Arguments Against Homeschooling: Too Sheltered?

I’m not wor­ried about Katie being “too shel­tered,” although that’s one of the “dan­gers of home­school­ing” accord­ing to its oppo­nents. This study is some­thing to remem­ber the next time some­one brings up that old argument.

Peo­ple who have suf­fered life’s hard knocks while grow­ing up tend to be more gullible than those who have been more shel­tered, star­tling new find­ings from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Leices­ter reveal.

A six-month study in the Uni­ver­si­ty’s School of Psy­chol­o­gy found that rather than ‘tough­en­ing up’ indi­vid­u­als, adverse expe­ri­ences in child­hood and ado­les­cence meant that these peo­ple were vul­ner­a­ble to being mislead.

The research analysing results from 60 par­tic­i­pants sug­gest that such peo­ple could, for exam­ple, be more open to sug­ges­tion in police inter­ro­ga­tions or to be influ­enced by the media or adver­tis­ing campaigns.

The study found that while some peo­ple may indeed become more ‘hard-nosed’ through adver­si­ty, the major­i­ty become less trust­ing of their own judgement.

Kim Drake, a doc­tor­al stu­dent at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Leices­ter, con­duct­ed the research with Pro­fes­sor Ray Bull and Dr Julian Boon of the School of Psy­chol­o­gy. Kim said: “Peo­ple who have expe­ri­enced an adverse child­hood and ado­les­cence are more like­ly to come to believe infor­ma­tion that isn’t true- in short they are more sug­gestible, and eas­i­ly mis­lead which may in turn impact upon their future life choic­es; they might suc­cumb to peer pres­sure more readily.”

‘Adverse life expe­ri­ences’ exam­ined includ­ed major per­son­al illnesses/injuries, mis­car­riage (from the male and female per­spec­tive), dif­fi­cul­ties at work (being fired/laid off), bul­ly­ing at school, being a vic­tim of crime (rob­bery, sex­u­al vio­lence), parental divorce, death of fam­i­ly mem­ber and others.

70% of the vari­a­tion across peo­ple in sug­gestibil­i­ty can be explained by the dif­fer­ent lev­els of neg­a­tive life events that they have expe­ri­enced, the study found.

“We also found that the way peo­ple cope with adver­si­ty had an impact on their psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­file,” said Kim.

“The major­i­ty of peo­ple may learn through repeat­ed expo­sure to adver­si­ty to dis­trust their own judg­ment; a per­son might believe some­thing to be true, but when they, for exam­ple, read some­thing in a news­pa­per that con­tra­dicts their opin­ion, or they talk to some­one with a dif­fer­ent view-point, that indi­vid­ual is more like­ly to take on that oth­er per­son­’s view.

“This is because the per­son may have learned to dis­trust their actions, judge­ments and deci­sions due to the fact that the major­i­ty of the time their actions have been per­ceived to invite neg­a­tive consequences.

“Anoth­er exam­ple is in rela­tion­ships. Women, as well as men, can become “brain­washed”, and end up chang­ing in their per­son­al­i­ty, their views and beliefs and in some extreme cas­es, they may even take on their views and ideas of the world and come to feel incom­pe­tent (in their part­ner’s eyes).”

Kim added that there is already evi­dence to sug­gest that there is a rela­tion­ship between intensity/frequency of neg­a­tive life impacts and degree of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty. Expe­ri­ence of adver­si­ty may have a knock-on effect on a per­son­’s mind­set- they may come to believe that “they are no good”, or “noth­ing they do is ever good enough”.

In con­trast, the find­ings also sug­gest that ear­ly pos­i­tive life events may have a pro­tec­tive influ­ence over the effects of sub­se­quent adver­si­ty: “If pos­i­tive life events pre­date the neg­a­tive life events then indi­vid­u­als may be more resilient in terms of, not being so bad­ly affect­ed, psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly, by the sub­se­quent adverse events. How­ev­er, issues may arise if the reverse is the case; if the adverse life events pre­cede the pos­i­tive, those indi­vid­u­als may become, as a result, more sus­cep­ti­ble to sug­ges­tion and mis­lead­ing infor­ma­tion. Nev­er­the­less, future research will still have to exam­ine this. The order of life events expe­ri­enced, how­ev­er, is seem­ing­ly important.”

The study found that the parental role is an impor­tant one, so edu­ca­tion- show­ing par­ents func­tion­al ways of deal­ing with their chil­dren, mean­ing that the chil­dren will see pos­i­tive role mod­els, and learn “healthy” skills or ways of deal­ing with stress/negative life events- may help cul­ti­vate a pos­i­tive mind-set with­in the child or ado­les­cent which will stay with them through­out life.

Kim said: “Par­ents are role-mod­els for their chil­dren, and show the chil­dren how to cope with stress- if the par­ents are mat­ter-of-fact about neg­a­tive occur­rences and are “hap­py-go-lucky” then the kids may emu­late that. On the reverse, par­ents who cope with stress/negative events in a more stressed man­ner (rag­ing, act­ing out, drink­ing, express­ing a pes­simistic view of the world) this may in turn trans­fer that way of behav­ing onto their children.”

The orig­i­nal appli­ca­tion of this research was the police inter­ro­ga­tion set­ting, the impli­ca­tions being that peo­ple who’ve expe­ri­enced a high num­ber of life adver­si­ties may be more prone to false­ly con­fess­ing due to being high­ly sug­gestible, pos­si­bly result­ing in a greater chance of being wrong­ly convicted.

“How­ev­er, the notion of sug­gestibil­i­ty falls far beyond that of foren­sic psy­chol­o­gy. Peo­ple may find they are more eas­i­ly influ­enced by the media, by TV adverts and so may make life choic­es as a result that they oth­er­wise would not e.g. they may choose not to vac­ci­nate their chil­dren, ” said Kim.

Kim’s work will be pre­sent­ed at the Fes­ti­val of Post­grad­u­ate Research on Tues­day June 13th in the Charles Wil­son Build­ing, Uni­ver­si­ty of Leicester.

From Sci­ence Dai­ly via Omni­Brain.

Cyn is a proud Mommy & Mémé, professional geek, avid reader, fledgling coder, enthusiastic gamer (TTRPGs), occasional singer, and devoted stitcher.
Posts created 4241

One thought on “Arguments Against Homeschooling: Too Sheltered?

  1. I agree! Peo­ple have talked about how home­schooled kids are too shel­tered and need to be “prop­er­ly social­ized”. The image that pops into my head when peo­ple say stuff like that is of this car­toon I saw on a home­school­ing t‑shirt which has three kids stand­ing a bus stop wait­ing to go to school. One of the kids has a gang t‑shirt on, anoth­er one is smok­ing and drink­ing, and the last one obvi­ous­ly is preg­nant. So when peo­ple say stuff about shel­ter­ing our kids, I kind of have to laugh.

    Why is it nec­es­sary for my child to be bul­lied in the lock­er room or feel pres­sured to only eat bird-sizes por­tions of food at lunch? I don’t under­stand how these expe­ri­ences trans­late into lat­er-life suc­cess. But some peo­ple have gone so far as to say kids NEED these expe­ri­ences, as if they need to prac­tice for when they face this sort of behav­ior from co-work­ers. “Hey, man, let’s skip work today and go smoke pot. And then tomor­row we’ll harass that dweeb from human resources, maybe we can lock him in the sup­ply closet.”

    It’s not like the kids who go through this stuff actu­al­ly come out ahead or learn to be tough. Most any­one who talks about school, espe­cial­ly high school, remem­bers this stuff neg­a­tive­ly and can’t point out how it was actu­al­ly beneficial.

    We’ve been accused of shel­ter­ing our kids, but truth­ful­ly, that argu­ment does­n’t make a bit of sense to me. If any­thing it makes me won­der what pieces of wis­dom peo­ple think kids actu­al­ly glean from these sit­u­a­tions and why more peo­ple aren’t con­cerned with the fact that kids even go through this stuff in the first place.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top