New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Myth of Joyful Parenthood

The more kids cost, the more we idealize raising them

Sure, the soccer uniforms, piano lessons and college tuition add up—but there is nothing like being a parent. Or so we tell ourselves, according to a study in the February issue of Psychological Science. When parents are faced with the financial costs of a child, they justify their investment by playing up parenthood’s emotional payoffs.

Psychologists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario gave parents in the study a government report estimating that bringing up a child to age 18 costs more than $190,000. Then half the parents read an additional report about the financial help grown children pro­-vide their parents. Those who read only about the high price tag were more likely to agree with statements idealizing the emotional benefits of parenthood, such as “There is nothing more rewarding in this life than raising a child.”

Such rationalization is a common response to cognitive dissonance, the state of having two conflicting ideas in mind, according to psychological theory. In this scenario, the choice the parents made to have children conflicts with the fact that kids are such a financial burden, so the parents con­clude that the emotional benefits
must be so great they outweigh the material cost.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The authors of the study point out that this mind-set makes sense in light of history. Until recently, children were not so expensive—and often they were of great economic value, helping out on the farm or bringing home a paycheck. In those eras, childhood was less senti­mentalized and the emotional bond between kids and parents was not as strong. As raising kids became more costly, we began to idealize parenting.

This rosy outlook may have real benefits, however, according to another result of the study. Moms and dads presented with only the costs of child-rearing said they enjoyed the time they spent with their offspring more than parents who also read about the benefits—and these idealizers planned to spend more hours with them in the future. “Parents rationalize the cost of children by convincing themselves it’s such an enjoyable thing to do, which then convinces them to spend more time with their kids,” says University of Waterloo psychologist Richard Eibach, co-author of the study. Having your own kids may be expensive, but every minute is worth it.

SA Mind Vol 22 Issue 3This article was published with the title “The Myth of Joyful Parenthood” in SA Mind Vol. 22 No. 3 (), p. 8
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0711-8a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe