This book by Judith Rich Harris presents some radical ideas that peer groups have much more influence on children than parents. I know that the information is radical, because people I’ve told about the theme are universally skeptical. However, I will say that the evidence presented in the book is quite compelling. The author wrote in 1995, “Do parents have any important long-term effects on the development of their child’s personality? This article…concludes that the answer is no.” She expected the academic world that universally believed nurturing to be crucial would be angry, but she reports instead that they were mostly curious.

The skepticism of others is addressed by the author. She expects that people will have difficulty believing what she wrote. Behavioral geneticists continue to search for the key to why parents are more important. “It’s got to be in there somewhere! Everybody knows parents make a difference! Fifty thousand psychologists couldn’t possibly be wrong!” However, she presents very personal information to validate, at least in her personal experience, why her ideas are correct. Her family moved to an area where the school had “snooty” children who would not play or talk to her. She became inhibited and read a lot. The family moved again in the eighth grade, the new group of kids designated her as a “brain,” and she made a few friends on that basis. However, she remained inhibited. The snooty kids had succeeded at changing her personality.

The first paragraph of the book discusses how the author as a teenager would respond to her parents yelling at her that “…if they didn’t like the way I was turning out they had no one to blame but themselves: they had provided both my heredity and my environment.” What eventually changed her mind was what she considers to be compelling evidence that parents have little to do with the environmental part of the equation. The peer group of the child provides nearly everything of importance. The power of the peer group is reinforced by the demand at home that children not behave like their parents. They can’t drive cars, light matches, boss people around, come and go as they please, and in general not do “…lots of things that look like fun…” Kids quickly learn that what they learn at home about expected behavior will be “…cast off when they step outside as easily as they shed the dorky sweater their mother made them wear.”

One example of information that validates the author’s theories is that many people struggle with why children raised in the same home do not turn out the same. Behavioral geneticists found that growing up in the same home with the same parents “…had little or no effect on the adult personalities of siblings.” There is even a comment that children with homosexual parents have no increase in being homosexuals. Another example is that children living homes where a language other than English is spoken learn to speak English without an accent. An example given late in the book is about a child in a Chinese-speaking home who asks for milk by saying “nai, nai” at home and “ba ba” at daycare. Sons of upper class English families who are raised by nannies until they go to exclusive schools and seldom have any contact with their fathers grow up to be just like their fathers. Both of them were molded by the environment at the schools with no impact from their family life, or lack of a family life. The peer group is demanding, and children work hard to fit in. They know that there will be penalties for behaving differently than expected. The adage, “The nail that sticks up is hammered down” applies.

I had several surprises from the book. One was that studies have not found any consistent differences between only children and children with siblings. Minor differences “…sometimes favor the only child, sometimes the child with the siblings.” Another surprise is that birth order doesn’t make a difference in the way children turn out.

One study that impressively validates the author’s idea included twenty boys selected for an experiment based on their similarities. They were randomly divided into two groups in a camp area and not told about the other group. They named themselves the “Rattlers” and “Eagles,” and in true Lord of the Flies tradition became bitter enemies. They were soon gathering sticks and stones to do battle with the other group.

I searched the book for information that could be used by parents who want to validate that their parenting efforts will make a difference in the outcome of raising their kids. Asian-American parents are likely to be quite authoritarian, and their children are the most likely to turn out competent and successful. The author writes that home life usually has some small influence, but there are exceptions. “It is time to admit that I have been misleading you: the correlation between behavior at home and behavior outside the home may be low, but it is not zero.” “Parents influence the way their children behave at home. They also supply knowledge and training that their children can take with them…” The author also notes that children conceived by donor insemination and raised by lesbians or by single or married heterosexuals turned out “well adjusted and well-behaved.” I infer from this information that children are positively influenced by parents who want them.

There was also an example of identical twins adopted to different families. One piano-teacher mother offered lessons, but did not insist. The non-musical mother insisted the other twin take lessons and practice. The child raised with the non-demanding musical mother grew up unable to play a note. The other child became a concert pianist. That seems to be solid evidence that dedicated parenting can make a difference. Another was the story of The Ditchdigger’s Daughters. The laborer father and chambermaid mother had five daughters, and the man’s fellow workers teased him about being unable to father sons. He responded by insisting his daughters would be women of accomplishment. He told them they were going to grow up to be doctors, and he established that the peer group would be the five girls. Two of the daughters indeed became physicians, one an oral surgeon, on a lawyer, and one a court stenographer.

As a final observation, the author notes that children of two smart people are smarter in part because of heredity. Those parents often do a good job of raising their kids because they enjoy parenting smart kids. They usually work hard to get their kids into good schools with good teachers, where the peer groups in that atmosphere is much more likely to provide a positive influence. However, it needs to be understood that the world outside the home is tough. Parents at home might tell a child that something they did made the parent feel bad. On the playground they are told “You shithead!”

I believe the most important advice to parents is that they should understand the influence the peer group. The author advises, “At least in the early years, they can determine who the child’s peers are.” The author closes with, “As for what’s wrong with you” don’t blame your parents.”