написать

Ссылки к главе Что могут сделать родители

Литература использованная в 14 главе

14. What Parents Can Do
1.    Lykken, 1995.
2.    Lykken, 1995, p. 82.
3.    Denrell & Le Mens, 2007, offer a novel theory of social influence that explains how parents influence their children’s choice of a profession or their leisure-time activities. People who are in close contact often have similar attitudes toward such things, not because they influence each others’ attitudes directly, but because their close association has a direct effect on "the activities and objects an individual gets exposed to” (p. 398). For example, let’s say that B is the parent of A. "If B influences the activities A will sample, it is not necessary that A identifies with B, that A wants to comply with B, or that A regards the opinions of B as informative for social influence to occur” (p. 399). Thus, if B is a physician, A will "sample” more activities or objects associated with the medical profession.
4.    There is evidence from one twin study (Waller & Shaver, 1994) that children may learn at home their attitudes toward romantic love. However, a twin study of divorce (McGue & Lykken, 1992, discussed in Chapter 13) yielded contradictory results: twins’ experience of their parents’ marriage does not appear to affect the success or failure of their own marriages. With regard to parenting behaviors, a study of adult adoptees (Rowe, 2002) showed that people evidently do not learn how to be a parent by observing the parents who brought them up.
5.    Serbin, Powlishta, &Gulko, 1993.
6.    I now have a better explanation for within-group differences of this kind (Harris, 2006a).
7.    Heckathorn, 1992.
8.    Reduces competition between siblings: Sulloway, 1996. Parents occupy family niches: Tesser, 1988.
9.    For an update on the controversy over birth order, see Chapter 4 of No Two Alike (Harris, 2006a).
10.    Thornton, 1995, pp. 3-4, 43.
11.    Mathews, 1988, p. 217.
12.    Thornton, 1995; Moore, 1996.
13.    Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994; Winner, 1996.
14.    Winner, 1996, 1997.
15.    Ladd, Profilet, & Hart, 1992.
16.    A higher proportion of smart kids: Rutter, 1983. Less likely to get into trouble, more likely to be rejected: Kupersmidt, Griesler, DeRosier, Patterson, & Davis, 1995.
17.    Quoted in Norman, 1995, p. 66.
18.    Hartocollis, 1998.
19.    Now called the Intel Science Talent Search.
20.    As mentioned in Chapter 8, children who lack normal contacts with peers—due, for example, to chronic illness—run an elevated risk of social and psychological maladjustment (Ireys et al., 1994; Pless & Nolan, 1991).
21.    Brody, 1997, p. F7; Clark, 1995, p. 1970.
22.    Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003, p. 1. See also Dawes, 1994, pp. 9-10.
23.    Violence: Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996, p. 5. Risky behavior: Smith, Gerrard, & Gibbons, 1997.
24.    Zervas & Sherman, 1994.
25.    Rovee-Collier, 1993.
26.    Poison the relationship between siblings: Brody & Stoneman, 1994. Least favored children in adulthood: Bedford, 1992.
27.    Anders & Taylor, 1994.
28.    Bruer, 1997.
29.    IQ correlations in adult adoptees: Plomin, Fulker, Corley, & DeFries, 1997. No scientific basis: Bruer, 1997.
30.    L. J. Miller (1997, September 10), Einstein and IQ (a Netnews website posting in sci.psychology.misc).
31.    Lancy, 2008; Rogoff, Mistry, Goncii, & Mosier, 1993.
32.    Reich, 1997, pp. 10-11.
33.    Edwards, 1992.
34.    Jenkins, Rasbash, Sc O’Connor, 2003; McHale, Crouter, McGuire, & Updegraff, 1995; Lancy, 2008.
35.    Goodall, 1986, p. 282.
36.    Watson, 1928, pp. 69, 70.