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

"This book is a refreshing break from the usual coverage of psychology, group behavior, parenting and the like. Judith Rich Harris exposes the flaws, presumptions and misguided assumptions in much "scientific" research about the psychological and behavioral impact parents have upon their children. Learning how poorly constructed some of the most influential studies and experiments have been is quite remarkable. We find that the author does a masterful job of debunking what she calls "the nurture assumption" - that parents are powerful in shaping their children - and replacing it with a developmental theory that exalts the peer group. The author avoids jargon, and writes with a clear, witty, engaging style that should make her ideas accessible - although perhaps not necessarily agreeable - to most readers."
~ Written on 2007-02-22

"How many metres of shelf space are taken up by books about raising children? Rich Harris sweeps away those reams of paper and tankards of ink with a grandiloquent gesture. What determines a child's behaviour? The acrimonious debates of many years over the role of genetics versus parental guidance are shown redundant by this excellent work. In short, once a child encounters peers, on the street, in school, even a working environment, it is those peers and their attitudes that nudge behaviour in various directions. Well written and firmly researched, Harris has offered a real breakthrough in understanding child development.

Harris starts out with a simple truth we all know and rarely "see". All children are different. They differ from parents and each other. Even identical twins, those mythical examples of matching traits, turn out to exhibit variations in taste, dress and habits. Clearly, she notes, there is more to child development than genes. On the other hand, why, she asks, are parents under such stress to "make children behave" [or submit, or learn the piano, or . . .]. Harris demonstrates that an outside force, one poorly perceived and often unrecognized, leads children along unexpected paths.

Her first clue was language. She notes immigrants to North America who adhere to their original language and culture norms produce children who adhere to values here from an early age. That was the pointer leading her to create the idea of "group socialization". A child's playmates and school chums can communicate at levels parents don't understand. Playground or street values aren't home values. As children progress through school or a work environment, peer forces can guide them in new directions. Parents may have some impact, but they lose much of their influence very early.

Harris recognises the novelty of her concept. There are years of study by "socialization researchers" who have arrived at various conclusions, often widely accepted, about the impact of parenting methods on children. Harris argues most of these are flawed in method or misleading in conclusions. Even one of its most recognized practitioners ultimately admitted the published findings were unsubstantiated. Of greater concern was that these studies have produced heavy guilt feelings in parents. When the recommended methods don't produce anticipated results "it must be my fault". Harris wants to set those troubled minds at rest by understanding the real forces involved.

The author doesn't absolve parents from influence on development. She merely recommends a new approach based on the new information. Peers may drive behaviour in unwanted directions, but parents still have the responsibility and power to set limits. Peer groups can be "chosen", chiefly through school choice. The evolutionary roots of a child's "normal" group of siblings and close relations has been broken down by modern society. Harris reminds us that the "nuclear family" is a recent, artificial concept. Modern social structure distinctly departure from long-established group forms. Parents must adapt to these new forms, chiefly through greater attention to how to place their children in supportive environments. It can be done; it has been done. We only need to shed long-held beliefs of parental inadequacies and take charge.

This book has, of course, proven contentious. Anyone overthrowing cherished beliefs, no matter how poorly founded, will be resisted. Her findings, however, fill a niche long unidentified or misunderstood. She's fully aware that not all the information is to hand. How big does a group have to be to influence a child? What makes a group leader? A follower? These remain unanswered questions. The value of this book is in asking such questions and demanding answers. That value will remain undiminished until the research is done. Read this book and learn the questions. It is the lives of children that are at stake. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada.]"
~ Written on 2005-08-29

"This is a damn good book and an extremely convincing argument. A not inconsequential side benefit is that is very funny to boot. Rich Harris' writing is lucid and extremely witty. The book is a joy to read.

The principal thesis, that children socialised by their peers, is well made. The overarching theorectical framework is anchored in the view of human nature according to the evolutionary psychology school, (as described for the layman in the books of Steven Pinker). People who prefer the psychodramas of Freud to furnish their explanations of how everything went so wrong will find themselves swimming in unfamiliar waters.

As a reader of popular psychology and not a specialist I found the technical exposition extremely clear, especially with reference to the problems of distinguishing between causation and correlation in the relevant academic studies. In making her argument Rich Harris' introduces a great deal of material regarding primatology, anthropology, the psychology of groups and methodological problems in social psychology. As a result there is much more here to be learned and enjoyed that just her attempt to stick the knife in what she characterises as 'the nurture assumption'."
~ Written on 2003-05-09

"harris's critique is a nice one except she does sometimes go too far with her parents-don't matter-theme
one good criticism is sarah hrdy's point (in her book mother nature- excellent btw) that children often STATEGICALLY weigh up the advantages of modelling on peers or parents giving the example of her childrens accents (see her book mother nature), similarly my mother moved us from scotland to england at one point during my adolescence my sister (less than a year younger than i) swiftly picked up an english accent in order to fit in, whereas myself (who held- at that point!- the niche of mother's favourite) did not, i even remember consciously wanting to keep my scottish accent so as to (well, let's be honest here) brown nose and "fortify in" this position

i'd like to add something else, harris points out how little evidence there is that parents personalities correlate with their childrens AFTER YOU CONTROL FOR HEREDITY (her point being that most studies which DID show an effect did NOT control for this) but this overlooks the strong effect parents circumstantially (i.e. not due to personality, but to circumstances)controlled behaviour has on their children (MUCH MUCH harder to study!!!!)
e.g. mother and father break up under strain of his recent layoff leaving child without a father, mother gets chronic debilitating illness and consequently does not devote much time or affection to child, mother has so little money and support that she attatches less well to child etc etc etc- hrdy's book shows well how and why that last one can affect the childs eventual personality- there is a win win situation here, we can still claim to be the victim of rotten childhoods, whilst mothers can still be vindicated as victims of circumstances.
in a nice twist linking this my own mother's only mistake was to move way too much, making me constantly the new guy in my peer group

N.B. harris's research only critiques the evidence for NORMAL parents, child abuse and sim are surely not covered
also, although she is broadly correct, there is still a small correlation between parental and offspring personality there (around 5%) after controlling for heredity, and the methods used to control for heredity are crude enough that that figure could go up- or down"
~ Written on 2002-02-11

"I didn't realise I believed in the nurture assumption until I read this book. I assumed that my parents were the major environmental influence on me, and that the same would be true for my children.

This book challenges this assumption, arguing that our childrens' peer groups are far better determinants of how they will turn out, and backs up all its claims with evidence. The implications of this book for how I think about bringing up my children and, professionally, for developing childrens' services, are enormous. It also raises a whole new set of questions about how as parents and concerned adults we can effectively influence the way our children develop into adults.

I believe I will be quoting this book for some time to come. I recommend that everyone with an interest in how children turn out reads this book."
~ Written on 2001-01-24