Equivalent Child Outcomes in Same-Sex vs. Different-Sex Parent Households

In the United States, beliefs about child and family outcomes for same-sex versus different-sex parents have been a source of confusion and debate. To address this topic, the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics published the recent study, "Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health" by Henry M. W. Bos et al. This study found no significant difference between outcomes for children raised in similarly stable same-sex versus different-sex parent households. However, the study did find that same-sex parents report significantly higher levels of parenting stress compared to different-sex parents.

METHODS

In this study, the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) data set was used to examine 95 female same-sex parent families and 95 different-sex parent families. the NSCH is a population-based survey on children's health. Families were chosen if they were stable and didn’t experience a major stress event such as divorce or separation.  In order to participate, two parents had to be presently coupled and had to have raised their children since birth. Same-sex male parents were not selected because there were too few households meeting these criteria.  The researchers note that one of the strengths of the investigation was that "the data were drawn from a population-based survey on children's health that was not described to participants as a study of same-sex parent families, thus minimizing potential bias."

Researchers focused on data from households with children ages 6 through 17 and focused on questions about “family relationships, parenting stress and child outcomes.” This data set offered a chance for the researchers to examine whether there “are there differences in family relationships (spouse/partner relationships and parent-child relationships), parenting stress, or child outcomes (general health, emotional difficulties, coping behavior, and learning behavior)" between same-sex and different-sex parent households.

We have created the following visualization that summarizes the major findings from this study. (Please set your browser to allow third party cookies if you receive an error while trying to explore the data.)

THE RESULTS

The study findings illustrate that there is no significant difference between same-sex and different-sex parent households in terms of spouse/partner relationship, parent/child relationship, child general health, child emotional difficulties, child coping behavior and child learning behavior. Thus, the researchers conclude that this study "contributes to the mounting evidence that children reared by same-sex parents fare at least as well as those reared by different-sex parents on a variety of measures used to assess psychological adjustment."  

The one exception to these otherwise equivalent results, however, was that the same sex couples reported experiencing greater parenting stress.  At this point in time little is known as to why same-sex parents experience greater stress as parents, but one theory suggests that the "cultural spotlight on child outcomes in families with same sex-parents” may be a causally contributing to the stress. 

Typically, greater parenting stress is a predictor that is "positively associated with children's emotional difficulties and negatively associated with child coping and learning behavior." Interestingly, however, greater parenting stress in same-sex parents did not manifest in these negative results. In an attempt to explain this, the researchers hypothesize that lesbian mothers are mitigating greater parenting stress by effectively utilizing support systems such as parenting groups and counseling services to allay negative child outcomes.

ADVICE FOR PARENTS

Unfortunately, homophobia in society and concerns about how societal attitudes may impact their families may be contributing to excess parenting stress among same-sex parents. These parents may also feel the pressure of other people judging them more closely and more critically compared to different-sex parents. 

Despite the societal challenges for same-sex parents, challenging days with children are common for all parents alike.  Parenting stress can be alleviated by understanding the triggers that contribute to your anxiety throughout the day. For example, you might feel stressed if your child is having a tantrum in a public place, especially if people begin to stare. Instead of saying, “I am a terrible parent because my child is acting out” try adjusting your self-talk to phrases such as: “my child is having a bad day,” “my child is hungry or tired” or “I am doing the best that I can." It is impossible to avoid all stressful parenting situations, but one key is to understand your limitations and allow yourself more time to accomplish tasks.

Also, attempt to prioritize the duties and responsibilities in your day so that you don’t become overwhelmed while setting healthy boundaries with others. Making time for yourself by eating healthy foods, getting enough sleep and daily exercise may also be beneficial. Finally, forming close emotional connections with family members, friends and cultivating a strong support system can also contribute to a healthier lifestyle. If you find that you are not able to deal effectively with the level of stress in your life or if you find that it is getting in the way of effective parenting, it may be time to contact a professional. 

EXPLORE MORE TOPICS:

• ADHD
• Bullying
• Depression
• LGBTQ
• Anxiety
• Self-Esteem
• Spanking
• Emotional Regulation
• Phobias
• Social Media
• Mindfulness
• PTSD
• Eating Disorders
• Autism
• Divorce

New Research in the Old Debate Over Spanking

Parent beliefs on the acceptability of spanking are often influenced by a wide variety of political, religious and cultural variables. Nevertheless, the overall attitude towards spanking in the U.S. has slowly been changing. According to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey, approximately 70% of U.S. parents currently indicate that spanking is an acceptable form of punishment compared to 84% in 1986 . 

To add to the debate, last month a new meta-analysis entitled "Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses" by Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor was published in the Journal of Family Psychology. The study "found no evidence that spanking is associated with improved child behavior and rather found spanking to be associated with increased risk of 13 detrimental outcomes."  The study went on to recommend that "Parents who use spanking, practitioners who recommend it, and policymakers who allow it might reconsider doing so given that there is no evidence that spanking does any good for children and all evidence points to the risk of it doing harm."

This new analysis evaluated a total of 1,574 studies related to the use of spanking children as a disciplinary measure used by parents.  Then, the list of studies was narrowed using the following criteria:

1) Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
2) Studies had to include "a measure of parents' use of customary, noninjurious spanking (or slapping or hitting)" to insure that studies of physical abuse were not included.
3) Studies had to report an association between spanking and child outcomes.
4) Studies had to include "appropriate statistics for calculating effect sizes" (Cohen's d).

As a result of this criteria, the list of studies was narrowed to 75. These studies produced a total of 111 effect sizes that the researchers used for their analysis.  The 111 effect sizes included data from 160,927 unique children. The oldest studies included in the analysis are from 1961, while the newest are from 2014.  Thus, research from over five decades has been included.

We have created the following visualizations that summarize a portion of the findings from this study. (Please set your browser to allow third party cookies if you receive an error while trying to explore the data.)

Note: The calculations in the graphic are based on Cohen's d reported by outcome and study. Each Cohen's d is converted into a Number Needed to Treat using the Excel formula: 

Number Needed to Treat = 1/(NORMSDIST(Cohen's d +NORMSINV(Control Event Rate))-Control Event Rate)

Because we do not know the exact rate of negative child and adult outcomes for children that were not spanked (Control Event Rate), we allow readers to change this variable from 10% to 40%. Then, we determine the % Increase of Negative Outcomes for Spanked Children Compared to Not Spanked Children using 1/Number Needed to Treat.

THE RESULTS

The first tab "Spanking Outcomes" lists 17 different negative psychological outcomes. The study found that spanked children experienced each negative outcome more than children who were not spanked.  However, only 13 of the 17 negative outcomes showed a statistically significant increase among spanked children. Of these, 10 were child outcomes.  Spanked children were at an increased risk of being a victim of physical abuse, having mental health problems, having a negative parent-child relationship, externalizing behavior problems, anti-social behavior, low moral internalization, aggression, internalizing behavior problems, impaired cognitive ability and low self-esteem. In addition, the study showed that spanked children are at an increased risk of negative adult outcomes including support for physical punishment of children, antisocial behavior and mental health problems.

The second tab "Spanking Studies" shows all the different studies that the researchers used to obtain these results. Positive results indicate that spanked children are at elevated risk for negative psychological outcomes. Negative results indicate that spanked children are at reduced risk for negative psychological outcomes.

Of all the studies that were included, 102 of the 111 effect sizes showed elevated risk of negative psychological outcomes for children that were spanked. Only nine studies showed reduced risk of negative psychological outcomes for children that were spanked and only one (Tennant, Detals, & Clark, 1975) was statistically significant. 

COUNTER EVIDENCE

Professor Gershoff has long been associated with research on spanking and corporal punishment. Her 2002 study, "Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review" is widely cited and critiqued using two primary arguments.

Argument #1: Professor Gershoff's 2002 study grouped spanking with other forms of more severe physical punishment.  As a result, her 2002 study overstated the negative outcomes due to spanking. This line of argument was explored in "Ordinary Physical Punishment: Is It Harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002)" by Baumrind et al.  When this critique reanalyzed the sample used in Professor Gershoff's 2002 study, it found that negative child outcomes were more highly associated with severe forms of corporal punishment compared to less severe forms such as spanking.

Thus, this study concluded that "Because her [Professor Gershoff's] measure included many instances of extreme and excessive physical punishment, her analyses are not relevant to the current political debate about whether normative spanking...is harmful for children. At present we conclude that the evidence presented in Gershoff’s meta-analyses does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking." 

In their new paper, Professors Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor respond to this critique by noting that these researchers "concluded that only severe methods of physical punishment are harmful." However, the professors note that this critique included statistics comparing more severe and less severe forms of corporal punishment that indicate "that both are associated with more undesirable child outcomes." 

This critique led Professors Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor to modify the criteria for a study's inclusion in their updated analysis. In their latest analysis, only studies that had "a measure of parents' use of customary, noninjurious spanking (or slapping or hitting)" were included to insure that studies of physical abuse were excluded (Criteria #2 for inclusion of a study described above).

Argument #2: Professor Gershoff's meta-analysis is relying on a sample of methodologically weak studies that have have not conducted randomized controlled experiments. However, as Professors Gershoff  and Grogan-Kaylor note in their latest analysis, "parents' use of spanking is not easily or ethically studied through an experimental design, as children cannot be randomly assigned to parents with varying predispositions to spank, nor can parents typically be randomly assigned to spank or not spank."

Due to this problem, studies have not been able to "causally link spanking with child outcomes" because they suffer from "selection bias in who gets spanked - children with more behavior problems elicit more discipline generally and spanking in particular." This critique is covered in "The Intervention Selection Bias: An Underrecognized Confound in Intervention Research" by Larzelere et al.

In response, Professors Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor note that analyses that have used advanced statistical methods to mitigate these concerns and focused only on the most methodologically sound studies have failed to find evidence that spanking produces positive child outcomes. Instead, studies such as "Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies" by Ferguson have found "small but non-trivial long-term relationships between spanking/corporal punishment use and negative outcomes." 

Advice for parents

As mentioned in the introduction, the decision to spank or not spank a child is deeply personal and the aim of this post is not to judge individual parenting decisions. However, it may be valuable for interested parents to understand the latest research and counter-arguments in this area of study.

In our review of the research, it appears reasonable to conclude the following:

1) There is little evidence to suggest that spanking leads to positive child outcomes.
2) At best, mild spanking adds little to no risk of negative child outcomes.
3) At worst, even mild spanking significantly increases risk of negative child and adult psychological outcomes.

With the evidence stacking up in favor of not spanking children, parents may want to question why they are continuing this practice. Would alternative forms of non-physical discipline prove as effective without the increased risk of negative psychological outcomes? Would brief "time-outs" or a short-term loss of privileges accomplish the same goals as spanking?

If trends on attitudes towards the acceptability of spanking continue, the practice of spanking is in no danger of a quick extinction. However, with new research and critiques working to improve methods and provide more sound conclusions, there appears to be mounting evidence that spanking is a practice that is ineffective at best and detrimental at worst.

• ADHD
• Bullying
• Depression
• LGBTQ
• Anxiety
• Self-Esteem
• Spanking
• Emotional Regulation
• Phobias
• Social Media
• Mindfulness
• PTSD
• Eating Disorders
• Autism
• Divorce

Explore more Topics:

Characteristics and Effects of Child & Teen Bullying

Research on bullying has become increasingly sophisticated and a growing number of mental health researchers are interested in the topic. In this post we present the results of the study Adult Psychiatric Outcomes of Bullying and Being Bullied by Peers in Childhood and Adolescence by Copeland et al. published in JAMA Psychiatry on 2/20/2013.

The data for this study is from the Great Smoky Mountain Study which assessed children and teens from ages 9-16 and followed them through ages 19-26. The series of visualizations that we have created attempts to summarize the study's findings into three primary questions. (Please set your browser to allow third party cookies if you receive an error while trying to explore the data.)

Question #1 (Visualization Tab - "Child/Teen Bullies & Victims") - What are the characteristics of children and teens who are victims of bullying, both bullies and victims, and bullies?

We begin with the characteristics of children and teens who were neither bullies nor victims. We report the prevalence of psychiatric disorders and social hardship for this group of children and teens in the blue bars. Then, we overlay the study's findings of these same psychiatric disorders and social hardships for children and teens that were identified as victims of bullying, both bullies and victims, and bullies. As shown on the visualization, the study found that child and teen victims, both bullies and victims, and bullies are significantly more likely to have a variety of psychiatric disorders and social hardship. These findings are consistent with earlier studies.

Question #2 (Visualization Tab - "Young Adult Outcomes") - What are the psychiatric characteristics of young adults that were victims, both bullies and victims, and bullies as children and teens?

As we follow the population into young adulthood, several trends emerge.  

1) Bullies - First, child and teen bullies are at elevated risk for very few mental disorders as young adults. There is a statistically significant increase in risk for only antisocial personality disorder for child and teen bullies as young adults.

2) Victims - Young adults who were victimized as children and teens, on the other hand, showed significant increases in risk for a variety of mental disorders including agoraphobia, anxiety disorders, generalized anxiety, depressive disorders and panic disorders.

3) Bullies and Victims - Young adults that were both bullies and victims as children and teens show the most elevated risks for mental disorders as young adults.  This group faces increased risk in both the breath and prevalence of mental disorders as young adults.

Question #3 (Visualization Tab - "Risks for Young Adults") - After controlling for psychiatric disorders and social hardships as a child and teen, how much does being a victim, bully and victim, and bully as a child and teen increase one's risk for psychiatric disorders as a young adult?

1)  Bullies - Again, children and teens who were bullies show increased risk of only antisocial personality behavior as young adults.

2) Victims - After controlling for childhood and teen psychiatric disorders and social hardships, victims of bullying continue to show significant increased risk for agoraphobia, anxiety disorders, panic disorders and generalized anxiety as young adults. The increased risk for depressive disorders is no longer statistically significant after controlling for childhood and teen psychiatric disorders and social hardships.

3) Bullies and Victims -  After controlling for childhood and teen psychiatric disorders and social hardships, bullies and victims continue to show significant increased risk for panic and depressive disorders. Interestingly, male bullies and victims show a very high increase in risk for suicidality as young adults, while females do not. Female bullies and victims show a very high increase in risk for agoraphobia as young adults, while males do not.

ADVICE FOR PARENTS

Childhood bullying should not be ignored or dismissed by parents or school administrators as a rite of passage. Instead, it is a serious issue that significantly increases risks for psychiatric disorders for childhood and teen victims, both victims and bullies, and bullies as they age and become young adults. Parents should take claims of bullying and victimization from children seriously and look to intervene by working with school administrators and teachers to stop the bullying behavior and prevent it from happening in the future.  

The study "Effectiveness of School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying: A Systematic and Meta-analytic Review" by Ttofi et al. was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs. The study found programs to be effective by decreasing bullying by 20-23% and victimization by 17-20% on average. In evaluating what makes school-based anti-bullying programs effective, the study found that, "More intensive programs were more effective, as were programs including parent meetings, firm disciplinary methods, and improved playground supervision."  Parents of children and teens struggling with bullying behavior should ask their schools about their anti-bullying programs and raise awareness about the effectiveness of these programs in order to enact a positive change.

Note: To calculate the risk presented in the visualizations, we used the formula Relative Risk = Odds Ratio/((1 - p)+(Odds Ratio * p)) where p is the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in young adults that were not bullies or victims as children and teens.

• ADHD
• Bullying
• Depression
• LGBTQ
• Anxiety
• Self-Esteem
• Spanking
• Emotional Regulation
• Phobias
• Social Media
• Mindfulness
• PTSD
• Eating Disorders
• Autism
• Divorce

Explore More Topics: