Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Research Linking Large Families with Lower Cognitive Ability Unlikely to Affect Quiverfull Movement

Research Linking Large Families with Lower Cognitive Ability Unlikely to Affect Quiverfull Movement

Last updated on: October 10, 2018 at 7:04 am by Libby Anne

Research Linking Large Families with Lower Cognitive Ability Unlikely to Affect Quiverfull Movement 2018-10-10T07:04:39-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I grew up in a family influenced by the Quiverfull movement. Think the Duggars, except that most families didn’t make it quite that far—either in terms of the number of children or the whole TV show thing. Still, in this community having large numbers of children was glorified as particularly godly. I attended homeschool conventions where the attendee with the largest number of children would be singled out and given a prize. The best gift you could give your children, it was said, was another sibling.

All of this means that I have some pretty big feelings when reading things like this:

In 2015, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a research review discussing how growing up in a large family affects children. The research revealed that there is a trade-off—when the quantity of children in a family increases, the quality of the experience decreases.

Or this:

One of the most notable challenges the researchers found was parental involvement with children. When the family grows, it makes sense that the mother’s attention splits. Researchers also noted decreased cognitive performance in children of larger families, as well as a notable increase in behavioral challenges.

Before I look at the study’s findings—which I will do in a moment—I want to include one anecdote from the above article. This article, published in Healthy Way, uses researchers’ findings as the backdrop for a number of individual interviews, including one with a woman who grew up as the middle child in a family with seven children:

“…I’m the middle [child] of seven,” Rebecca Gebhardt tells HealthyWay about her family. “As a child, there was always a lot going on, there was never a ton of money … but we didn’t know any different.”

Gebhardt says it was a busy childhood, but the memory that sticks out to her is eating every meal together, even if those meals only lasted a few minutes. She says that practice brought her family together.

As for the negative impact of being the child of a large family, she says the most notable thing was the competition between siblings—a dynamic that remains today when everyone gets back together for holidays.

I was the oldest child in a family larger than Gebhardt’s, and I feel what she says here intensely. I enjoyed eating every meal together—the happy chaos—making up games with my siblings, always having someone there to play with. But it wasn’t all fun and games. People often remark that it must be nice to have so many siblings now, and it is, but we don’t always all get along. Sometimes we don’t get along as well. It can feel like having our own family soap opera.

Now let’s turn to the study itself:

[W]e find that families face a substantial quantity-quality trade-off: increases in family size decrease parental investment, decrease childhood cognitive abilities, and increase behavioral problems.

This is the overall finding—the larger the family, the greater the decreases in parental investments, and, along with that, the greater the decreases in children’s cognitive ability and increases in children’s behavioral problems.

At issue, researchers found, was time:

When we decompose parental investments into time, resources, affection, and house safety, we find time to be the most critical input that decreases with additional children.

And:

[A]n additional sibling reduces the HOME score – the NLSY’s measure of parental investment in a child – by 1.7 percentile points. This finding speaks directly to the trade-offs in a quantity-quality model of child rearing. Parents in larger families reduce their per-child investment.

This finding is unsurprising. Having more children means the parents’ time will be more divided. I knew that growing up. The argument was that other things—having siblings to spend time with—offset it, that parents could still purpose to spend one-on-one time with their children, and that spending time with children together as a group was valuable too.

There was also a strain of thought that held that parental involvement is overvalued. Parents shouldn’t strive to be their children’s friends, the reasoning went. Children needed responsibility, and hard work, not parents fawning over them. Parents should train their children, and spend time working alongside them—the sort of work that must be done in every large household—and that would be sufficient.

The researchers findings regarding cognitive effects suggest that the above explanations and justification are inadequate. I’ve known for some time that second children tend to underscore first children—that there’s something about that one-on-one parental involvement in a child’s early years that’s important. This study points to more than that. It suggests that the birth of each additional child actually decreases the cognitive abilities of each older child.

The researchers found that:

[A]n extra sibling reduces an older sibling’s cognitive score by 2.6 percentile points.

This is a small effect—a tenth of a standard deviation—but it is an effect that is present nonetheless. On finding this, the researchers wondered whether this was only the result of temporary disruption caused by the new sibling’s birth. So they checked, and they found that the effect is not temporary.

Test scores and parental investments are both worse over the longer horizon than in the short run. Only in behavioral problems do we find that the effects may dissipate over the longer run.

Furthermore, researchers found a difference based on gender:

The effects on cognitive scores are small and insignificant for boys. They are large and significant for girls. In contrast, the family size effect is larger for boys for “Behavioral Problems.”

This finding should have a glaring red flashing neon light over it.

In larger than average families, the added burdens of childcare and housework falls disproportionately on the girls. Is this the reason for the greater cognitive effect on girls? Are girls in large families disproportionately asked to sacrifice time they could be spending on school or extracurriculars, to their own detriment?

One last thing. Researchers found that while there are cognitive effects throughout, the cognitive effects were greatest in children whose mothers had low AFQT scores. The Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) is an armed forces recruitment test that measures paragraph comprehension, word knowledge, mathematics knowledge, and arithmetic reasoning. In other words, when a mother has a higher education level, some of these effects are offset, but when a mother has a lower education level, these effects are intensified (this holds true across racial lines).

This makes me think about the way girls’ education is treated in Quiverfull circles. I went to college, as did many if the girls I grew up with—but not all did. There was a strain of thought in the Quiverfull movement that held that college was unnecessary or even harmful for girls. Girls were to be wives and mothers, to bear and raise large families themselves—college exposed girls to worldly ideas, threw them in with bad company, and gave them ideas. One woman in our community told my mother that sending me to college would “ruin me” for ever being a good wife and mother.

As I sit here I can’t believe how obvious this all is—even short of having a large family, children’s educational attainment often mirrors that of their mother. Why was a woman attending college not seen as something that would be a benefit to her children, in Quiverfull circles? Perhaps because it is not possible to increase a girl’s education without giving her ideas.

What a mess.

Beyond just this, these circles came with a devaluing of education and educational attainment in general. What was important was not how much you knew, but who you knew—whether you knew Jesus as your personal savior. We’re preparing our children for heaven, not Harvard, parents used to say. College gives children ideas—in some families and communities, opposition to college attendance applied not to daughters only, but also to sons.

In this context, any finding that having a large family might lower children’s cognitive scores is unimportant. That having a large family will (ostensibly) teach children responsibility and denial of self is far more important.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Quiverfull

Previous Post

October 8, 2018

Study Links Calvinist Beliefs to Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance

Next Post

October 10, 2018 Men Are Wired That Way, and Other Things Conservative Women Believe about Harassment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

This shortest book in the Old Testament prophesies judgment on Edom for violence against Judah. How many verses does it contain?

Select your answer to see how you score.

21 verses 12 verses 30 verses 15 verses