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 with Poor Style: The Sergeant

Last week we looked at what is considered to be the best type of parent, the Authoritative parent who is like a good coach: High in Warmth and Medium in Control.  This week our topic is another one of Baumrind’s parenting styles: the Authoritarian parent.  The Authoritarian parent is much like a military sergeant:  Low in Warmth and High in Control.

The measure of Warmth has to do with how much parents express love in obvious, noticeable ways to their children.  Authoritarian parents usually love their children very much, but they are Low in Warmth, so they do not show this love very much.  These parents often seem stern and serious around their children and offer little praise even when their kids have earned it, they are not particularly affectionate and rarely – if ever – say “I love you,” and if they are having a bad day they take it out on their children. 

This Low Warmth may be the result of how they were raised by their own parents, the culture that they were born into, or a mistaken belief that showing more Warmth would make their kids soft or self-centered.  As adults we can look back on our parents’ behavior and explain it (“Oh, she did that because of the culture she was raised in,”) and also justify it (“Now I understand that my dad loved me because he worked hard so that I had food to eat,”) but small children cannot think in such complicated ways.  Low Warmth is not ideal because it is not obvious enough; children are less likely to feel loved.

Another problem with Authoritarian parents is that they are too High in Control.  Control has to do with discipline, and we see that Authoritarian parents have too many rules and these rules are often better suited for older children or adults.  Because their expectations are too high, their kids often fail to meet them and are given harsh punishments.

Authoritarian parents also prize obedience to authority more than independent thinking.  They believe that if an adult or an authority figure tells you to do something, then you must do it without questioning.  They are not interested in dialoguing with older children about the household rules – in fact, an Authoritarian parent would get angry and punish a child for suggesting that a rule should be changed.

Baumrind (2013) further clarified that the Authoritarian parent uses a "coercive" type of Control; one that attempts to influence not only the behaviors, but also the thoughts and feelings of their children.  She writes: 

Coercive control is arbitrary, intrusive, and domineering, and directed not only at the child’s misbehavior but also at the child’s expression of initiative and agency (e.g., “You’re a disobedient child! Don’t you dare talk back to your mother!”). In contrast to coercive control, confrontive control [that is used by Authoritative parents] is reasoned, negotiable, and outcome-oriented, and directed at specific behaviors the child is doing that the parent wants the child to alter (e.g., “Stop teasing your brother”) or to do that she is not doing (e.g., “It’s time for you to go to bed”).... For authoritarian parents, obedience signifies deferential respect, a virtue to be rewarded, and disobedience signifies subversion of adult authority, a moral failing to be punished. (p. 431) 

Maybe Authoritarian parents were raised this way and so they are repeating the pattern.  It is also possible that they do not have an understanding of child development, so they do not know what are age-appropriate expectations for their kids.  Our culture tends to blame parents when children are disruptive in public, so maybe these parents fear judgment from others and react by going overboard.  We also see that parents who have little control over their own adult work lives – instead they keep their job by following orders – are more likely to emphasize obedience to their children.

Children raised by Authoritarian parents are less helpful to others and are more likely to fear their parents rather than respect them; this can cause them to feel very angry toward their parents.  They usually follow the rules when a parent or authority figure is around, but when they are not, they tend to have bad behavior or be sneaky to get back at their parents whose rules and mind games they resent.  How many adults have purposely broken rules when their boss is not around in "revenge" for unfair work policies and unfair punishments?

When they grow up and move out of their parents’ home, they may “go crazy” with the freedom as they are not used to making choices or determining right or wrong on their own.  So if you really want good behavior from your kids and you want them to make good choices on their own, Authoritarian parenting is not the way to go.

Some limited research points to a situation in which it might be useful to be Authoritarian: raising children in dangerous, crime-filled neighborhoods.  Much like a military sergeant may keep troops safe by being stern and barking orders that – for life or death reasons – must be followed, these parents’ serious demeanors and High levels of Control may keep their children from joining gangs, committing crimes, or being shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In these extreme living conditions, you could imagine that the problems associated with Authoritarian parenting may seem worth it if it keeps the kids safe in the moment.  However, this exception is still being debated, and psychologists still recommend Authoritative parenting for all families, regardless of where they live.

If you were raised by Authoritarian parents you may have decided that you never want to be like that with your own kids.  You plan on showing your love to your kids all the time and are aiming for a Medium level of Control, that is confrontive but not coercive.  It is pretty easy to show love to your kids, but if you never had a model for Medium Control, it would be difficult not to overcompensate and instead end up Low in Control.  Next week we will look at parents who are very loving to their children, but do not effectively influence their children’s behavior.

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.

If you realize that you are frequently angry around your children, Ask Dr. Sears has some suggestions to help you.  These suggestions are not only good for parents but for anyone who struggles with daily frustrations.

A good guide to age-appropriate discipline at different ages from Canadian pediatricians (and the Further Reading section of this blog post includes a similar one from the U.S.).  This article explains the goals of discipline and offers suggestions for doctors and parents.