Revenge of the preteen nerds

Many people get an education because they want good careers that earn good money. Being studious may not make you cool but it should set you up to meet that goal; students who party instead of studying may not be so successful:

This quotation is actually from Bill Gates, even if Actual Advice Mallard seems to be stating it here. Did Bill Gates get it right? Are today's nerdy kids likely to be well-employed and financially stable as adults?

Spengler, Brunner, Damian, Lüdtke, Martin, and Roberts (2015) examined data from a large-scale, longitudinal study done in Luxembourg, a small country in Europe. In 1968 the MAGRIP study collected data on Luxembourgish youngsters around age 12. This included measures of the children's IQs, their parents' levels of wealth and education (SES), ratings from teachers on how studious the children appeared to be, and self-reports about feelings of inferiority, being a responsible student, defying their parents' rules, and talking back to their parents.

In 2008, the second wave of MAGRIP followed up with 745 of these same individuals when they were in their 40s. At that time the participants were asked about their educational attainment (years of education after elementary school), their current or most recent jobs, and their yearly incomes. In their analysis, Spengler et al. wanted to know what traits at age 12 were associated with greater educational attainment, occupational success (as measured by prestige and social class), and higher incomes in middle age.

In line with past research, the participants who had higher IQs and higher SES families when they were 12 attained higher amounts of education by middle age. However, even when those two variables were accounted for, three other attributes predicted educational attainment: feeling that you are not as good as others; studiousness; talking back to parents and not always following the rules. Two of these are not surprising: self-reported feelings inferiority at age 12 were related to lower levels of education by one's 40s; while teachers' higher ratings of studiousness at age 12 predicted higher levels of education by middle age. Interestingly, reporting at age 12 that you talk back to and do not always obey your parents was also related to higher educational attainment in adulthood.

Likewise, more occupational success in middle age was predicted by having a higher IQ and coming from a higher SES family at age 12. Even when those two variables were held steady, seeing yourself as a responsible student at age 12 predicted occupational success in your 40s. Higher teacher ratings of studiousness during childhood also predicted occupational success, however this relationship played out through the amount of education that the participants experienced. Spengler et al. clarified that being seen as studious by your teachers in childhood suggests that you have traits that might lead you to choose more years of and more challenging levels of education. In fact, educational attainment was the best predictor of occupational success.

The analysis revealed an unexpected finding related to personal income. The participants who at age 12 admitted that they talked back to their parents and did not always follow their rules were more likely to have higher incomes during their 40s! This was true even when childhood IQ, family SES, and lifetime educational attainment were taken into account. Spengler et al. caution us that this finding needs to be replicated in future research - so this is not a green light for preteens around the globe to sass back at their parents. They also offer two explanations: these individuals may be more likely to argue to get higher wages; it is also possible that these individuals broke the rules as adults to get this higher income.

I would add that it is also possible that they were raised by good, Authoritative parents. These parents express love to their children and raise them with the correct amount of fair discipline; they are also willing to discuss household rules with their children, conversations which may start off with "talking back." Authoritative parents want their kids to be able to reason about their behavior choices instead of simply showing obedience to authority. So, it would stand to reason that their children may not always follow even their own rules to the letter. Authoritative parenting also prepares children for white collar jobs that require independent decision making and less emphasis on following orders; these jobs may also offer higher levels of pay.

Another possibility that I can imagine is that some of these individuals are Gifted. In general, higher IQs are related to higher incomes and Gifted children have IQs that are at least twice as different as we would expect from an average child. Parents of Gifted children often joke about them being "little lawyers," because they can be argumentative even with adults in authority. So Spengler et al.'s surprising finding may simply reflect a variable that is related to unusually high intelligence.

The authors admit that the predictive powers of pre-teen Luxembourgish children's behavior in 1968 may not generalize: it may be that educational attainment, occupational success, and income level are predicted by different traits today and these traits may vary from culture to culture. On the other hand, the Spengler et al. analysis demonstrated that personal factors like being a responsible student, coming across to teachers as being studious, and how you relate to people in positions of authority can predict achievement beyond their relationships with general intelligence and social class. In that case, being a studious (and perhaps argumentative) nerd may be enough: you don't have to be a genius like Bill Gates or have a wealthy parent like Bill Gates to become an adult with a good job and a good income.

Further Reading:

The Spengler et al. (2015) article can be accessed through your local college library.

Clinical Psychologist Kelly Flanagan blogged for The Huffington Post about why he thinks "...Every Kid Should Talk Back to Their Parents."

Serious students may have a good chance of landing a job found in U.S. News and World Report's list of "The 100 Best Jobs" of 2015.

BONUS: Watch an amusing promotional video titled "Is it true what they say about... Luxembourg?" made by the Luxembourg National Tourism Board. Spoiler Alert: no volcanoes; yes happy dogs.

Parenting: Free-range tigers in helicopters?

Throughout June we addressed the four styles that psychologists most often use to classify parents: Authoritative (the best); Authoritarian; Permissive; and Indifferent-Uninvolved (the worst). However, an Internet search reveals that many memes feature controversial styles of parenting whose names are less academic - it seems that everyone is an "expert." So how could so-called Free-range, Tiger, and Helicopter parents relate to psychology's four types?

Free-range parents advocate allowing children to spend time alone: both in the home and outdoors. These parents may equip their children with bracelets that read, "I'm not lost, I'm a free-range kid." The argument behind this parenting is that the risk of kidnapping and molestation has declined but parents' fear of those things has increased resulting in children being constantly supervised by adults. Free-range children are supposed to benefit by having unsupervised time to explore their world and by having to negotiate arguments with other children or other dilemmas on their own.

In the best possible case the Free-range parent could be Authoritative. They would be very loving toward their children but balance that love with age-appropriate rules and consequences. In this case the children would have very clear rules about when and where they could go, their expected behavior when they are out on their own, and an understanding of what age-appropriate and fair consequences would occur if they broke those rules. This would produce a situation where the child is only granted the freedom that he or she can handle based on age and individual maturity. This would also mean that the child is given guidelines for what is acceptable behavior and has had past practice thinking through moral and other types of dilemmas with the parents. Indeed Authoritative parenting teaches age-appropriate independence.

On the other hand, it is also possible that Free-range parents could be Permissive or Indifferent-Uninvolved. A Permissive parent is very loving but has very few rules or consequences for their children. One criticism of Free-range parents is that their children cause problems to property or fight with kids - but when confronted by other parents the children either do not care or state that their parents have said that they do not need to listen to other adults. Children raised by Permissive parents may have bad behavior and also struggle when confronted by situations that include rules.

In the worst-case scenario, Free-range parents could be Indifferent-Uninvolved, meaning that the parents have such little interest in the children that they don't express love to them and they don't bother giving them rules or consequences. Controversy has occurred when concerned neighbors have called the police when they saw Free-range children by themselves. To an outside observer it may be very difficult to tell the difference between a child who is granted more freedom than is the norm and a child who is neglected by his or her parents. Neglected children suffer a host of psychological and developmental problems including substance abuse and trouble with the law.

Another type of parent that seems legendary on the Internet is the so-called Tiger Mother. This type of parenting was highlighted by Amy Chua who suggested that Asian (and certain other immigrant) parents will produce more successful and productive children because they relentlessly push academic and extracurricular activities. Chua is critical of Western parenting's focus on protecting children's self-esteem and of the Western concept that an individual child's likes and dislikes need to be considered.

In relation to psychology, a Tiger parent would most likely be considered to be Authoritarian. This means that the parent does not express a lot of love to the children (even if they feel a lot of love for them) and primarily interacts with them by controlling their behavior through rules better suited to older children and consequences that are harsh. Children parented this way may have low self-esteem and  feel resentful and angry which leads to sneaky, bad behavior when the parent is not around. They may also struggle as adults when they do not have that parent around to tell them what to do.

Recently, there has been a lot of hype about a final type of parent: the Helicopter parent. Features on this topic tend to focus on stories from college professors or administrators who fear that today's young adults are too close to their parents and cannot make any decisions without phoning or texting them. The parents are also criticized for treating their college students as if they were elementary students: even I have been contacted by parents wanting to discuss their adult children's work in my college classes! These news reports about college students usually go on to generalize that parents with small children should not be "too involved," they should not "hover" because children need unsupervised time to work things out on their own, and that they should "allow their kids to fail" - all to prevent them from growing into these adults who cause consternation at university.

It is possible that Helicopter parents are Permissive parents: they are very loving but do not attempt to set limits on their children's behavior; instead they act as if they want to be the kids' friends. In this scenario, the parent has always focused on keeping the child happy - maybe doing their homework for them or assuming that any behavior problems at school are silly things made up by the teachers (their "angel" can do no wrong). As their children become young adults, these parents continue to fail at having age-appropriate expectations for them, so they coddle their college students and intrude into their affairs. Again, Permissive parenting is associated with children who have problems.

On the other hand, if we only consider parents with young children and adolescents, what seems like Helicopter parenting may actually be good, Authoritative parenting. Authoritative parents are very loving toward their children but they have age- and individual- appropriate expectations for their behavior. Average children can have large individual differences, for example, some five-year-olds can be dropped off at a birthday party and have a wonderful time while other five-year-olds still need a parent to stay throughout the party to function. There are also children with hidden struggles such as anxiety or Sensory Processing Disorder:  parents of these children may appear to be hovering or "Hoovering" (vacuuming up any potential problems in the situation) when in fact they are doing what their individual children need to be successful in that situation.

By definition, an Authoritative parent is interested in teaching age-appropriate independence, including how to think through moral dilemmas about behavior. So by definition, an Authoritative parent would not do their children's homework and would not expect their child to avoid failure. Likewise, an Authoritative parent would not intervene in a young adult's life the way that is portrayed in stories about Helicopter parents. Moreover, they would not need to because they have equipped their now grown child to deal with things on their own.

These three pop culture parenting styles bring us back to what we know is associated with the best outcomes for children: lots of expression of love and affection combined with age-appropriate and fair discipline that teaches kids to reason their way through questions of right and wrong. Some Free-range parents and some of who may appear to be Helicopter parents are likely this sort of Authoritative parent.

These pop culture parenting styles also can remind us of what is associated with problems for children. Clearly children who do not receive a lot of love and who are always left to figure out right and wrong on their own will have problems: it is possible that some Free-range parenting may fall into this Indifferent-Uninvolved style. Likewise, we know that parents who just want to be their kids' friends - they are very loving but set very few rules for their children's behavior - are also associated with kids who struggle. It could be that some Free-range parents and the stereotypical Helicopter parent would fit this Permissive profile. Finally, children who are constantly controlled by stern parents who expect too much of them also demonstrate problems. We would expect that Tiger parents may be examples of this Authoritarian category.

Another concern is that parents read about these pop culture styles and stop doing the things we know are good for their children because they don't want to be judged. Taken together the message from Free-range and Helicopter parenting seems to be, "Don't get involved in your child's life; don't help your child." On the other hand the message from Tiger parenting is, "Your child is not an individual, all children can be shaped into adults with high-paying, prestigious jobs if you are involved in all of their choices and control their choices." Not only are those messages conflicting, they get the idea of Involvement wrong.

In psychology, Involvement is not just spending quality time with your children, it is also really knowing who your child is as an individual: their likes/dislikes; their abilities/struggles; and the people and experiences that make up their daily lives. High Involvement is associated with the best outcomes for children and it is usually seen along side of good levels of Warmth and Control.  For example, Authoritative parenting is high in Warmth:  parents who freely expresses love to and try to remain positive with their children are going to be involved in their lives.  Authoritative parenting is medium in Control: to have age- and individual appropriate rules parents need to really know their children, which is high Involvement. Another part of medium Control is having fair, age-appropriate consequences if a rule is broken - to know that a rule has been broken and to know that the punishment is fair the parent has to be involved with their children. Part of this involvement includes dialoguing with older kids and teens about the rules which teaches them to think through moral dilemmas on their own; this is very different than expecting children to mindlessly obey authority figures.

It may not have a trendy name, but Authoritative parenting is the way to go.

Further Reading:

An article in The Atlantic magazine: The real problem with helicopter parents: there aren't enough of them.

WebMD has advice for knowing when your child is ready to stay home alone or to babysit younger children.

The American Psychological Association published a press release: Reducing academic pressure may help children succeed.

Parenting with Style: The Good Coach

Developmental and Clinical psychologist, Diana Baumrind's work on leadership styles spawned her investigation into how parents lead their families.  From these historic studies she generated three parenting styles.  This week we will look at the style that is usually considered to be best for most children:  Authoritative Parenting.

As you will see, the Authoritative parent is like a good coach or teacher.  Your coach cares about you and gives you praise or a pat on the back when you do well.  Your coach has high expectations about your performance - sometimes believing in what you can do even before you realize that you can.  A good coach has rules and if those rules are broken there is some sort of penalty - but these are fairly applied to everyone on the team.  Because of this a good coach is beloved and leads the team to victory!

Praise or a pat on the back are examples of Warmth: in last week's post we noted that Warmth has to do with all the ways parents can show love to their children.  Authoritative parents get it right by being High in Warmth:  they praise their kids when they make good choices; they are affectionate with their children and say "I love you;" and they don't take out the stress from their adult lives on their kids.  Their children do not have to guess if they are loved by their parents because they are given concrete evidence every day.

Having rules and consequences describes Control: you will remember that the ideal amount is Medium.  Authoritative parents also get this right:  they have control over their children's behavior because they have age-appropriate, reasonable rules that the child can successfully follow.  If those rules are broken, there are also reasonable, age-appropriate punishments that will occur.  Those consequences are predictable and happen every time the rules are broken.  Children of Authoritative parents have a clear road-map to the good behavior that is expected of them.  When they do not show that good behavior they also know that the consequence will always occur:  these won't be fun but these will be fair.

Another hallmark of Authoritative parents is that they want to teach their children to think independently about moral (right or wrong) situations.  They want their kids to make good choices even when nobody is around to advise them and even when an authority figure is telling them to do something wrong.  To do this they engage in dialogue with older children and teens about the family rules:  this allows kids to give feedback about the age-appropriateness of the rules and the parents have a chance to teach the morals behind the rules.  For example, maybe a family has a rule that the kids get new shoes only at the start of the school year, but one of the kids wants a second pair:

Authoritative parents would hear the kid out, listening to all of his good and not so good reasons that he should have those shoes.  They wouldn't automatically cave to his demands; they wouldn't automatically cut him off to show parental power.  Instead, they would ask their son questions and clarify moral issues behind the rules.  Some morals from this situation might be: how money is shared in a family; what is the importance of things over people; resisting pressure from advertising.

In the end, the Authoritative parent is the one who makes the decision to keep or modify the family rule.  So the parent might tell the son, "no," because bending the rule would not be fair to the other kids in the family.  The parent could also say, "yes," with a qualification:  maybe they will buy the shoes but the child has to do extra chores to earn possession of them with allowance money.  Possibly, the parent would say "yes," and buy them right away - not for a lame reason - but maybe in the discussion the child offered a really good reason, like safety when he walks to school in the morning while it is still somewhat dark outside.  Regardless of yes or no, this version of Medium control teaches the children how to think rationally about moral problems.

For most children the best outcomes occur when they have at least one Authoritative parent.  These children tend to have the best social skills and good relationships with other kids and with adults.  In addition, both at home and at school, these children show the best behavior!  Not surprisingly, they demonstrate age-appropriate independence and are likely to make the right choice even when their parents are not around.  Overall, these children are fun to be around, have a healthy level of confidence, and are highly competent for their ages.

When I lecture about Authoritative parents, some of my students seem doubtful that such good behavior can occur without harsh rules and harsh punishment.  It could be that these students grew up with a different type of parent or are raising their own children in a high risk environment.  Next week we'll talk about a High Control parenting style and the situations that may call for it.

Further Reading:

At your local college library you can access a good historical review of parenting, including Baumrind's three styles: Maccoby, E. E. (1992) The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, Vol 28(6), 1006-1017.

More details on Authoritative parenting from the Parenting Science website.

Good advice on Medium Control discipline from the Sears family of pediatricians and nurses.