Nature or Nurture? Do parents matter in how their children are raised?

[Ariadne]

I thought this article was very interesting. What do you nomads think do you think parents have a great impact on their childrens personalities or their peers have more influence. Are we born with whatever traits in personality in our genes or are they developed?

 

--------------Parents: Who Needs Them?----------

 

Ever since Sigmund Freud published his first papers on psychoanalysis, people have placed great weight on parents' influence over their children. From doting parents who play Mozart in the crib to popular parenting texts such as Change Your Child's Behavior by Changing Yours, modern society has long assumed that the quality of the parenting directly affects the quality of the kids.

This is not the case, according to author Judith Harris. Harris lays out this idea in her 1998 book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do; Parents Matter Less Than You Think and Peers Matter More. As the title suggests, kids' classmates, neighbors and friends have a far greater effect on them than their parents, according to Harris.

 

The book, which has generated considerable controversy, comes from an unlikely source. Rather than a tenured university professor with a Ph.D., Harris is a stay-at-home grandma with no academic affiliations. She was kicked out of Harvard in the 1960s for showing little academic promise, and has since spent her days writing textbooks.

 

Crippled by disease, Harris wrote her book from the confines of her New Jersey home, ordering psychology texts through interlibrary loan and research papers from helpful scientists. Her unconventional credentials aside, Harris has produced an influential work, which has attracted praise from some of the biggest names in psychology.

 

Separated at birth

 

Much of Harris's theory is based on studies of twins, which try to determine how much of people's personalities are shaped by genes and how much by life experiences.

 

Some of the classic twin studies have focused on identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different households--an increasingly rare phenomenon. These twins, who have the same genes but grew up in different environments, provide a unique opportunity for measuring the relative importance of genes and environment in determining personality. Based on these studies, some scientists estimate that genes are responsible for up to 50% of personality traits while environment accounts for the rest.

 

Some studies have turned up uncanny similarities between adult twins raised under markedly different circumstances. These include long- lost twins who smoke the same cigarettes, drive the same model car, both wear rectangular glasses, have the same habits when reading magazines, and have similar hobbies, mustaches and fashion senses. These cases suggest that genes play a strong role in determining relatively insignificant personality quirks--tendencies that some assumed could only be acquired through individual experience.

 

Other studies have further diminished the role that environment plays in shaping personality. If upbringing had a significant effect on personality, then one would expect that identical twins raised together would be even more similar than ones raised apart. But studies reveal that this is not the case. Additionally, adopted siblings, who share no genes, are no more similar to each other than they are to genetically unrelated kids growing up in other households. If upbringing indeed plays a role in personality, then kids raised in the same household should have noticeable similarities.

 

Psychologists began to wonder why the influence of family on personality could not be seen. They devised more and more sophisticated experiments to uncover the hidden family effect. In the meantime, Judith Harris was busy writing textbooks on psychology, quietly following the debate. She eventually developed a theory of her own--one that would force her to quit writing textbooks and start work on The Nurture Assumption. Perhaps the family's influence cannot be seen in people's personalities, she mused, because the family has no influence on personality.

 

The Cinderella complex

 

Harris's idea requires some clarification. She does not believe that parents have zero effect on their kids, it's just that these effects don't stretch beyond the home. People live two different lives, according to Harris: life within the family and life among their peers. She illustrates this point through the story of Cinderella.

 

While at home, Cinderella had to be passive and dress unattractively so as to not arouse the jealousy and contempt of her stepmother and stepsisters. But when she goes to the ball, she transforms herself into a glamorous, self-possessed beauty capable of winning the hand of a prince.

 

Kids do the same thing, Harris says. Time spent at school, sports or social activities takes up a great deal of children's lives. Much of kids' personalities form from learning how to deal with this larger world, she says. From an early age, kids adapt themselves to this world's rules, conventions and styles-- something which will serve them for the rest of their lives.

 

The outside world can be considerably harsher and less supportive than one's family. In some cases, family life can be harsher than the outside world. When moving between these two worlds, kids adapt themselves to the requirements of each.

 

In the long run, the influence of the outside world wins out, Harris says. Much of life involves dealing with the larger world, and the behaviors adapted to this realm eventually outshine others.

 

What came first

 

Harris provides several examples of how children's peers influence them more than their parents. The children of recent immigrants quickly drop the accents of their parents and adopt those of their new-found peers. She says the best predictor of whether someone smokes is not whether their parents smoke but whether their friends do.

 

In support of her thesis, Harris downplays the extent to which parenting style affects children's behavior. Many psychologists have taken for granted that being loving and supportive of a child will make the child more self-confident and adjusted. Alternately, many assume that constantly screaming at or berating a kid will make him or her fearful, angry or less self-assured.

 

Harris suggests that things may work the opposite may. Perhaps kids shape their parents' behavior more than the other way around. Perhaps naughty, misbehaved kids prompt some parents to scream at them. Maybe well-behaved kids are more likely to be treated affectionately.

 

Lingering doubts

 

Harris's ideas have not met with universal acceptance. Some have accused her of being selective in her examples. There are literally thousands of studies examining childhood development, many of which offer contradicting views. An agile researcher can pick and choose among them to prove just about anything.

 

People have accused Harris of relying on studies that have later been called into question, or of ignoring more recent studies that don't fit her point of view. In particular, she has downplayed the success of "intervention studies," in which therapists teach parents effective ways of dealing with problem children. Work by John Gottman of the University of Washington has shown that when parents learn different ways of reacting to children's behavioral problems, the children can experience long-term benefits both inside and outside the home.

 

Some have also questioned Harris's reliance on twin and adoption studies. The small number of subjects available for these studies may limit their relevance to the population at large.

 

Harris's interpretation of these studies may also be skewed. She believes that because the same parents can produce two completely different siblings, that parents must have no effect on kids. But just because parents have no consistent effects on their children does not mean that they have no effect on them at all. It may just mean that scientists don't understand these effects.

 

Some have also suggested that Harris's views on the subject are not merely those of a disinterested scientist. Perhaps she has an ax to grind. Harris has raised two daughters. One is her biological child, and the other was adopted at a young age. As she recounts in the book, they did not fare equally. Her biological daughter was a dutiful child, well- groomed and inquisitive, who rarely went against her parents' will. The adoptive daughter, as Harris frequently points out, was a different story. Failing in school, she was distracted, needy of attention and a bother to other kids. She ran away as an adolescent and later dropped out.

 

Some have suggested that Harris constructed her thesis that parents don't matter to avoid any blame for how her adopted daughter turned out.

 

A needed perspective

 

Faults aside, Harris's book injects a missing perspective into developmental psychology. There is little doubt that a person can live two lives: life with their family and life among peers. Someone who is bossy and unyielding with their family may be easygoing among friends. Someone who is shy in public may be talkative and open at home.

 

An awareness of these two sides to personality may lead to better-designed psychological studies. Scientists may no longer look solely at someone's behavior in the home or in school when measuring developmental effects, but rather take both of these areas into account.

 

Observers also hoped that Harris's book would help some anxious parents relax. Hurriedly shuttling kids between soccer games and violin lessons may not be necessary. Maybe people shouldn't be guilty over every parental lapse. Some of their kids' fate is out of their hands.

-------------------------------------------------

[sYric-STiPHuLLa]

IT'S bit of BOTH....both your enviroment has a big affect on you but so do your perents if i'm correct i'm not any different from most somali peeps i was raised muslim(ofcourse) but also if i crossed certain lines in the household. i was taught a quick and discplinary lesson..so nurture has an affect family has an affect..'cmon..now FAMILy has a big affect..also your enviroment..you may grow rich you may grow poor you may grow in all types of different enviroments..all have an affect.. on you..when it' boils down to who has more affect nature or nurture well then you have to look at individuals ...some are more volnerable to their enviroment some are more fammily oriented ..you pick...!!! NATURE VS.NURTURE ,,,I SAY A BIT OF BOTH which one has a bigger affect is probably on an individual basis....<<thats just me..sorry if i was kinda long but yeah i did paper on this..once.PEAZIshooww thanx for readin ONE LUV

[Baashi]

Cushitic_cute,

Good topic...I would say both. Everything being equal, parents have, by far, more impact on kids than anything else.

[Thinkerman]

The answer is quite simple, well for me anyway, am now 21, inshallah 22 soon and i am thankfuly that my childhood influnences was dominated by my parents or decisons the took on my behalf the 'enviorment' that i subseqently grew up in was indeed shaped by their decisons, so to answer ur questions yes parents matter, they not only matter but are of curical significance for the development of the child.

[Khayr]

Salams,

You know comparing Somali kids who have grown up in the west with single parents vs. a holistic family (both parents being present) and this also extends to the larger muslim community, parents play a HUGE ROLE in shaping the character of their children. Single mothers just can't do the job and are often too lax on their children interms of disciplining them. Were as in the holistic family, the father always reinforces that role of being strict and adhering to principles.

No matter what the environment, the parents play a bigger role in shaping the character of their children because they are the ones that censor much of the negativities that come around their children.

But both parents stand losing their children if Deen is not the primary player in the families life.

'A good tree often bears pleasant fruits'

[Ariadne]

I thought I would bring this topic back to get more opinions

[Ariadne]

Baashi and Tenacious J: I agree. It is a bit of both, they both (nature and nurture) play a key role in the development of children's personalities.

 

Khayr: So are you saying children are not influenced by their friends and people outside of their families?

[Coloow]

I wonder what muslim scholars would say on this one: Let me speak for them: ILAAHEEY AYAA OG! God decides and nature and nurturing dance to HIs beats!

[Captivating_SouL]

P. A . R. E. N. T. S BY FAR HAVE THE INFLUENTICAL CHARACTERSTIC THEIR CHILD HOLDS...IT STARTS WHEN THEY ARE ATTORLANCE TO THEIR PRE-TEENS AND UNFORUNTELY AFTER THAT...OF COURSE THE PARENTS STILL HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THEY'RE CHILD IS ALLOWED AND WHAT THEY ARENT...BUT THATS THE BEYOND THE POINT BECAUSE AT THAT AGE GROUP THEY WILL BE LESS TOLERANT IN LISTENING AND OBEYING THEIR PARENTS REGULATIONS. SO GIVEN THAT, I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY SOMALIAN PARENTS TAKE THEIR CHILDREN TO SOMALI OR PAKISTIAIN FOR THAT INSTANCE...AS THOUGH TAKING THEM TO FAR LAND COUNTRY WILL DISCLIMD THE KIDS...IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU TEACH THEM WITHIN YOUR HOME NOT WHAT THEIR PEERS OR GOD KNOWS HAVE IMPACT ON EM.

 

1...2...CIAO

[silent-sistah]

i say,,,

 

parents, the are the primary influence on a person. they are the first bonds that a child makes, they are the first faces, voices and actors that a child learns from.

 

"Robertson- he believed that a child separated from its carers would display the following symptoms:

1. Distress- the child will become angry and throw tantrums.

2. Despair- loss of hope.

3. Detached- emotionally detached

 

Bowlby- he believed that a child forms its bonds early in life and if the bond is broken or not developed, the child will grow up to become a juvenile delinquent."

 

environment/society well this has a major influence, it is the childs secondary influence, here a child learns information that either supports or contradicts what their parents taught them, if the child follows, the new ideas, the are said to be deviant from their primary influences.

 

if the child develops a personality that is wierd to society, they are said to be deviating from the 'norm'

 

 

well every psychological theorist speaks a bit of trueth,

 

Allah has made us complex beings, and not 1 analysis is going to define us.

 

 

major life events , eg. death of a loved one, natural disaster,,,,,ect ,,,these change a person and influence the way they act and react to different situations.

 

different things influence different people, and we all react different to different situations.

 

my family has not had the same impact on me and my sister, nor has my enviroment, or the life events that we have seen.

 

we ate the same food, had the same friends, went to the same schools, yet, we are different, both in character and looks...Alhamdulillah...Allah made us unique!

[TRUTH-SHALL-SET-U-FREE]

It's both. Humans are very complex and it's impossible to simplify effecting factors in their development. Parents and environments have equal input into a person's life, but it's the choice the "free will" concept that determines really how a person ends up. Both parents and environment provide sort of different sides or aspects of life, and how we take and implement those lessons into our lives, really gives the final results. Even those people who live in same environment, have similar life don't end up being effected the same way by their briging ups or circumstances.

[Nefertiti]

This is a very interesting topic, and as a psychology student I can tell you that nature /nurture debates dominate the whole subject and come into everything.

As far as this lady is concerned her theory sounds like a combination of Freud and the social learning theory of personality development, Kohlberg and moral development etc. Her whole view is based on case studies she recorded about her family and with psychology we know that one shouldn’t antropolise such researches to everyone.

 

I believe that parents are really important in the upbringing of their kids. In fact the parents are the environment that supposedly shapes personality. According to the Social Learning theory children learn by direct tuition, this means that children observe and imitate same sex parents. Personality is also partly an innate characteristic. That is why for example research with identical twins never reports 100% results because even though they have identical gene makeup they are still different because they are two separate distinct people.

 

In terms of peer relationships, some psychologists believe that children who engage mostly in peer orientation do so because they don’t get the adequate satisfaction at home. Therefore suggesting that parents are important and should be there for their children, otherwise the child would go and look for attention elsewhere.

 

There is also the popular view in the West that adolescence is a time of conflict and despair and separating parent and child results in emotional breakdown. Therefore continuing love and support form the parent is an appropriate means of establishing this thrive for autonomy. Even though the Somali parents generally don’t acknowledge this, psychological care is by far more important than just physical care, which is only attending to basic needs such as feeding and clothing the child.

 

The environment is important but it cannot be the sole explanation of the development of personality, Harris’s theory is an example of environmental reductionism. As rightly mentioned before human beings are complex organisms and their behaviour consists of complex interactions that is determined ultimately by Allah.

 

QoxootiMammi

[Rising Phoenix]

Interesting topic, y'all.

 

I think our personality develops as we grow. But this isn’t a cut-and-dry argument. It’s not simply black and white; in fact, it’s rather complex. I believe we are born with our personality as a blank sheet, but with different capabilities. Personally I think everyone is capable of the “bad” things certain people do; it just depends whether the individual lives such a life where she/he has to call upon those abilities (I hope not). It’s a harsh view, but one I believe just. To me, personality develops as a product of the people around us, the environment we live in and just plain good-old common sense.

 

I rightly agree with QoxootiMammi, Social Learning Theory (SLT) plays a large role in everyone’s life. You have to remember that to the average child acceptance is almost everything. Whereas (most) children know their parents will love them unconditionally and always, often children have to earn their peers’ respect before they can take their rightful place among them. Hence, Social Learning Theory takes place. By observing and imitating their peers, reinforcement happens in the form of acceptance.

 

Parents do have a large influence on their children, but not just in the sense of the children striving to be like their parents. Oftentimes a child will strive to be different, simply because by looking at his/her environment, he/she can see that their parents were not adequate in the child’s upbringing.

 

But, all psychology aside, for love and care, I believe we need GOOD parents. If parents will not behave as such, then children have no need for them. Then again, "maternal care" is not just given by the mother or father. An aunt or grandma, or someone who cares, will do just fine.

 

~harmonyangel~