Distributional effects of parental time investments on children’s socioemotional skills and nutritional health

Juan Carlos Caro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288186

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 3, 2023
27 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - José Alberto Molina, Editor PONE-D-23-03208Distributional effects of parental time investments on children's socioemotional skills and nutritional healthPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Caro, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Alberto Molina Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex." 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was partially funded by National Agency for Research and Development of Chile (ANID) through grant PAI/INDUSTRIA 79090016. The contents and opinions in this article are solely the personal views of the author. I affirm that all remaining errors are our own." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript studies a very interesting topic, using an adequate methodology. The paper is well written and polished. The contribution and policy implications are clearly stated. My main suggestion consists on elaborating and explaining more the prior literature – without collapsing so many references. Further, it would be good to map for which countries there is prior evidence (e.g. is there similar evidence for other Latin American countries?). Minor comments: there are a few typos, such as “An critical issue” (page 8). Reviewer #2: Distributional effects of parental time investments on children's socioemotional skills and nutritional health PONE-D-23-03208 Reviewer report Comments to author First, I would like to point out to the author that I found their paper quite interesting and enjoyed reading it. However, I would like to give some recommendations that may contribute to improve this work. 1. I have missed an explanation of why the author has selected this country and not another one for this paper. 2. I consider that the data used for this paper are correct, but it should be mentioned as a limitation of this paper that there is no information on private schools. Hofflinger et al. (2020) show in Chile that a key assumption of school choice and competition policies is that parents' most important (if not only) priority in choosing a school is its quality. Chile is a country with a national system of school choice and competition and in this sense the authors in their study find that parents who choose a school prioritize its proximity, its quality and whether it provides religious education. In their results they show that the probability that parents prioritize proximity is higher for parents of low socioeconomic status, while the probability that they prioritize religious education and quality is higher for parents of high socioeconomic status. Their findings show that only advantaged families choose schools based on their quality and, therefore, school choice and competition policies may offer limited benefit for disadvantaged students, possibly maintaining or reinforcing socioeconomic segregation in the educational system. It would be necessary to mention this data limitation in the paper. 3. It would be important to mention and go a little deeper into the paper, that there are different types of child care. The literature shows that it is important to classify the type of child care, and some authors classify it into three types: basic, educational, and supervisory child care (Guryan et al., 2008; Gimenez-Nadal and Molina, 2012; Campaña et al., 2017). Within these three activities mentioned above, the activities aimed at increasing the human capital of children are those found in educational child care. And regarding differences between fathers and mothers: Fathers prefer childcare activities that are more rewarding, such as playing with their children or helping them with homework (Craig, 2006a; Darling-Fisher Tiedje, 1990; Giménez-Nadal Molina, 2013; Grossman, Pollack, Golding, 1988; Kahneman Krueger, 2006; Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, 2004). 4. It is important to delve a little deeper into the following: The existing literature clearly shows that parents with high levels of education tend to spend more time with their children, compared with parents with low levels of education (Bianchi, Cohen, Raley, Nomaguchi, 2004; Campaña et al., 2017; Craig, 2006b; Gimenez-Nadal Molina, 2013; Guryan, Hurst, Kearney, 2008; Hofferth, 2001; Marsiglio, 1991; Sayer, Bianchi, Robinson, 2004; Sayer et al., 2004) partly due to the fact that more educated parents recognise and acknowledge the importance of time investments in their children (Kalenkoski Foster, 2008; Marsiglio, 1991; Sayer et al., 2004; Sevilla Borra, 2015). Better educated parents spend more time in educational childcare activities, including reading, playing, and helping with homework (Gimenez-Nadal Molina, 2013; Hill Stafford, 1985; Kalenkoski Foster, 2008; Sayer et al., 2004), that promote the development of human capital of children (Brooks-Gunn et al., 2002). 5. It is feasible to include in the analysis a variable indicating the presence or number of other household members (other than the father, mother or younger siblings of the children analyzed). Delgado and Canabal (2006) and Fuller, Holloway, and Liang (1996) show that members of Hispanic families allocate their time according to their strong family orientation (focusing on the family group), and parents tend to use other family members to care for their children. 6. Why are individuals' wages and non-labor income not taken into account in the explanatory variables? Research has shown that higher wages lead to a better position at home as it increases the bargaining power within the couple (Bourguignon, Browning, Chiappori, 2009; Chiappori, 1988, 1992; Lundberg Pollak, 1993), and this higher bargaining power may be used to take responsibility for more rewarding childcare activities, such as playing with or reading to children. Non-labour income may also affect the time parents devote to childcare. Kalenkoski, Ribar, and Stratton (2005) show that mothers reduce the time devoted to active childcare when household income increases. 7. It would be feasible to include a dummy variable of whether the children analyzed live in an urban or rural area. The female labor participation rate is lower in rural areas than in urban areas. In addition, there are other control variables, such as indigenous population and family structure, which can vary considerably from one area to another. 8. Regarding mothers' work, it is feasible to know whether they are self-employed or salaried. The literature shows a positive relationship between self-employment and time spent on childcare (Conelly 1992; Edwards and Field-Hendrey 1996; Caputo and Dolinsky 1998; Boden 1999; Gimenez et al., 2013; Campaña et al., 2020). ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-03208_reviewer comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288186.r001
Revision 1
25 May 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: The manuscript studies a very interesting topic, using an adequate methodology. The paper is well written and polished. The contribution and policy implications are clearly stated. My main suggestion consists on elaborating and explaining more the prior literature – without collapsing so many references. Further, it would be good to map for which countries there is prior evidence (e.g. is there similar evidence for other Latin American countries?). R: I appreciate the overall review of the paper. I acknowledge the need for further description of the prior literature, which has been extended in the new version of the manuscript. Despite the limited evidence in distributional effects to date, I extended the discussion regarding the heterogeneity (based on observables) of the link between parental time investments and child development. As noted in the manuscript, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence on heterogeneity of parental time investments on child development for any country, in contrast with material and health investments, as presented in recent work: Asfaw, A.A. (2018). The distributional effect of investment in early childhood nutrition: A panel quantile approach. World Development, 110 , 63–74. Attanasio, O., Meghir, C., Nix, E. (2020). Human capital development and parental investment in india. The Review of Economic Studies, 87 (6), 2511–2541. Lee, S.Y., Rodgers, J., Kim, R., Subramanian, S. (2022). Distributional effects on children’s cognitive and social-emotional outcomes in the head start impact study: A quantile regression approach. SSM-Population Health, 18 , 101108. Minor comments: there are a few typos, such as “An critical issue” (page 8). R: I apologize for the typos, which are corrected in the new version of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: Distributional effects of parental time investments on children's socioemotional skills and nutritional health First, I would like to point out to the author that I found their paper quite interesting and enjoyed reading it. However, I would like to give some recommendations that may contribute to improve this work. 1. I have missed an explanation of why the author has selected this country and not another one for this paper. R: Thank you for this comment. There are two key factors that makes the data from Chile valuable for this analysis. First, Chile is a high-income country that experienced the increase in childhood obesity prevalence that is common in similar countries in the nutrition transition path towards ultra-processed foods. Secondly, the administrative data used in the analysis is unique, and to my knowledge, there is no other country with a set of longitudinal data as comprehensive as the one provided by JUNAEB. 2. I consider that the data used for this paper are correct, but it should be mentioned as a limitation of this paper that there is no information on private schools. Hofflinger et al. (2020) show in Chile that a key assumption of school choice and competition policies is that parents' most important (if not only) priority in choosing a school is its quality. Chile is a country with a national system of school choice and competition and in this sense the authors in their study find that parents who choose a school prioritize its proximity, its quality and whether it provides religious education. In their results they show that the probability that parents prioritize proximity is higher for parents of low socioeconomic status, while the probability that they prioritize religious education and quality is higher for parents of high socioeconomic status. Their findings show that only advantaged families choose schools based on their quality and, therefore, school choice and competition policies may offer limited benefit for disadvantaged students, possibly maintaining or reinforcing socioeconomic segregation in the educational system. It would be necessary to mention this data limitation in the paper. R: Thank you for the helpful remark. Indeed, we adapted the manuscript to emphasize that the effects are related to parents with children attending public or public-funded schools. In that sense, we cannot extrapolate regarding the impact of time allocation on parental investments among wealthy households, which represent around 10% of the total school enrollment on a given year. 3. It would be important to mention and go a little deeper into the paper, that there are different types of child care. The literature shows that it is important to classify the type of child care, and some authors classify it into three types: basic, educational, and supervisory child care (Guryan et al., 2008; Gimenez-Nadal and Molina, 2012; Campaña et al., 2017). Within these three activities mentioned above, the activities aimed at increasing the human capital of children are those found in educational child care. And regarding differences between fathers and mothers: Fathers prefer childcare activities that are more rewarding, such as playing with their children or helping them with homework (Craig, 2006a; Darling-Fisher Tiedje, 1990; Giménez-Nadal Molina, 2013; Grossman, Pollack, Golding, 1988; Kahneman Krueger, 2006; Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, 2004). R: This is quite an interesting point, and we included a further discussion in the document, to the extent that the data permits. Based on the questions in the survey, our findings are related to time allocated in stimulation activities, which could be considered as educational child care. In this paper we are also neutral regarding the caregiver engaging in these activities with the children, since the survey respondent could be one or both parents, or another person who is appointed as primary caregiver. As such, we cannot address gender preferences in time investments. We acknowledge this in the limitations section. 4. It is important to delve a little deeper into the following: The existing literature clearly shows that parents with high levels of education tend to spend more time with their children, compared with parents with low levels of education (Bianchi, Cohen, Raley, Nomaguchi, 2004; Campaña et al., 2017; Craig, 2006b; Gimenez-Nadal Molina, 2013; Guryan, Hurst, Kearney, 2008; Hofferth, 2001; Marsiglio, 1991; Sayer, Bianchi, Robinson, 2004; Sayer et al., 2004) partly due to the fact that more educated parents recognise and acknowledge the importance of time investments in their children (Kalenkoski Foster, 2008; Marsiglio, 1991; Sayer et al., 2004; Sevilla Borra, 2015). Better educated parents spend more time in educational childcare activities, including reading, playing, and helping with homework (Gimenez-Nadal Molina, 2013; Hill Stafford, 1985; Kalenkoski Foster, 2008; Sayer et al., 2004), that promote the development of human capital of children (Brooks-Gunn et al., 2002). R: We appreciate the need to discuss this issue in further detail. We extended Figure 3 to show the differences in parental investments by maternal education (years) and child gender, to address this point. Despite the raw differences in time investments by educational level, when accounting for all other factors, the increase of parental time investments to education years in our sample is quite small (0.2% increase in time investments for a 10% increase in education years). 5. It is feasible to include in the analysis a variable indicating the presence or number of other household members (other than the father, mother or younger siblings of the children analyzed). Delgado and Canabal (2006) and Fuller, Holloway, and Liang (1996) show that members of Hispanic families allocate their time according to their strong family orientation (focusing on the family group), and parents tend to use other family members to care for their children. R: Thank you for this comment. As noted in Tables 3 and 4, we are including in the analysis a variable measuring the total number of child caregivers in the household (self-reported), including any extended family participating in the care of the children. Since we are already accounting for the number of siblings, we cannot include total household size, as there is high multicollinearity. Our analysis shows that time investments increase about 3%, on average, with every additional caregiver in the household. 6. Why are individuals' wages and non-labor income not taken into account in the explanatory variables? Research has shown that higher wages lead to a better position at home as it increases the bargaining power within the couple (Bourguignon, Browning, Chiappori, 2009; Chiappori, 1988, 1992; Lundberg Pollak, 1993), and this higher bargaining power may be used to take responsibility for more rewarding childcare activities, such as playing with or reading to children. Non-labour income may also affect the time parents devote to childcare. Kalenkoski, Ribar, and Stratton (2005) show that mothers reduce the time devoted to active childcare when household income increases. R: We understand the need for further clarification. While JUNAEB data is quite rich, since is an administrative source related to the Ministry of Education, it does not capture information on income or wages (as a representative survey normally does). The closest information we have that characterizes the socioeconomic situation of the household is the educational degree and occupational status. We have included a discussion of this point in the limitations. 7. It would be feasible to include a dummy variable of whether the children analyzed live in an urban or rural area. The female labor participation rate is lower in rural areas than in urban areas. In addition, there are other control variables, such as indigenous population and family structure, which can vary considerably from one area to another. R: Thank you for this comment. We were already accounting for urban versus rural areas but was not reported in this version of the manuscript. We adjusted Tables to include these results. 8. Regarding mothers' work, it is feasible to know whether they are self-employed or salaried. The literature shows a positive relationship between self-employment and time spent on childcare (Conelly 1992; Edwards and Field-Hendrey 1996; Caputo and Dolinsky 1998; Boden 1999; Gimenez et al., 2013; Campaña et al., 2020). R: We appreciate the need to further classify the nature of female labor supply. We separated salaried from self-employed work for both parents and included into the analysis of time investments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE respose to reviewers RR1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288186.r002
21 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - José Alberto Molina, Editor Distributional effects of parental time investments on children's socioemotional skills and nutritional health PONE-D-23-03208R1 Dear Dr. Caro, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, José Alberto Molina Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The author has addressed my minor concerns. I consider that the manuscript is ready to be published. Reviewer #2: Distributional effects of parental time investments on children's socioemotional skills and nutritional health PONE-D-23-03208-R1 Reviewer #2 Comments The author has correctly answered my concerns, and he has made changes in the paper considering my suggestions. In my opinion, I would recommend the paper for publication in the Plos One journal. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-03208-R1-Reviewer 2 comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288186.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - José Alberto Molina, Editor PONE-D-23-03208R1 Distributional effects of parental time investments on children’s socioemotional skills and nutritional health Dear Dr. Caro: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor José Alberto Molina Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288186.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .