MAH RESPONDS TO MEDIA: Misleading APA Press Release Results in Media Brouhaha By Sharon Conaway Rutberg, MAH Public Relations Department May 1999

The "scientific" research on the effects of day care on children's development released in March has caused a sensation in the media and consternation in the minds of many at-home mothers.  Elizabeth Harvey, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, reviewed data collected on over 6,000 children to examine the long-term effects of parental employment during the children's first three years of life.  The study followed some of the children through age twelve.  Dr. Harvey looked at five developmental areas:  cognitive, academic, behavioral problems, "compliance," and self-esteem.  In reporting the results of her study, published in the journal Developmental Psychology, Dr. Harvey found "no significant main effects" of early maternal employment, and found that the study "partially supported the hypothesis that early parental employment has a positive effect on children's development by increasing family income."

As you might expect, the media had a field day with the Harvey study.  The front page of The Washington Post on March 1 announced "Mother's Employment Works for Children."  The Post's national weekly edition trumpeted "Good News for Working Moms" (3/8/99).  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).  The articles described Dr. Harvey's study as "comprehensive" and an attempt "to resolve conflicting evidence on the subject," strongly implying that the Harvey study may be viewed as the last word on whether day care seriously compromises children's development.  The Post reported that "the new research . . . supports what other similar studies increasingly indicate:  that the quality of family life generally, including the mental stability and maturity of parents, is vastly more important in determining how children fare in life than the question of whether their mothers are employed."  The Post noted that debate continues about the "effect of working mothers, long hours of day care and fast-paced family life on a generation of children," and that the study "is unlikely to diminish the strong ambivalence Americans feel on the subject, with many convinced that young children do better when a parent stays home full time," but cited no support for these views.  It quoted Dr. Harvey as saying "Working mothers have a lot of guilt.  I hope this study will alleviate some of the guilt."

Many of us read these articles with sinking hearts, because they seemed to suggest that staying home with our kids is a waste of time -- even though we know in our hearts it is the best thing we could possibly be doing.  What these news reports did not mention is that the sample of families that Dr. Harvey studied is not at all representative of the average American family.  The following statistics for the families studied are telling:

average family income was $15,000 to $24,000 per year (half the national norm)

a disproportionate number of the mothers were single mothers

the mothers’ median I.Q. was in the 70s (average is 100)

more than half  belonged to a minority group

the mothers were particularly young -- about 23 on average when their children were born.

Dr. Harvey herself noted in the published study, "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]

Thus, contrary to the message of the news articles, the Harvey study does not provide conclusive findings  that can be generalized to average families, much less to the higher-income, two-professional families to which we suspect the news stories were primarily directed.  Indeed, once we learned the  nature of the sample studied, the study's outcome made more sense to us.  It does seem plausible that in low-income, disadvantaged families, where there may be no father at home and where the mother is working to put food on the table and provide basic shelter and medical care, that the children may fare better overall with high-quality paid childcare 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.

The Harvey study did 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 childcare 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, the 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), we 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 media promoted it as doing so.

Moreover, while The Washington Post article stated flatly that based on the Harvey study "mothers who work outside the home are not harming their children," there are numerous 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 clinical psychologist Diane Fisher noted in an opinion piece responding to the coverage of the Harvey study, the study does not assess a child's "capacity to love, intimacy, commitment, spiritual strength or independent morality" -- not to mention overall happiness -- all of which are critical to his or her growing into a well-functioning individual, and all of which may be seriously compromised when a child is raised primarily by paid caregivers."  ("When Science Serves Politics" by Diane Fisher, Ph.D., Investor's Business Daily, 3/5/99.)  Dr. Harvey's study does not speak to these issues at all.  (Indeed, as Dr. Fisher noted, some of the aspects Dr. Harvey did study may be misleading:  "the 'self-esteem’ measure is . . . meant to assess confidence about school and self-worth.  As any therapist or probation officer will point out, even sociopathic teens are likely to ‘feel good about themselves.’"  Nor did Dr. Harvey study the effects of early maternal employment on children older than twelve, although in some cases problems may not surface until adolescence or adulthood.

On the bright side, the initial round of one-sided articles generated a rich variety of commentary, not only on the study itself but also on numerous related issues.  We are not the only ones to take exception to the media coverage of the Harvey study.  Many of you sent us news articles expressing the same concerns, as well as letters that you had written yourselves.  Stephanie Chamberlain, a Welcome Home subscriber, eloquently voiced the frustrations of so many of us in a letter she sent to The Florida Times Union:

"The choices of both working and 'full-time' moms should be respected.  But why can't all those brilliant scientists admit that it is possible that a full-time parent can provide benefits to their children that even the best, most qualified caretaker cannot?  Why is everyone so afraid to admit that full-time motherhood can have a positive impact on children?  Because we will be obligated to re-evaluate our lives, our values, our priorities?  Parenting isn't about the parents; it's about the kids.  Their needs should come first even if it means -- gasp -- sacrifice on the part of the parents.  God forbid we have to temporarily put aside our goals, our plans, or our needs in order to help shape these tiny, wonderful creatures into healthy, happy people.  That shaping process -- doing it with passion and excellence -- takes  TIME!

"It is doubtful that all the intangible things a full-time mother provides to her children could be accurately measured by social scientists but that makes them no less important to a child's well-being.  It is an injustice to children everywhere to misrepresent this scientific study and to make such sweeping, one-sided statements on this complex issue."

Several columnists expressed serious doubts about the study results.  Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Orlando Sentinel, wrote that "[t]he myth-makers are at it again." ("Phooey: Another Study," The Des Moines Register, 3/13/99).  Noting the extensive debate surrounding the study,  Ms. Parker wrote, "Permit me to add to the clamor:  Phooey. . . . If news stories about the study truly had reflected the findings, they would have read more like this:  "A new study finds that children from lower-income families whose mothers have less-than-average intelligence don't suffer serious negative consequences when their mothers work outside the home."  Ms. Parker concluded that, while most mothers instinctively understand what is best for their children and "most do the best they can, . . . common sense also tells us that a mother's intransigent love cannot be approximated by even the most attentive hired help.  No study will ever otherwise convince me or the millions of other mothers who know better."

Ms. Parker's skepticism about the conclusions being claimed for the Harvey study were echoed by numerous other columnists.  In a strongly worded column, Cal Thomas of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate compared the Harvey study to tobacco company studies suggesting that "a connection between smoking and lung cancer are inconclusive," and said of the conclusions attributed to the Harvey study, "I'm not buying it."  ("Career Moms Don't Work for Children," Newark Star Ledger, 3/8/99.)

Even commentators who accepted the study's findings with relief nonetheless voiced reservations.  Marney Rich Keenan, a free-lance writer, reported that after nine years of childcare drop-offs and pick-ups -- and with several journalism awards under her belt -- she quit her job to be an at-home mother.  ("A Stay-At-Home Mom Finds Just As Much Importance In Her Job," The Detroit News, 3/6/99.)  Of the Harvey study, Ms. Keenan said "The study confirms that day care is doing a good job.  That's great news.  But, I think, maybe selfishly, maybe even covetously (and forgive me if I sound like that 'I am my kids’ mom' maniac), Mom does a better one."  Ms. Keenan suggested that "our foremothers' protests for women's equality goofed in a major way:  We excluded motherhood from the list of professions, as if it were less important today than when we were raised."  Her solution:  pay moms "$30,000 a year, health insurance, gas allowance and two weeks vacation."

Kim Ode, a Minneapolis newspaper columnist and a full-time working mother, said that while the "front-page story about working mothers was a gift," she was having doubts. ("Clouding the Issue for Working Mothers," Star Tribune, 3/2/99.)  Citing a study by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild, she concluded that "whether parents work by force of circumstance or as a personal choice, kids keep coming in second."  While Ms. Ode's husband is able to be at home part-time with the children, and while she would "like to believe that our kids are unaffected by my working full time," she admitted "I can't shake the sense that they're merely weathering it."  Noting that the Harvey study said that any negative effects on children disappeared by age twelve, Ms. Ode said that "[t]he statistics might even out over twelve years, but we still need to pay heed to the memories we create with our children right from the start."  She recalled an afternoon long ago spent with her mother lying in the grass and watching the clouds on a perfect summer day.  "Tests for behavior, language, confidence and smarts provide some measures of a person, but they don't factor how it feels to grow up," Ms. Ode concluded.  "Studies such as Harvey's present a temptation to gloss over the often mundane, yet crucial, aspects of raising children.  They attempt to reassure us that, in the long run, no one will know how many clouds your child watched with you, or that the breeze sometimes blew them into long, enveloping arms."

Pulling together many different points of view, the Christian Science Monitor published a particularly balanced article about what it termed "one of the most perplexing social issues of modern times."  In "Search For a Truce in the ‘Mommy Wars,’" (3/8/99), the Monitor focused on efforts that are underway to "change corporate and government policies towards families" to benefit all parents -- those with outside employment and those who stay home.  Several of the sources interviewed acknowledged that at-home mothers do important work:  Marcy Whitebook of the Center for the Child Care Workforce said that "many who support an expansion of quality child care also support parents who want to stay home with their children," and even Dr. Harvey herself  "cite[d] the need to emphasize that 'women who do stay home are doing an incredibly important job'."  But the very fact they found it necessary to say so simply underscores that society often does not agree.  Danielle Crittenden, who wrote the book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, took the study head on:  "What's sort of creepy in these studies is that they say no significant harm has been done . . . . It's like plants that can get along with minimal water and light. But are they thriving?"   "Even government-run, 24-hour day-care centers headed by clones of Mary Poppins would not solve the problem," Crittenden continued.  "The larger question is, do we value the job of motherhood?"

The media brouhaha began, of course, with inaccurate reporting that attributed undeserved significance to the Harvey study.  The blame for much of this inaccurate reporting must, it seems, be laid at the door of the American Psychological Association (APA), which publishes Developmental Psychology, the journal in which the Harvey study appeared.  The APA's Public Affairs Office on February 18 issued a press release entitled "New Longitudinal Study Finds That Having A Working Mother Does No Significant Harm To Children."  The press release described in general the areas of child development Dr. Harvey studied and the study's findings.  It provided no information, however, about the economic status or social situation of the families surveyed.  Instead, it noted only that the study was based on a survey of 12,600 individuals who had been interviewed annually since 1979.  It noted Dr. Harvey's statement that "the new study was based on data collected over a longer period of time and with a larger, more representative survey sample" than previous studies that had found some negative effects of maternal employment.  Nowhere did the press release say that the sample was nonetheless not "representative" of average or higher-income families.  Instead, it strongly implied that the study may be considered the last word in the debate over whether having a parent at home benefits young children.

Mothers At Home has taken the APA to task for its misleading press release.  On April 27, MAH sent a letter to four officials of the APA objecting to the treatment of a study based on a group of low-income, disadvantaged families as a conclusive study applicable to families everywhere.  We stressed our disappointment that the APA, which holds itself out as an objective scientific and professional body, would issue such inaccurate information about its own published research, stating:  "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."

We further noted:

"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 childcare can be improved.  In fact, issues of the relative merits of parental and paid childcare 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. . . . 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."

In conclusion, MAH expressed concern to the APA that both current and prospective parents across the country, who may have done no more than scan headlines such as "Keep Your Day Job, Mom: New Study Suggests Kids Will Be Fine," and "Good News For Working Moms," have been given reason to believe it is not important to maximize the amount of time they spend with their children.  We urged the APA to issue another press release correcting the misimpressions about the Harvey study that the original press release created.  We sent copies of our letter to Elizabeth Harvey, Ph.D., editors at The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and the Christian Science Monitor, as well as others in the media and public policy arenas.

The full text of the APA's press release may be found at  www.apa.org/releases/wrkmom.html.  The full text of the Harvey article can be found at www.apa.org/journals/dev/dev352445.html.  Read the full text of the Mothers At Home letter to the American Psychological Association.

If you would like to add your own voice to ours, we encourage you to write to the APA:

Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20002