There has been an ongoing debate in the world of psychological research about the role of nature and nurture in the final product of a person. Now, the debate has heated up again with a book by Judith Harris, The Nurture Assumption, which claims that the main influence on the nurturing side of children's development is not parents, but the peer group.

Harris did an exhaustive research of the literature on parental influence and found that while children often develop the intelligence and personality characteristics of their parents, this is due more to genetics than to the way kids are raised. She found that adopted children, raised entirely by parents to whom they were not genetically linked, were no more likely to exhibit the characteristics of those parents than they were of people selected off the street. In other words, while nature (in the form of genetic characteristics) certainly influenced the outcome of a child's upbringing, the specific contribution of parents to the nurturing process was no more, and in many cases less, influential than the impact of the peer group. Perhaps when your child shows up with his new friend, complete with several pierced body parts, tattoos and a severely chippy attitude, there is more with which to be concerned than previously thought!

Harris' book will, of course, spark a considerable debate in the academic community. After all, many professionals have staked their Freudian careers on the premise that parental upbringing is the main reason for dysfunctional adults. And how can we argue with the fact that negligent or abusive parents will not have a devastating effect on children's perception of the world, and hence influence their entire thinking processes and actions? At the same time, Harris' new ideas might spur us to consider just how important peer influence really is.

I've been involved with many families over my career, and have seen the "black sheep syndrome" plague many an anxious parent. Why is it that in a family of four, raised by caring parents, three children might be ideal youngsters -- cooperative, optimistic and self-disciplined -- while the fourth runs rampant through the house and everyone's lives? Grandma Crazy's genes might be a factor, but the individuals with whom this youngster relates directly may play a more significant role.

It's important for parents to have some peripheral vision in raising their children. While nature may account for fifty percent of the formula for the final product, the remaining fifty percent can be spread over a lot of others who influence on the nurturing side of the equation. Active and involved parents will obviously play a very large role, while detached parents may play a lesser role, with peer influence comprising the largest part of the child's interactions.

Wise parents not only develop strong parenting skills and participate positively in their children's lives, they also continuously scan the others who interact with their children on a regular basis. When they anticipate problems they intervene, guiding their children away from negative influences. Denying them access to such influences rarely works, but guiding them toward more positive influences, through involvement in activities with a different peer group, simply limits the time available for those who would lead them down the wrong path.

If Judith Harris is right, and peers are more influential than parents in the nurturing process, then perhaps we as parents must be more conscious of taking the backdoor route of influence, by ensuring that the peer influence is, indeed, one we can support!

Graham Hookey is the author of Parenting Is A Team Sport and runs a parenting courses and retreats. Email: ghookey@dowco.com or phone: 209-8784.

<< Family Issues