Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development.

Harris, Judith Rich

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.458

Cited by 1,530 publications

(1,194 citation statements)

References 268 publications

(270 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,033

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that shared environment reflects the wider community in which families are embedded as well (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Parke & Kellam, 1994, p. 3). This point has also been stressed by Harris (1995), who argued that we should think about environmental effects in terms of group processes in which peers play an important role. That is, phenomena such as within-group assimilation and between-groups contrast, which increase the homogeneity of behaviors within groups and widen differences between social groups, could show up as shared environment in behavior genetic analysis.…”

Section: Genetic and Environmental Influencesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Genetic and Environmental Mechanisms Underlying Stability and Change in Problem Behaviors at Ages 3, 7, 10, and 12.

Bartels¹,

Oord²,

Hudziak³

et al. 2004

Developmental Psychology

107

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maternal ratings on internalizing (INT) and externalizing (EXT) behaviors were collected in a large, population-based longitudinal sample. The numbers of participating twin pairs at ages 3, 7, 10, and 12 were 5,602, 5,115, 2,956, and 1,481, respectively. Stability in both behaviors was accounted for by genetic and shared environmental influences. The genetic contribution to stability (INT: 43%; EXT: 60%) resulted from the fact that a subset of genes expressed at an earlier age was still active at the next time point. A common set of shared environmental factors operated at all ages (INT: 47%; EXT: 34%). The modest contribution of nonshared environmental factors (INT: 10%; EXT: 6%) could not be captured by a simple model. Significant age-specific influences were found for all components, indicating that genetic and environmental factors also contributed to changes in problem behavior.

show abstract

Section: Genetic and Environmental Influencesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Genetic and Environmental Mechanisms Underlying Stability and Change in Problem Behaviors at Ages 3, 7, 10, and 12.

Bartels¹,

Oord²,

Hudziak³

et al. 2004

Developmental Psychology

107

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, peers are likely to socialize relationship styles in ways that are not redundant with the socialization influences of adults (Harris, 1995;Maccoby, 1990). Some socializing behaviors that elicit sex-typed relationship styles are more appropriate in the context of peer relationships than asymmetrical adult-child relationships.…”

Section: Nih-pa Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although early evidence did not indicate stable individual differences in the degree to which particular youth were immersed in same-sex peer groups, more recent research indicates that there are stable individual differences in the tendency for youth to interact with same-sex peers, at least in early childhood (Martin & , 2001). As a result, some children are exposed to same-sex peers more than others, and presumably are socialized most strongly to adopt sex-linked characteristics.Despite the theoretical importance of peer socialization (Harris, 1995), research in this area is surprisingly limited. However, important recent research by Martin and Fabes (2001) does suggest that the degree to which youth are exposed to same-sex peers contributes to how much sex-typed behavior they exhibit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys.

Rose

Rudolph

2006

Psychological Bulletin

2,036

157

1,831

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory and research on sex differences in adjustment focus largely on parental, societal, and biological influences. However, it also is important to consider how peers contribute to girls' and boys' development. This paper provides a critical review of sex differences in: several peerrelationship processes, including behavioral and social-cognitive styles, stress and coping, and relationship provisions. Based on this review, a speculative peer-socialization model is presented that considers the implications of these sex differences for girls' and boys' emotional and behavioral development. Central to this model is the idea that sex-linked relationship processes have costs and benefits for girls' and boys' adjustment. Finally, we present recent research testing certain model components and propose approaches for testing understudied aspects of the model. Keywordspeer relationships; sex differences; emotional adjustment; behavioral adjustment From a very early age, significant differences are found in the peer relationships of girls and boys. What are the potential implications of this consistent pattern of sex differences for youth? The purpose of the present paper is to review, synthesize, and critique existing research concerning the presence of sex differences in several key aspects of youths' relationships, particularly in the peer group context. Based on this critical review, we then introduce a speculative model concerning the influence of sex differences in these peer relationship processes on the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Finally, this review and speculative model are used as a springboard for identifying critical future directions for research on sex differences in relationships processes and associated developmental outcomes.We focus on sex differences in three major domains of relationship processes: relationship style-including both behavioral and social-cognitive components, stress and coping processes, and emotional provisions in relationships. Several factors determined our selection of these relationship processes for inclusion in our review. The overarching goal of this review is to generate ideas about the influence of sex differences in relationship processes on well-being in girls and boys. Thus, we focused in general on relationship Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Amanda J. Rose, 210 McAlester Hall, Department of Psychology, University of Columbia, Missouri 65211, RoseA@missouri.edu NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript processes that we hypothesized would have potential implications for understanding sex differences in emotional and behavioral development. With this goal in mind, we used three criteria to select specific dimensions for review. First, we focus on relationship processes that are emphasized in existing theoretical models of sex differences in relationships (e.g., Burhmester, 1996;Cross & Madson, 1997;Helgeson, 1994;Maccoby, 1990; NolenHoeksema & Girgus, 1994). Second, we ...

show abstract

“…The difference can be seen in the field's general perspective on the development of personality traits, which represents a prominent form of personality development. This view holds that traits are molded less by subjective intentions than by external biological and social forces (Harris, 1995;Plomin & Caspi, 1999), even though research on the intentional efforts to develop one's own personality traits is scarce. Part of the aim of these studies is to contribute to an understanding of the role of personal growth in personality development, namely in the form of intentional self-development.…”

Section: Two Perspectives On Personality Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth Goals, Maturity, and Well-Being.

Bauer¹,

McAdams²

2004

Developmental Psychology

189

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 studies (125 college students and 51 adults), 2 forms of growth goals (exploratory and intrinsic) were compared with 2 forms of personality development (social-cognitive maturity and social-emotional well-being). Participants whose narratives of major life goals emphasized conceptual exploration were especially likely to have high levels of maturity (measured as ego development; J. Loevinger, 1976), whereas those whose goals emphasized intrinsic interests (K. M. Sheldon & T. Kasser, 1995) were especially likely to have high levels of well-being. Participants who had coherent hierarchies of growth goals on the levels of major life goals and everyday goals were especially likely to have high levels of personality development. Finally, growth goals accounted for some relationships between age and personality development. Growth goals are discussed in terms of intentional self-development and specific developmental paths.

show abstract

Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development.

Cited by 1,530 publications

References 268 publications

Genetic and Environmental Mechanisms Underlying Stability and Change in Problem Behaviors at Ages 3, 7, 10, and 12.

Genetic and Environmental Mechanisms Underlying Stability and Change in Problem Behaviors at Ages 3, 7, 10, and 12.

A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys.

Growth Goals, Maturity, and Well-Being.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About