How Children REALLY React To Control

by Dr. Thomas Gordon

When one person tries to control another, you can always expect some kind of reaction from the controlee. The use of power involves two people in a special kind of relationship - one wielding power, and the other reacting to it.

This seemingly obvious fact is not usually dealt with in the writings of the dare-to-discipline advocates. Invariably, they leave the child out of the formula, omitting any reference to how the youngster reacts to the control of his or her parents or teachers.

They insist, "Parents must set limits," but seldom say anything about how children respond to having their needs denied in this way. "Parents should not be afraid to exercise their authority," they counsel, but rarely mention how youngsters react to authority-based coercion. By omitting the child from the interaction, the discipline advocates leave the impression that the child submits willingly and consistently to adults' power and does precisely what is demanded.

These are actual quotes from the many power-to-the-parent books I've collected along the way:

• "Be firm but fair."
• "Insist that your children obey."
• "Don't be afraid to express disapproval by spanking."
• "There are times when you have to say 'no'."
• "Discipline with love."
• "Demonstrate your parental right to lead."
• "The toddler should be taught to obey and yield to parental leadership."

What these books have in common is advocacy of the use of power-based discipline with no mention of how children react to it. In other words, the dare-to-discipline advocates never present power-based discipline in full, as a cause-and-effect phenomenon, an action-and-reaction event.

This omission is important, for it implies that all children passively submit to adult demands, perfectly content and secure in an obedient role, first in relationships with their parents and teachers and, eventually, with all adult power-wielders they might encounter.

However, I have found not a shred of evidence to support this view. In fact, as most of us remember only too well from our childhood, we did almost anything we could to defend against power-based control. We tried to avoid it, postpone it, weaken it, avert it, escape from it. We lied, we put the blame on someone else, we tattled, hid, pleaded, begged for mercy, or promised we would never do it again.

We also experienced punitive discipline as embarrassing, demeaning, humiliating, frightening, and painful. To be coerced into doing something against our will was a personal insult and an affront to our dignity, an act that devalued the importance of our needs.

Punitive discipline is by definition need-depriving as opposed to need-satisfying. Recall that punishment will be effective only if it is felt by the child as aversive, painful, unpleasant. When controllers employ punishment, they always intend for it to cause pain or deprivation. It seems so obvious, then, that children don't ever want punitive discipline, contrary to what its advocates would have us believe. No child "asks for it," "feels a need for it," or is "grateful for it." And it is probably true, too, that no child ever forgets or forgives a punitive parent or teacher. This is why I find it incredible that the authors of power-to-the-parent books try to justify power-based discipline with such statements as:

• "Kids not only need punishment, they want it."
• "Children basically want what is coming to them, good or bad, because justice is security."
• "Punishment will prove to kids that their parents love them."
• "The youngster who knows he deserves a spanking appears almost relieved when it finally comes."
• "Rather than be insulted by the discipline, [the child] understands its purpose and appreciates the control it gives him over his own impulses."
• "Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is entirely different in purpose and practice [from child abuse]....One is an act of love; the other is an act of hostility."
• "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted."
• "Punishment will make children feel more secure in their relationship."
• "Discipline makes for happy families; healthy relationships."

Could these be rationalizations intended to relieve the guilt that controllers feel after coercing or committing acts of physical violence against their children? It seems possible in view of the repeated insistence that the punishing adult is really a loving adult, doing it only "for the child's own good," or as a dutiful act of "benevolent leadership." It appears that being firm with children has to be justified by saying, "Be firm but fair"; being tough is acceptable as long as it's "Tough Love"; being an autocrat is justifiable as long as you're a "benevolent autocrat"; coercing children is okay as long as you're not a "dictator"; and physically abusing children is not abuse as long as you "do it lovingly."

Disciplinarians' insistence that punishment is benign and constructive might be explained by their desire that children eventually become subservient to a Supreme Being or higher authority. This can only be achieved, they believe, if children first learn to obey their parents and other adults. James Dobson (1978) stresses this point time and time again:

• "While yielding to the loving leadership of their parents, children are also learning to yield to the benevolent leadership of God Himself."
• "With regard to the specific discipline of the strong-willed toddler, mild spankings can begin between 15 and 18 months of age....To repeat, the toddler should be taught to obey and yield to parental leadership, but that end will not be accomplished overnight."

It's the familiar story of believing that the ends justify the means. Obedience to parental authority first, and then later to some higher authority, is so strongly valued by some advocates of punitive discipline that the means they utilize to achieve that end are distorted to appear beneficial to children rather than harmful.

The hope that children eventually will submit to all authority is, I think, wishful thinking. Not all children submit when adults try to control them. In fact, children respond with a wide variety of reactions, an assortment of behaviors. Psychologists call these reactions "coping behaviors" or "coping mechanisms".

The Coping Mechanisms Children Use

Over the years I have compiled a long list of the various coping mechanisms youngsters use when adults try to control them. This list comes primarily out of our Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) and Teacher Effectiveness Training (T.E.T.) classes, where we employ a simple but revealing classroom exercise. Participants are asked to recall the specific ways they themselves coped with power-based discipline when they were youngsters. The question yields nearly identical lists in every class, which confirms how universal children's coping mechanisms are. The complete list is reproduced below, in no particular order. Note how varied these recurring themes are. (Can you pick out the particular coping methods you employed as a youngster?)

• Resisting, defying, being negative
• Rebelling, disobeying, being insubordinate, sassing
• Retaliating, striking back, counterattacking, vandalizing
• Hitting, being belligerent, combative
• Breaking rules and laws
• Throwing temper tantrums, getting angry
• Lying, deceiving, hiding the truth
• Blaming others, tattling, telling on others
• Bossing or bullying others
• Banding together, forming alliances, organizing against the adult
• Apple-polishing, buttering up, soft-soaping, bootlicking, currying favor with adults
• Withdrawing, fantasizing, daydreaming
• Competing, needing to win, hating to lose, needing to look good, making others look bad
• Giving up, feeling defeated, loafing, goofing off
• Leaving, escaping, staying away from home, running away, quitting school, cutting classes
• Not talking, ignoring, using the silent treatment, writing the adult off, keeping one's distance
• Crying, weeping; feeling depressed or hopeless
• Becoming fearful, shy, timid, afraid to speak up, hesitant to try anything new
• Needing reassurance, seeking constant approval, feeling insecure
• Getting sick, developing psychosomatic ailments
• Overeating, excessive dieting
• Being submissive, conforming, complying; being dutiful, docile, apple-polishing, being a goody-goody, teacher's pet
• Drinking heavily, using drugs
• Cheating in school, plagiarizing

As you might expect, after parents and teachers in the class generate their list, and realize that it was created out of their own experience, they invariably make such comments as:

• "Why would anyone want to use power, if these are the behaviors it produces?"
• "All of these coping mechanisms are behaviors that I wouldn't want to see in my children [or my students]."
• "I don't see in the list any good effects or positive behaviors."
• "If we reacted to power in those ways when we were kids, our own children certainly will, too."

After this exercise, some parents and teachers undergo a 180-degree shift in their thinking. They see much more clearly that power creates the very behavior patterns they most dislike in children! They begin to understand that as parents and teachers they are paying a terrible price for using power: they are causing their children or students to develop habits, traits, and characteristics considered both unacceptable by most adults and unhealthy by mental health professionals.

Excerpted from "Teaching Children Self Discipline", by Dr. Thomas Gordon

The Problem With "Quick-Fix" Parenting

Many will say that this day in age, people have traded slow and old-fashioned ways of doing things for anything that can be done easier, faster and cheaper. In reality, we've been doing this all along. From the invention of the wheel to laptop computers, humans have been attempting to reinvent cheap convenience since...forever. And we don't stop at technology, either.

A distressed mother called recently, desperate for help after experiencing the utter failure of a well-known quick-fix parenting program. We won't name names. But here's the summary: The entire program was based around a method that instructs parents to (upon experiencing some undesirable behavior from their children) warn their child that if the behavior has not ended by the time they count to three, that the child gets put in a time out or gets privileges taken away. Theoretically, after the count to three, the child receives their consequence and that is the "end of story." (Yeah, right.)

Tempting as it may be to seek parenting methods that publicize to get-your-kids-to-behave-themselves-in-five-minutes-or-less-for-$29.99, I can't help but think about the old familiar saying: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." Yet, I sit here in disbelief over the amount of (successful) parenting programs that claim to achieve exactly that. The victims being those parents in desperation to try anything.

It can't go without mentioning that there seems to also exist an underlying implication that parents are too busy to spend the necessary time working on the behavioral and emotional issues of their children. This may be another problem all on it's own, but the ultimate doom of these parenting methods seem to ultimately (and without fail) become an insurmountable heap of disaster.

Here's why they don't work:

Let's assume that the inner-workings of a developing child's brain is a highly complex and growing instrument composed of electricity and soft tissue, that has the astonishing capability to communicate, create patterns, grow and think, all the while maintaining continuous functionality of every other vital organ in the body. This instrument is actualized by biology, culture and experience. Also keep in mind that every event that this "instrument" experiences during childhood has an immeasurable influence on who that child becomes for the remainder of their lives. If you are among those individuals who believes in facts, then feel free to set aside assumptions at this point and embrace these ideas as truths. How can something as intricate as the brain of a child be permanently guided and influenced by count-to-three type parenting methods?

Wait a minute, though - there's nothing wrong with many of the advantages of life in 2013. We all want to save time, money and effort for most of life's daily tasks.

Here are some quick-fix solutions that won't haunt you later on (to name a few):

• Microwaves
• Self-adhesive envelopes
• Dishwashers
• Blow Dryers
• Cellphones (to be debated)

But by using simple tools, with something as complex and profound as the human brain - which has the ability to react, brainstorm, re-evaluate, and re-route its behavioral avenues - it's no wonder that quick-fix parenting tricks never cease to fail.

For parents who've got nothing but a few minutes, a few dollars and (most of all) a tiny bit of effort set aside to solve the intricate behavioral dilemmas of their children, I hope they consider this question: Would you hire a heart surgeon on the same basis?

by: Selena George, Program Manager

How Can Children Be Trusted to Use Their Own Judgment?

By Certified P.E.T. Instructor, Catherine Dickerson, LCSW, Lic #24454

Recently, several parents and teachers have asked, "How on earth can a child know what to do if we don't tell them?!"  How can children whose unacceptable behaviors seem completely natural to them know what you need them to do instead?

The answer is actually pretty simple: they know what to do because you've been teaching them since the day they were born. Every day you have been modeling for them the details of how you live your life. Every day, your children have been watching and following you, absorbing your words and most of all, your actions. Admittedly, many of those actions have been too quick for a child to absorb the details (I recall the story of the little girl who wanted to tie her own shoes and, when given the opportunity, just moved her fingers together quickly with the laces between them--then was disappointed at the result!). Your two-year-old may not know that it's her job to put away her toys (for example), but if she has witnessed the way that you put them away for her and if you help her to get started before things become overwhelming, she's certainly got an idea of how to get it done!


Your 4-year-old may not know exactly how to set the table, but he's got a pretty good idea as well! Your school age child certainly knows where his dirty laundry goes, and how to make and clean up after a simple snack or meal. Teenagers know . . . let's just say, a great deal more than we give them credit for.

The P.E.T. skills of Active Listening, I-Messages and Method III all help you to give your children additional essential information and experience that most adults deny children. Additionally, being a consultant to your children in the No-Problem area is a highly effective way to influence your children's values by sharing your own. Benefits of implementing these P.E.T. methods include:

1. Increased self awareness as they explore the depths of their thoughts and feelings (while you Active Listen);
2. The impact their actions have on themselves, others, and their world (from your I-Messages);
3. The experience of thinking and solving problems with a bigger picture in mind (Method III, where they help find solutions that allow everyone to get their needs met).

The end result? 
For you:  P.E.T. skills take the burden off of you to do other people's thinking and problem-solving for them, and instead leave the responsibility for that work with each individual (including helping you meet your own needs);

For your children: The satisfaction of experiencing themselves as capable, intelligent, contributing, respected individuals in a loving family, and of experiencing their parents as complete human beings (not just "my parents").

Parents say it best:  "[P.E.T.] Opened my eyes to a whole new world of loving and affectionate interactions in our family when conflicts arise (vs. yelling and stress where everyone feels bad after). My daughter is more empowered to make her own decisions and resolve conflicts on her own. Less stress on me to solve everyone else's problems."

"Seeking to really understand what is going on is something that is really helping, and working with my child to help her develop her own solutions to problems has been very helpful."

Catherine's next P.E.T. workshop begins on April 16th in Solana Beach, CA. Fore more information, please email us at family@gordontraining.com.

P.E.T. Tip of the Month

For your I-Messages to be effective, you often need to spend more time active listening to the other person’s responses than you spend giving your I-Message.

Remember the Gear-Shifting diagram (page 60 in the P.E.T. workbook)?

A clear I-Message is a powerful tool. You get to think seriously about your needs and stand up for yourself with clarity and confidence. No blaming, directing or otherwise roadblocking the other person, so you’re also strengthening your relationship with him. You expect to get a quick positive result.

And sometimes you do. What often happens, though, is that the other person instead starts to defend himself. It can feel as if you haven’t given an I-Message at all. The temptation then is for you to defend yourself—or, at the very least, to try to drive your I-Message home. Instead, now is a good time to take a discrete deep breath.

Most people are expecting to be dismissed or controlled when there is a problem. Until their point of view and feelings about it have been thoroughly listened to and accepted, they can’t experience the profound respect of your I-Message.So you need to active listen until they relax a bit, restate your I-Message as clearly and briefly as you can, then active listen again. Once the other person experiences that you:

1. Sincerely accept his position and its importance to him;

2. Are not trying to change his mind;

3. Are simply expressing your conflicting need, and

4. Trust him to come up with an effective solution, or to work one out with you that meets both your needs;

...he is much more likely be able to listen to you, and willing to help you out.

In the meantime, best wishes for plenty of happy and effective parenting!

By: Certified P.E.T. Instructor, Catherine Dickerson, M.Ed., LCSW, Registered Play Therapist, License #24454

Catherine's next P.E.T. workshop begins in Solana Beach, CA on April 16th! Email family@gordontraining.com for more details.

No Punishment?

Recently, we had an interested question sent to us on our Facebook page:


"Does this program promote no punishment for bad behavior? I don't get this program?"




We responded, and would like to elaborate to our readers here.

First off, to simply say "no," that P.E.T. is not an advocate of punishment would only be giving half of the answer. The use of the term "bad behavior" is a major underlying issue here. P.E.T. encourages parents not to view behaviors as "bad" or "good" because such labeling does not encourage children to change their behavior, among other things (at least, not in the long run!). Given the idea that all behaviors are simply attempts to get a certain need met, we can view things from a different frame of mind. 

For example, in a traditional sense, a screaming child would likely be seen as "behaving badly". But consider that this child is screaming for a reason. Active Listening is the way to find that reason behind the commonly misunderstood behaviors of a child, or of anyone for that matter. This child is experiencing a problem or obstacle to getting his or her need met. She might be hungry, tired, in need of attention/affection, feeling unsafe or insecure, etc. It would be absurd to think that a child could communicate these feelings in an effective manner; especially considering that many adults still struggle from doing this. The question at hand then becomes: Why punish a child for expressing an unmet need?

Our response to the question on Facebook sums it up:

P.E.T. does not promote punishment of any kind, but the most important part of this is the reasoning behind it. Being commonly mistaken as "passive parenting", P.E.T. does not reject the use of punishment simply because "it's bad." When parents begin to look at their child's behaviors as attempts to get a certain need met, they can begin to realize that their children aren't deliberately "misbehaving" in order to upset their parents. On the contrary, children are desperately seeking approval from their moms and dads. When we look at a screaming child and think: "they're behaving bad," this is when the parent-child relationship gets into real trouble. In actuality, children are commonly seeking fulfillment of some need that they don't know how to express in any other way. 

As for the punishment factor, years of psychological and neurological research has proven that using control to manipulate the behavior of your children (or anyone) has serious consequences on the relationship between parent and child. In the short term, punishment can be a quick fix and often does work. But in the long term, it's effects turn out to be quite the opposite of what punishment aims to achieve. Case in point: teenage-hood! 
What are your thoughts on this? We'd love to hear from you. Please feel free to comment below or send us an email to: family@gordontraining.com

by: Selena George, P.E.T. Program Manager

The Problem With Using Power

You can force your daughter to stay in college. You can insist that your subordinate dress differently.  But, as most of us know, power tactics are often a costly way to preserve relationships.  They’re also unlikely to have any positive effect on the other person’s values. In fact, the use of power practically guarantees being "fired" as a consultant.  

Using power to influence the outcome of a values collision can be tempting, particularly as a shortcut if other available approaches are complex and time consuming, and you hold most of the power in the relationship.


When you act as an influencer through modeling and consulting, you're offering people an opportunity to change by encouraging an evolutionary process.  The adaptations in their lives may be slow and gradual, but they will be lasting because they’re not imposed; they’re part of that person’s learning and growth.

By exercising your influence, you’re saying, in effect:

"I have no power over you, but here are the facts and figures that support my position. I leave responsibility for change with you. I won't hassle or nag if you don't make the changes I've suggested. I want to be influential and, above all, to preserve a good relationship with you. I accept the fact that the outcome of my consulting efforts is uncertain."

 When you use power methods in a values collision you are denying people a chance to evolve at their own pace, in their own way. You're applying a "revolutionary" approach-instant change through coercion. The message you send comes through like this:

"I don't trust you to make this change on your own. I'll use whatever power is available to me to force the change after all, it's for your own good."

Using power to alter another's values is frequently justified as being in the other's best interest. But consider what people throughout history have been forced to accept in the name of their "best interest"! That should give us pause when we set out to coerce change in others. Non-power methods that people can adapt to their own needs and experience are more likely to yield change that's desired by  you and truly accepted by the other person.

Author Unknown, Posted by Selena George, P.E.T. Program Manager

How to Get Your Kids to Do Their Chores

(...Without Nagging Them!)

Let us first remind ourselves of the old, straight-forward theory which tells us that generally, people don't like to be "told what to do". This absolutely includes kids. It's no wonder that kids need to constantly be reminded of what they were supposed to do - they don't want to be doing it in the first place! But with some guidance from the Gordon Model and bit of psychological insight, we think we can help.

In most households, here's how chores are usually delegated:

Mom: "I need you to wash the dishes, clean up your room, feed the dog and take him for a walk."
Child: "I don't feel like it."
Mom: "Do it!"
Child: "Fine."

There's one way to get a child to "agree" to do something! His willingness is lacking and his compliance is artificial. The mother will likely need to remind him: "You said you would do the chores I asked! Why aren't they done? Do them now - I won't ask you again." Adding a tinge of threat here might get your child to do what he's told (for the time being, at least*) but will likely entice him to resist even more. Not only are you telling him what to do without any reason or consideration of what he is needing to do, but your reminding/nagging him comes across as condescending; as if he isn't intelligent enough to remember. This holds true for nagging in all shapes and forms.

Now let's consider two important Gordon Model skills to help in this situation:

1. The Preventive I-Message: These types of I-Messages are useful in preventing problems from occurring in the first place. They give the listener (the child, in this case) important information that they will need to know for the future. For example, you are having guests over for dinner and you would like your child to have his toys picked up off the floor before a certain time of day. Remember that the I-Message must have all three parts to increase the probability that it will be effective. Using this example, here is an I-Message that could be used: "I need to have the toys off the floor by 5 pm when the neighbors will be arriving, so that I don't feel embarrassed about inviting guests into a messy home and don't have to take up extra time that I will need to finish preparing dinner."
2. Method III: The No-Lose Method to resolving conflicts is the perfect skill to use when it comes to chore-setting. Many things are in play here. First off, is the principle of participation, which says that a person is more motivated to carry out a decision that he has been a part of making, versus a decision that has been made on his behalf, without his consent. Secondly, Method III considers the needs of everyone involved. It could still, for example, allow the kids to watch their favorite show at the same time every night, while also lessening the burden of all the household duties on just Mom or Dad. Method III must be carried out in all six parts in order to be the most effective. More on Method III - including the numerous positive side effects - can be found in Chapter 11 of the P.E.T. book.

Parents must also remember that none of these are guaranteed quick-fixes for the conflicts in your family. But with time, practice, and a constant consideration for the needs of others, the benefits of using the Gordon Model skills are truly astonishing.

Try it for yourself and let us know how it worked for you. Feel free to always comment below or on our Facebook page.

* See Chapter 10 of the P.E.T. book to read the effects of parental power on Children

Say WHAT?

You've probably seen this circling through Facebook by now. The re-posts, likes and supporting comments are growing in numbers on the daily. When it came around to us, we thought: Are these people SERIOUS??!! (And we can only imagine what the children of these people are thinking!)

It's sad to see parents taking pride in viewpoints like this. While we understand how charm, humor and a dose of  "tounge-in-cheek" can be appealing, I think it's safe to say that the supporters of this message are alarmingly serious!

Here are just a few of the reasons why this is awful:

1. Threatening - need we say more?
2. So because you love me, you're going to scare the heck out of me? Is that what you do when you love somebody?
3. It's a parent's job to invade their children's privacy? Ahem...sure...that'll be a real trusting relationship!
4. Wait I'm still confused, so the person who "loves me the most" is going to treat me the worst and it's okay for them to do that?
5. Parents want their children to hate them? Careful what you wish for!!

Intentionally creating fear and resentment in the relationship with your children is one of the most terrible things you can do to them. If the intention is to create discipline and obedience, these methods actually create the very opposite.

Have anything to add to our list? Please share with us what you think and SPREAD THE WORD!

Do Schools Deny Your Children of Their Civil Rights?

Excerpted from the Chapter "The Other Parents of Your Children" in the Parent Effectiveness Training book, by Dr. Thomas Gordon:

      In most schools, students are blatantly denied civil rights - the right of free speech, the right to wear their hair as they prefer, the right to wear the clothes they like, the right to dissent. Schools also deny children the right to refuse to testify against themselves, and if kids get into trouble, administrators seldom follow the customary procedures of "due process of law" guaranteed to citizens by the judicial system

     Is this a distorted picture of schools? I think not. Many other observers of the school system are seeing the same deficiencies. Furthermore, one need only ask youngsters how they feel about schools and schoolteachers. Many kids say they hate school and that their teachers treat them disrespectfully and unfairly. Most kids come to esperience school as a place where they must go; they experience learning as something that is seldom pleasant or fun; they experience studying as tedious work; and they see their teachers as unfriendly police officers. 

     When children are assigned to adults whose treatment of them producessuch negative reactions, parents cannot be expected to shoulder all the blame for the way their kids turn out. Parents can be blames, yes, but other adults must share the blame.

 How closely do you think this relates to your child's school or learning environment? Let us know your thoughts. Please feel free to comment here or on our Facebook page.

Should You Make Your Child "Finish What They Started"?

So your kid gets excited about starting a new hobby or sport and she begs you to sign her up for classes. Proper attire or equipment has been bought and lessons have been paid for. But a few sessions in, she tells you that she doesn't want to do it anymore.

You're now at a crossroad - do you "let" your child quit and lose out on the money, not to mention the apparent opportunity to teach them a lesson in making commitments? Or, do you accept the fact that she is no longer interested and don't want to force her into doing something unwillingly?

Your needs:

1. To teach your child the importance of commitments
2. To not lose out on money that has already been spent and could have possibly been used for something else 

Here's where most parents would tell their kids something along the lines of:

"I already paid for it and I don't want my money going down the drain. You've got to finish what you started!"

The question is, how do you deal with this situation to get yours and your child's needs met?

A Quick Lesson in Discipline:

When motivation in doing something comes in an external form (like the parent forcing a child to do something), they usually will simply do the bare minimum to finish the job at hand. When problems are resolved this way, parents often have to nag, remind and constantly check in on their child. One of the most important factors in place here is that children do not learn discipline and the consequences of real-life decisions in external forms. You might be able to "make" your child eat broccoli, but that doesn't mean that you are making them actually enjoy it. You might scare your child into not giving up on something that they started, but what you're really doing is just making the child scared of you -- not scare them about how the real-life consequences on giving-up may affect them. Your forcing her won't make her interested. Almost always, when the parents needs "win" over the child, the child will bear hate and resentment.

Three "Gordon Model" Methods To Use:

Preventive I-Message - Tell your child ahead of time that the money spent on their activities is something that you cannot get back whether they decide to continue or not and how losing that money could affect you. Explain to your children (as an informant, not a disciplinarian) the importance of making commitments and how they affect other people that are involved in the commitment.

Modify The Environment - Here's an easy one! Don't sign your child up for classes that are non-refundable. Wait to purchase necessary materials and see if you can have your child sit in and participate in a few classes before they make the commitment. Or find a place where you can pay per session, instead of for a whole month, for example.

Method III - In this situation, we are in the area of both people owning a problem (you and your child). Go through the six-step process and begin by finding out what your child's needs are in this situation and what the underlying reason is behind his or her feelings. Maybe she isn't comfortable taking karate in the same class as boys or maybe her skill level is more advanced than the rest of the kids, leaving her un-stimulated.


Before jumping to the first conclusion you can think of in these types of situations, consider the option that both you and your child can get your needs met and resolve conflicts in a respectful and effective way.

The Debate Continues

Or can we really even call it a "debate?"

It's been several days since John Rosemond's antagonistic article about P.E.T. was published, and we are still seeing plenty of buzz about it.

Letters to the editor have been sent by the dozens, several of which have already been published. Thank you to all who have contributed to this - we're flattered!

And wouldn't you know it, when there couldn't possibly be a more perfect time, a recent study on the effects of spanking children just came out. (You can read the article by clicking here: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/spanking-kids-can-cause-long-term-harm-canada-study ) I can't help but wonder what he would have to say about this...

To most, it seems that Rosemond's article is filled with nothing but opinion, which he calls "research." To many savvy individuals who are familiar with him, it seems that Rosemond's untruthfulness is a reputation that has preceded him anyway.

In any case, of the floods of "Letters to the Editor" that we've been given a copy of, I thought it the right thing to do to share the "Best Of" with you all.

For your reading pleasure, enjoy:

Letters to the Editor - Snippets
___________________________________________________________________________

It would be hard to exaggerate what a profound misinterpretation of, not only Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.), but of the overwhelming evidence on good parenting, that is found in John Rosemond's baseless attack published in the starpress.com article. Even a rudimentary understanding of Gordon's model, or in fact, the work of Diana Baumrind whom he mistakenly uses to "refute" P.E.T., reveals striking similarities in their advice to parents. Baumrind advocates the "Authoritative Parenting Style," (not to be confused with authoritarian). If Mr. Rosemond had actually bothered to read Dr. Gordon's work, he would have found many similar recommendations and conclusions. One of Rosemond's many incorrect assertions is that Dr. Gordon encourages parents to give in to their children because the child doesn't like being told what to do. This is utter nonsense. P.E.T. certainly encourages parents to be assertive with their children. Dr. Gordon promotes the idea that children are human beings and that, as such, deserve a chance to respond to their parents needs in a responsible way.

 While it may be trendy to talk about the failure of professional psychology, in fact many of Rosemond's assertions are just plain wrong. I cannot tell from the article if he says these things out of spite or shoddy research but this sort of self-indulgent diatribe is damaging: to parents, to children and to our society as a whole. Maybe he is upset about something. As he says, "People who are ruled by their feelings say stupid things…." (Parenting: Children should be taught to control, not be controlled by feelings http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20120124/LIFESTYLE/201240301). 

If you want children who are respectful, thoughtful, caring, independent, assertive, creative, and engaged in the world in a constructive way, listen to Thomas Gordon. If you want more bullies and tyrants, listen to John Rosemond.

-Bill Stinnett, Ph. D.

 I find the tone of John Rosemond's "Parenting: Children should be taught to control, not be controlled by feelings" to be regrettable. For example, his judgmental labeling of Dr. Thomas Gordon and other experienced educators and likeminded professionals as "progressive parenting pundits" pollutes the climate within which constructive public discourse needs to occur when the nature of effective parenting is being discussed. 

Furthermore, when referring to Dr. Gordon's and others' methodologies and conclusions, claiming that they are "pulling this baloney out of thin air" discounts the hard-won discoveries and insights that have come from years of research and practice, and constitutes a form of expression whose usage we typically associate with someone who is being "controlled by feelings" - ironically, a state of being that Mr. Rosemond argues we should teach children to avoid.

- H. Tucker Upshaw, Ph.D.

All but a few parenting advisors (Dr. Rosemond included) have one thing in common: they teach parents to try control their children. This can be attempted either by trying to think for children, or physically restraining them. The former is impossible, the latter grows more difficult every day. Both techniques teach children what parents want, but neither teaches children how parents make decisions.  

But children are ravenous to know how the world works and how achieve their values! They urgently need parents to involve them in the process of gathering and assessing information, including information gained from emotions, and making thoughtful decisions. Effectively expressing intense emotions uncovers the thoughts behind them, allowing reasoned assessment and action. 

- Catherine Dickerson, L.C.S.W., M.Ed.

Gordon believes, as does Rosemond, that permissive parenting is ineffective and Gordon spends one-fifth of his book, Parent Effectiveness Training, explaining what is wrong with permissiveness and associated behaviors. Oddly, Rosemond states in his “Bill of Rights for Children” that children have the right to scream as much as they want. To me it seems contradictory to make your children control their emotions while allowing them to scream ... Gordon’s Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) teaches communication skills that helps children express their thoughts and feelings respectfully, and helps parents respond to a child’s unacceptable behavior while preserving the child’s self esteem and their relationship with the child. There is a reason Gordon’s P.E.T. program is used every day in 44 countries all over the world and why it continues to influence so many parenting programs over time. P.E.T. works.

-Meike Lemmens, Certified P.E.T. Instructor

Dr.John Rosemond says it is not complicated to deal with feelings. Adults simply need to teach their children to control them. So, you would think that adults must already know for themselves how to control their feelings, right? Here is the problem: You would rather not think of feelings because many of your feelings are quite scary. We are so unfamiliar with "feelings"!  We don’t know their strength or how to calm them down. Rosemond calls them "unruly and destructive beasts". However it is not the feelings or the emotions that are the beasts; it is the pain that we (un)consciously have attached to them. This pain can become so heavy that we would rather kill ourselves than feel it. By suppressing feelings and not acknowledging them, the pain expands and grows bigger. What you suppress expands. What was at first an insignificant event, becomes heavier and heavier. And there is where it becomes scary: when the pain is too heavy to bear, we don’t know what it will develop into or when this pain will be triggered.

Dr. Thomas Gordon was in his time looking for causes of filled up psychology and psychiatrist offices as well. But he made a daring change: to open up feelings and emotions to work with, instead of suppressing them. In promoting his belief and findings, he was the first one who understood that the parent should work on themselves first. Dr. Thomas Gordon incorporated working with feelings, making a training that works for all parents and making it accessible to the general public. This indeed brought him the Lifetime Achievement Award by the American Psychological Association and got him three times nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

- Cielja Kieft, Certified P.E.T. Instructor 

'Nuff said. What do you think? Let us know! Please respond by commenting below or chatting with us on Facebook or Twitter.

Q & A from a Mother of Two Boys

Question: When my sons don't do their chores (especially homework) sometimes I will yell at them and then they will do it. First I will ask them to do something very politely and most of the time they won't listen. But when I yell, they will do what they're told right away. I don't want to yell at them and I have asked them why they don't do things when I ask them nicely. Please help.

Dear Anonymous,

It sounds like you are confused with how to use P.E.T. when you want your sons to do their chores because they respond quicker to you when you yell. You don't want to shout at them, but you also want their chores done in a timely manner.

It is common among parents to notice that P.E.T. skills sometimes don't work right off the bat. It's extremely important to remember that these skills are NOT an overnight, quick-fix, especially if punitive styles (like yelling) have been used on the children over an extended period of time. It takes practice and some patience to see a change in your relationships with your children. You might initially be met with resistance or skepticism when using the new P.E.T. skills, but this is certain: the long term benefits of using P.E.T. create more loving, trusting and responsible children. Using your parental "power" will do exactly the opposite; in the long and short term. Consider asking yourself: Am I trying to save TIME? Or am I trying to create healthy parent-child relationships so that my children will turn out to be self-disciplined and responsible adults?

I would suggest sending your children a preventive I-Message about their chores so that they know when you would like to have them done. You can also send a confrontive I-Message to express how it affects you when they don't do their chores on time. All I-Messages MUST include all three parts in order to be effective. And remember to shift gears into Active Listening if they respond defensively.

Our Big News - Now on Kindle!

Greetings to all of our P.E.T. Fans and Followers!

Gordon Training International is proud to announce our first eBook publication, available on Kindle and Amazon now!

Author of the best-selling "Parent Effectiveness Training" (P.E.T.), Dr. Thomas Gordon's "Teaching Children Self-Discipline" is known to be one of his best works.

Dr. Gordon addresses the number one concern of parents and teachers today - disciplining children. He shows why traditional disciplining doesn't work at home or in the classroom, and how to change children's behavior effectively using skills of cooperation instead.

A truly enlightening read for parents and teachers alike - and a perfect Summer read!

http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Children-Self-Discipline-ebook/dp/B004P8K5HG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1305749886&sr=8-4

Your Children's Safety and P.E.T.

A common question arises from parents regarding how to use the P.ET. skills when it comes to the safety of their children.

"What about when my kids start fighting and hitting each other?"

"I saw my son about to ride his bike in the middle of the street into oncoming traffic. I ran out to grab him but felt confused about using my power to stop him."

"I see that P.E.T. is against setting limits. What do I do when my kid is endangering himself? Isn't it my job as a parent to keep her safe?"

In P.E.T., the one exception to using your parental "power" is when your children are putting themselves in clear, present and immediate danger. By all means possible, parents should save their child from injury (or worse). No exceptions.

But parents should also be able to distinguish the fine line between their children being in "danger" versus their children doing something that the parents feel is "best" for them. We often see the word danger misused; i.e. not doing homework, not finishing vegetables but eating ice cream instead, playing games on the computer for hours on end, etc. Of course, there are rare and extreme cases in which their physical or mental health does become a serious concern. These are not the cases we're talking about.

Another aspect at play here takes us back to our favorite question: Who Owns the Problem?

If your child decides to do homework at the very last minute but it doesn't cost you any time, extra energy and/or money, then the problem is ultimately theirs. The same goes for many of the questions and concerns that parents ask us.

As a parent, you want to see your child succeed in making the right choices and turn out to become a well-adjusted and responsible adult. But getting your child to adopt your values and beliefs is done best through giving an effective three-part I-message.

As we said on the P.E.T. Facebook Page earlier this week: Cooperation is never fostered by making a child do something.

"One of the most universally accepted myths about child-rearing is that if parents force their young children to do things, they will turn out to be self-disciplines and responsible persons. They usually turn out to be persons who depend upon external authority to control their behavior. Each and every time they [parents] force a child to do something by using their power or authority, they deny that child a chance to learn self-discipline and self-responsibility."

-- Dr. Thomas Gordon, P.E.T. Book

Think about it...

We hope that this post in particular breeds more questions and comments from our readers. Please feel free to comment directly in this blog or email us at family@gordontraining.com. We will do our best to respond to each and every person.

by Selena Cruz George, P.E.T. Program Manager

Discipline That Works

The discipline issue arises as an inner conflict for the majority of parents. In Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) classes we find that most parents start the class torn between being authoritarian and being permissive, just like this mother expressed: "With our first child I was strict and that didn't work, so when the second child came I decided to be lenient, but that hasn't really worked either."

Looking at the noun discipline and the verb discipline, some critical differences become apparent. As a noun, discipline is usually understood as behavior and order in accord with rules and regulations, or behavior maintained by training as in "discipline in the classroom." You seldom hear any controversy about the noun discipline. Everybody seems to be in favor of that kind. The word conjures up order, organization, cooperation, knowing and following rules and procedures, and a consideration for the rights of others.

The verb to discipline is commonly defined as "to bring to a state of order and obedience by training and control" and "to punish or penalize; correct, chastise." Just like: "If kids are not disciplined at home they will be troublemakers at school."

Understanding the difference between the noun and the verb forms of discipline is of utmost importance for yet another reason: it clarifies that the discipline controversy is really about how we should deal with kids (the means) and not about what we want them to do (the ends.) Most people would agree that we want kids to be orderly, cooperative, and considerate, but there are intense differences about whether disciplining (the verb) is the best means to bring about discipline (the noun,) a generally agreed-upon end.

In discussions of discipline, it is quite often assumed that the only way to get discipline (the noun), both at home and in the classroom, is for parents to discipline (the verb) - that is, control, punish, penalize, correct, and chastise children.

P.E.T. is based on considerable evidence refuting this widely-held belief. Dr. Thomas Gordon's three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were a result of this work which is guiding parents to the discovery that disciplining children may be the least effective way to get discipline at home.

Any Research on Confrontive I-Messages?

RESEARCH SHOWING BENEFITS OF CONFRONTIVE I-MESSAGES

Baumrind, D. Child Care Practices Anteceding Three Patterns of Preschool Behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88.

Children who rated high in self-control and self-discipline were found to have parents who refrained from punitive punishment, using instead a reasoning approach--that is, messages that told the children the negative effects of their behavior on others, as with the Confrontive I-Messages.

****

Parke, R. Effectiveness of Punishment as an Interaction of Intensity, Timing, Agent Nurturance and Cognitive Structuring. Child Development, 1969, 40, 211-235.

Cognitive messages (like I-Messages) were more influential than punishment in preventing children from playing with prohibited toys, even in the absence of the researcher. The effects of I-Messages as a deterrent continued over time, whereas the effects of punishment wore off more quickly.

****

Coopersmith, S. Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1967

Mothers whose children had high self-esteem when compared with mothers whose children had low self-esteem were found to use more reasoning and verbal discussion and less arbitrary punitive discipline. This study confirms the benefits of Confrontive I-Messages which inform children of the consequences of their behavior.*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's F.E.T. Adult Resource Book

Do Children Who Get Spanked Really Have Lower IQ's?

A co-worker forwarded this article to me and after reading it, I felt I had to share it here:

Children Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs

By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer

posted: 24 September 2009 09:12 pm ET

"All parents want smart children," said study researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire. "This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen."

One might ask, however, whether children who are spanked tend to come from backgrounds in which education opportunities are less or inherited intelligence lower.

"You can't say it proves it, but I think it rules out so many other alternatives; I am convinced that spanking does cause a slowdown in a child's development of mental abilities," Straus told LiveScience.But while the results only show an association between spanking and intelligence, Straus says his methodology and the fact that he took into account other factors that could be at play (such as parents' socioeconomic status) make a good case for a causal link.

Intelligence quotients

Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland studied nationally representative samples of two age groups: 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9. The researchers tested the kids' IQs initially and then four years later.

Both groups of kids got smarter after four years. But the 2- to 4-year-olds who were spanked scored 5 points lower on the IQ test than those not spanked. For children ages 5 to 9, the spanked ones scored on average 2.8 points lower than their unspanked counterparts.

The results, he said, were statistically significant. And they held even after accounting for parental education, income, cognitive stimulation by parents and other factors that could affect children's mental abilities.

Straus will present the study results, along with research on the relationship between average national IQ and prevalence of spanking around the world, Friday at the 14th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, Calif.

Spanking science

Whether or not spanking equates with dumber kids is not known, and may never be known. That's because the only way to truly show cause and effect would be to follow over time two groups of kids, one randomly assigned to get spanked and another who would not get spanked. Barring that method, which is unfeasible, Straus considers his study the next best thing, as he looked back at a nationally representative set of kids who were followed over time.

Jennifer Lansford of Duke University's Center for Child and Family Policy and Social Science Research Institute called the study "interesting," and agrees the method is a strong one. Lansford, who was not involved with the study, said following kids over time as this study did rules out the possibility that children with lower IQs somehow elicit more physical discipline.

However, unlike research showing the link between spanking and a kid's aggressive behavior, in which kids model parents' actions, this link is less clear to her. She added that a question still left unanswered is "what are some of the other mechanisms that could be responsible for this link between physical discipline and lower IQ?"

How spanking harms

If spanking does send IQ scores down, Straus and others offer some explanations for what might be going on.

"Contrary to what everyone believes, being hit by parents is a traumatic experience," Straus said. "We know from lots of research that traumatic stresses affect the brain adversely." Also, the trauma could cause kids to have more stressful responses in difficult situations, and so may not perform as well cognitively.

By using hitting rather than words or other means of discipline, parents could be depriving kids of learning opportunities. "With spanking, a parent is delivering a punishment to get the child's attention and to get them to behave in a certain way," said Elizabeth Gershoff who studies childhood development at the University of Texas, Austin. "It's not fostering children's independent thinking."

So when a child gets in a bind, he or she might do the right thing to keep from a spanking rather than figuring out the best decision independently, added Gershoff, who was not involved in Straus's current study.

And then there are genes, as some kids are just born smarter than others.

Even though spanking has been shown to cause negative consequences, Gershoff said many parents still fall back on the behavior-shaping tool. As for why, she says it's a quick fix, though its seeming success is short-lived and the negative consequences often outweigh the positives. Parents also might have been spanked themselves and so continue the tradition.

How Do Children React to Control?

How Children Really React to Control

by Thomas Gordon, Ph.D.

When one person tries to control another, you can always expect some kind of reaction from the controllee. The use of power involves two people in a special kind of relationship - one wielding power, and the other reacting to it.

This seemingly obvious fact is not usually dealt with in the writings of the dare-to-discipline advocates. Invariably, they leave the child out of the formula, omitting any reference to how the youngster reacts to the control of his or her parents or teachers.

They insist, "Parents must set limits," but seldom say anything about how children respond to having their needs denied in this way. "Parents should not be afraid to exercise their authority," they counsel, but rarely mention how youngsters react to authority-based coercion. By omitting the child from the interaction, the discipline advocates leave the impression that the child submits willingly and consistently to adults' power and does precisely what is demanded.

These are actual quotes from the many power-to-the-parent books I've collected along the way:

• "Be firm but fair."
• "Insist that your children obey."
• "Don't be afraid to express disapproval by spanking."
• "There are times when you have to say 'no'."
• "Discipline with love."
• "Demonstrate your parental right to lead."
• "The toddler should be taught to obey and yield to parental leadership."

What these books have in common is advocacy of the use of power-based discipline with no mention of how children react to it. In other words, the dare-to-discipline advocates never present power-based discipline in full, as a cause-and-effect phenomenon, an action-and-reaction event.

This omission is important, for it implies that all children passively submit to adult demands, perfectly content and secure in an obedient role, first in relationships with their parents and teachers and, eventually, with all adult power-wielders they might encounter.

However, I have found not a shred of evidence to support this view. In fact, as most of us remember only too well from our childhood, we did almost anything we could to defend against power-based control. We tried to avoid it, postpone it, weaken it, avert it, escape from it. We lied, we put the blame on someone else, we tattled, hid, pleaded, begged for mercy, or promised we would never do it again.

We also experienced punitive discipline as embarrassing, demeaning, humiliating, frightening, and painful. To be coerced into doing something against our will was a personal insult and an affront to our dignity, an act that devalued the importance of our needs.

Punitive discipline is by definition need-depriving as opposed to need-satisfying. Recall that punishment will be effective only if it is felt by the child as aversive, painful, unpleasant. When controllers employ punishment, they always intend for it to cause pain or deprivation. It seems so obvious, then, that children don't ever want punitive discipline, contrary to what its advocates would have us believe. No child "asks for it," "feels a need for it," or is "grateful for it." And it is probably true, too, that no child ever forgets or forgives a punitive parent or teacher. This is why I find it incredible that the authors of power-to-the-parent books try to justify power-based discipline with such statements as:

• "Kids not only need punishment, they want it."
• "Children basically want what is coming to them, good or bad, because justice is security."
• "Punishment will prove to kids that their parents love them."
• "The youngster who knows he deserves a spanking appears almost relieved when it finally comes."
• "Rather than be insulted by the discipline, [the child] understands its purpose and appreciates the control it gives him over his own impulses."
• "Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is entirely different in purpose and practice [from child abuse]....One is an act of love; the other is an act of hostility."
• "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted."
• "Punishment will make children feel more secure in their relationship."
• "Discipline makes for happy families; healthy relationships."*

*Writings from Dr. Thomas Gordon