A Quantitative Analysis of How Much Time Spent with Kids Correlates To The Child's Outcome...

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by ivorytickler

research doesn't find many differences in our kids based on time spent with them except at the extremes.

not true.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

not true.

Okay, post your research showing that kids are turning out different because of the minor amount of time difference between working and non working moms. While there are some "snapshot" differences at different ages (whose kids they favor flips back and forth) there's only one I know of that is long term (two but they're related) and that is seen, not surprisingly, in the attitudes of our adult children about the equality of men and women and the capability of women.

[Ivorytickler]

Interesting article on parenting time and how it has changed over the years. How people perceive time and how people actually use time are fascinating subjects. What we think happens and what really happens are miles apart. Of course, none of this addresses the issue of whether or not small differences in time, like those that exist between WM's and SAHM's really matter. Personally, I would think the time losses involved in divorce would matter long before the ones between WM's and SAHM's.

http://csde.washington.edu/downloads..._AJS_paper.pdf


I've been saying this all along...

"The problem with residual estimates of time
investments in children is that increased work hours do not translate,
hour for hour, into less time with children."


"Nock and Kingston’s (1988) investigation
of parental time with children in the early 1980s showed that
employed mothers spent less time in activities with children but even
“stay-at-home” mothers spent much of their day not directly engaged in
child care activities."

FTR, I still think we're barking up the wrong tree in analyzing to death the amount of time parents spend with kids. The question shouldn't be "Are there time differences?" but, rather, "Do the time differences that exist matter?". I think that research supports there being a wide range of time that works well and that it's wide enough that most parents are well within the parameters that allow for successful child rearing. I don't think there is any evidence that minor changes in time matter in the long run. My personal experience backs this up. I nearly doubled my time at home when I went part time but the only thing that really changed was having enough time for myself. Only a small portion of the extra time was used on my kids because they already had enough and didn't need more.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Okay, post your research showing that kids are turning out different because of the minor amount of time difference between working and non working moms. While there are some "snapshot" differences at different ages (whose kids they favor flips back and forth) there's only one I know of that is long term (two but they're related) and that is seen, not surprisingly, in the attitudes of our adult children about the equality of men and women and the capability of women.

You already posted your research. The research that you yourself used to defend your ridiculous position doesn't actually show what you say it shows. I am not going to allow you to get away with saying that your research supports your position when your research actually says the opposite of what you say.

The research you posted states that certain children benefit from their mother working while others benefit from them staying home. The research supports the stance of most of the people on this thread who say that they made whatever their choice is depending on their own family.

You continue to state that research says that there are no differences, however the research you posted actually states the opposite. I am going to continue to call BS on you when you cite that research to support your position.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Interesting article on parenting time and how it has changed over the years. How people perceive time and how people actually use time are fascinating subjects. What we think happens and what really happens are miles apart. Of course, none of this addresses the issue of whether or not small differences in time, like those that exist between WM's and SAHM's really matter. Personally, I would think the time losses involved in divorce would matter long before the ones between WM's and SAHM's.

http://csde.washington.edu/downloads..._AJS_paper.pdf


I've been saying this all along...

"The problem with residual estimates of time
investments in children is that increased work hours do not translate,
hour for hour, into less time with children."


"Nock and Kingston’s (1988) investigation
of parental time with children in the early 1980s showed that
employed mothers spent less time in activities with children but even
“stay-at-home” mothers spent much of their day not directly engaged in
child care activities."

FTR, I still think we're barking up the wrong tree in analyzing to death the amount of time parents spend with kids. The question shouldn't be "Are there time differences?" but, rather, "Do the time differences that exist matter?". I think that research supports there being a wide range of time that works well and that it's wide enough that most parents are well within the parameters that allow for successful child rearing. I don't think there is any evidence that minor changes in time matter in the long run. My personal experience backs this up. I nearly doubled my time at home when I went part time but the only thing that really changed was having enough time for myself. Only a small portion of the extra time was used on my kids because they already had enough and didn't need more.

I don't think that time DIRECTLY spent on child care is the thing that benefits my kids when I am home. After all they are past the age that they need much in the way of direct child care. I do think that the amount of time that I am available to my kids makes a difference to them.

There are some things that are quantitative and others that are qualitative. I think that as parents we cannot ignore qualitative issues simply because we cannot measure them.

Besides, I think that I have already proved that the "small" amount of time that you cite as a difference is actually a fairly large chunk of time.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

You already posted your research. The research that you yourself used to defend your ridiculous position doesn't actually show what you say it shows. I am not going to allow you to get away with saying that your research supports your position when your research actually says the opposite of what you say.

The research you posted states that certain children benefit from their mother working while others benefit from them staying home. The research supports the stance of most of the people on this thread who say that they made whatever their choice is depending on their own family.

You continue to state that research says that there are no differences, however the research you posted actually states the opposite. I am going to continue to call BS on you when you cite that research to support your position.

Actually, it does support what I've posted. Try reading it again.

The research I posted shows only one class of mothers where there is a clear benefit to SAH and that is highly educated upper SES mothers. Their children seem to benefit from them at home (remember, however, that just because a difference is measurable doens't mean it actually makes a difference). I could hazard a guess as to why this is as I have a SIL who fits this category. In their case, both parent's desire to succeed (very driven people) was hurting their family so my BIL decided to become a SAHD and that had a positive impact on their kids. I think this, likely, has more to do with the personality types involved when you have highly successful parents than it does SAH/WOH status. Their kids were growing up like weeds before he quit his job to stay home because both parents were caught up in highly demanding professions. Different parenting personalities can expect different outcomes. Because you are more likely to see driven people here, I think they may be looking at the wrong thing. It may be a driven personality type that is causing the differences here.

There is a clear benefit to WOH when mom is uneducated or the family is poor, when SES is controlled. There is a clear benefit to WOH for all except the upper SES when you don't control for SES. The impact of SES is much bigger than any impact of SAH/WOH by itself.

One thing you must keep in mind here is that most of us are not upper SES and most of us are not poor. Most of us are in the middle. This is where research finds little difference. To my knowledge the largest differences are seen when uneducated or poor mothers go to work. Their children do see significant improvements. In the middle class, where most of us live, ignoring finances, it's a wash. So, unless you're a highly educated upper SES mom or a poor or uneducated mom, the research does not indicate there will be signficant differences in your children based on your working status.

So, no, the research doesn't say that some moms should SAH and some should WOH. What reasearch says is that there are few differences in our kids that matter based on our working status alone. Of course you have to ignore the financial impact of this decision to come to that conclusion. If you include the financial impact, the vast majority of WM's can expect better outcomes because of their financial contribution to their households. The last stats I read had 40% of us as the primary bread winner in our households. I don't know about you, but taking away the income of the primary bread winner here would have, serious, negative impact on my children.

Again, I ask, where is your research that says that our kids are turning out different based on time difference due to working status. Yes, there are some classes of mothers where research does indicate that working may be best but if you're not in those classes, the research isn't speaking to you. When it comes to educated mothers, the question becomes can mom positively impact her family's SES by working. If she can, then working would be what research would indicate, however, if she can't, it's a wash unless her family is already at the top of the food chain and I, really, suspect they're seeing personality differences here not working status differences. Trust me, those at the top are a different breed. Anyone who has spent any time around highly successful people knows that. While we're on this subject, it should be noted that regardless of working status, kids who grow up in high SES families fare better than everyone else on average (as usual, YMMV as research looks at large groups not individuals but as individuals, we need reason to believe that we are so abnormal that none of this applies to us.)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Interesting article on parenting time and how it has changed over the years. How people perceive time and how people actually use time are fascinating subjects. What we think happens and what really happens are miles apart.

A 43-plus page article that in its fine print basically states that differences can't be measured, that there are too many other factors such as single parenting, divorce, working out of the home, etc, to accurately measure the time differences? And we are expected to believe that diaries are an accurate measure of time? Sounds like the Nielson ratings, back when people recorded what they viewed on television (vs what they actually watched). Sorry, I don't buy it.

My personal experience backs this up. Only a small portion of the extra time was used on my kids because they already had enough and didn't need more.

Your kids, Ivory, YOUR KIDS....not necessarily someone else's. It's clear that the reason you post this all this research is to give credence to your choice of working full time.

[funisart]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Actually, it does support what I've posted. Try reading it again.

So, no, the research doesn't say that some moms should SAH and some should WOH. What research says is that there are few differences in our kids that matter based on our working status alone. Of course you have to ignore the financial impact of this decision to come to that conclusion. If you include the financial impact, the vast majority of WM's can expect better outcomes because of their financial contribution to their households. The last stats I read had 40% of us as the primary bread winner in our households. I don't know about you, but taking away the income of the primary bread winner here would have, serious, negative impact on my children.

. Trust me, those at the top are a different breed. Anyone who has spent any time around highly successful people knows that. While we're on this subject, it should be noted that regardless of working status, kids who grow up in high SES families fare better than everyone else on average ]

Funisart:

No thank you I do not need to read anything again. I did go back and look at threads that you posted in "way back then", and you keep saying the same things, you turn the threads into a fight between SAHM and WM--

So if there are no differences just quit being a broken record.

40% is not a majority last I heard.

Where is the research about the breed of highly successful people?? I don't know you so I don't trust you. I am around them and they are all different-no single breed at all.

Enough all ready.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Actually, it does support what I've posted. Try reading it again.

The research I posted shows only one class of mothers where there is a clear benefit to SAH and that is highly educated upper SES mothers. Their children seem to benefit from them at home (remember, however, that just because a difference is measurable doens't mean it actually makes a difference).

It ALSO says that children of mothers that are poorly educated benefit from a mother that works. That means that there are some families where it benefits a child to have a mother who works and others where it benefits a child to have a mother at home. In other words, it really depends on the individual family whether it benefits a child to have a mother who works (or stays at home).

You say it makes NO difference. The research says that it makes a difference, but the kind of difference it makes depends on the individual family, which is what the rest of us here are saying. I call BS on the no difference nonsense.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I could hazard a guess as to why this is as I have a SIL who fits this category. In their case, both parent's desire to succeed (very driven people) was hurting their family so my BIL decided to become a SAHD and that had a positive impact on their kids. I think this, likely, has more to do with the personality types involved when you have highly successful parents than it does SAH/WOH status. Their kids were growing up like weeds before he quit his job to stay home because both parents were caught up in highly demanding professions. Different parenting personalities can expect different outcomes. Because you are more likely to see driven people here, I think they may be looking at the wrong thing. It may be a driven personality type that is causing the differences here.

This is exactly why people have to decide for themselves. There is no one right answer that fits all families. It is not clearly a benefit to have a mother that works, nor it is clearly a benefit to have a mother that stays home. It depends on a whole host of other factors, some of which are not measurable. Your research actually supports the idea that there is no one right answer. It does NOT show that there is an overwhelming benefit to having mothers work. It also does NOT show that there is no difference. It shows that there is a difference and that the difference depends on the individual circumstances.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

There is a clear benefit to WOH when mom is uneducated or the family is poor, when SES is controlled. There is a clear benefit to WOH for all except the upper SES when you don't control for SES. The impact of SES is much bigger than any impact of SAH/WOH by itself.

Why would control for SES in one case and not another? I am pretty far removed from my research classes but that makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

One thing you must keep in mind here is that most of us are not upper SES and most of us are not poor. Most of us are in the middle. This is where research finds little difference. To my knowledge the largest differences are seen when uneducated or poor mothers go to work. Their children do see significant improvements. In the middle class, where most of us live, ignoring finances, it's a wash. So, unless you're a highly educated upper SES mom or a poor or uneducated mom, the research does not indicate there will be signficant differences in your children based on your working status.

Just because most people do not fall into these categories it doesn't mean they don't exist. How can you just ignore these people when drawing conclusions? Just because MOST people are middle class that doesn't mean ALL people are middle class. And even within the middle class there are vast differences in the resources available to families.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

So, no, the research doesn't say that some moms should SAH and some should WOH. What reasearch says is that there are few differences in our kids that matter based on our working status alone. Of course you have to ignore the financial impact of this decision to come to that conclusion. If you include the financial impact, the vast majority of WM's can expect better outcomes because of their financial contribution to their households. The last stats I read had 40% of us as the primary bread winner in our households. I don't know about you, but taking away the income of the primary bread winner here would have, serious, negative impact on my children.

Few differences does NOT equate to no differences. It does not say there are no differences. It says that there are differences under certain circumstances. I will call BS on you every time you state that there are no differences because that is not what the article you posted said.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

SoAgain, I ask, where is your research that says that our kids are turning out different based on time difference due to working status.

I am not claiming this thus I feel no need to prove it.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Yes, there are some classes of mothers where research does indicate that working may be best but if you're not in those classes, the research isn't speaking to you.

I am confused. I thought that you were saying there was no difference. Now you say there is a difference for some classes of mothers. That is what I have been saying all along. There is a difference but the difference does not clearly state that it is always best to do things one way.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

When it comes to educated mothers, the question becomes can mom positively impact her family's SES by working. If she can, then working would be what research would indicate, however, if she can't, it's a wash unless her family is already at the top of the food chain and I, really, suspect they're seeing personality differences here not working status differences. Trust me, those at the top are a different breed. Anyone who has spent any time around highly successful people knows that.

I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

While we're on this subject, it should be noted that regardless of working status, kids who grow up in high SES families fare better than everyone else on average (as usual, YMMV as research looks at large groups not individuals but as individuals, we need reason to believe that we are so abnormal that none of this applies to us.)

Having money does not make one abnormal.

[JustJulia]

The thread keeps getting hijacked into a rehash of the working/homemaker mom debate, so I'm closing it. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss whether parents should work outside the home, thanks.