Letters

Judith Harris and peer influence

I FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND to the October article "Blame your peers, not your parents, author says." The author, Scott Sleek, presented Judith Rich Harris?s idea that "thorough review of the evidence reveals that parents, contrary to nearly a century of scientific doctrine, have no lasting effects on the personality, intelligence or mental health of their offspring." Having something of a psychoanalytic background, I disagree, and believe the assertion is misleading.

I do not know that there was ever the belief our parents solely affected our entire lives. Rather, from Freud?s ideas regarding repetition compulsion, we tend to repeat familiar inter- and intra-personal styles of relating. So, we relate with people who have relatively similar perceptions (conscious and unconscious) of themselves and the world. While relational styles may change over time, they are rooted in our relationships with parents. If one were bit by the first dog they ever met, they would likely experience some fear of all dogs. If they went to a park, where there were a lot of dogs, it is likely they would stay in an area where the dogs were not. I bet there would be other people in that area, too.

And, I bet they would have similar perceptions about dogs and parks. While their perceptions may change over time, I bet they would always, to some degree, feel most comfortable associating with people similar to them. And, while those people may affect each other, their reason for being together is founded in the same place...their initial experiences.

Brian J. Cagle, PsyD
Oshkosh, Wis.

I HAVE READ MS. HARRIS?S work and find that it fails to review the relevant literature on parenting. Thus I find it hard to understand why her original paper was published in Psych Review and why the award. Specifically Ms. Harris (and most other writers who favor genetic explanations) ignores three problems with her theses.

First, that the behavior genetic tests that she refers to are all of a correlational nature and do not allow causal interpretation. Second, that teratogenic effects, particularly the effect of in-pregnancy smoking on child hyperactivity, are ignored. Third, that the dozen or so experimental manipulations of parenting that have been conducted in the last 20 years or so show lasting effects on children?s behavior including aggression and hyperactivity.

Until these challenges are met, her conclusions have to be viewed as highly unbalanced.

The real problem, though, is not lack of proper scholarship by Ms. Harris. It is the rush, this time on the part of APA, to ignore the now extensive data showing that parenting does play a vital role in child socialization. I have to say that I am both shocked and deeply disappointed by this.

I suggest that at the very least a recent review by Hirokaza Yoshikawa (1994, Psychological Bulletin) be read by everyone who has not done so. Then a debate regarding the weaknesses in the "parenting doesn?t matter" argument should be joined with all the data at hand.

Steven A. McFadyen-Ketchu, PhD
Nashville, Tenn.

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR Monitor piece "Blame your peers, not your parents, author says" (October). I am the author in question and I thank you for doing an excellent job: the article by Scott Sleek is intelligent, accurate, and fair. So much nonsense has been written about my book, "The Nurture Assumption," that it is a pleasure when someone gets it right.

Many APA members have attacked me in the popular press without having read the book?without even claiming to have read it. One of the charges leveled against me is that I ignore evidence contrary to my point of view, but about a quarter of the book is spent examining that evidence. Another charge is that I am making extreme statements just to get publicity?just to sell books.

But the statements I made in my 1995 article in the Psychological Review were, if anything, more extreme (the book contains a chapter entitled "What Parents Can Do"), and no one can accuse me of writing the Psych Review article in an effort to make money?or, for that matter, in an effort to get tenure! The book is broader and deeper than the article but it is not an exaggerated version of it.

For the convenience of readers who would like to see for themselves, the Psych Review article has been posted on the APA web site. The URL is: www.apa.org/journals/rev/rev1023458.html.

Judith Rich Harris
Middletown, N.J.

Coverage unbalanced

I READ WITH RESIGNATION the October article by Lisa Rabasca "APA task force addresses common ethical challenges." It again played that old song, "Managed Care is Evil and Practitioners are Pure."

The refrain is a variation of "anything done by managed care, or those who work for managed care, is unethical and always driven by unbridled conflict of interest, and everything done by private practitioners is virtuous and never has any element of self-service, laziness or conflict of interest."

If only life were so simple. But it is not. Of course there are MCOs that do stress the bottom line before all things. And there are MCOs that ask for unnecessary paper work and are intrusive into patient care. Most try, however, to do a good job in helping companies manage behavioral health costs. It would also be nice to believe that all providers are ethical in all things.

While there have been, and there are, abuses in managed care, there have been, and are, abuses by providers. The interest of all, MCOs, providers and patients can best be served by all working to correct the problems, which include not only intrusive behavior from MCO managers but, also ineffective, inefficient and even harmful "therapeutic" practices by providers.

There are not only conflict-of-interests cases in MCOs but conflict-of-interests practices by practitioners.

We must recognize that MCOs and providers may be subject to conflict-of-interest, but both parties must work together to see that care for patients is both appropriate and effective. Therefore, I humbly request that future articles reflect the good and bad on both sides.

Courtney L. Ruthven, PhD

Wichita, Kan.

On annulment

IN AN OCTOBER ARTICLE, Florence Kaslow, PhD, offered several comments concerning divorce laws and their effect on children ("New divorce laws focus on children?s needs"). She is quoted as saying that "in Catholic countries such as Poland and Italy, for example, the Church stigmatizes divorce as the end of the marriage in the eyes of God. To remarry in those countries, people must annul their first marriage, which requires that they claim that they lied about certain aspects of that marriage."

As a psychologist who has served as the consultant to a Catholic diocese, I very frequently review cases of annulment to discern psychological issues that may have contributed to the demise of the marriage. The new code of Canon Law, which the Church adopted several years ago, allows for a couple to obtain an annulment based upon psychological problems, such as personality disorders or other severely debilitating conditions. It is not based upon the premise that either one of the couple has "lied" as she seems to imply in her comments.

Also, the Catholic Church has never stated that a child is illegitimate once that a marriage is annulled. An annulment is merely a statement by the Catholic Church that at the current time, the emotional, psychological and spiritual elements that bound the marriage together no longer exist.

An annulment is not meant to stigmatize the children. In many cases, the Catholic Church may require that a person who seeks to be remarried in the Catholic Church go to psychological counseling to help them address the issues that resulted in their first marriage falling apart.

Stephen Ross, PsyD
Fort Wayne, Ind.

Diana: no victim

TO MARTIN E.P. SELIGMAN, PhD, as quoted in an October Monitor article, Princess Diana was no hero, and in contrast not enough people wept for Mother Teresa, whom he regards as a real hero of society. Seligman believes that Diana failed to take self-responsibility, considered herself a victim of royal circumstances, and was glorified by the world as "the great victim" with her funeral boosting depression rates worldwide.

This was not, as Seligman laments, an example of people "going too far in blaming others for their problems" and "failing to recognize their shortcomings." What he seems to overlook is that at the time, the "bulimic, anorexic, suicidal" Diana was simply the world?s most highly visible target upon which people could project their own sufferings in a cathartic public outcry. She was not admired for the degree of suffering she endured, but for her ability to go on lovingly to make a positive contribution in the face of adversity. She demonstrated that royalty, usually considered cold and indifferent, could be vulnerable and caring.

If Mother Teresa was not as well mourned as Diana, perhaps it is because she was not a sympathetic victim with whom we could identify, but a powerful presence beyond what we could imagine ourselves to be. It was easier to see ourselves as the "sinner" than the "saint." However, one was no more hero than the other. Both succeeded in helping others. The "strong" one by taking responsibility for them, the "weak" one by demonstrating that even a "victim" can rise to make a positive difference in the world.

Arnold S. Weiss, PhD
Los Angeles

On the ?President?s column?

I AM ENCOURAGED BY Dr. Seligman?s efforts to promote the science and practice of positive psychology. However, I am concerned that the endeavor to develop a positive psychology is becoming synonymous with the pursuit of enduring happiness. Dr. Seligman?s use of the phrase "the good life" in the October Monitor implies the attainment of happiness, and the article in the same issue describing Dr. Csikszentmihalyi?s work at times appears to reduce the desire for a rewarding and satisfying life to the quest for happiness.

The pursuit of happiness perpetuates the cycle of striving for more while failing to experience satisfaction with what exists in the present. The problem is that happiness is transitory. While it is certainly attainable, even for long periods of time, being human means that some condition or event will undoubtedly occur that brings with it the experience of dissatisfaction, sadness or loss.

Perhaps what constitutes the "good life" is a psychology of acceptance in which we cultivate the attitudes and skills needed to receive and be open to whatever arises with grace and equanimity. As we give up the search for everlasting happiness, we are released from the suffering inherent in striving for the unattainable, leaving us freed up to revel in the present.

Gail F. Brenner, PhD
San Francisco

SELIGMAN?S SEARCH FOR THE "science and?practice of a positive psychology" that defines the "good life" raises disturbing questions. Is such a project consistent with the nature of science? Can it backfire to the detriment of psychology?

Psychology, as a natural science, can yield reliable empirical evidence about psychological phenomena, but it cannot, as a science, function as a moral authority that can identify what kind of life is "good" or "bad." One cannot logically move from statements of facts, what is, to prescriptions of what ought to be.

Maslow?s effort to demonstrate that "self-actualizers," the highest level of personality development, share a moral system that is right for humankind is basically a sham. He chose individuals who shared his own value system and assigned them the honorific title of "self-actualizers."

Will a moral pluralistic society, a characteristic of all democracies, ever be ready to adopt a description of a good life proposed by psychologists?

Rather than seek a phony moral authority the science and profession of psychology will be well advised to expand their scientific knowledge base so that individuals can make informed choices about the "good life" that they aspire to. With such information society will be in a better position to fashion, and refashion, a workable morally pluralistic legal system.

Howard H. Kendler, PhD
Santa Barbara, Calif.

UNLIKE DR. EPSTEIN, I found it easy to ignore Dr. Seligman?s misleading question ("Is depression biochemical?," September, but I cannot ignore his reply in the November issue. Dr. Seligman seems to suggests that psychological phenomena are unrelated to neurochemical events or even worse, that proteins and atoms are somehow also not related to this process. What forces does he think are at work here? Are atoms motivated to stay together because of some previous learning experience? I think not.

While I do not expect Dr. Seligman to remember my first publication, it illustrates just how long this issue has eluded many psychologists. In the mid-1970s, we demonstrated that changes in brain norepinephrine could reliably, quantifiable, psychopharma-cologically and neurochemically explain "learned helplessness"?a popular behavioral theory of depression espoused by none other than Dr. Seligman (Weiss, J., Glazer, H., Pohorecky, L., Brick, J., and Miller, N.E., (1975) Psychosomatic Medicine 137:522?534).

This was a first of a long series of eloquent studies on the relationship between brain neurochemistry and depression by Jay Weiss, PhD, who eventually received a McCarther Foundation "genius" award for his work.

The importance of brain chemistry in behavior is still quite a driving force in psychology as evidence by at least three articles in the November issue of the Monitor. When will psychologists realize that the reason they are effective therapists is because they have the ability to change brain neurochemistry, not because they treat non-neurochemical forms of mental illness.

John Brick, PhD
Yardley, Pa.

Response from Dr. Seligman

I DO NOT THINK NEURO-chemical events are unrelated to psychological events. It is hard for me to imagine how Dr. Brick got that idea (I do know his work and even remember his first publication). My reply asserted that psychological events are related to neurochemistry and so are atoms and subatomic particles. But the scientific usefulness of such reductionistic explanations depends on how good the mapping actually is at any time. My column was the assessment of the strength of the causal mapping of neurochemical explanations into depression. I find the mapping only fair to moderate, but commonly overstated and oversold, and certainly weaker than the mapping of cognition into depression. I am sure Dr. Brenner understands that I use the phrase "the good life" in its classical sense, and not at all in the sense of transitory hedonics, champagne, or Porsches. I quite agree with her characterization of the good life as involving much deeper and more abiding psychological characteristics. Professor Kendler raises an important and serious issue. Is positive psychology tied to arbitrary moral values about what is good and what is not good? I think it is no more and no less tied to arbitrary values than is the psychology of the worst things in life. As a science, both psychopathology and positive psychology identify and try to understand the phenomena that the society which that science is part of abhors or values. Some of these will be more universal than others, and this is an empirical matter. As a profession, in just the same sense that it seems nonarbitrary for psychology to try to relieve schizophrenia, alcoholism, and explosive anger, it also seems nonarbitrary for psychology to try to build courage, interpersonal skill, honesty, future-mindedness, hope and rationality. Yes, there is legitimate dispute over the cases in which thought disorder, alcohol or anger help, just as there are cases in which courage, honesty and planning hurt. Both endeavors embody values, and to just the same extent.

Corrections

In the November "CE Calendar," the contact information was omitted for the following listing: 1/8-10/99?"Assessing Psychopathy"/Philadelphia, PA/$235/9 CE credits: Training to become certified in the administration of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R). Clinical & forensic applications of the PCL-R, psychopathy as a predictor of violent behavior. Robert Hare, PhD, Sinclair Seminars (608) 829-3880.

An article on page 23 of the November issue incorrectly quoted Janet Cuicco, executive administrator of the APA College of Professional Psychology. The quote should have read: "We?re developing an exam to test the knowledge base required of psychologists working in clinical or research settings who are prescribing psychotropic medications or who are collaborating with those who prescribe such medications."

All letters to the editor must be 250 words or fewer. Mail them to APA Monitor, 750 First St., N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4242, or e-mail them.

The Monitor regrets it cannot run all the letters we receive.