The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do

For the last century, child development experts have searched for the causes of human's personalities in two places: genetics and the family environment. Nature or nurture. Former psychology textbook author Judith Rich Harris offers a fresh perspective on this problem. Through detailed analysis of data on language acquisition, twin studies, and anthropological research, Harris determines that the family environment, and in particular, parental styles, have little influence on the personality of their children. While fifty percent of the personality differences can be attributed to genetics, Harris argues the other fifty percent of personality differences arise from a child's peer groups. Furthermore, parental style has practically no influence on a child's personality.In a clear and thorough manner, Harris buttresses her argument through examples from the language acquisition of immigrant children, the social life of rhesus monkeys, anthropological research of primitive child raising techniques, twin studies, and her own personal life. Harris's argument is so persuasive and clear, the reader will miss the fundamental shift in thinking it represents. Since the time of Freud, child development theorists have argued that the way that parents treat their children-especially at a very young age-have tremendous influence on adult human behavior. This dominant view of parental influence is so prevalent in modern society that parents walk on eggshells, paralyzed with the fear of doing the wrong thing and [messing] up their children. Harris's book calls for a more humble view of parenting. Based upon her arguments, parents should no longer worry about [messing] up their children. No longer sculptor to their child's Pygmalion, parents should focus on improving their own relationship with their children and, when possible, providing their children with a stable group of friends that share their values.Harris has written a rare and important book, one that will influence a generation of child development scientists in the same way that Richard Dawkin's THE SELFISH GENE influenced a generation of evolutionary biologists. And like Dawkin's seminal work, Harris has written her book in prose both entertaining and accessible to people unfamiliar with the details of her chosen specialty.This book should be on every parent's bookshelf.

I came upon this book by accident in search of something else. It is sooooo intriguing I've been reading it and pondering all day! The author has written several text books on child development, but through personal experience (two completely different daughters, academically, socially, etc.) and a careful review of scientific literature comes to other conclusions which she is able to support with anthropology, biology, genetics (nature) and double-blind psychological studies. The results dispel popular notions of "nurture" theories so ingrained by Freudian and behavioralist influences in our education establishment and social culture. To authenticate her assertions, recorded histories of identical and fraternal twins raised by adopted or foster families and other scientific and biologic data are offered. Judith Harris makes a convincing case that parents have less influence on how children turn out than do their peers. In the process, she relieves parental guilt if not suffering.On the second anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, it's worth examining a shift in thinking. Obviously the mainstream media are consistent about maintaining the status quo of pop psych nurturing or we would be aware of this 21st century paradigm. Harris does not discount the value of being a loving, caring, supportive parent. But, she effectively illustrates how decent parents can have decent children or not as well as the reverse. Genetic conditions for behavior apparently are not as politically correct among psycho/social "advice givers" as the egalitarian NURTURE ASSUMPTION. She contends children are more likely to bring peer influences home than share home influences with peers; preferences (genetic similarities?) determine peers; peer acceptance or rejection is far more powerful than parental guidance or lack of it. Parents, educators, social workers, law enforcement officers, counselors and coaches need to open the blinds to this view of human behavioral development.Among the questions Harris asks of researchers are: (p.353) - How can we keep a classroom of children from splitting up into two dichontomous groups, pro-school and anti-school? - How do some teachers, schools...prevent this spilt and keep kids united and motivated? - How can we step in and break the vicious cycle of aggressive kids becoming more aggressive because in childhood they are rejected by their peers and in adolescence they get together with others like themselves?This book was published in 1998, the year before Columbine.

This is a very difficult book to review, almost as difficult as it was to read. It is not difficult to read because of technical sophisication, but because both content and style trigger very strong emotions. Make no mistake, this is not an "unscientific" or hastily written defense of bad parenting, as has been claimed in some of the prior reviews here. Agree or not, she does handle the research with competence, discipline, and insight. She does not handle it all objectively, at least in the book. Moreover, it's questionable that the rhetorical purpose of questioning a mainstream dogma could be accomplished by a "balanced" approach to surveying the extant research.This book challenges us to think of specific ways in which we influence our children's behavior and traits outside the home, other than through heredity. Yes, as many critics claim, we can find some. Aside from the early developmental issues which Harris acknowledges, we teach our children basic problem solving and moral reasoning that they often apply when we are not around. If she had recognized more of that, and written more about that, many of the harsher and more sophisticated criticisms would probably be somewhat assuaged. Her evolutionary argument about children doing what is neccessary to survive childhood is not at all inconsistent with the notion that parents do have some survival and coping skills to provide. Even within group socialization theory, the skills don't have to come from the group, they are selected by interaction with the group.My bone of contention with most of the critics is that this doesn't really upend the group socialization theory. It largely shows that parental influence is less pervasive and overwhelming than the popular and social science models assume. That message would probably have inspired less virulent criticism, but also less praise from supporters and certainly would have made for less of a controversy.Harris assuredly makes some very profound points about the foundation of the social science model of parenting. Yet it is hard to avoid the feeling that she goes way overboard in spots. The greatest challenge in reading this book is completing it with an objective enough mindset to appreciate what she is really bringing to the discussion. Sometimes she does seem, as her many critics contend, to be, by implication, waving away parental responsibility. Yet by struggling through and giving her the benefit of the doubt, I found this criticism overturned by the end of the book. She does not outright say that parenting doesn't matter at all, she says that it matters most to the family relations, and less to traits and qualities as measured in other contexts. In the process, she challenges the reader to think of ways in which we influence our children, and ways they resist that influence. One of the most interesting points made in the book, and one often glossed over in reviews, is Harris' defense

This book is outstanding for two reasons. First, the author wrote university textbooks about how parents influence their children and from her own observations and subsequent research realized that the data was flawed. The radical environmentalist dogma was using very slim data to make statements about human behavior that just was not true. Second, it is complete and very easy to read. A book that should be read by every parent, either to help raise children or parents who have failed and felt it was all their fault.The book puts forth concepts that are well established now in behavior genetics, evolutionary psychology, etc. It takes a new look at the interaction between parents and children, and between children's peer groups. It is now recognized now that children, from a very early age, are all about exploring the world and finding their own niche, and they do this in several contexts. For example, they may show one set of moral rules while around the family, and a completely separate set of moral rules while amongst their friends, and they can switch between the two contexts easily. The book is a fascinating adventure into a world that is known by researchers but has not yet filtered down to the press or society. There are too many social scientists and social workers who have too much at stake at blaming every fault or good a child has on the parents. This book tackles not only the nurture assumption, but also rounds out the behavior of children with an explanation of the genetic components as well. This is a must read for anyone stuck in the 60's dogma, especially Dr. Laura (sp?). This author thoroughly repudiates most of Dr. Laura's assumptions. And they are all based on the latest research, not just wishful thinking about how children should behave.

This book asks a question that is interesting to many people: what factors explain the personality differences in people?The author starts by reporting on studies that show that about half of the differences can be explained genetically. Most social scientists would agree with that assessment.But what about the half that cannot be explained genetically? The author deals with this in three steps.1. The _assumption_ that parenting style matters is attacked by showing that the evidence for it is merely anecdotal. Rigorous attempts to quantify the effect of parents fail to show more than a negligible impact.2. An alternative theory is developed. She suggests, based on evolutionary biology, that there might be a greater role for peer groups than parents in shaping personality. This is a very interesting section of the book, because even outside of the context of the theory, the observations of how groups form and interact are interesting.3. The author tries to provide empirical support for the "group socialization" theory. Ironically, to my untrained eye, this evidence appears to be largely of the anecdotal variety derided in step 1! And nowhere is there a clear demonstration of the quantitative importance of peer groups.I believe that the author has succeeded in raising the "group socialization" theory to the same level of plausibility as the nurture assumption. But I came away feeling that neither theory is well supported.I suspect that we may never prove that anything other than genetic factors matter in personality. A large component of the "other half" could be measurement error. A physical characteristic, such as eye color, is a relatively well-defined concept that can be measured fairly precisely. Not so with "intelligence" or "aggressiveness." These are fuzzy concepts, measured imperfectly. The mere attempt to measure these concepts induces random variation. Imagine how difficult it would be to explain height differences if we weren't quite sure what "height" really means, and if the measurements were based on rulers with 20 percent margins of error!Try to read the book with an open mind.