http://www.enfant-encyclopedie.com/pages/PDF/OberlanderANGxp.pdf
There have been a number of studies that reveal how responsiveness to crying will influence how much a baby cries by 3 months of age, so which comes first, the crying or the lack of responsiveness. I'm not concluding either way but we need to be aware that by 4 months of age when infants temperaments were measured in the classic Thomas and Chess longitudinal study, the infants behaviors have likely already been influenced by the quality of care they received during their early months of life. I can't cite the study but recall reading that infants being cared for by a depressed parent begin to show lower muscle tone in the first few weeks of life. So if we wish to get an accurate measurement of an infant's inborn temperament, it would seem wise to make start making objective measurements during the first week of their lives. A second major concern of mine is that, in contrast to the study by Thomas and Chess which relied on objective observations, the majority of research on infants' temperament use a far easier and faster approach to gathering data on infants temperaments--that being parental self-report questionnaires. However, though parental ratings are the most commonly used measures of children's temperament, their validity is in question(Saudino, 2003a) (Seifer, 2003). And, again, these studies are asking mothers about their infants temperaments at a age when their care-giving might have already influenced their infants difficulty and/or level of crying. We need research that measures parental care giving behaviors from day one as well as the baby's signs of being difficult versus easy. Just a few thoughts Don. I really do need to get back to my job! but will further pursue this topic and appreciate your comments. Joan [email protected] Don, I have a number of concerns about the contention that temperament impacts how parents interact with their child. My first concern is, relative to the class longitudinal study by Thomas, Chess and Birch) the infants temperament was measure at the age of 4 months. The difficult child could already be responding to their first 4 months of care. For example, Ainsworth study on the impact of how parents' respond to their crying babies relative to how temperament is measured, in the New York Longitudinal Study, 2/3 of the children fell into one of the three categories you mention while 65% do not. > Hi Joan- > > You recently wrote: > > " While acknowledging that there exists > quite a persuasive perspective that a child's display of interest or lack > there of could influence how parents choose to intellectually stimulate > their child, I am far less impressed with the contention that a child's > inborn temperament has a significant impact on styles of parenting that > influence children's social-emotional development." > > This seems rather counter-intuitive to me. I can't imagine that parents > would behave the same toward a "difficult" or "slow-to-warm-up" baby than > they would to an "easy" baby. Could you please provide some references > which demonstrate that temperament has little effect on parenting style? > > Thanks a lot, > > -Don. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joan Warmbold > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 4:27 pm > Subject: Re: [tips] Article in WSJ on study how brain develops "without > Dad." > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > >> Stephen, >> >> I do wish you would talk to me in your posts as opposed to >> talking 'about >> me,' in a fairly dismissive tone I might add. I think we all >> wish to >> maintain a high level of civility on TIPS, even between/among >> folks who >> have quite different opinions on an important topic. >> >> Relative to my original post offering to provide a critique of >> Harris, I'm >> fairly certain I offered to send a copy of my criticisms to >> those who >> requested such as opposed to the entire listserv. I didn't >> receive any >> requests after that post but have received three following my >> most recent >> post. As I told each of them, I will send my critique to them >> early next >> week. BTW Stephen, all three expressed a similar concern about >> the level >> of scholarship displayed in Harris's book, The Nurture >> Assumption. They >> have chosen to not jump into the fray, which I totally >> understand, but I'm >> clearly not alone on this one. I also will send a very brief >> summary of >> my concerns to this listserv. >> >> Relative to research that has revealed the importance of the >> early years, >> I do have a special interest in infant mental health so have >> been exposed >> to multitude of research studies on the impact of >> unpredictability and >> abuse on brain development, how quality of attachment influences >> a child's >> social skills and curiosity, how style of parenting >> (authoritarian vs >> authoritative vs permissive) influences a child's self-esteem, >> maturity,and industriousness, etc. I hadn't considered that my >> interests and area >> of study have exposed me to research studies that are not part >> of the >> general knowledge base of all psychologists. So yes, I will be >> more than >> happy to provide a list of citations on this topic. >> >> Relative to this research, a relatively recent and prominent >> concern is >> how strongly a child's inborn temperament and aptitudes >> influence how >> parents interact with their child. While acknowledging that >> there exists >> quite a persuasive perspective that a child's display of >> interest or lack >> there of could influence how parents choose to intellectually >> stimulatetheir child, I am far less impressed with the >> contention that a child's >> inborn temperament has a significant impact on styles of >> parenting that >> influence children's social-emotional development. >> >> Joan >> [email protected] >> >> >> > Joan Warmbold said (Nov 2/09: "Article in WJS"): >> > >> > "And please, please read the book by Judith Harris as it is sadly >> > an example of profoundly poor scholarship as well as a blatant >> > ignorance of the role of certain major players in the history of >> > psychology. As I have offered previously, I have made a critical >> > analysis of her book that I would be glad to share with >> > whomever. " >> > >> > We've been here before (see Joan's post of March 16/08). Her >> > only specific criticism then was that Harris failed to provide any >> > references. This is in fact untrue, as Harris in both her books >> > (No Two Alike and The Nurture Assumption, now in a revised >> > 10th anniversary edition) meticulously mega-documented her >> > work with references. Joan's error, for which she apologized, >> > suggests something less than a careful reading of Harris, which >> > does not bode well for Joan's claims against Harris. >> > >> > As for Joan's previous "offer", this is what she said back on >> > March 16, 2008, more than a year and a half ago: >> > >> > "I have been spending much time today reviewing this text and >> > will provide a number of examples of statements in this book >> > later this week that are quite unfounded and provide no citation." >> > >> > I waited patiently but none appeared. I'm still waiting. She now >> > tells us that that she has prepared an entire critical >> analysis, but >> > rather than presenting it on TIPS, we must request it. Speaking >> > for myself, I would rather not, as I don't have the patience for >> > perusal off-list of a document which strikes me as unpromising. >> > >> > But there is something simpler which Joan could do for us to >> > support her as-yet unsupported strong opinion. She could >> > identify one published research study which in her opinion >> > irrefutably shows that parental upbringing does impact adult >> > personality. >> > >> > Harris has carefully examined many such studies purporting to >> > show parental effects, and finds not one to be convincing. >> > Notwithstanding, if Joan knows of such a study, she should tell >> > us. I anticipate, though, that it will turn out to have one >> or more >> > flaws. These include such matters as drawing causal >> > conclusions from correlational data, ignoring plausible >> > alternative hypotheses, massaging the data through cherry- >> > picking results or through misusing multiple comparisons, or >> > the study failing to replicate. Harris has noted many such flaws. >> > Harris has also pointed out that in some cases data which was >> > claimed to produce highly convincing results turned out on >> > closer examination not to exist. So I'm not expecting a knock- >> > out study from Joan. >> > >> > Joan, I should mention, seems to have an unfortunate tendency >> > to let her prior beliefs determine what conclusions she draws >> > from a particular study. That is, she picks the hypothesis she >> > likes (parenting has lasting effects) and ignores alternative >> > competing explanations of the data. A good scientist will not >> > ignore competing explanations but will meet them head on, >> > discussing whether and to what extent they may be discounted >> > on the basis of evidence. Unfortunately, those most emphatic in >> > advancing the importance of parenting tend to forget that >> > parents not only provide their children with particular >> > environments but also with particular genes. We should not >> > assert that parenting is responsible if we cannot rule out the >> > possibility that genes are responsible instead. >> > >> > Note also the contradiction in the paragraph of Joan's I quoted >> > at the beginning of this post. On the one hand she administers >> > harsh criticism of Harris ( "profoundly poor scholarship"), >> and on >> > the other urges us to read her book. If we were to accept >> > Joan's evidence-free opinion, why would we want to waste our >> > time reading Harris? Fortunately, other more informed opinions >> > are less critical of Harris's scholarship, and I think it only >> fair to >> > cite a few of them in response. From the blurbs on her book, I >> > select the following from respected scholars and experts: >> > >> > "Shockingly persuasive...Harris has an impressive breadth of >> > knowledge"--Simon Baron-Cohen, _Nature_ >> > >> > "The Nurture Assumption is a rare book: clear, well informed, >> > occasionally hilarious, and rich with compelling examples"-- >> > David G. Myers >> > >> > "The book is based on solid science, analyzed with a piercing >> > style that's not afraid to take on the leading orthodoxy, and >> > communicated in a clear, accessible, terrifically witty way"-- >> > Robert M. Sapolsky, professor of neuroscience and biology, >> > Stanford University. >> > >> > I agree with Joan that Harris's book should be read. But not for >> > the reason given by Joan. For the reasons given by Baron- >> > Cohen, Myers, and Sapolsky. >> > >> > Stephen >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. >> > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus >> > Bishop's University >> > e-mail: [email protected] >> > 2600 College St. >> > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 >> > Canada >> > --------------------------------------------------------------- >> -------- >> > >> > --- >> > To make changes to your subscription contact: >> > >> > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) >> >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) >> > > Don Allen, Retired > Formerly with: Dept. of Psychology > Langara College > 100 W. 49th Ave. > Vancouver, B.C. > Canada V5Y 2Z6 > Phone: 604-733-0039 > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
