Key components of human behavioral genetics and Scarr's work of the past 2 decades are critically reviewed based on scholarship in animal neuropsychology and clinical and educational psychology. Scarr's theory of genotype --> environment effects is not supported by the confluence of information presented. Her opinion that interventions to enhance intellectual development are ineffectual for children from abuse- and neglect-free backgrounds is critically reviewed. Her view that biology makes nonrisk infants invulnerable to lasting, negative effects of day care is also determined to be untenable. Concern about negative implications of Scarr's theory for African Americans and views on interventions is the impetus for the critique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacquelyne Faye Jackson (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: