home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!WAM.UMD.EDU!KWHITE
- Message-ID: <9209111321.AA08411@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:21:59 -0400
- Sender: "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
- <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
- From: "Kenneth V. White" <kwhite@WAM.UMD.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Three Issues on Personality
- Lines: 28
-
- Rich,
-
- A couple of comments about genetics and attachement. First, I would
- refer you to Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their
- own environments: A theory of notype --> environment effects.
- Child Development, 54, 424-435.
-
- In it, Scarr & McCaey argue that the same "nurture" is actually
- experienced in different ways by different people. In other words,
- some kids are more reactive, more irritable, more vigilant, etc.
- and thus take in the same environmental stimulus as their peers
- experience in different ways. Thus, part of what makes up personality
- (and intelligence) is the environmental _effect_, which is mediated
- by our genes. Interesting argument, anyway.
-
- As for your questions about attachment, you're right -- very few
- temperament theorists (i.e., behavioral genetics-types) have much
- in common with most current attachment theorists. Too bad, I think.
- You might check out Fox, et al in one of the '91 issues of Child
- Development (it's quarterly, so it shouldn't be hard to find) --
- the present the results of a meta-analysis on attachment, specifically
- in fathers, and relate that to current temperament research.
-
- Hope that helps.
-
- Go VOLS!!!
-
- Kenn in College Park
-