A question of character?

November 10, 2009 by matthewtaylor
Filed under: Social brain 

The long awaited Demos pamphlet on character is causing much debate. The think tank’s argument is that parenting, through the way it shapes character, is the most important determinant of a child’s life chances. The parenting style which Demos characterises as ‘tough love’ is the one most associated with good life outcomes, while both ‘authoritarian’ and ‘disengaged’ styles are much less successful. 

When it comes to policy recommendations, Demos argues for greater clarity, investment and evaluation in relation to parenting and early years services.  In particular, the authors argue for services to target resources at the psychologically vulnerable children who, research shows, would benefit most from the right form of parenting.

This is interesting stuff and it is hard to disagree with the findings. Those on the left will like the recognition that socialisation is vital to shaping life chances, which justifies investment and intervention in family life. On the right there will be enthusiasm for the idea that it is parental responsibility not just socio-economics that shapes children’s outcomes (although the Conservatives will not be pleased to see the pamphlet rejecting the suggestion that the marital status of parents is an important independent variable).

While welcoming the report and the debate it has opened, I have some reservations.

I am not sure how useful is the concept of ‘character’. It implies, first, that all the good personality attributes the pamphlet links to successful outcomes always go together in a single bundle: you’ve either got it or you haven’t. Second, while correctly highlighting the importance of our psychological predispositions and early-years socialisation, it is not clear to me whether character is an attribute of our programming or our decision making. If you are born happy, have great parenting and then go on to live a life of self interested middle class complacency, do you have better or worse character than the deeply troubled and disadvantaged individual who manages to survive or even to use their own experiences to help others? As my grandmother used to say to me ‘only cowards can be truly brave’.

No one can deny the importance of parenting and the early years; indeed over its twelve years in office Labour has dramatically increased investment in this stage of life. But we mustn’t move from this to a kind of individualistic determinism in which each person’s life chances are seen as laid down for ever by the combination of their psychological inheritance and experience of parenting.

In my annual lecture I quoted American scientists Nicholas A. Christakis and James Fowler, authors of ‘Connected – The Surprising Power of Social Networks’:

‘ social influence does not end with the people we know. If we affect our friends, and they affect their friends, then our actions can potentially affect people we have never met. We discovered that if your friend’s friend’s friend gained weight, you gained weight. We discovered that if your friend’s friend’s friend stopped smoking, you stopped smoking. And we discovered that if your friend’s friend’s friend became happy, you became happy’.

Just as research on the impact of the early years builds up, so does evidence of the importance of social networks and norms in shaping behaviour.

Perhaps the most interesting question, and one only touched on so far by Demos’ work, is how can social networks support parents in doing a better job? This takes us into some difficult issues about cultural norms. Effective intervention will be as much about community development as public service provision. But unless we are to have an incredibly intrusive state, communities themselves will need to find better ways of encouraging and supporting good parenting.

  • Share/Bookmark

No related posts.

Tags: , ,

Comments

6 Comments on A question of character?

  1. Tessy Britton on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 6:59 pm

    2. This Demos report is very important – thank you for blogging about it Matthew. They have managed to brilliantly navigate a sensitive and complex area.

    There is some very sound thinking in this report. It also mentions Brofenbrenner’s Ecological System Theory which is really helpful in placing the child into a family/community/society context, but I agree with your points above which expand and nuance these ideas further with new findings on the effects of social networks.

    Overall, in terms of studying parenting effects themselves DEMOS have done a great job. It is also good that their discussion focuses on what children learn from their environment, thus steering the discussion firmly towards what can be changed, learned or nurtured as one develops, rather than on genetic or trait capabilities.

    The three main issues they raise as most important for developing character capabilities in the early years make a lot of sense: poverty, psychology and parenting.

    It would be great if we could start to tackle poverty first!

  2. Ian Leslie on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 7:28 pm

    3. I think you’re absolutely right, Matthew. The notion of ‘character’ can too easily imply something solid and autonomous and inherited (even if in reality Demos are offering a more nuanced analysis). And does or should government really have a role in shaping “character”? Sounds rather paternalistic, or even Orwellian. Whereas I can absolutely see the importance of policy-makers having a much greater understanding of the role of our social networks in shaping our behaviours.

  3. Matthew Kalman on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 8:55 pm

    4. I made a foray over to the Demos blog, before Matthew blogged about their new report, and posted something there.

    Unfortunately it was mostly on that genetics/traits topic – that Tessy says (and Matthew agrees?) we must “steer the discussion firmly” away from! ;-)

    I don’t see the appeal of this kind of ‘head in the sand’ approach – you’ve got to face up to reality as it is, not just wish away the bits you don’t like (apparently, genetics), as they’re not so easy to manipulate.

    Isn’t this almost a call for ideologically pure, politically correct social research – ie a kind of modern-day Lysenkoism?

    If the findings about genetics, traits and families are so very clear, surely they must at least be considered in any worthwhile report – not simply written out of the final report (as Demos presumably have done; I’ve still not read it yet…)

    Someone on the Demos blog though my comment on the ‘Big 5′ personality traits and the 50% or so genetic component was perhaps wrong.

    Here’s what the key ‘Big 5′ researchers McCrae and Costa themselves write – in ‘Personality in Adulthood’:

    “All of these studies are remarkably consistent. They suggest that about half the variance in personality trait scores is attributable to genes and that almost none is attributable to a shared family environment” pg 194.

    (Yes, Matthew T may be right that Diana Gould navigates beyond this, I’m not sure yet.)

    And Judith Rich Harris’ work on the importance of peer – rather than family – influences is perhaps important here too…

    With that strange preamble, here’s what I wrote on the Demos blog:

    * * *

    “But the character traits that ‘tough love’ parenting develops in children – empathy, initiative, self-discipline, among others – is key to delivering success and happiness for their future.”

    There seem be some muddling of correlation and causation going on here, surely…?

    The ‘Big 5′ personality traits – Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism – are roughly-speaking 50 per cent based on heredity, rather than environment.

    Does this paper just ignore heredity? (And make the environment the cause of everything – in true ‘blank slate’ style?)

    Doesn’t this mean we’re getting a very lopsided and partial view?

    (I’ve not had time to read the report yet – looking forward to it!).

    Interestingly, the most expensive research project in the world into the most effective education methods also found that a rather old-fasioned, non-’progressive’ approach was more effective than all others. Even at increasing self-esteeem, where it beat the self-esteem-based methods, which worsened self-esteem!

    The approach was called ‘Direct Instruction’.

    But it didn’t fit with what education’s progressive establishment wanted to hear, so the evidence was ignored, as far as I can tell…

    See here for more:
    http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/grossen.htm

    Matthew

  4. Tessy Britton on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 9:28 pm

    5. Hi Matthew (Kalman)

    To clarify my meaning on genetics on my comment…. When discussing parenting styles we are by definition talking about environment, what can be learned, changed etc. The report itself includes genetics under psychological vulnerability and recognises its importance in how different children cope with different parenting styles, so I think that it has been very integrative in its approach:

    ” A growing body of research suggests that due to genetic and/or
    environmental circumstances difficult or emotionally troubled
    infants are even more malleable than stable, healthy infants of
    the same age. In other words, certain children are more strongly
    influenced by good and bad care.”

    I would certainly not deny at all the importance of genetics in development, but I wonder if the character vs personality debate isn’t similar to the nature vs nurture debate … where many will confirm that they are interdependent …. and complex?

    It could perhaps be argued, if one wished to, that the report may be overstating the importance of parenting in the overall scheme of development, but I believe it has positioned parenting well in terms of learnable factors … elements that can be improved and helpful to individual’s ability to flourish.

    As the report states:

    “The traditional view of character as a set of qualities unique
    to individuals – encompassing their chosen values and beliefs or
    their natural and unalterable personality – positions it as a
    private matter, lying outside the realm of public policy. But to
    the extent that certain elements of character impact equality,
    opportunity and fairness, it ought to be a concern for policy
    makers interested in those outcomes.”

  5. Matthew Kalman on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:01 pm

    6. Hi Tessy,

    Thanks for that very informative clarification.

    It really would help if I’d actually get round to reading the report! ;-)

    By the way, I once read about some research which looked at adolescents’ discussions of ‘moral dilemmas’ with their parents – some parents would ridicule, ignore or brush aside their child’s suggestions. This ‘constraining’ approach was contrasted with other parents who were ‘enabling’ and appreciative.

    Parents who assessed with a higher level of ego complexity were more likely to be enabling and encouraging of their child’s individuality and other characteristics of higher ego complexity levels.

    I’ve been very interested in all the research on ego complexity level – and this piece of research was interesting, as it seemed to suggest one way that parents’ behaviour might transmit it…?

    Matthew

  6. Liam Murray on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 11:46 pm

    7. Thank you for flagging the Demos paper Matthew. I’ll probably post at length on it myself but a quick observation for now.

    Although fascinated by these topics I’m really sceptical about efforts to align hard policy prescriptions with this sort of research. The basic premise that character (specifically application, empathy and agency or self-control) is the key determinant of positive outcomes for children is – without wanting to discredit all the work DEMOS have put in – essentially just common sense. It’s about putting more science behind the traditionally right-wing position that parenting and background ultimately matter more than anything else; and by more we mean not just in a linear ranking but by several orders of magnitude.

    Citing Bronfenbrenner the report acknowledges the dominance of those proximal processes – immediate, daily interactions and experiences with the primary caretaker – over the distal influences which public policy has an opportunity to shape & impact.

    I really feel for politicians and public policy professionals having to navigate their way through these issues. It’s beyond the pale politically to ever acknowledge too much impotence in the face of some of these problems; whatsmore it’s noble to strive to address disadvantage and you often hear the framing “if this helps just one child” etc. used in defence when such topics come up. A mature discussion should acknowledge the limits of what the state can do though, certainly what it can do directly.

    I have a half-formed thought that research such as this is leading us back to a society slightly more censorious, more moralistic in outlook and more focussed on the traditional ways of building character. It’s unquestionably a good thing that progressive politics confronted the nastier side of post-war society and I’d be appalled if we ever returned to stigmatising young mothers and a lack of tolerance for homosexuality etc. I just wonder if like so many things in politics we’ll come to conclude that the pendulum has swung a litte too far and we’re loosing something important and valuable for our children.

    As I said, thanks for flagging the report and if I do blog on this I’ll drop a comment here to let you know….

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!