CURRENT EVENTS

Thank you for visiting my Current Events page. The entries on this page are regularly updated and represent information that I think has merit and can benefit parents, children, and families. Be sure to come back from time to time “to stay current”.

Calling the entries “current events” is not entirely accurate as some of the ideas presented are years or even decades old. However, they are “timeless” in a sense; as relevant now as they were when originally written or suggested. The entries are intended as “food for thought” and do not necessarily give parents specific direction in managing personal issues or specific concerns about their children (although some do).

Other entries reflect topics that are current and have been recently presented through various media channels. Included are topics and suggestions I think are helpful and informative as well as comments on other suggestions and recommendations for families that are potentially harmful and should be avoided. These too are intended to be thought-provoking.

The entries that follow are not arranged in any particular order of relevance or importance.

Difficult children…troublesome or troubled? This interesting and very important distinction was suggested by author Kathleen W. Jones in her recent book, Taming the Troublesome Child. She provides a history of the Child Guidance Movement in America and illustrates that the way difficult children are perceived in our society changed dramatically with the development of the Child Guidance Movement (heavily influenced by the theories proposed by Sigmund Freud) in the 1920s and 1930s. Prior to the development of the Child Guidance Movement, professionals in our society tended to view children as troublesome (i.e., as normal although difficult) if they had problems at home, at school, or with their friends. As they were only considered difficult, steps taken by professionals to help parents and families involved equipping parents with new skills and strategies for changing behavior and developing greater self-control in their children. For example, Lightner Witwer, a psychologist at Columbia University in the 1920s credited with developing psychology as a clinical profession in the United States, consulted with parents and others; providing help and direction in dealing with their children. He did not work directly with children as a clinician, counselor, or therapist; favoring instead the parents as therapists or others as therapists approach championed by yours truly and promoted on this website.

With the coming of the Child Guidance Movement, attitudes toward children changed dramatically. Rather than being viewed as merely “troublesome”, children came to be viewed as “troubled” or emotionally disturbed. This is the view that currently is pervasive in our society. For example, I recently received an announcement for a workshop dealing with “emotional problems in infants and toddlers”. That is, a workshop dealing with “troubled” infants and toddlers rather than youngsters who are simply difficult because of their temperament or behavior. The distinction between troublesome children and troubled children is very important. If children are viewed as difficult or troublesome, they are seen as essentially normal and parents can be equipped with disciplinary tools and strategies to solve problems that exist in the family. On the other hand, if children are viewed as troubled, it follows that parents cannot be empowered to help. What is needed instead is a team of trained professionals who assume responsibility for children and “making them better”.

This is the change that was noted with the advent of the Child Guidance Movement. Prior to Child Guidance, professionals consulted with parents to help them help their children. After the Movement took hold in our society, responsibility for difficult children was transferred from parents to the “Child Guidance Team”. This team consisted of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a social worker. The social worker’s task was to gather relevant family history. Rather than consulting with parents and giving them tools to help their children, as they did prior to the development of the Child Guidance Movement, psychologists were relegated to testing to determine the nature of a particular child’s “emotional difficulty”. The third member of the team, the psychiatrist, was responsible for intervention and treatment.

This is the state of affairs that currently exists in our society. Parents are not given tools to deal with their difficult or troublesome children; they are given diagnoses instead. They are not empowered to deal with children’s difficult behaviors, academic or social problems, etc.; parents are given a diagnosis offered as explanation of why their children are having problems. Parents are told their children have attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, Asberger’s syndrome or autism, oppositional defiant disorder of childhood, etc.

I think this state of affairs exists because there is no money to be made in mental health. The mother lode for counselors and child therapists is convincing parents that children are troubled and emotionally disturbed. For example, I offer a program on www.parentsastherapists.com to help parents solve temper tantrums for less than $50 and the program is fully guaranteed. I offer this program because I think children having temper tantrums are troublesome and need to be taught better self-control. I could, instead, offer a diagnosis and convince parents their children “are angry”. Of course, I have no evidence of anger in children other than the fact that they are yelling, thrashing about, etc. (i.e., having a temper tantrum). Anger is inferred and unsubstantiated, but parents are not equipped to deal with angry children. Dealing with an angry child requires professional intervention. Unfortunately, the treatment of choice is “talk therapy” and talking to the children week after week and month after month (at $100 per hour or more) does not require significant intelligence, training, or experience. There is very little research suggesting that children benefit from therapy or counseling but approaches to helping children stemming from the Child Guidance Movement are alive and doing very well in America today.

Alphabet soup; is it ADHD, ODD, or BRAT? I have commented elsewhere on my website that there is no money to be made in health and that we actually do not have a health system in America. This is particularly true when it comes to “mental health services” for children. Here is what I see as an interesting dynamic and set of circumstances. The comments I make here are related to comments elsewhere on www.parentsastherapists.com .

For example, I view difficult children as troublesome. Mental health in America tends to view difficult children as troubled or emotionally disturbed. Sigmund Freud knew how to make a buck! Define the normal behavior of children as pathological and blame parents (mothers in particular) for creating problems in their children through inappropriate parenting. Once again, the distinction between troubled and troublesome is very important. If children are behaving normally (even though their behavior is troublesome to parents and difficult to understand) parents can be given the skills necessary to improve their children’s behavior. However, as soon as it is concluded that a particular child is troubled rather than troublesome, parents are taken out of the loop. They are no longer considered to be qualified to help their children and the suggestion is made that children will only get better through counseling or therapy with a professional consultant (e.g., psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, etc.).

The “treatment” of choice for children considered to be troubled is “talk therapy” and this is what parents have come to expect. They believe that counselors will somehow talk to their children and make them better. This continues as the treatment of choice for children even though there is scant evidence in the psychological literature over the last 50 years to indicate that such interventions work; the usual outcome is endless therapy and a final admission by the therapist that he or she “has done everything possible”. Little if any improvement is seen, counseling is ended, and parents move on to their child’s next therapist. I firmly believe that most problems considered mental health issues in children are merely behavioral problems that can be solved by parents if they are provided with appropriate disciplinary tools. Another comment made elsewhere on my website is that parents have not been taught to discipline their children. They have been taught to reward and punish, and such strategies typically make things worse.

Back to the dynamic in mental health for children mentioned above. I think it is fairly simple and straightforward. First, children are immature and naturally do things parents don’t understand. Parents typically do not wet the bed, soil themselves, or have temper tantrums. Most do not resist taking showers or brushing teeth. They do not cause commotions in restaurants and generally take reasonably good care of their belongings and their surroundings. When parents see these qualities in their children, however, they seem odd and inappropriate from the worldview of adults. Adults therefore do not view the behaviors as normal and merely troublesome.

When unexpected or unusual behaviors occur, parents are usually at a loss with respect to knowing how to deal with them. Because parents are not equipped to discipline effectively or to change behavior, they try to understand why it is occurring. And, there is always something happening in families that can be used to explain the problem. For example, it may be concluded that one child is having problems because his father is a workaholic and is never home. It might also be concluded that another child is having “emotional problems” or is “angry” because his father is chronically unemployed and always around. Child #3 is having problems because his best friend moved away and child #4 is having problems because Fluffy, the family pet, ran away or was killed on the highway. There is a little bit (or a lot) of Sigmund Freud in all of us! When something happens that is difficult to understand, we look for an underlying cause. All of this, however, is speculation. Additionally, it really doesn’t matter. You have had difficulties in your life and I have had difficulties in mine. Nevertheless, we are expected to behave responsibly. Your child should also be held accountable; expected to behave appropriately and responsibly and you can teach him or her to do so by using true discipline rather than rewards and punishments. So, put away the charts and stickers, throw away the naughty chair, and consult with me for the effective tools to manage and change your child’s “troublesome” behaviors.

Behavior problem? Whose problem is it? We often view children in a very negative way when they are difficult, troublesome, or misbehave. We claim that children are manipulative, oppositional, and that they act out for attention. Let me suggest another possibility. I don’t think children misbehave. I think children behave in ways we don’t understand because it gives them a sense of control over people and events important to them; what we view as misbehavior makes their environment predictable. I once read that all behavior is coping behavior, and I think this is true of children; no matter how unusual their behavior might be.

Behavior problems are not problems for children;
they are problems for everyone else!

Consider the example of a child acting out and disrupting an elementary classroom. For whatever reason, the child in question is not enjoying success in the classroom and has learned a characteristic way of behaving to cope with his classroom problems. You see, the child is solving his problem; he is controlling the classroom and responses from the teacher and others are very predictable. So, whose problem is it? The other children in the classroom have a problem because they are distracted from learning. The teacher has a problem because her classroom and learning plan is disrupted. The school principal has a problem because of time spent trying to deal with an unruly child. The child’s parents have a problem when they are called in for a school meeting or are notified of their child’s difficulty. The child is doing just fine!

Interestingly, if I went to the same classroom and caused a disruption or commotion, I would not be allowed to enter the classroom again the following day. Misbehaving children disrupt classrooms on a daily basis, yet are invited to return; day after day, week after week, until they become too disruptive and are suspended. What better solution for a child who, for whatever reason, does not like school? Act out long enough, and you won’t have to go.

Here is another example encountered frequently in children; shoplifting. Once again, all behavior is coping behavior. A child sees something he wants and takes it. What happens if he gets caught? The police, the store manager, three social workers and a priest get together to tell him he is not a bad boy but he is doing bad things. He probably will be encouraged to apologize. Then, he goes home and the incident is forgotten. Now, suppose you or I go to a store and shoplift an item. What would happen to us? Rather than being told we are good people doing bad things, we would be read our Miranda rights, stuffed unceremoniously into the back of a patrol car, and we would spend the night in jail. The judge the next day would not be looking for an apology. His objective would be to make us take responsibility for our misdeed by applying appropriate consequences.

Now, I am not suggesting that children should be prevented from going to school or that they should go to jail if they pilfer an attractive item from a store. I am suggesting that parents, teachers, and others, need to have a better understanding of why children do the things they do in order to deal with the problems differently so that children develop better self-control. In the classroom example, it would be appropriate for a teacher to meet a disruptive child at the door explaining he cannot enter until he pulls himself together and thinks about behaving himself and being less disruptive. The teacher could add that, if and when he disrupts, he will be ejected from class for a few minutes to pull himself together and think about his behavior; after which he will be allowed to return and try again.

In the shoplifting example, parents should not make a big deal out of the fact that something was taken and their child was caught shoplifting (remember, he is a child who was tempted and not a thief). Parents should realize also that it likely is not the first time Junior put an attractive item in his pocket. The important question here is what the parents will do the next time they go shopping!

I think we all want our children to grow to be good adults. If they are to become good adults (according to my Theory of Noncombative Child Management and Discipline), they should be treated as adults while they are growing and learning about how the world works. Most parents are good adults. I am a fairly good adult. What would happen if you wanted to invite me to give a talk to one of your social groups yet heard that I “took things”? I think you would still have me talk but you would watch me very closely. That is, you would treat me as a thief if it was rumored I could not avoid taking things that caught my eye. Why not treat children who take things the same way? Stop outside the store and see what is in your child’s pockets. Then, inform him that you will “pat him down” again before leaving the store and that any contraband found would be returned to its rightful place. One of the greatest deterrents to taking things is knowledge that one will be caught.

At any rate, evaluate your child’s behavior in light of this conversation. Don’t view behavior as abnormal, even though it seems abnormal in an adult context and from an adult point of view. Once again, behavior problems are not problems for children; they are problems for everyone else. If we want children to behave more appropriately, their inappropriate behaviors and poor choices must become problems for them so they are motivated to change and behave more appropriately. And, the “consequences” of their behavior must reflect true discipline and not arbitrary rewards and punishments, which only make matters worse. If you have concerns about your child’s behavior, contact me for a free consultation and I will help you help your child by teaching you to be a true disciplinarian.

The unintended risks of rewards. Parents, teachers, and others dealing with children routinely use rewards (and punishments) in their approaches to “discipline”. Rewards are used because part of our folk wisdom about discipline and why people behave as they do includes recognition that rewards can be used to strengthen desired behavior. Rats are trained to press bars with food rewards in the psychological laboratory or classroom, dogs are trained to “shake hands” or to roll over, and parents use rewards to teach their children to behave.

Psychologists typically do not use the term reward when referring to objects or events that strengthen behavior; we use the term “reinforcer” and one well-established function of reinforcers is the “rewarding function” just discussed. That is, presenting a reinforcer following a behavior should increase the probability of that behavior in the future.

Another function of reinforcers is referred to as an “eliciting” function. That is, reinforcers can be used to elicit or draw out desired behaviors in a variety of organisms, including children. We can offer children money, privileges, or gifts for cleaning their bedrooms, feeding pets, or moving a woodpile from one place to another in the backyard.

Now to the scientific stuff that isn’t immediately obvious to parents, teachers, or counselors. In fact, most psychologists are unaware a third function or effect of reinforcers that is referred to as “overjustification”. Overjustification results when rewards are used with behaviors that should be intrinsically, inherently, or personally rewarding. That is, when rewards or reinforcers are used with behaviors that individuals find appealing or interesting in and of themselves.

As an example from the psychology laboratory, an experiment was conducted using two groups of college students. They were told the experiment involved “solving puzzles”. Similar puzzles were available to the college students in the waiting room as they awaited their turn to participate in the experiment. They were not aware that the real experiment was their behavior in the waiting room; not what was done in the experimental room. The amount of time each college student spent working with the puzzles in the waiting room was recorded. In the experimental room, one group of students simply spent more time working with similar puzzles while the experimenter “recorded their performance”. The second group of students was given a monetary reward for each puzzle successfully solved. Both groups then were asked to return to the waiting room to await their scores or results. The experimenters again recorded the amount of time each group spent playing with the puzzles after returning to the waiting room. The results revealed very clearly that the rewarded group showed significantly less interest in working with the puzzles after returning to the waiting room. The group that was not rewarded for solving the puzzles continued to show significantly greater interest in them.

As a second example, an experiment was conducted in an elementary school in Boston. The investigators wanted to know if rewarding reading with tangible rewards would increase reading ability and amount read by a group of underachieving fourth-grade students. The investigators opened a school store to dispense rewards and students could exchange points they earned by reading for a variety of toys, school supplies, etc. Rather than using the incentives only with poor readers, however, the experimenters allowed all of the children in fourth grade to participate in the experiment. That is, good readers also earned points and rewards for reading, as did the poor readers. As expected, the poor readers spent more time reading when the rewards were available. The good readers who previously enjoyed reading continued to read as they had in the past. When the experiment ended, the school store was closed and rewards for reading were withdrawn. Guess what happened? Everyone stopped reading or read significantly less! The poor readers spent less time reading and the good readers, after being rewarded for reading, also showed a substantial decrease in the amount of time they spent with books. We seem to conclude that anything done for a reward must not be worth doing without a reward.

This is a fascinating phenomenon with great implications for discipline and academic success. Rewarding children for “behaving themselves” might lead to worse behavior when rewards are suspended. Children rewarded for academics and learning subsequently might spend less time learning if rewards are not available.

Anyone interested in this topic is referred to a must read book, Punished by Rewards, written by Alfie Kohn. He demonstrates very clearly that rewards are ineffective and result in very negative unintended consequences. The original research dealing with overjustification dates back to the 1970s; I came upon and was very impressed by this research as a graduate student and I have never used rewards or suggested rewards to parents in more than 30 years as a professional pediatric psychologist. I also have three children; rewards were not used as disciplinary tools in my family, and they should not be used in yours.

As an aside, you should be aware that rewards, when they are effective, are effective only with very trivial and insignificant behaviors. As mentioned above, rewards or incentives “would work” if you want a dog fed, room cleaned, or woodpile moved. However, parents also attempt to use rewards to improve or strengthen very complex skills or behaviors. We offer children monetary rewards for good grades or prevailing in a sporting event. We pay them for “doing better” or “pulling up their grades”. What reward do you think would be effective in making you more competent in calculus, Spanish, or playing soccer? Because of over-emphasis on rewards, we often entice children to succeed instead of helping them do better.

Ages, stages, and developmental readiness. Developmental readiness is a concept that is abused and not well understood by parents and professionals in our society. It is one more example of what I refer to as “institutionalized maltreatment of children”. There is nothing wrong with the concepts of readiness or stages of development. They were very useful when introduced in the 1940s and 1950s by psychologists Robert Sears and Louise Bates Ames and physicians Arnold Gesell and Francis Ilg. These authors demonstrated, for example, that children differ temperamentally from age to age and from stage to stage. They described four-year-old children as exuberant and “out of bounds”. This was a natural stage seen in four-year-olds and not something considered abnormal. Children at the ages of seven years and nine years were described as insecure emotionally, and five year olds often become fearful or anxious even though they tend to be pleasant, easy-going, and easy to parent.

These authors suggested that knowledge of a child’s developmental stage would help parents and teachers tailor their parenting and educational practices so that what was done was consistent with a particular child’s stage of development. That is, it was recommended that approaches to discipline and education take a child’s developmental stage and temperament into consideration. Children should be disciplined differently and taught differently at different ages at stages.

Ages and stages and developmental readiness are very real. The problem with these concepts, which were hugely popular in education in the past and continue to be at present, is that the theorizing has been misinterpreted and has come to mean something very different than originally intended. Rather than considering a child’s developmental status in relation to optimizing approaches to discipline and education, developmental status and readiness have become prerequisites for education.

Many school districts have come to use developmental readiness as a prerequisite for entry into school. A variety of developmental tests of readiness exist and include such tasks as stacking blocks, using scissors, identifying colors, etc. Instead of using these tests to assess a particular child’s developmental status so optimally beneficial approaches to education can be selected, the tests have been used to determine whether or not a child should (or can) go to school. Children at different stages are not taught differently; some are allowed to go to school while parents are told that others “aren’t quite ready”. Take your child home, come back in one year, and we’ll see if he or she is ready then. This is not at all what these authors intended.

Carl Rogers…still going strong. Carl Rogers was a hugely influential psychologist in the humanistic tradition that enjoyed a stellar career; he was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Of interest here is his theory of personality development as I believe it has very significant implications for parents, children, and parenting. I am going to summarize his ideas briefly but not exhaustively or in great detail. Many references, online and elsewhere, can be found if you are interested in pursuing his ideas in greater depth.

Historically, philosophical views of children have differed at any point in time and predominant views of children seem to vary from generation to generation. One view of children I believe is misguided but continues to flourish has been referred to as “Original Sin”. Children are seen as willful and wicked; locked in a battle of wills with their parents. Parents must win this battle at all cost or their home will be dominated by a self-serving and self-indulgent child. Spare the rod and spoil the child is their mantra; James Dobson, psychologist and founder of Focus on the Family, is probably the most visible and influential proponent of this view of children; it is commonly seen in evangelical religious thinking and writing about children. Corporal punishment and spanking are staunchly defended by parents and professionals subscribing to this viewpoint. Dobson, for example, advocates hitting children but suggests using a paddle or spoon “because the hand is for loving”. Go figure!

Another view of children championed by behavioral psychologists such as John B. Watson in the 1920s and B.F. Skinner in the second half of the 20th century is the “Tabula Rasa” or “blank slate” view of children. These and other behavioral psychologists viewed children as blank slates; believing their development could take any given course based on their experiences and interactions with their environment. They also believed children were hedonistic and self-indulgent because their behavior was based on a “pleasure principle”. Rewards and punishments were emphasized in development and it was assumed children would pursue any behavior resulting in pleasurable consequences and would avoid any behaviors resulting in painful or unpleasant consequences. These views led parents down the garden path of behavior modification and use of rewards and punishments in “discipline”.

A third philosophical view of children and one that represents Carl Rogers’ thinking has been referred to as a “Horticultural” view of children. Children are seen to be inherently good and all that is needed for optimal development is sunshine, moisture, and nutrients in the form of positive, supportive, and affectionate parenting from significant people in their lives.

The particular view of inherent goodness posed by Carl Rogers was a hypothesized drive in human beings toward what he referred to as “self-actualization”. Stated simply, he believed children were born with an instinctive drive toward self-actualization; a drive to develop to the greatest degree or the highest level possible. He also believed children were born with a need for unconditional positive regard from significant others. That is, he proposed children must experience love and affection from parents and others “unconditionally” if they are to have the security and self-confidence needed to continue their journey to self-actualization. He suggested problems develop when parents and significant others impose on children what he referred to as “conditions of worth”. That is, rather than being loved unconditionally, abnormal development occurs when children are forced to submit to terms or conditions in order to feel loved or accepted. Rather than “I will love you without question and without condition”, some children are raised with “I will love you if you do this” or “I will love you if you stop doing that”.

You might think of a child in the course of development enjoying a finite reservoir of psychological and emotional energy; all of which should be directed to becoming self actualized. If a child does not experience unconditional positive regard, a portion of that energy is channeled to satisfy conditions imposed by parents and others and the child’s developmental trajectory will be diverted away from becoming become fully self-actualized. Children experiencing significant conditions of worth also exhibit diminished self-esteem and a variety of behavioral, emotional, and adaptive difficulties throughout life.

The implication here for parents is that they must do all that is possible to present an emotional atmosphere in the home in which children can feel valued unconditionally. This does not mean that children are not to be disciplined or directed. It does mean that children should be treated fairly and humanely rather than being rewarded, punished, or otherwise baited or forced to submit to often inappropriate parental demands and conditions through what parents commonly and erroneously refer to as “discipline”. Once again, teaching children “I will love you if you do this” or “I will love you if you stop doing that”.

In Unconditional Parenting, author Alfie Kohn presents a strong case for parenting practices that seem to be very consistent with Carl Rogers’ theorizing. It is a recommended read but falls somewhat short because the author does not provide parents with strategies for discipline that enable them to parent unconditionally. Such strategies can be found in my approach to Noncombative Child Management and Discipline.

Temperamental fit. Temperamental fit refers to the compatibility or incompatibility of a parent’s personality or temperament and a child’s personality or temperament. Historically, psychologists and other clinicians and counselors have focused on children’s temperament as a critical issue in parenting success. Children were described as difficult, fussy, slow to warm, etc. Research conducted in the 1960s by psychiatrist Stella Chess and her associates revealed that infants differed significantly along nine dimensions also temperament and these temperamental characteristics were still present and easily recognized in follow-up studies with these individuals over the next 40 years. Success or lack of success in parenting was frequently attributed to whether or not a particular child was easy, difficult, etc. The personality of the parent did not receive particular attention unless parents exhibited significant and obvious psychopathology.

More recently, clinicians and others interested in children and parenting issues began to focus on temperamental characteristics of both children and parents; considering, in particular, compatibility and incompatibility of the respective temperaments. Those of you with several children will probably recognize that you do not interact in an equally effective or easy manner with all of your children. You may find it easier to spend time with one child than it is to spend time with another, even though you clearly love all of your children.

Consider, for example, the easy-going and laid-back parent of an active, loud, and boisterous child. Parenting an active child would be more difficult for such a parent than dealing effectively with a second child who was also easy going and laid back. Or, consider the very active and involved parent who might have a lethargic and inactive child who would prefer to sit and engage in sedentary activities. This parent would also have difficulty.

The message here for parents is to evaluate the congruence between his or her personality and temperament and the temperaments of children. Rather than asking why your child is difficult, ask if the difficulty can be attributed to any extent to differences in your respective personalities and, consequently, to your expectations. If your child is active and you are not, find more active pursuits you can both enjoy. If your child is inactive while you are energetic and busy, damp down your enthusiasm and find relatively less active and less demanding activities you can share with your child.