Alvin Rosenfeld, MD’s comments on
"Organized Activity Participation, Positive Youth Development,
and the Over-Scheduling Hypothesis,"
by Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles

Testing sociological hypotheses is difficult, so Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles should be commended for trying to approach a very complex child rearing question in a scientific fashion. Although these authors follow many well-accepted standards for empirical research, their study is based, in part, on an inaccurate account of Wise and my work and a questionable interpretation of their own data. The authors’ conclusions are overly broad and their recommendations may misinform readers, persuading ambitious parents that over-scheduling their children is a scientifically validated way to raise emotionally well, academically successful children. In my opinion, that could have very unfortunate consequences.

Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ paper contains serious shortcomings. I will name those I consider most important:

1. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles misrepresent our work: Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ paper tests “the overscheduling hypothesis,” attributed in part to The Over-Scheduled Child (Griffin/St. Martin’s, 2001) by Rosenfeld and Wise. Unfortunately, this “over-scheduling hypothesis” is a creation of their own that bears only scant resemblance to our work. For instance, Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ write that “the overscheduling hypothesis predicts that youth with very high amounts of organized activity participation will demonstrate poor adjustment relative to both those with little or no participation [italics added] and those with moderate amounts of participation.” In their opinion, testing that contention will test the validity of what Wise, I, and others have said. Wise and I have never suggested that children do better if they participate in no activities nor have we posited that children who are in numerous organized activities do worse than those who do none. In fact, we repeatedly call for balance in families, where activities, education, family time, and down time all get sufficient attention. We write that up to a point, enrichment activities can benefit children. When asked, we have responded that young children who participate in no activities should be urged – even forced – to try some out. We also write that the contemporary pressure to fill every moment with activities can frazzle children and parents, diminish the amount of quiet time families spend together, make parents and children resentful and critical, and de-emphasize the importance of creativity and character development.

2. After creating an inaccurate, simplistic version of Wise and my work and labeling it “the overscheduling hypothesis,” the authors design a study – using existing time-use survey data collected for other purposes -- to test it: After grossly misrepresenting our work, Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles compare children who participate in many activities to those in a “no activity” group, arguing – erroneously -- that we say the “no activity” group should be doing better. In addition to misrepresenting our position, this comparison is highly flawed. Likely, the “no activity” group is quite diverse; some percentage of it probably does no activities because they are drop-outs, acting out, have failed at school subjects and so are not allowed to participate, etc. Comparing these kids to almost any other group -- other than perhaps to foster children and incarcerated youth -- would prove the second group, however composed, to be doing better. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles have selected a well-known marker of poor adjustment – as indicated by the children’s partaking in no activities that are normative for their age – and used it as a normative comparison group. They then reverse cause and effect, saying that these children are doing less well because they are not in activities.

3. Some of Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ findings support our actual position: What does Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ data actually show? In some ways, rather than contradicting our ideas, it supports the position that we put forth, suggesting that balance is best. In published reports, Mahoney maintains that “the more activities they do, the better kids stack up on measures of educational achievement and psychological adjustment” (Newsweek). However, some of Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ own data suggests the opposite: Black youth spending over 20 hours a week in organized activities had self-esteem lower even than those who participated in no organized activities and far lower than those who participate in a moderate number. Adolescents in 15 or more hours of scheduled activities drink more alcohol than those with 5-15 hours. White youth with 20 or more hours of organized activities report fewer shared activities with parents and doing fewer favorite activities with parents than did youth with 5-15 hours of activities. Black youth with more than 15 hours of organized activities reported fewer shared activities with parents than did those with 5-15 hours of activities; those with more than 20 hours of scheduled activities spent less time with parent-child favorite activities than did those with 10-20 hours of scheduled activities. Black youth with more than 20 hours of activities had fewer parent-adolescent discussions than did any other group, even those with no activities. Reading achievement for black youth doing over 15 hours of organized activities are significantly below those of adolescents doing 5-15 hours. Reading achievement for white youths doing over 20 hours a week of organized activities is almost identical to those doing no organized activities and substantially below those doing moderate activity (though the authors’ state that this did not reach statistical significance.) To us, this data seems to support our contention that a balanced number of activities is best rather than the idea that the more the better.

4. The Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles study lacks observational data and  does not include travel time: The study analyzes data based on self-reports. As such, the data is subject to all the well known difficulties non-observational studies are prone to. It relies on time diaries asking people to put down everything they did in a 24 hour period. However, these diaries are written up to three days after a weekday set of activities and up to a week after a weekend day. It is highly questionable that a week after the events, people can accurately remember their activities and how much time they spent on each for an entire 24 hour period which may explain why Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles study cannot account for how 13-14% of the time is spent. Furthermore, the study does not include travel time. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles overlook the reality that many families have several children. A parent with three children each with three activities may spend four hours a day driving between activities. In our experience, this driving schedule creates substantial irritation, particularly among highly educated mothers; they love their kids but resent feeling they have become chauffeurs. It also leads to some siblings becoming “car potatoes.”

5. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles approach the subject simply from the active child’s perspective, discounting the effects on other family members: The omission of travel time is part of Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ general discounting of parental stress. Their study states, “although the scheduling of responsibilities surrounding organized activities can sometimes be challenging for families (Lareau, 2003), the associated benefits of participation are apparent nonetheless.” It seems that they regard a child or adolescent seeming to be doing well by questionnaire report as a sufficient outcome marker. This runs diametrically against observational data, including our own clinical observations. Our books stress the importance of the whole family’s needs being taken into account, including the parents’. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles seem to contend that no matter how much the parents sacrifice and no matter how resentful they may feel, their kids do well in the long run if they have more activities. Much of the literature about over-scheduled children speaks of the ways the parents feel about leading stressed, overscheduled, and often frenzied lives. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles do not take these into account.

   In contrast, our books, and my talks since the book was published, speak of the need for parents to be sure that they are enjoying their lives because in my clinical experience parents who are satisfied with their situation – rather than feeling frenzied much of the time – have kids who do better. We repeatedly argue against one-size-fits-all solutions and speak of how in arriving at the number and types of activities that are suitable for the family as a whole, each family needs to balance the child’s temperament and desires with the number of children in the family and the parents’ abilities, capacity, needs, and schedules. We have said that some children – in our experience, often ambitious first born children – want to do everything and need to be reined in a bit. Other children are “couch potatoes” and need to be encouraged, even forced, to partake in organized activities.

6. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles discount a large body of data to the contrary and feel that results from their single, flawed study are sufficiently robust to conclude that the more scheduled activities children have, the better: The conclusions Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles draw from this study seem to run contrary to what numerous experienced observers have noted. We will note just a few: Studies show that in just the past 20 years household conversations have become far less frequent and family dinners have declined 33%. Numerous observers have spoken of sleep deprivation among high achieving adolescents. This study does not even acknowledge that sleep deprivation may be a significant issue among over-scheduled children, nor does it note that as children’s sports have become professionalized, orthopedic surgeons have reported an alarming increase of stress related sports and overuse injuries among 5-14 year olds. They ignore work that shows that homework among middles schoolers has grown dramatically and that some scholars feel that the high amount spent could actually harm children. They report but discount the findings, including their own, of higher levels of alcohol use among adolescents with many activities. We have noted that resumes are being shaped for what elite colleges supposedly expect; we and others have commented that community service no longer is a sign of a good heart but a box that must be checked. Speaking of over-scheduled youth, Harvard University’s admissions director said that admitted freshman, and we paraphrase, look like the dazed survivors of a life long boot camp. MIT’s admissions director has concurred. Parents and adolescents we speak to seem well aware of the pressure they are under. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles acknowledge none of this as valid.

7. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles raise a concern that “the over-scheduling hypothesis,” attributed in part to us, could lead to programs for the underprivileged being cut. In almost seven years since our book was first published, this has not happened even once: Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles state, “These propositions [the “over-scheduling hypothesis”] suggest negative consequences resulting from too much organized activity participation. This has the potential to undermine recent efforts to support and expand opportunities for youth to participate in organized activities” (P 10 draft) particularly for the underprivileged.

   1. We agree with the authors’ contention that one of the cases in which activity-related benefits may be greatest is for “those at the highest risk for poor development,” and when the program’s quality is high (35).  As a child advocate who has worked with -- and written extensively about -- indigent and high risk populations, I am quite sensitive to the needs of people in these situations. Whenever Wise and I have been asked about underprivileged populations, we have said that they needed more – not fewer – organized activities.

   2. Several months back, I wrote a letter to Dr. Mahoney after reading the final draft of this paper: “I would appreciate knowing where and when I – or my work – has been used in any way in opposition to these initiatives. In the almost seven years since our book was first published, I have not once received a single contact or communication from any group or individual asking that my ideas, writings, or speeches be used as support for decreasing activity programs or funding [italics added]. If such an attempt has ever occurred, I would be grateful if you could inform me of it.” To date, I have not received a reply.

In summary, Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles take complex, nuanced ideas and try to make them one-dimensional caricatures. Our books have subtle ideas and a social commentary about the way American families are living their lives and the pressures they are responding to. To name just a few, our books speak of “hyper-parenting,” a cultural pressure to involve children in increasing activities so that they turn out “winners” not “losers”. We speak of how, from birth on, media play on parents’ uncertainty, and how marketers use the idea that the more “enrichment” the better to sell unnecessary products to new parents. We note how individual families and children differ, how what benefits one may be counter-productive for another. Some families thrive on endless activities and sports while others prefer quiet down time. We suggest that each individual family needs to asses what suits it; when activities are getting parents or the children frenetic, we suggest that they try cutting back 5-10%, hardly a notion that scheduled activities be eliminated. We speak of needing down time to develop imagination, and of how focusing on activities and accomplishments often de-emphasizes relationships, character, and play which we consider critical to a good life. Our books have recommendations, such as trusting yourself, rather than relying on the experts who don’t know you or your family. We suggest that parents do not rely on the most recent “scientific” study whose recommendations may change tomorrow. Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles take all this and create a one-dimensional “over-scheduling hypothesis” which attributes to us the idea that simply counting the number of activities a child participates in accurately and inversely reflects their mental health and life success.

We could discuss many other serious limitations in Mahoney, Harris, and Eccles’ paper, but that would serve little purpose. As I wrote to Dr. Mahoney: “It is excellent that you are trying to do reliable, valid scientific work that criticizes my position and refutes my contentions. That keeps the academic process vigorous. If I turn out to have been mistaken, I will shamefacedly admit that I was in error. Nothing I see in my daily observation in our communities makes me think that I am. However, I would appreciate it if in trying to test a hypothesis you ascribe to me, you at the very least represent my positions accurately.”

If competitive, affluent parents take to heart Dr. Mahoney’s assertion that the more activities kids do the better – as they are wont to do with “expert, scientific” advice from a professor at an elite university -- they may be following a path that leads them to more resentment, criticism of their children, and ultimately to damaging them. That would truly be a very unfortunate outcome.