Child-development psychologists convened by APA President Diane F. Halpern, PhD, at APA's 2004 Annual Convention in Honolulu noted a number of problems with a widely publicized 2003 study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study linked the number of hours children spent in day care with their propensity to act aggressively toward peers and parents.
In the panelists' view, weaknesses in the study, published in the Journal of Child Development (Vol. 74, No. 4), include:
-
Failure to consider the impact of day care on different subgroups, such as low- and middle-class children, or even boys versus girls. "Before applying research conclusions to social policy or individual decisions, we need to understand why such an effect occurs and who it affects," explained panelist and University of Michigan psychology professor emerita Lois Hoffman, PhD, at the session.
-
Lack of attention to the processes by which day care might increase aggression in children. For example, perhaps aggression only increases when children are inadequately supervised, said Hoffman, and aggressive behavior, such as grabbing a toy from a playmate, goes unpunished.
-
No weight given to the economic and psychological benefits day care provides by allowing both parents to work. In particular, the researchers statistically erased the potential positive effects of increased family income by matching families in the control group with families of comparable incomes in the experimental group, noted Nora Newcombe, PhD, a psychology professor at Temple University.
Researchers also controlled for maternal mood, negating the potentially salutary effect working may have on maternal depression and subsequently child behavior, said Newcombe.
"If you control for something that is potentially mediating a story...then you are controlling out a really important aspect of process," said Newcombe. "You are creating a world that does not exist."
University of Pennsylvania psychology professor Stewart Friedman, PhD, and University of Virginia psychology professor Sandra Scarr, PhD, also contributed to the panel discussion.
--S. DINGFELDER