A Research Of Whether The Peer Group Is More Influential In Children’s Psycho-social Development Than The Parents
The aim of this essay is to explore and understand if, after infancy and early childhood, the peer group is more influential in psycho-social development than the parents.
In 1994, Harris formulated a new theory on education, arguing that children learn more from their peers than from the family, illustrated the following year in an article in the 'Psychological Review', which won the American Psychological Association award, causing a huge uproar media and academic debate. In 1998 she published her most famous book “The Nurture Assumption. It is not the fault of the parents if the children are delinquents and it is not their merit if instead they grow as model boys. This is, in a nutshell, the message of the book by Judith Rich Harris that sparked a controversial debate in the United States even before its full publication, overturning the traditional psychological theories about the evolution and growth of the child.
Parents do not count or count to a certain extent, says Harris, the child's personality is determined only fifty percent by the genetic characteristics of the biological family, while for the other half it is influenced by playmates, destined to shape their behaviour and choices far more than paternal and maternal education. Harris has questioned the widely accepted psychological dogma that parents play a central role in social development and in the construction of children's personalities, as attested by psychoanalytic studies now considered classic and behavioural psychology. The echo raised in 1995 by her article in the prestigious 'Psychological Review' was remarkable: some consensus but above all many criticisms from authoritative exponents of the academic world.
The now widely accepted psychological dogma that parents play a central role in social development and in the construction of children's personalities is no longer so undisputed. The author has certainly not been intimidated by decades of classical psychoanalytic studies or behavioural psychology that have contributed to the widespread conviction that parents are important, very important in the development of children, contributing to their normal development as well as to the rise of disorders psychic. On this thrust, the Rich Harris launched her crusade preparing the book which is based on a rich scientific documentation but also on rather naive personal observations. While acknowledging, as is now widely accepted, that the hereditary heritage affects more or less 50 per cent of the personal characteristics, the essayist directs her inquiry into the remaining 50 per cent that would be ascribed to the environment. It is not said, she says, that this environmental 50% depends precisely on the parents, the generalization according to which the nice and capable parents should have equal children is not the rule and when it happens it could be other factors. Even the other generalization that pampered children are more likely to be sympathetic while those being beaten are more likely to be unpopular is also questioned. It could be an indirect genetic effect whereby the child who is born with more pleasant personal traits gets sympathy and care from his family, while the most difficult or surly child inevitably causes negative reactions from his parents. What instead seems to me the Achilles heel of the Rich Harris book is the fact of considering socialization in too wide terms and among the various personal psychological characteristics there are some that are more related to the relationship with the parents, while others are modelled more in interactions with peers. Take for example the bonds of attachment that condition the way in which each person establishes an important emotional bond, as can be with a family member or a sentimental partner or a close friend, in this case the research has shown that there are very high concordances up to 70 percent between the attachment of the mother or father and that of the children.
Too often the theoretical models of child development have drawn a family with two parents and children, while the situation especially in Western countries is profoundly changing. Families that are reconstituted, children of the first union who live with children born of a new relationship, single parents and above all the growing and invasive presence of television and finally the importance of friends at school and in the afternoon activities. If Rich Harris' book can be a useful stimulus to build more complex models of human development, it is worth considering it carefully, but if it is the alibi for many parents not to take responsibility for their children's education because there are so many friends. and peers, the book can even be harmful.
According to Erikson, during the success of juvenile adolescent development, young people acquire self-confidence instead of self-awareness and self-awareness (Susman, et al., 1992). As the adolescent develops, they begin to experiment with constructive and negative identity behaviors. It is during the adolescent stage when peer group pressure plays a fundamental role in changing adolescent behaviour in both negative and positive sense.
According to Newman & Newman (2008), peer pressure is used to describe requests for compliance with group habits and show dedication and loyalty to group members. At the same time, young people outside the peer group have rules that strengthen the connection to particular peer groups and prohibit their association with others. The term 'peer pressure' is used to describe the negative influence that suggests that young people act contrary to their attitudes or moral due to fear of denunciation by the peer group.
Second, peer group pressure can lead to experiments with alcohol and drugs, sex, missing school and high-risk behaviour. A sudden change in the child's appearance, particularly in clothing, the appearance in particular accompanied by secret behaviour is the result of adolescents who succumb to peer pressure. An unexplained change of friends that the adolescent associates with is an indication that youth is vulnerable to new influences that can be negative.
In most cases, adolescents are forced to adopt particular lifestyles because of the pressure exerted by the peer group to which they belong (Rathus, 2007). Some teenagers might not like to attend parties every weekend, smoke and drink or even spend the night with friends, but are forced to start behaving in a similar way because of peer pressure. Most teenagers get into the habit of drinking due to the pressure of their peer groups. In some cases some adolescents are forced to devote themselves to using drugs and in other cases some young people have gone so far as to literally ruin their lives yielding to pressure from the peer group.
According to Newman & Newman (2008), as members of a peer group, the group has more influence on the adolescents they would have had on their own and begin to recognize the value of the joint venture. The peer group providing adolescent members, adolescents develops a feeling of connection and protection, thus freeing them from loneliness. When family conflict arrives, then teenagers can run to peers to seek reassurance and intimacy. In order for adolescents to benefit from peer groups, they should suppress part of their individuality and find satisfaction in focusing on the qualities they share with the peer group.
On the contrary, parents also have an indirect responsibility towards choosing peer groups of adolescent children from events in the early stages of their children's development through which they guide their children towards particular actions and associations to the groups. According to Merrick & Omar (2007), the style of parenting and early childhood plays an important role in the chain of events that lead to antisocial behaviour in some groups of teenage peers who start at home during childhood. The connections in this chain include the introduction to cruel and coercive parenting that gives way to the development of hostility and learning difficulties in school and these problems in the late childhood phase lead to the choice of antisocial companions.
Peer groups could push their teenage colleagues into negative behaviours or move away from positive behaviours, but they can also change teenagers in positive directions. According to Merrick, & Omar (2007), not all adolescents act in response to peer group pressure in a similar way. Gender and age are among the factors that influence the way adolescents act in response to peer pressure. For example, it has been shown that boys are more susceptible to the influence of peer pressure than girls in particular under risk conditions. Younger adolescents are more easily persuaded by peer pressure than older adolescents with the highest influence from peers among the highest in eight and noni.
In conclusion, among the most difficult problems that parents of most teenagers worry about is when they decide to stay with the wrong crowd. Most parents have difficulty managing such behaviour and will express their grief at the fact that when they have forbidden their teenage form to be with the wrong peers, they have eventually changed to become a virtual attraction for their children teenagers. Parents should establish clear expectations about the behaviour they expect from their teenagers. They must also establish rules and communicate about where and with whom they spend their children. Furthermore, the parent should explain the consequences of negative behaviour to adolescent children so that they can choose the right behaviour that cannot influence their future lives.
