Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept

Mucklow, Bonnie M.; Phelan, Gladys K.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.44.3.880

Cited by 55 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of studies have compared the overall mental health of lesbian mothers with that of heterosexual mothers. The results show that there are no differences in psychological health between lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers in self-concept (Mucklow & Phelan, 1979;Rand, Graham, et al, 1982), happiness (Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982) and overall adjustment and psychiatric status (Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, 1983 ). Furthermore, Rand et al (1982) Miller, Jacobsen and Bigner (1981) investigated 34 lesbian and 47 heterosexual mothers, and reported that the former group was more child oriented in disciplinary techniques than the latter group was.…”

Section: Parental Functioningmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parenting in Planned Lesbian Families

Bos¹

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Parental Functioningmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Cognitive functioning. Two studies (Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy, 1981;Green, Green, 1978Mucklow & Phelan, 1979Lewis, 1980Hoeffer, 1981Kirkpatrick, 1981Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981 Children …”

Section: Child Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parenting in Planned Lesbian Families

Bos¹

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The former paper found numerous diff erences in educational outcomes, with substantial eff ect sizes (as large as 3.75) between outcomes for children of same-sex vs. heterosexual parents ( Schumm, 2015c ), while the latter dissertation reported signifi cantly and substantially lower family togetherness in drawings by children of same-sex parents relative to children of heterosexual parents. Furthermore, Patterson (2005 ) cited two studies ( Mucklow & Phelan, 1979 ;Miller, et al, 1981 ) by the same authors using the same data that featured results favorable to lesbian families but omitted in her bibliography one study from the same authors ( Miller, et al, 1980 ) that had featured adverse results for lesbian families. Patterson (2005 ) also did not cite any of the additional research done by Sarantakos (1996bSarantakos ( , 1998Sarantakos ( , 2000 on same-sex families, as described in more detail elsewhere ( Schumm, 2015c ).…”

Section: Ideology May Be Accepted Over Scientifi C Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, I found two journal articles ( Mucklow & Phelan, 1979 ;Miller, et al ., 1980 ), both published in the same journal by the same group of scholars at about the same time and using the same sample. The study of lower methodological quality ( Mucklow & Phelan, 1979 , cited 72 times according to Google Scholar as of December 18, 2015) has been cited far more often than the other ( Miller, et al ., 1980 , cited 9 times as of December 18, 2015). The only real diff erence in this natural experiment appears to have been that one study presented (currently) politically correct results, while the other did not ( Schumm, 2010d ).…”

Section: High (Or Low) Quality = Cited Often (Or Infrequently)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating Treacherous Waters—One Researcher's 40 Years of Experience with Controversial Scientific Research,

Schumm

2015

Comprehensive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science often must deal with issues that are politically controversial. However, there are dangers in dealing with controversial research and serious risks to the process of doing science and to the credibility of science, particularly social science. Here, I discuss lessons learned from engaging in and criticizing controversial research for nearly four decades. Social science research as a process is being damaged by questionable research practices, several of which are discussed. Social science results are being misrepresented through a variety of weak or incorrect methodologies, each of which is discussed. Discourse about social science results often shifts from academic discussion into attempts to discredit those with whom one may disagree. Science and the public are not being well served by these problems, so new researchers and policymakers need to be aware of them. For teaching purposes, examples are also presented of controversial research in which new analyses off er diff erent results than previously reported.My journey dealing with controversial research may have begun with my older brother's dissertation ( Schumm, 1966 ), about which he told me, when I was 15-yr. old, that probably one-third of what scientists had thought they knew about the research topic had been incorrect. That situation imbued me with a certain sense of skepticism about scientifi c research on one hand, but a sense of optimism on the other hand that one could -through better science -correct such things and make improvements. Only later did I fi nd Cohen (1990 ) saying essentially the same thing with respect to social science -"One of the things I learned early on was that some things you learn aren't so" (p. 1304).Even well-known historical events can be deconstructed statistically to show that things did not occur as we have been led to believe. Here are some examples of which readers may or may not be aware. The week before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was trying to ambush the Japanese. In the RMS Titanic disaster, the lowest survival rates for men and the highest survival rates for women and children were among the middle class passengers, suggesting a new nonlinear theory of social class and compliance with social rules. The Challenger disaster could have been predicted in advance with simple statistics ( Schumm, Webb, Castelo, Akagi, Jensen, Ditto, et al ., 2002 ). There are many other examples, in this author's own experience, in which research did not turn out as might have been expected. Grover, Russell, Schumm, and Paff -Bergen (1985 ) showed that the best predictor of later marital satisfaction was the length of time taken before the decision to marry, not the length of engagement. Gwanfogbe, Schumm, Smith, and Furrow (1997 ) reported that in some situations a wife might be happier in a bigamous marriage. Hendrix, Jurich, and Schumm (1995 ) showed that adverse eff ects on a veteran's family life after observing prisoner abuse lasted for decades. In Moxley, Eggeman, and Schumm 1 Address correspondence to Dr. Schumm, S...

show abstract

“…(How would a scholar know the empirical answer to that question?). If you, as a conservative, publish an article in a lower tier journal, you may be criticized by lawyers as if your research is useless, even though there is evidence that journal tiers and citation rates do not always correspond [5] [79]; yet, if an article [25] published in a lower tier journal supports a liberal objective, seldom will you hear those scholars or their research criticized by lawyers on that basis. I have had a legal association challenge my right as a journal editor to publish controversial comments or research articles.…”

Section: Rejection By Lawyersmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conservative’s View from the Academic Trenches: Reply to Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim, and Tetlock (2015)

Schumm¹

2016

JBBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although conservative scholars may face a variety of forms of discrimination in academia and other challenges, as elaborated in the first part of this comment, they may also have a set of unique advantages that may facilitate more careful theoretical and empirical scientific work. They may be more sensitive to flawed methodologies in some areas of controversy. In such areas, these assets of conservative scholars may be especially important.

show abstract

Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept

Cited by 55 publications

References 5 publications

Parenting in Planned Lesbian Families

Parenting in Planned Lesbian Families

Navigating Treacherous Waters—One Researcher's 40 Years of Experience with Controversial Scientific Research,

A Conservative’s View from the Academic Trenches: Reply to Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim, and Tetlock (2015)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About