsistent with the professional and ethical standards that the APA has pledged to maintain.

Indeed, the press release calls into question the APA's credibility as an objective, apolitical organization.  The APA gives the appearance of having stretched the facts to make a study based on a sample representative of low-income, disadvantaged families support the "politically correct" position that the debate whether children from middle- and higher-income, two-parent families suffer when both parents work full-time is effectively over, and that the only question left is whether the "quality" of paid child care can be improved.  In fact, issues of the relative merits of parental and paid child care are complex and far from resolved. Many respected child development experts believe that young children who spend large amounts of time in day care situations do not receive the one-on-one attention or develop the close, sustained caregiver relationships that they require for healthy mental and emotional development.  For these reasons, Dr. Stanley Greenspan, a child psychiatrist and the author of many books on child development, argued recently that we need to rely less, not more, on day care when raising our children.  ("The Reasons Why We Need to Rely Less on Day Care," The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1997.)  In any event, we understand the APA's by-laws to require it to disseminate accurate information about psychological research, including the limitations of that research, and not to withhold material information to advance a political agenda.  If the APA had accurately described the study it might not have made headlines, but it would have better dignified itself and its profession and better served the public.

As matters now stand, news reports of the Harvey study have given both parents and those preparing to start families reason to believe that it is not important for them to maximize the amount of time they spend with their young children.  This is bad for children and bad for families.  We urge the APA to issue another press release accurately describing the Harvey study, including its limitations, and correcting the misimpressions created by its original press release.
 

      Very truly yours,
 

      Betty Walter
      Executive Director

Enclosures

cc (w/out enclosures):

Elizabeth Harvey, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Stanley Greenspan, M.D.
Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics
Diane Fisher, Ph.D., MAH Medical Advisory Board Member
Marian Gormley, MAH Public Relations Director
Steve Coll, Managing Editor, The Washington Post
Leonard Downie, Jr., Executive Editor, The Washington Post
E.R. Shipp, Ombudsman, The Washington Post
Barbara Vobejda, Staff Writer, The Washington Post
Edward Walsh, Staff Writer, The Washington Post
Sandy Johnson, Bureau Chief, Associated Press, Washington, DC
Paul Recer, Associated Press, Washington, DC
David Cook, Editor-in-Chief, The Christian Science Monitor
Marilyn Gardner, Staff Writer, The Christian Science Monitor

---

webmaster's note:  The APA's press release may be viewed at www.apa.org/releases/wrkmom.html

Read the APA's response to this letter