I read a report from CNN several weeks ago that quoted a new study in the academic journal "Developmental Psychology" that said that a new study showed no long term affects of working mothers on their children. This article intrigued me because the way it was reported by CNN suggested that this study demonstrated no effects on esteem, cognition, behavior, and compliance in children. This report contradicted most of what I believe to be true about a child's development so I've carefully reviewed the research study myself. Here is what I found.
First, I was impressed with the researcher's study. Over a period of several years more that 12,000 subjects were included in the study. The author attempted to control for race, age, socioeconomic status, as well as other variables. She did an exceptional research study.
Second, while the news report about this article was not errant, it was incomplete. What the researcher found was that most effects of working mothers on their children did seem to disappear after age 12 or so. However, there are several problems that mitigate this statement. First of all, the CNN report and the research article both implied that negative effects of working mothers on their young are acceptable because they disappear after the child gets older. I contend that this is unacceptable. Negative effects in childhood, whether they disappear or not, are unacceptable. Second, the researcher was much more cautious in her interpretation of her data than the CNN article portrayed. While some negative effects (like behavior problems, academic problems, and esteem problems) did diminish over time, the researcher provided other possibilities for this finding and did not assert that being a working mother is a good thing. Therefore, I still maintain that it is better in both the short and long run that mothers (or fathers) stay home with their children if at all possible.
A third problem I found in reviewing this article was an assertion the researcher made about finances. There were several areas of the article that addressed both mothers and fathers working and the effect that the added income had on the child. While more money provided more material benefits for the child, the positive effect of additional income on academic and behavior measures was most seen in those subjects who had a single parent, just the opposite was true of two parent families. My interpretation of these data was that children, whose basic needs would have otherwise been unmet if a single parent were not working, benefited from the "extra" income. For those children whose basic needs were being met already, the extra income did not have a positive effect on these same measures. This provides evidence for what I have said in this column before. More "stuff" doesn't necessarily make for a better life for children. They would rather have you. As a footnote, the author of the article concluded that the benefits of early employment disappeared over time as well as the negative effects.
I try to stay away from research studies when I write this column. I know it may seem boring to many readers. However, I violated my own rule in this case because of the popular media's reporting on this study. I know that we look for things to confirm what we want to hear and many in our affluent society look for reasons to work and avoid the responsibility of raising our children. We justify our behavior saying we are providing luxuries our children would not have otherwise. I knew this study, as it was reported, would add fuel to this fire that didn't need any help burning. I still adhere to the philosophy that our children are our most important investment. Investing your energy as a stay-at-home parent, assuming the child's basic needs are being met, is one of the greatest gifts you can provide.
