New Studies

Elsewhere, discussing an astonishingly incompetent study by Henry N. Ricciuti of Cornell University published in the Journal of Family Psychology and then publicized further in the New York Times, I harrumphed that “articles like these have consequences,” since some people out there - and if you’re reading this, you know who you are - love nothing more than to declare that “new studies” show that the earth is actually flat, then cite a study such as Ricciuti’s as their evidence. And sure enough, the Ricciuti study has already started turning up, like a bad penny, when academics need a footnote to show that divorce and unwed childbearing do not harm children. 

In the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Martha Albertson Fineman, a legal scholar, takes aim at several recent reports on civil society in the U.S., including A Call to Civil Society, released by our institute. Fineman is particularly keen to distance herself from people who worry about “the decline of the two-parent family.” Why? Well, she has many reasons, but one of them concerns new research findings: “new studies call into question the conclusions of the civil society advocates that single parenthood is harmful to children.” And which “new studies” does she have in mind? Only one, it turn out: the Ricciuti study. Fineman then continues: “In one recent example, a large multiethnic study from Cornell University indicated that single motherhood does not necessarily compromise preparedness for school, indicating that what mattered most was the mothers’ ability and educational level.”

Note that Fineman offers a broad conclusion (“new studies show”) followed by a specific illustration (“for example”), but uses the same piece of evidence for both assertions. Watch how this works. There are many Grand Canyons in the United States. (See Grand Canyon, Arizona.) For example, there is a Grand Canyon in Arizona. (See Grand Canyon, Arizona.) Note also the give-away word “necessarily.” If Professor Fineman was being cross-examined, she could point out that, technically, she is not denying that growing up in a single-parent home frequently or even typically increases the risks facing children. No, strictly speaking, she is simply reminding us that measurable harm does not occur necessarily, by definition, in every single case. As if someone had disagreed with this formulation.  

Finally, remember that the Ricciuti study itself - Fineman’s entire corpus of “new studies” - is absolutely worthless. The particulars are in my last letter, but consider again the conclusion of the respected family scholar Norval Glenn of the University of Texas: “These deficiencies in the definition and measurement of the independent variable make the findings of this study essentially meaningless.” 

But meaningless or not, let’s play a game. For the next few months, every time you find someone claiming that “new studies” indicate that family fragmentation is a benign trend, check the source. I’ll bet you’ll find the Ricciuti study. And I’ll bet you’ll find it sitting there all alone, shivering in the cold, since - Ricciuti and ideologues such as Fineman notwithstanding - serious researchers today overwhelmingly agree that single parenthood compromises child well-being. Whatever you find, please let me know, and I’ll publish what we learn.

Sources: Henry N. Ricciuti, “Single Parenthood and School Readiness in White, Black, and Hispanic 6- and 7-Year-Olds,” Journal of Family Psychology 13, no. 3 (September 1999). Martha Albertson Fineman, “The Family in Civil Society,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 75, no. 2 (January 2000).

First published Winter 2000.