Final essay on Malcolm Gladwell

In her theory, Harris uses what is commonly known as the Cinderella effect, and Malcolm dives into it by citing various studies in which the Cinderella Effect seems to uphold (Malcolm, 54). This paper seeks to show the contrary in that, unlike what Malcolm came to see from Harris's theory, children in any society have an influence that stems from the impact of parents. A crucial position is played in the establishment of peer connections of children by family. The paper further launches an argument that first peer networks are by no means an initiative from children's direct exposure to adulthood, but through initiations by parents. Examples are provided for evidence in their interpersonal influences, emotional effects and the parental role on the children's propensity to peer cultures. Their participation involving decisions at this stage of life, which is arguably the determining stage for the rest of their life, is still limited.

Children move as toddlers into ages where they might primarily get cared for by older siblings who are also not in their age groups but may have to play the parental role. If these older siblings are the ones they have daily interactions with, especially in school, then the young ones are likely to have acquired motif from them for their characteristics. These older siblings might also take charge in deciding which kids their younger siblings interact with for social bonds. These are likely to be siblings of their peers. Ownership is more noticeable at home; it is well defined what things belong to them, their siblings or even their parents. The possession can be said to be tangible. Problems arise in such a setting when sharing is inevitable as in the case of a visitor.

On these instances, the child faces the expectation of having their possession used for public purposes. A common occurrence is that a child may resist at first, but they eventually realize that sharing of this nature is only temporal and that the real owner of the items is not going to be refuted. Examples point towards the idea that it is from involvements in homesteads that children come to see networks in the other children. Parents and guardians have the tendencies to create an association between friendship and sharing ("George is your friend, and he wants to play with you, you should bring your toys so that you share with him"). Consequently, children conceptualize friendship as a tag for fellow children who have been chosen to be so by their parents.

In preschools, as this paper has discussed, partaking together and friendship often gets linked to children's efforts to initiate and provide protection to their common experiences of events. Friendship sheds its skin of being a simple label of designed associations. For example, the dressing that a child will develop when and as they grow up is in fact, never a reflection of the parents' dressing methods but the peers with whom they interact. Otherwise, the dress codes of older generations would never phase out but still be handed down generations to date. In modern society, adolescents are prone to copying what they see their age mates dressed in on social media and in school which is a sphere that exists outside the confines of the rules at home. These social factors are the driving force behind what influences clothing selection among adolescents.

It, therefore, does not matter what the parents would subscribe to, as several of these kids prefer to look ‘appropriate' in the eyes of their fellows as compared to their guardians. Do parents matter?" The New Yorker 74. Harris, Judith Rich. The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. Adolescence 33.