Parental Influence: Overrated?

[BPA234]

I don't know if this will make a good thread. But, I read an interesting article ( http://www.gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm ) within which, the author postulated that a child's development is primarily influenced and determined by their peer group. Further, with the obvious extreme exception of abusive home environments, the parental influence was almost inconsequential.

I am sure that this theory is disquieting to many. But, I do agree with the assertions. One exception, is that I do believe that most children eventually mature back to the way the way they were raised. They may not end up exactly where their parents were. But, they are likely to end up in the same "neighborhood".

Personally, I identify with and support the author's assertions. My earliest memory of conscious choice regarding peer groups was on my first day of kindergarten. During the first recess, the children broke into two distinct groups; one small, dominant group and a larger submissive group. I elected to join the dominant group.

That decision was, over the ensuing years, followed by many similar decisions. Essentially, taking the fork in the road that led further and farther from my parent's influence.

As a step-parent of two similarly raised children who, as young adults, are polar opposites, I have witnessed and experienced the parentally emasculating effects of children's peer group influence. Both kids are "good" people. But, one is in their final year of a five-year accounting program with a position at a big four firm waiting for her upon graduation and the other is a hippie in Oregon enrolling in school for the fourth or fifth time at twenty-four.

With hind-sight, and in light of the author's assertions, I believe that much of the parenting that went into the rebellious child was wasted effort. A change of venue ( boarding school, military academy, performing arts school etc.) would likely have produced a better result and saved a ton of stress.

Agree/Disagree/Thoughts?

[katyseagull]

Great topic but very difficult. Peers are ridiculously influential. They can get otherwise "good" kids to do drugs, steal cars, gang up on others. But in the end I sort of think that parents are the stronger influence. It's just some kids take a long long time to rebel against their parents' values before eventually coming back around to embrace them.


You wrote this,


[ QUOTE ]


I am sure that this theory is disquieting to many. But, I do agree with the assertions. One exception, is that I do believe that most children eventually mature back to the way the way they were raised.



[/ QUOTE ]


If you think that most kids eventually mature back to the way they were raised then you must feel that parents have the stronger influence in the long run and that something the parents did had a powerful and lasting impression on the child.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]

I am sure that this theory is disquieting to many. But, I do agree with the assertions. One exception, is that I do believe that most children eventually mature back to the way the way they were raised. They may not end up exactly where their parents were. But, they are likely to end up in the same "neighborhood".


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't read the article, but that was my first thought. Kids have to establish who they are largely in relation to their peers, which can have much more effect on how they feel their life is lived, and how they conceive themselves, than their parents often can. After a while the need to individuate oneself from one's parents, and the vulnerability to every passing fad of one's peer group, lessens. People often develop kind of like an essay -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Your parents are all you know of the world, they are zero in your world, and then you become your parents, but with your own modifications. Maybe some new drapes, a plant in that corner would liven things up a bit.

One of the manifestations of that which I've found strangest is the 100% flip of some people from professedly agnostic or religiously indifferent to card-carrying members of churches once they have kids. That's an ostensibly complete reversion to their parents' religion which can be embraced fervently, and sometimes it still isn't really believed much. Nor do I believe it's really thought through. It's more a sort of atavistic auto-pilot. That is, some of the parents who insist the kid get involved in church or Sunday school don't really take religion into their lives in any other way besides pushing their kid into it. They think it's the "right" thing to do somehow, and gives them a secure echo of the way they were raised that feels satisfying and makes them feel responsible, maybe even a little deeper. Yet they themselves don't really care much about the religion, have no curiousity about it, nor do they use it to inform their lives or have any interest in doing so. It's high irony that they force the kid into a faith which as kids they themselves abandoned, sometimes with a huge feeling of relief and sometimes even with a bit of anger. Yet they come home -- except not really. Only by proxy. And the kid gets to relive the cycle, which will doubtlessly continue ad infinitum. And pretty much regardless of the religion or anything it says or is about.

So much for rebellious youth! Good luck, all you world-changers out there.

[jfk]

If you read Judith Rich Harris's book, "The Nuture Assumption" she makes a very compelling case for her thesis. Both Gladwell and Steven Levitt ("Freakanomics" author) have leaned very heavily on Harris's research and their own findings mimic hers.

The basic idea is that a child's peers are far more influencial in a child's life than are that child's parents. Further, she demonstrates that the idea that parents are the prime shapers of a child is actually a fairly recent idea.

Harris says that when she examined that basic premise, that parents are the primary shapers of their kids, it didn't really hold water in a behavioral sense, and that much modern child social psychology is based on this faulty premise. Parental genetic influence accounted for a lot of the traits sometimes laid claim by the behaivorialists.

Harris draws a wide circle of examples. She points out the cultural traits of deaf kids raised by hearing parents. Of identical and fraternal twins rasied apart. She looks and debunks birth order concepts. She uses examples of foreign kids raised in other countries. Divorce and its impact is discussed. She paints a picture of prior generations attachements to odd concepts which impacted the lives of kids (ever here of the spine straightening craze in 19th century Germany?) Group dynamics among children are explored. She challenges conclusions reached by William Golding ("Lord of the Flies"), Margaret Meade, Freud, and many giants of the world of social psychology.

I was probably a more receptive reader than the mean as she arrives at many conclusions which I already held that are very much at odds with the sort of oppressively fretful, over-involved parent one encounters with ever increasing frequency in modern middle class American life.

For anyone interested in childhood psychology (and typically I'm not in this group), for anyone who enjoyed Gladwell or Levitt/Pinker, or for anyone interested in the relative place they hold in their kids lives, it is a book to read.

Many reviewers or critics take offense to the concept that parents hold less influence over their kids than we hope. They take that as a blow to parents. Other readers may find a context in which many of the conclusions both liberating and reassuring.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
Great topic but very difficult. Peers are ridiculously influential. They can get otherwise "good" kids to do drugs, steal cars, gang up on others. But in the end I sort of think that parents are the stronger influence. It's just some kids take a long long time to rebel against their parents' values before eventually coming back around to embrace them.


You wrote this,


[ QUOTE ]


I am sure that this theory is disquieting to many. But, I do agree with the assertions. One exception, is that I do believe that most children eventually mature back to the way the way they were raised.



[/ QUOTE ]


If you think that most kids eventually mature back to the way they were raised then you must feel that parents have the stronger influence in the long run and that something the parents did had a powerful and lasting impression on the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably should have written more in my OP about that point. Yes, I definitely think that most children will in adulthood eventually come back to the model that their parents presented. But, the consequences of their childhood will still be with them.

The above does not detract from the article's assertions or my belief that the assertions are correct. In fact, I think I can position that setting a good example/home life etc. is great. But, failing to understand the impact of peer group influence is putting your children at unnecessary risk.

I think most of us cling to the precept that, as a parent, we are the ultimate arbiters. But, I think that the reality is the opposite. Parents are very nearly impotent in comparison to their child's peer group.

[Jamougha]

One of the few really concrete things we know about how children develop personality is that it matters in which order the children are born. The first child will usually be more conservative, authoritarian and conventional, since being older they benefited from the power hierarchy in the family. Your family seems to be a perfect example of this.

I'm taking a guess and may be wildly wrong, but would your younger son have perceived that his older brother gained a lot of comparative benefits, in terms of being given authority over his brother of having laxer rules that he would have envied?

The main problem I have with the idea that people are influenced almost exclusively by their friends is that friends are not normally a random factor. People choose their friends based on them being like them.

Right now I don't think there's enough evidence to really say where most of the non-genetic differences in personality come from. Hopefully neuroscience will produce some answers.

[entertainme]

Really interesting article and discussion. As a parent of two teenagers, I can pick out genetic influences from both my husband and I and their likes and dislikes, even in their food preferences.

I've also watched friends and relatives adopt children who never assumed the traits of their families. It's a tremendous struggle. I've asked myself how much of that is due to them adopting after the child has suffered in the formative first five years, and how much is simply genetics. (I do think both are a factor. I believe it's incredibly difficult to overcome the development that is missed in the very early years in abused kids.)

Simply put though, I'm a believer that genetics is a huge factor in who people turn out to be.

On to the impact of peers. As a parent I accept that peer influence plays a huge role in my kids decisions, especially when they reach their teenage years. So what are my options?

Keep in mind, that one of my beliefs is "the thin red line", basically that it takes one wrong decision, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, to have a major negative impact on the rest of your life.

So, knowing that my kids peers are a major influence, I make the effort to hold them responsible for the peer group they choose. I strongly encourage them to choose peers that share their values. I've been criticized for this stance here on 2p2 before.

I do recognize that by asking my kids to make the right choices, to steer away from popularity cults of normal high school partying, I ask them to walk a more difficult path, especially when it comes to high school. It's hard to watch them struggle with it, but I deem it worthwhile for their character long term.

In the same vein, we moved to the country before my daughter started school. They have been raised in the same schools all their lives. I'm not naive enough to think that every school doesn't have the jocks, the brains, the partiers, and there is definitely a drug problem even in a farming community, (meth is huge.)

However, they weren't followed home from school by gangs like my nephews who were raised in the city were. Also, we've been lucky enough to both work at home since they started school. Grandparents on both sides live near.

In conclusion, as a parent, if you recognize the effect of peer influence, what steps can you take to influence and monitor that?

Both my husband and I rebelled in our teenage years, and I'm well aware that my kids may someday choose the same path. So far they've both stuck to the straight and narrow and I do think that making them accountable for their peer groups and giving them an environment easier to navigate than others has been an influence.

[Blarg]

What came immediately to mind was a friend's willful ignorance of his kid and his activities, which he managed to turn around into a kind of perverse pride and sense of parental accomplishment. He says his kid would never lie to him, because if he lied, he would tell him.

Doh!

He uses that as the basis to believe his kid has never done anything bad, and will never keep it to himself, or anything private really, if he does. I told him that he was basically living in denial, not necessarily of how things are now, but how they might become, and that he risks alienating himself from potential problems his kid might have if he just basically writes him a blank check and stops paying attention. He was offended by that, and by the suggestion that his kid might ever be influenced by his peer group or do anything wrong in the first place. Personally, I think his lack of curiosity and willful, even prideful denial is something that can serve as an enabler for his kid to go wrong.

I like the kid myself, but I think I'm simply being more realistic about it. I would never have had this discussion with his dad if his dad hadn't told me how perfect his kid is guaranteed to be and how there would never be any secrets between them. I didn't feel comfortable just nodding my head in affirmation of his parental brilliance.

Entme, it sounds like you are more actively interested than that dad is. But I'm sure there will always be temptations for your kids, and you will not necessarily know when they have caved in or all the dramas and internal dialogues they are going through about it. I think two of the best things you can do are be a good role model, not just a "Do what I say, not what I do" parent, and let them know that there's nothing they should feel they absolutely can't talk to you about or get some feedback on, even if it's something that either or both of you don't feel comfortable talking about and doesn't make anyone happy or make anyone look good. You know, don't be a fair-weather friend when it comes to parenting, only good for hearing the happy stuff and useless or counter-productive otherwise. A lot of times kids feel they have no one to talk to and wouldn't consider their parents at all, because they know doing so will just make their problems even worse. That's when a lot of things that start out small can go really bad, when a parent can't convince his children that he accepts them and doesn't just want them to be perfect or get punished and humiliated if not.

Sometimes the parent hasn't put in the years of groundwork, love and acceptance, and honesty to be able to claim any right to their child's confidence. That's really tough to reverse direction on and recover from.

[entertainme]

I'm not saying my kids have ever been angels or ever will be angels. I'm also not saying that I will always agree with the decisions they make.

I respect the hell out of both of them, and I realize I don't make it easy on them by setting the bar high.

No doubt they'll make mistakes and I'll be there for them when they do.

My daughter had a friend, whom I truly love, but she was messed up from the get go. If there was a bad choice, she would make it. It's amazing how watching what that does to someone you care about opens your eyes to consequences. Finally, about a year ago, she broke off contact with her after she was physically attacked for no good reason.

There were multiple times over the years I considered bringing her into our home. As much as I care about her and wish her the best, the decision always came down to it not being the best thing for my kids to bring that influence and disruption into our lives full time.

You're right that it's not easy to keep the lines of communication open on difficult issues. It's something you have to work on full time, keep your ears open for opportunities, and follow through.

[entertainme]

One added note: I'm completely aware that I can only exert this influence on my kids to a certain age. They then have to decide to hold to those choices, or make different ones themselves.