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

As children grow, they are better able to self-categorize as a variety of identities. Within a classroom, children tend to break into cliques unless something keeps them bonded as a class. Teachers have a great deal of influence over children because they can inform how they bond with peers and experience being part of a group. They do so in three ways: establishing norms, boundaries, and a group self-image. Harris argues the best teachers discourage cliques through a class anthem and the like. Furthermore, they can inform how children self-categorize: For example, a child in a group who struggles with reading may adopt the group’s dislike of school and consider himself unintelligent. This can partly explain why some children are high achievers while others struggle with academics. Harris refutes the idea that parenting decisions play a significant role in developing IQ, as studies on adopted children show they have similar IQs to their biological family members rather than their adopted family. However, being adopted by higher IQ parents does provide a short-term boost in IQ during childhood.

In A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman reports white American children often have higher IQs than Black American children. Harris believes her group socialization theory explains this discrepancy: White and Black American children likely identify more with their racial groups, and thus create different norms to maintain group identity. To Harris, white American children may be more likely to value academic achievement, while Black American children may maintain group identity by rejecting “white” behavior. With this in mind, psychologist Claude Steele introduced the term “stereotype threat,” which describes how people’s self-categorization makes them vulnerable to underestimating themselves.

Schools with students from different language backgrounds tend to be divided along linguistic lines: If there are not enough children who share a trait, they will blend into another group and adopt their attitude. For example, Harris mentions a young Polish immigrant who was the only Polish-speaking child in his class, so he quickly became fluent in English to communicate with his peers. She wonders if homogenous groups are sometimes best for students, citing female excellence in math and science at all-girls schools and Black colleges producing famous Black mathematicians and scientists. Overall, she encourages teachers to unite their students by giving them a common goal to work towards.

Reading psychologist Terrie Moffitt’s article on adolescence prompted Harris to reconsider the nurture assumption and form her group socialization theory. Moffitt argued teenage delinquency was a common phenomenon, and that teens did so to attain “mature status” (248). Harris disagrees, believing teens engage in crimes to distinguish themselves from adults and impress peers; in fact, children often imitate peers whom they look up to. Across cultures, children do not want to be left behind as their peers advance through childhood and education. This advancement may include rites of passage such as first menstruation. In many societies, once children reach their teen years, they are initiated into adulthood. However, contemporary American society regards teens as their own social group. Harris believes teens feel a mutual “hostility” with adults, who are less likely to nurture them as they would younger children (257). In cultures which consider teens adults, there is no formal “rebellious teen” phase. In America, teens distinguish themselves through rebellious acts, language, and fashion. Harris argues this societal model drives cultural change: While children are too dependent to change broader culture and adults tend to value the status quo, teens and young adults are often the ones who generate new ideas.

In school, some cliques include subgroups (athletes, mathletes, etc.) which are fluid in elementary school and rigid in high school. Harris considers how some teens are negatively influenced by their peers, causing tension between them and their parents. She states all teens are influenced by their peers, either positively or negatively, but adults pay more attention to the negative. However, unhealthy behavior such as smoking might become a badge of honor for certain teens: “It is a way to demonstrate your allegiance to a particular peer group within the high school, to show your disdain for other groups (the goody-goodies, the nerds), and to prove that you don’t give a damn about adult concerns and adult rules” (264). Sometimes, this behavior escalates into crimes, which can become the norm in certain cliques or subcultures. Harris argues putting teen delinquents in teen-exclusive reform groups keeps them entrenched in old groups which normalized criminal activity—explaining these programs’ high rate of failure.