Translating the Science of Parenting for Real Life
The Knowledge Principle
Several years ago, a viral New York Times article represented what can go badly when the media misrepresents science. The article’s premise relied on one study that it totally got wrong. I know because I read the study.
The article’s author labeled parents “weak” and “stupid” for yelling at their children. Ironically, the referenced 2014 child development study actually found that what harms children falls under “harsh verbal discipline” with three components: yelling, name-calling and insulting. The author insulted us to get us not to yell at our children, misrepresenting that yelling on its own is equivalent to verbally abusive language. (I did my best to counteract this messaging with my own piece in the Washington Post; alas, it did not go viral!)
Parenting is hard already, and we struggle enough with guilt – we don’t need the added burden of panicking over the recent headline that working mothers doom their children (they don’t) or breastfed babies are smarter (over-simplifying research). Let’s add some calm, confidence, and reason back into our angst by answering these questions: 1. What do we really know from parenting science? 2. How do we spot the “fake parenting news?” 3. What’s true for my child and family?
Limitations of Parenting Science
Some of the most popular parenting trends have referenced science to support their approaches, but a closer look reveals problems. For example, attachment parenting may be based in the well-established science of attachment, but its claims that certain practices result in brain changes that “prove” stronger attachments is not grounded in research. I looked. Attachment researchers with no financial stake in the popularity of attachment parenting have rebuked the claims, explaining that parents can build healthy attachments without attachment parenting practices (like even though I could never wear a baby wrap right and my kids went to daycare since infancy, we indeed have healthy attachments).
“The inundation of studies and headlines, however, can collide with our best intentions to create more chaos, confusion, and pressure instead of useful knowledge. Has science sacrificed the art of parenting?”
Much of what we stress over has no huge treasure trove of evidence behind it. Many of us fret about yelling, and of course it’s a worthy goal to work at being a calmer, less reactive parent overall. But there is no longitudinal study of hundreds of families examining what is probably typical yelling in most families of young children, to see a trend of negative outcomes for those children as adolescents. This would require comparing with another sample of hundreds of families who do not yell. Good luck finding them!
It’s extremely difficult to break down components of regular, every day parenting, into variables that can be researched responsibly. This is an ongoing struggle in psychological research, which by nature is much fuzzier than “hard sciences” like medical research that can look at blood samples.
The gold standard of research, randomized controlled trials, requires the researched variable (let’s just say yelling) to be assigned to two groups that have been deemed equivalent so no other variable (let’s say educational level) could account for differences. That means one group of parents would be instructed to yell at their children, the other to not yell, and then groups would be compared on all kinds of outcomes (relationships, academics, self-esteem, mental health). See the ethical dilemma here to direct a group of families to intentionally yell at their children?
How to Spot Fake Parenting News
As we all know, the internet has amplified the problem of putting information out in the world without solid sources. The media benefits from viewers and readers not taking the time to investigate what they see and hear because more sensational headlines mean more readers. Although these headlines are definitely more lascivious than sitting down with a good old-fashioned science journal, here are some tips to avoid another “vaccines cause autism” debacle.
1. One study means nothing. If one study finds a result, it really does not matter until it happens again . . . by another team of researchers at another location with another study population. In the world of social science, this is called “replication.” So many factors can accidentally lead to a result, that it is foolish and unethical to state that something has been “discovered” or “proven” by results of one study. Good and honest researchers state this when they write about their study, always stating, “future studies need to be conducted,” usually embedded in an few-paragraph section about the limitations inherent to the one study.
2. Correlation is not causation. This might sound a bit fancy, but this means that just because two things seem to be associated, it does not mean that one causes the other. A quick tip when reading about parenting related to positive or negative outcomes for kids is to look at whether the data was collected at one time point (cross-sectional = correlation) or at multiple time points (longitudinal = causation, with some caveats related to statistics).
3. Statistics are important. There is a lot that goes into the word, “significant” for “significant findings.” This means that whatever was discovered was greater than a chance discovery, but even then, over-eager researchers can overstate their findings. It is important to know how many people participated in the study – too few can mean nothing no matter the findings; too many can mean there would be statistical significance no matter what you study. There are complicated ways to adjust for the size of the population to make sure the results are meaningful. You don’t need to know all these fancy ways, but just know it is good to ask the question: Is this finding TRULY significant?
4. Publish or perish pressure. (File Drawer problem) Researchers are climbing the ladder like everyone else. There can be a lot of pressure to publish in order to keep your job. This can lead to desperate efforts to make something out of nothing. It is also downright depressing to put in years of work building up a massive study, only to discover that you found out nothing that really matters. This is where putting a spin on results, especially one that captures media attention, can be very tempting.
5. Science is not always right (or “Science is right until it's wrong”). I believe in science. I consider myself a scientist. Evolution should be taught in schools. Climate change is real. Science done ethically and responsibly is essential to the forward progress of our society. Science can be wrong (see: fat-free foods are not the key to weight loss). Science can have the best intentions (like parents) and sometimes there are mistakes (like in parenting), or the data evolve over time with more studies (like everything revolving around COVID).
I present this list of caveats about research to lay the foundation that some evidence is important when scanning the multitude of articles popping into our cyber-worlds. There have been some downright dangerous trends that may hold some appeal as a solution to a painful problem, but do not work, and can cause substantial harm (haunting examples: the rebirthing movement to treat kids with trauma; blaming schizophrenia in children on “refrigerator mothers”).
How to Spot Good Science
I recently listened to a podcast interview with a librarian, Vikki Carter, who explained the concept of “information literacy:” knowing if what you are reading is good information. She listed three components to consider when vetting information: accuracy, authority, and aim.
Accuracy: Can you find this same information other places with reputable sources? If you read something provocative, see if you can find the same claims from other trustworthy sources. How to even know if they are trustworthy? Look at their authority.
Authority: What is the source’s level of authority? Their credentials, background, and training matter. A “parent coach” does not necessarily have an educational degree in a related field; even someone with the PhD after their name could have earned it in an area completely unrelated to children, families, and parenting.
Aim: What is the point of the source? Is there an aim to make money? Do they benefit somehow if they persuade you with the information they are putting out there? I remember reading one harrowing account of a woman going undercover as a pre-teen on a social media app, and when I realized the whole thing was sponsored by a cybersecurity company, I regained my senses and digested the information with less panic.
Science, Meet Art
The science of parenting has elevated our modern parenthood to be more effective and compassionate in many ways . In some subcultures of parents, we have the luxury of thinking about our parenting, of analyzing each decision, and striving to do our best. The inundation of studies and headlines, however, can collide with our best intentions to create more chaos, confusion, and pressure instead of useful knowledge. Has science sacrificed the art of parenting?
I worry that the modern landscape of parenting hyper-guidance has numbed our old-fashioned instincts. One real threat to this “natural” instinct is the prevalent disconnection of our nuclear families from communities where experienced elders assisted, and parents literally had villages to help. Now, we have the artifice of Facebook groups for support, while we try to work all the hours and parent all the children with just us in the same household. Not the same.
You may have heard I’m writing my first parenting book. Throughout the chapters, I remind readers: “Always remember your unique child and family’s needs, and consider this guidance within your personal context.” We may often feel lost and confused, but I think we also know more than we think we do. If we allow ourselves more trust in our instincts, maybe we can even use the science better, limitations and all.
Resources: Parenting Science You Can Trust
Melinda Wenner Moyer: Science journalist for Scientific American and author of recently published, How to Raise Kids Who Aren’t A**holes, Twitter: @lindy2350; Instagram: @melindawmoyer
Psychologists Off the Clock podcast: This podcast hosted by four psychologists frequently includes some of the top parenting researchers and writers in the field, and the interviews focus on better understanding the science to improve real life.
Dr. Cara Goodwin, @parentingtranslator: An excellent Instagram follow for the breakdown of headlines into what the original science articles really say, by a clinical psychologist with 3 kids (sound familiar? — you can totally trust her!).