Not only have methods of assessment been improved, but current socialization research includes a broader array of parenting atoibutes and focuses on a set of parenting processes that were not so clearly delineated in times past. One aspect of parental skill that has emerged in several recent studies as related to children's well-being household organization; another concerns the ability of some parents to develop a reciprocal form of interaction with their children (e.g. shared positive affect, mutual responsivity). Studies of the predictive power of parent-child reciprocation in early childhood have yielded quite robust parenting effects (See Kochanska & Thompson 1997 for a review of this work). These examples illustrate the ways in which the field of family-impact studies has been growing in conceptual well as methodological strength. Nevertheless we must be reconciled to the fact that there are imponant aspects of parenting that will never be revealed studies that, by necessity, to encapsulate parental characteristics into measurable clusters or traits. There are the memorable little socialization moments when the members of a parenti child dyad are, for some reason, especially attuned to one another-when the child, perhaps by virtue of having encountered a new and salient issue, ready to both explain and listen. such a moment, the parent may do or say something that makes a deep impression can have a lasting influence. Conversely, a broken promise or a revealed deception may break the prevailing relationship of trust between the two, changing the nature of the influence that possible between them. Such moments are unique to a dyad and may not be captured in socialization studies, even though our awareness of them highlighted in biographies, autobiographies, and fiction. I not want to claim too much for the strength of parental influence in children's lives. Critics are right pointing out that we have overemphasized these influences at the expense of other kinds of environmental influences. To what extent early childhood is a time of especially great plasticity, during which environmental inputs will be more likely have a lasting influence than inputs later in life is an open question. Probably answer will vary, depending on what domain of children's development are talking about. (See for example, Neville's finding [Neville 1995] that the openness influence by early experience differs between the semantic and syntactic language systems). Because parents are usually the ones who spend the most time with young children over extended periods of time, these questions of changing plasticity do matter in our efforts to understand the parental realm of influ-ence. Still, parents never the only source of influence on children, and as children grow older, they are more and more subject to the influence of peers, of schools and teachers, and of television. Also, there are the random events-a serious illness or accident, an unexpected success, a residential move, an environmental catastrophe-that can alter the trajectory of a child's life in ways that have little to do with parenting. Of course, when we do see robust correlations between parent and child atoi-butes, the question of the direction of effects arises at once. In making their argu-ment that we may be seeing child-to-parent effects rather than the reverse, critics

DOI link for Not only have methods of assessment been improved, but current socialization research includes a broader array of parenting atoibutes and focuses on a set of parenting processes that were not so clearly delineated in times past. One aspect of parental skill that has emerged in several recent studies as related to children's well-being household organization; another concerns the ability of some parents to develop a reciprocal form of interaction with their children (e.g. shared positive affect, mutual responsivity). Studies of the predictive power of parent-child reciprocation in early childhood have yielded quite robust parenting effects (See Kochanska & Thompson 1997 for a review of this work). These examples illustrate the ways in which the field of family-impact studies has been growing in conceptual well as methodological strength. Nevertheless we must be reconciled to the fact that there are imponant aspects of parenting that will never be revealed studies that, by necessity, to encapsulate parental characteristics into measurable clusters or traits. There are the memorable little socialization moments when the members of a parenti child dyad are, for some reason, especially attuned to one another-when the child, perhaps by virtue of having encountered a new and salient issue, ready to both explain and listen. such a moment, the parent may do or say something that makes a deep impression can have a lasting influence. Conversely, a broken promise or a revealed deception may break the prevailing relationship of trust between the two, changing the nature of the influence that possible between them. Such moments are unique to a dyad and may not be captured in socialization studies, even though our awareness of them highlighted in biographies, autobiographies, and fiction. I not want to claim too much for the strength of parental influence in children's lives. Critics are right pointing out that we have overemphasized these influences at the expense of other kinds of environmental influences. To what extent early childhood is a time of especially great plasticity, during which environmental inputs will be more likely have a lasting influence than inputs later in life is an open question. Probably answer will vary, depending on what domain of children's development are talking about. (See for example, Neville's finding [Neville 1995] that the openness influence by early experience differs between the semantic and syntactic language systems). Because parents are usually the ones who spend the most time with young children over extended periods of time, these questions of changing plasticity do matter in our efforts to understand the parental realm of influ-ence. Still, parents never the only source of influence on children, and as children grow older, they are more and more subject to the influence of peers, of schools and teachers, and of television. Also, there are the random events-a serious illness or accident, an unexpected success, a residential move, an environmental catastrophe-that can alter the trajectory of a child's life in ways that have little to do with parenting. Of course, when we do see robust correlations between parent and child atoi-butes, the question of the direction of effects arises at once. In making their argu-ment that we may be seeing child-to-parent effects rather than the reverse, critics

Not only have methods of assessment been improved, but current socialization research includes a broader array of parenting atoibutes and focuses on a set of parenting processes that were not so clearly delineated in times past. One aspect of parental skill that has emerged in several recent studies as related to children's well-being household organization; another concerns the ability of some parents to develop a reciprocal form of interaction with their children (e.g. shared positive affect, mutual responsivity). Studies of the predictive power of parent-child reciprocation in early childhood have yielded quite robust parenting effects (See Kochanska & Thompson 1997 for a review of this work). These examples illustrate the ways in which the field of family-impact studies has been growing in conceptual well as methodological strength. Nevertheless we must be reconciled to the fact that there are imponant aspects of parenting that will never be revealed studies that, by necessity, to encapsulate parental characteristics into measurable clusters or traits. There are the memorable little socialization moments when the members of a parenti child dyad are, for some reason, especially attuned to one another-when the child, perhaps by virtue of having encountered a new and salient issue, ready to both explain and listen. such a moment, the parent may do or say something that makes a deep impression can have a lasting influence. Conversely, a broken promise or a revealed deception may break the prevailing relationship of trust between the two, changing the nature of the influence that possible between them. Such moments are unique to a dyad and may not be captured in socialization studies, even though our awareness of them highlighted in biographies, autobiographies, and fiction. I not want to claim too much for the strength of parental influence in children's lives. Critics are right pointing out that we have overemphasized these influences at the expense of other kinds of environmental influences. To what extent early childhood is a time of especially great plasticity, during which environmental inputs will be more likely have a lasting influence than inputs later in life is an open question. Probably answer will vary, depending on what domain of children's development are talking about. (See for example, Neville's finding [Neville 1995] that the openness influence by early experience differs between the semantic and syntactic language systems). Because parents are usually the ones who spend the most time with young children over extended periods of time, these questions of changing plasticity do matter in our efforts to understand the parental realm of influ-ence. Still, parents never the only source of influence on children, and as children grow older, they are more and more subject to the influence of peers, of schools and teachers, and of television. Also, there are the random events-a serious illness or accident, an unexpected success, a residential move, an environmental catastrophe-that can alter the trajectory of a child's life in ways that have little to do with parenting. Of course, when we do see robust correlations between parent and child atoi-butes, the question of the direction of effects arises at once. In making their argu-ment that we may be seeing child-to-parent effects rather than the reverse, critics