MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106559386 · doi:10.1177/0956797613508561

Parents Are Slightly Happier Than Nonparents, but Causality Still Cannot Be Inferred

2013· letter· en· W2106559386 on OpenAlexaff
S. Katherine Nelson, Kostadin Kushlev, Elizabeth W. Dunn, Sonja Lyubomirsky

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDienerHappinessCausality (physics)Social psychologyAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

research-article2013 PSSXXX10.1177/0956797613508561Nelson et al.Reply to Bhargava, Kassam, and Loewenstein Commentary Parents Are Slightly Happier Than Nonparents, but Causality Still Cannot Be Inferred: A Reply to Bhargava, Kassam, and Loewenstein (2014) Psychological Science 2014, Vol. 25(1) 303­–304 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797613508561 pss.sagepub.com S. Katherine Nelson 1 , Kostadin Kushlev 2 , Elizabeth W. Dunn 2 , and Sonja Lyubomirsky 1 University of California, Riverside and 2 University of British Columbia Received 8/22/13; Accepted 9/20/13 We welcome Bhargava, Kassam, and Lowenstein’s (2014) commentary on our article (Nelson, Kushlev, English, Dunn, & Lyubomirsky, 2013). The question we addressed, however, is different from the one Bhargava and col- leagues posed. Although we slipped into using causal language in a few places, our primary aim was to exam- ine the bivariate relationship between parenthood and well-being. Motivated in part by media portrayals of par- ents who are “miserable” and who “hate parenting,” we simply asked whether happiness and parenthood can coexist. Our analyses revealed that, overall, when parents and nonparents were asked about their happiness levels, the parents were slightly happier. Other fields also use this approach; for example, many researchers have assessed the direct correlation between income and well- being, facilitating comparisons of data sets around the world (see Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002, for a review). We did not try to examine the causal effect of parent- hood on well-being, because our correlational design precluded causal interpretation. Bhargava et al., by con- trast, aimed to test causality. However, their causal claim about the direction of the parenthood effect on well- being is entirely contingent on having a causal theoretical model—a model that assumes all causes of well-being correlated with parenthood are included (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). That model was never articulated. Instead, the authors used a convenient (and limited) set of demo- graphic variables (see their Note 3), undoubtedly leaving out important factors, such as child temperament and child age. We have recently moved beyond the simple “Are parents happier?” question to trying to understand when, why, and how some parents are happier (or less happy) than nonparents (Nelson, Kushlev, & Lyubomirsky, Of course, parents’ marital status, age, and gender are also related to their well-being. We considered the Bhargava et al. approach of using these variables as covariates (as described in Nelson, Kushlev, English, et al., 2013, p. 4), but we instead examined how the asso- ciation between parenthood and well-being varies among these groups. Indeed, we did find evidence of modera- tion—parenthood, compared with nonparenthood, was associated with relatively greater well-being for male and middle-aged individuals and with lower well-being for young and single ones. The presence of these significant moderators “invalidate[s] the analysis of covariance method” (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 320) used by Bhargava et al., which indicates violation of their analysis’s assump- tions. That is, once moderation is established for a par- ticular variable, treating it as a control in subsequent analyses is generally considered unacceptable (Elwert & Winship, 2010). According to Bhargava et al., concluding that parent- hood improves well-being is premature. We absolutely agree. No causal conclusions can be drawn—from our analyses or theirs. When disagreements emerge in behav- ioral research, it is important to demarcate the points of agreement and divergence. Notably, Bhargava et al. do not dispute our central claim—that, overall, parents are slightly happier than nonparents. However, disentan- gling the causal effect of parenthood remains an open and complex question that requires multiple triangulat- ing methodologies—not just comparing parents and Corresponding Author: S. Katherine Nelson, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Ave., Riverside, CA 92521 E-mail: snels007@ucr.edu

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207