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 Authoritarian Parenting

As a sequel to our last post (and newsletter) about the problems with permissive parenting, now couldn't be a more perfect opportunity to summarize the problems with strict parenting. Much has been published about the negative affects of authoritarian styles of parenting, so I'll aim to outline as many broad-spectrum points about the subject as possible.

If permissive parenting is described as lackadaisical, lenient and submissive in the context of conflict, then it's safe to say that strict parenting promotes iron-fistedness, aggressiveness and dominance above all. Strict parents will often "win" or "get what they want" in any given conflict, but the visible and emotional affects on the child include much (if not all) of the following:

1. Externally compliant, but internally depressed and defeated
2. Compliant but internally enraged, build-up of aggressiveness
3. Feigned sycophancy in aims to manipulate
4. Fear of trying/Fear of failure
5. Lying
6. Forming "groups" in order to fight back in numbers
7. Rebelling/Outlashing - especially after long periods of submission
8. Withdrawing from parents and social interactions
9. Tendency to seek out adult relationships that are controlling (acting as the controlee)
10. Increased probability of developing anxiety disorders
11. Tendency to forfeit and ignore their own needs
12. Self-imposed, impossible attempts at perfection

Although this list is dismal, many of these points resonate with adults who are the product of authoritarian parenting in their childhood. It is often the case that when parents realize the affects that their childhood had on them, that they realize it is not something that should be continued through the next generation.

More on the effects of punishment and parental power can be found in Chapter 10 of the Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) book.

by: Selena C. George

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

Is It Ever Okay to Use Power Methods With Children?

  It has become a joke with those of us who teach P.E.T. that in almost every new class some parent will challenge the validity or limits of Method III by one of two questions:

"But what if your kid runs into the street in front of a car? Don't you have to use Method I?"

"But what if your kid gets sever appendicitis? Don't you have to use Method I to make her go to the hospital?"

  Our answer to both these questions is "Yes, of course." These are crisis situations that demand immediate and firm action. Yet prior to the crisis of the child's running in front of a car or needing to be taken to the hospital, non power methods can be used.

  If a child develops a habit of running int the street, a parent might first try to talk to the child about the dangers of cars, walk her around the edge of the yard, and tell her that anything beyond is not safe, show her a picture of a child hit by a car, build a fence around the yard, or watch her when she is playing in the front yard for a couple of days, reminding her each time when she goes beyond the limits. Even if I took the punishment approach, I would never risk my child's life on the assumption that punishment alone would keep her from going into the street. I would want to employ more certain methods in any event.

- excerpted from "Aren't There Times When Method I Has To Be Used" in Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) book

image: http://www.littleheartsbooks.com/2012/06/10/youre-not-the-boss-of-me/

Children of Divorced Families: Response

Two weeks ago, I blogged about the effects on children of divorce. If you missed the post, you can read it HERE.

That post was inspired by a question we received from a soon-to-be stepmother who was seeking help about her soon-to-be stepchildren and their unacceptable behavior. To paraphrase, the children had been brought up with little-to-no "rules" and were now acting out terribly. She described that her and the father of these children (her future husband) were now using punishment with them, but that when the kids were with their mother, they weren't punished at all. The mother "let them do whatever they want and gave them no structure." When it was time for the kids to visit her and their father, they would display extremely violent tantrums.

She mentioned that some of her punishments were working, but that she needed additional help with P.E.T. to figure out how to get them under control.

Here was my response:

These children are going through some very intense emotions during this time in their life. They have lost the comfort of having one home, are conflicted between having to choose which parent to be with, being forced into living part-time with a woman who is not their mother, having to compete for their father's attention, and on top of it all they are not having a say in any of these things that affect their lives directly. Children in this situation often will act out in other areas, like it sounds they are doing. 

It sounds like you are trying to, or have already implemented some big changes in the style of parenting with your soon to be stepkids. It is working somewhat well while the kids are in your custody, but when they are with their mother, they go back to acting out. Their mother caters more to her children's feelings (whether rational or not) and you're having a hard time trying to implement the consistency of your parenting style. They really don't want to go back over to your house and every time it's your "turn", they have to be physically forced into the car. That sounds like some very unhappy children! 

You mentioned that you are using some punishments in order to modify their behaviors. Please be aware that P.E.T. is NOT an advocate of punishment whatsoever. The use of punishment does not promote self-discipline, creates fear and long-term resentment, and usually it only works when the parent is around. Once parents are out of sight, the children go right back to their unnaceptable behavior. This sounds like something that you experienced first-hand, with the kids reverting right back to their ways once they were with their mother. And let's face it - like adults too, children don't like to be forced into doing anything. 

At the same time, P.E.T. does not promote permissiveness either. This is a very common misconception and must be addressed here too! Permissiveness creates children that are spoiled, ungreatful and often careless with the feelings and needs of others. How will a child be able to grow up to be a responsible and self-sufficient adult if they are never given the opportunity (and practice) to make their own decisions and promote the kind of discipline that comes from WITHIN? Children brought up with permissive parents usually have a difficult time when entering the adult world. 

With punishment AND permissiveness ruled out, most parents don't realize that their is a third choice. They do not have to pick one or the other. That's where P.E.T. comes in. The P.E.T. skills are too detailed to explain in an email here, but I assure you that a P.E.T. Instructor or any of our parenting materials will give you detailed "how-to's" on everything, as well as explain to you the REASONS why they work.

Please let me know what area you are located in. Hopefully, we have a Certified Instructor in your area who will be able to work with the entire family.

What do you think? Let me know...

by: Selena George, Program Manager

A Nine-Year-Old Explains Why Punishment Doesn't Work

Here is an adorable story from one of our P.E.T. Instructors about a recent conversation she had with her daughter. We thought we'd share it with you:

My daughter (just turned 9 years old) and I were spending some
time together, picking raspberries, and having a general chat. I told her that I only had two more PET classes for the year. My
daughter said, “Oh no, the parents might forget over the holidays, and begin
using time out or spanking again!”

I was
interested, and asked her, “What do you think is the problem with time out – why
doesn’t it work?”

My daughter's answer was:
“Because it forces kids to be good, instead of wanting to be good Because they
know it’s good to be good. When you use time out kids are good because of fear.”
She then proceeded to give an example of a child in her class who now seeks time
out, and spoke of the hierarchy of time-out punishment in her school.

We're impressed! Let us know what you think too. For more on P.E.T., visit us online at www.gordontraining.com or email us at family@gordontraining.com.

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.

What Are the Teen Years Like?

The Teen Years

I am now convinced that most theories about the "stress and strain of adolescence" have focused incorrectly on such factors as adolescents' physical changes, their emerging sexuality, their new social demands, their struggle between being a child and an adult, and so on. This period is difficult for children and parents largely because adolescents become so independent of their parents that they can no longer be easily controlled by rewards and punishments. And since most parents rely so heavily on rewards and punishment, adolescents react with much independent, resistive, rebellious, hostile behavior.

Parents assume that adolescent rebellion and hostility are inevitably a function of this stage of development. I think this is no valid--it is more that adolescents become more able to resist and rebel. They are no longer controlled by their parents' rewards because they don't need them so much; and they are immune to threats of punishment because there is little parents can do to give them pain or strong discomfort. The typical adolescent behaves as she does because she has acquired enough strength and resources to satisfy her own needs and enough of her own power so that she need not fear the power of her parents.

An adolescent, therefore, does not rebel against her parents. She rebels against their power. If parents would rely less on power and more on nonpower methods to influence their children from infancy on, there would be little for children to rebel against when they become adolescents. The use of power to change the behavior of children, then, has this severe limitation: parents inevitably run out of power, and sooner than they think.*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's P.E.T. book

Is Punishment Acceptable if It's Mild?

Advocates of punishing children never fail to rationalize that their punishment is mild, benign, loving. They use such terms as: discipline with love, behavior management, behavior modification, discipline with dignity. Severe punishment, they maintain, would be cruel and inhumane (non-loving). There is good reason to question the wisdom of such advice.

In the first place, researchers consistently have found that mild punishment most often fails as a deterrent. Every parent has had the experience of giving a mild punishment most often fails as a deterrent. Every parent has had the experience of giving a mild punishment to a child, only to watch in exasperation as the child repeats the unacceptable behavior as if nothing had happened. Consider this example: When Laurie grabs her brother's toy out of his hands, her mother responds by slapping her on the wrist and recovering the toy for her brother. Laurie looks startled, but then proceeds to snatch the truck away once more, giving her mother a guilty little grin in passing.

With regards to spanking which most parents consider to be mild punishment, Dr. Murray Straus, a well-known researcher, conducted a study of 900 mothers of children between the ages of 6 and 9. He found that when the parents attempted to correct the child's behavior by spanking, the more they spanked the worse the child behaved two and four years later in spite of how much love, attention and affection the parents gave the child.*

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

Understanding"Discipline"

The Noun and the Verb of "Discipline"

__________________________________________

As a noun, discipline is usually understood as:

• behavior in accordance with rules and regulations
• instruction to obtain proper action
• the training effect of experience or adversity
• behavior maintained by training

Example: "The basketball team showed a lot of discipline."

As a verb, "to discipline" is usually understood by parents as:

• to bring to a state of order and obedience
• to punish or penalize in order to train and control

Example: "Parents discipline their children when they misbehave."

You seldom get much controversy about the noun, because it makes us think about order, cooperation, knowing and following correct procedures--such as the discipline of a marching band or symphony orchestra.

However, the verb "to discipline" makes us think of control, punishment, penalty. The controlling and punishing type of discipline creates a lot of controversy. Here is a list of its synonyms: curb, restrain, keep in line, correct, harness, inhibit, chastise, reprimand, criticize, punish.

Think of the "teach-train-guide" kind of discipline as an effort to influence, while the "restrain-restrict-punish" kind of discipline is an effort to control.

Obviously, most parents strongly want to have the ability to influence kids have a positive effect on their lives. But in practice, most parents fall into the trap of trying to control kids by making rules, imposing limits, giving orders and commands, punishing or threatening to punish.

Such control-type methods don't influence children; they only coerce or compel them. This is a crucial difference.*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's Family Effectiveness Training Adult Resource book

Would You Like to be Free of Domination?

Families Need Partnerships

There are two ways of relating to others. The traditional way is what Riane Eisler (in her book, The Chalice and the Blade) has called the dominator model in which there is unequal ranking--like the male over the female, parents over children, older over younger children. The more effective way is the partnership model in which some people are not superior and others inferior.

In the partnership model, all members are free of domination. In partnership families, the long-standing tradition of punishment of children would be gone. In family partnerships, conflicts would be resolved democratically and without violence, without winners or losers.

The arts or skills needed in partnership families, as identified by Eisler, are very similar to those taught there in Family Effectiveness Training:

• open are caring communication
• empathic and cooperative links between family members
• democratic relations
• power with others rather than power over them
• conflict that is both creative and productive
• the respectful dealing with differences

Partnerships strengthen, nourish and enrich relationships, while domination destroys, diminishes and deforms them. also, dominator relationships are hierarchical and authoritarian, and they contribute to both verbal and physical violence.

In partnership relations, people are motivated to achieve, while also being loving, supporting and nourishing of others. And, particularly, they use nonviolent ways of resolving their conflicts.

"A living partnerships is composed of two people--each of whom owns, respects and develops his or her own selfhood." (Rogers, 1971)

The famous educator, John Dewey, explained democracy as more than a form of government. It is a mode of living together as "associates" with mutual communication (Dewey, 1936).*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's Family Effectiveness Training (F.E.T.) Young Adult Resource book

Should Punishment Be Built into the Decision?

Parents have reported that they (or the kids) found themselves, after a no-lose decision had been reached, building into the agreement the penalties or punishments to be administered if the kids did not keep to their agreement.

My earlier reaction to these reports was to suggest that mutually set penalties and punishments might be all right, if they also applied to the parents, should they not uphold their end of the bargain. I now think differently about this issue.

It is far better for parents to avoid bringing up penalties or punishments for failure to stick to an agreement or carry out a Method III decision. In the first place, parents will want to communicate to the youngsters that punishment is not to be used at all any more, even if it is suggested by the kids, as if often will be. Secondly, more is gained by an attitude of trust--trust in the kids' good intentions and integrity. Youngsters tell us, "When I feel trusted, I'm less likely to betray that trust. But when I feel my parent or a teacher is not trusting me, I might as well go ahead and do what they already think I've done. I'm already bad in their opinion. I've already lost, so why not go and do it anyway."

In the no-lose method, parents should simply assume that the kids will carry out the decision. That is part of the new method--trust in each other, trust in keeping to commitments, sticking to promises, holding up one's end of the bargain. Any talk about penalties and punishments is bound to communicate distrust, doubt, suspicion, pessimism. This is not to say that kids will always stick to their agreement. They won't. It says merely that parents should assume that they will. "Innocent until proven guilty" or "responsible until proven irresponsible" is the philosophy we recommend.*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's P.E.T. book

Any Research Confirming the Benefits of P.E.T.?

SOME RESEARCH FINDINGS CONFIRMING THE BENEFITS OF THE P.E.T. STYLE OF PARENTING

Cedar, Robert B.

A Meta-Analysis of the Parent Effectiveness

Training Outcome Research.

Twenty six studies of P.E.T. were analyzed, using the "meta-analytic technique" of integrating the statistical findings from all the studies. The results showed the P.E.T. training to have strong positive effects on parent attitudes and parent behavior significantly greater than the effect of alternative training approaches. This effect endured at least up to 26 weeks after the course was completed.

Coopersmith, Stanley

Antecedents of Self-esteem.

Mothers whose children had a 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.

Strauss, M., Gelles, R. and Steinmetz, S.

Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family.

Nearly 50% of children whose parents employed frequent physical punishment to control them were found to have used retaliatory physical violence (hitting) against their parents, while less than one out of every 400 children whose parents did not employ physical punishment had hit their parents.

Only 20% of children whose parents did not use physical punishment were found to have severely assaulted a brother or sister, while nearly 100% whose parents did use physical punishment were found to have severely assaulted a brother or sister.

Baumrind, D.

Child Care Practices Anteceding Three Patterns of Preschool Behavior.

Children who related 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 (P.E.T. I-Messages).

Baldwin, A.L. Kalhorn, J. and Breese, F.

Patterns of Parent Behavior.

Children of democratic parents, as compared with those of autocratic or permissive parents, received higher ratings from teachers in originality, planfulness, patience, curiosity. They also held more leadership positions in school, scored higher in emotional adjustment and maturity, and showed an increase in I.Q. over the years.

Parke, R.

Effectiveness of Punishment as an Interaction of Intensity, Timing, Agent Nurturance and Cognitive Structuring.

"Cognitive messages" (P.E.T. 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.

*Excerpt from P.E.T. Participant Workbook

What is the Difference from Control vs. Influence?

What is the Difference from Control vs. Influence

(from a child's perspective)

There is interaction amongst the entire family, parent-to-child, parent-to-parent, and child-to-child/sibling-to-sibling. Let's focus on the siblings perspective. I like to call it "sibling rivalry"--families deal with this often, perhaps on a regular basis or enough to find a solution for the problem.

Control vs. Influence

When people use control to get others to do something, they use threats, praise or punishment; the controller gives the other person no choice.

When people use influence to get others to do something, they share information, give advice, teach or suggest to the other person; influencers give the other person a choice to accept or reject their influencing.

Example:

Control: You lend your brother your motorbike with the understanding that he'll be back by a certain time. He brings the bike back later than he said he would. You tell him he can't borrow it again. (Brother feels resentful.)

Influence: You give your brother an I-Message about how his not bringing the bike back on time caused you to be late for soccer practice. (Brother feels bad he caused this problem.)

Ask yourself these questions about control in your life:

Who can keep you from getting something you really want?

Who can give you something you need or want very much?

Who can make life most unpleasant/pleasant for you?

And these questions about influence:

Whom do you look up to and really listen to what they have to say?

Whose advice, experience or knowledge do you ask for and often follow?

Who really influences what you think and do?

Now this about relationships in which you are either a controller or an influencer.

Be aware of the times when you behave as a controller or an influencer of someone and also of those times when you are controlled or influenced by someone else.*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's Family Effectiveness Training, Young Adult Resource Book

Withdrawing, Escaping, Daydreaming, Regression

When it becomes too difficult for children to cope with parental authority, they may try to escape or withdraw. The power of parents may cause withdrawal if punishment is too severe for the child, if parents are inconsistent in adminitsering rewards, if rewards are too difficult to earn, or if it is too difficult to learn behaviors required to avoid punishment. Any of these conditions may cause a child to give up trying to learn "the rules of the game." She simply quits trying to cope with reality--it has become too painful or too complex to figure out. This child cannot find suitable adjustment to the forces in her environment. She can't win. So her organism somehow tells her it is safer to escape.

The forms of withdrawal and escape may range from almost total to only occasional withdrawal from reality, including:

• Daydreaming and fantasizing.
• Inactivity, passivity, apathy.
• Regressing to infantile behavior.
• Excessive TV watching and video game playing.
• Solitary play (often with imaginary playmates).
• Getting sick.
• Running away.
• Joining gangs.
• Using drugs.
• Eating disorders.
  
• Depression.

Conformity, Lack of Creativity, Fear of Trying Something New, Requiring Prior Assurance of Success

Parental authority fosters conformity rather than creativity in children, much as an authoritarian work climate in an organization stifles innovation. Creativity comes from freedom to experiment, to try new things and new combinations. Children reared in a climate of strong rewards and punishment are not as likely to feel such freedom as children reared in a more accepting climate. Power produces fear and fear stifles creativity and fosters conformity. The formula is simple: "In order to get rewards I will keep my nose clean and conform to what is considered proper behavior. I dare not do anything out of the ordinary--this would risk my getting punished."

Apple Polishing, Courting Favor

One way of coping with a person who has power to reward or punish is to "get on her good side," to win her over by special efforts to make her like you. Some children adopt this approach with parents and other adults. The formula: "If I can do something ncie for you and get you to favor me, then perhaps you will give me your rewards and withhold your punishment." Children learn early that rewards and punishments are not metered out equitably by adults. Adults can be won over; they can have "favorites." Some children learn how to take advantage of this and resort to behavior know as "buttering someone up," "getting to be teacher's pet," and other terms less acceptable in polite society.

Unfortunately, while children may become quite skillful in winning adults over, this is usually strongly resented by other children; the child who "butters up" people is often ridiculed or rejected by her peers, who suspect her motives and envy her favored position.

Submission, Obedience, Compliance

Some children choose to submit to the authority of their parents for reasons that are not usually well understood. They cope through submission, obedience, and compliance. This response to parental authority often occurs when the parents have been very severe in their use of power. Particularly when punishment has been strong, children learn to submit out of a strong fear of the punishment. Children may react to parental power just as dogs become cowed and fearful from severe punishment. When children are quite young, severe punishment is more likely to cause submission because a reaction such as rebelling or resisting may seem to risky. They almost have to respond to parental power by becoming obedient and compliant. As children approach adolescence, this response might change abruptly because they have acquired more strength and courage to try resistance and rebellion.

Some children continue to be submissive and compliant through adolescence and often into adulthood. These children suffer the most from early parental power, for they are the ones who retain a deep fear of people in power positions wherever they encounter them. These are the adults who remain children throughout their lives, passively submitting to authority, denying their own needs, fearing to be themselves, frightened of conflict, too compliant to stand up for their own convictions. These are adults who fill the offices of psychologists and psychiatrists.

Blaming Others, Tattling, Cheating

In families with more than one child, the children are obviously competing to get parental rewards and avoid punishment. They soon learn another coping mechanism: put the others at a disadvantage, discredit the other children, make them look bad, tattle, shift the blame. This formula is simple--"By making the other guy look bad, maybe I will look good." How defeating for parents; they want cooperative behavior from their kids, but by using rewards and punishment they breed competitive behavior--sibling rivalry, fighting, ratting on brother or sister:

"She got more ice cream than I did."

"How come I have to work int he yard when Joe doesn't?"

"He hit me first--he started it all."

"You never punished Ericka when she was my age and did the same things I'm doing now."

"How come you let Eddie get by with everything?"

Much of the competitive bickering and mutual blaming among children can be attributed to the parents' use of rewards and punishment in child-rearing. Since no one has the time, temperament, or wisdom to dispense rewards or punishments fairly and equally at all times, parents are inevitably going to create competition. It is only natural that each child wants to get most of the rewards and see her brothers and sisters get most of the punishment.