PET, STEP, and Freud=s Punishment Free Parenting: 

Scientifically Obtainable Goal or Hoax. 

Where do we go form here?

 

By  Michael Robinson, MS

North Sanpete School District - Counselor

 Rocky Mountain Behavioral Consultants

 

In 1998, Anthony Biglan gave a presentation at the American psychological Association National Convention in San Francisco.  In his presentation he said that mental health professionals have been convincing society to accept and implement scientifically unsupported and unsound parenting systems While at the same time ignoring less glamorous sounding parenting procedures which have been validated by a substantial amount of empirically based scientific research. 

Biglan said scientifically sound parenting procedures are losing society’s public relations battle to the more attractive sounds good parenting systems which are not supported by scientific evidence.

He closed his presentation by saying psychologists and other mental health professionals involved in scientific investigations designed to improve parenting have a responsibility of not only publishing results in professional journals, but also getting that information to the public in language the public can appreciate.

In response to Biglan’s presentation several psychologists interested in parenting research at Brigham Young University decided to take a closer empirical look at some of the popular parenting systems that Biglan identified as being widely accepted in society, yet, unsupported by scientific evidence.

The three earlier presentations given in this session have identified some of the important empirical highlights of our investigatory review of PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting principles mainly publicized by Benjamin Spock.  My purpose at this time is to point out several dimensions of our findings, which we feel are important points to consider about these three parenting approaches.  Namely, their claims of scientific validation and the reality of the evidence.  Given the time I have this will be brief and to the point. 

(If you would like a more in depth written report of our investigation it is available here at this convention or from Paul W.  Robinson PhD.  At BYU.)

Several dimensions of our empirical review of the three popular parenting approaches are notable

1.  First, None of the individuals who’s psychological beliefs formed the foundation of these three parenting approaches nor their followers carried out any substantive amount of empirical research upon which to base their parenting theories.   Neither Freud, Adler, nor Rogers carried out any substantive empirical research to support important points about their parenting beliefs.

Examples of beliefs not validated by empirical research include:

 

a.  Punishment inherently produces detrimental effects on childrens behavior

 

b.  Children develop better when parents play a supportive rather than directive role in the family.

 

To further illustrate this point recall that Rogers admitted his efforts to scientifically validate his theory were weak at best.  Adler and Freud both rejected the idea that their theories needed scientific validation.

2.  Second, while present day advocates of those three parenting approaches publicly claim their approaches are scientifically supported; no advocacy group has collected any substantial amount of empirical research to support these claims.  Considering the evidence made in my first point, these present day advocacy groups cannot rely upon the claim that their predecessors had already scientifically validated the theories.

3.  Third, while these three parenting approaches state punishment is ineffective and very detrimental there exists a substantial amount of empirical research, which shows the contrary is true.  That is to say that when punishment is administered correctly it is highly effective in deterring inappropriate behavior with minimal if any long-term detrimental effects.

 (e.g. Azrin & Holz, 1966; Walters & Grusec, 1977; Axelrod & Apsche, 1983)

4.  Fourth, the reviews of research studies looking at the effectiveness of PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting generally conclude there is no empirical support for these approaches being effective (e.g. Rinn & Markle, 1977; Dembo, Sxeitzer, & Lauritzen, 1985; Lipton et al.  1975?)

5.  Fifth, a review of research evaluating the effectiveness of behavior change procedures used in the parenting philosophies of PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting (such as I-messages, natural & logical consequences, communicating acceptance & etc.) found these procedures to have relatively no empirical support as behavior change agents.  In contrast, reinforcement and punishment have a great deal of empirical support to show their effectiveness as behavior change agents.  (Weber, Roff, Crawford, & Robinson, 1983)

6.  Research that investigated the issue of children being allowed to make all their own decisions versus being in families where parents preside and use consequences to direct children shows children are significantly less delinquent, anti-social, and aggressive in homes where parents preside and are directive.  This includes the use of consequences in a firm and consistent manner.  (e.g. Glueck & Glueck, 1950; McCord & McCord, 1959; McCord 1975)

7.  Seventh, all three parenting approaches have advocated a punishment free parenting approach for at least forty years, yet presently there is no nation, state, county, city, or school district that is presently implementing a punishment free system or a system where children are allowed free reign to make their all their own decisions. 

(e.g. if a medical procedure is proven effective we adopt it.  If these approaches had been truly proven to be more effective I believe we would have adopted them also.  The fact is they are not scientifically proven to be effective)

8.  Eighth, while PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting systems claim they produce children who experience a more healthy psycho-social development than children raised with consequences, no body of empirical evidence has been produced that confirms that claim.  In fact the data suggests the contrary.

 

If the empirical evidence is as strongly unsupportive of these three parenting approaches as these presentations suggest, and we believe it is, then these approaches have been and presently are making claims about being effective and empirically proven that are not only unfounded but are diverting societies attention away form parenting systems and procedures that have empirical support.

 

Biglan’s claim that scientifically unsupported parenting systems are winning the public relations battle appears to be true.  His call for behavioral and social scientists to direct some of their efforts to getting the empirical evidence concerning effective and ineffective parenting procedures to the general public rather than just publishing their findings in professional journals is an important call.

 

The mental the health profession has represented itself to society as the scientifically based watchdog that is there to protect society from such things as scientifically unsupported but good sounding parenting fads and fantasies.  However, this profession has a track record of itself ignoring empirical research in favor of sounds good ideas.  For example, Bergin and Strub (1986) interviewed practicing psychologists and reported that most of them, including Carl Rogers, said scientific evidence had little influence on them in their practice.  Cohen (1976) surveyed mental health professionals and reported that 40% of these professionals believe there is no research that is relevant to their work.  Siegel (1983) reported that practicing social workers typically do not incorporate research findings in their practice.  It is apparent that Belgian’s call for behavioral and social scientists to become more active in getting research results to the public includes getting it to mental health professionals.

 

As we reviewed the empirical research of these three parenting approaches some concerns arose.  One of the most important is the claim, associated with all three parenting approaches, that parenting can be punishment free.  A major problem with this is that their interpretation of punishment is very different from the definition society generally agrees upon.  For example, advocates for these three parenting approaches have essentially adopted Dreikurs’ definition of punishment as the infliction of pain on a child without the opportunity of a child to change and for the purpose of parents venting their anger while attempting to demean and dehumanize the child. 

However, society in general views punishment form a different perspective.  Society most commonly interprets punishment to be the application of unpleasant consequences on a person contingent upon some undesirable act for the purpose of getting that person to stop that behavior. 

Giving people tickets for speeding in traffic is intended to be a punishment for speeding.  The purpose for fining speeders is to stop or reduce their speeding, not to demean the speeders or allow police officers to vent their anger.

The purpose society has for prison terms, as punishment is to reduce crime, not to demean criminals nor have society vent anger at prison inmates. 

When a teacher finds one student bullying and threatening a classmate and if they do not give him money, the teacher punishes that bully for the purpose of decreasing future bullying.  The teacher dos not punish for the purpose of demeaning the student or to vent teacher anger.

Defining punishment as a means to correct rather than a means to vent anger or demean is how Christianity, a source of moral thought and action for the majority of society members, typically interprets and uses the term.  In the book Parent and Child put out by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1909, it says, the purpose of punishment is to correct and reform the individual (p. 187).

 

In the Bible, the Lord is quoted as saying, A...and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them for their doings (Hosea 4:9).  In this situation punishment is not used to demean or vent anger, but to correct or reduce misbehavior.  The purpose of rewards in this scripture is obviously used to increase desired behavior.       

It is important to note that learning psychologists have carried out the majority of the research on punishment and typically define their punishment as the use of an unpleasant stimulus situation contingent upon a behavior for the purpose of reducing that behavior.  Their definition of punishment says nothing about the punishment administrator being angry or any attempts to demean the one receiving the punishment.  Anger is an unnecessary and unneeded adjunctive behavior in a punishment situation that should and can be avoided.

While it is true situations that prompt the use of punishment can also prompt anger in the person administering punishment, it is not true that the application of punishment to a child inherently requires the parent to be angry.  Parental anger is not an inherent nor necessary condition for the use of punishment.  

PET, STEP, and Freud’s parenting approach argue that the creation of pain and unpleasantness in a child’s life produces long-term detrimental psychological states.  Although neither of these individuals produced research to support this theory.   It is of interesting note that even Mother Natures’ system includes pain an unpleasantness.   Mother Nature has instilled pain systems in individuals’ lives to improve the quality of life, not to reduce the quality of life.  Pain informs us of a problem and prompts us to change the conditions we are in.  If we break our ankle and step down on that ankle, we feel pain.  The pain prompts us to change our behavior (to stay off our ankle and let it heal) so as not to damage the ankle even more. 

In essence, then, a major problem with PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting claiming that parenting should be punishment free is that it advocates a sounds good idea that goes against the laws of nature in general and the known scientifically based principles of human behavior. Punishment contingencies are inherently part of any learning situation where individuals have the possibility of choosing to emit behaviors that can either improve or be detrimental to that individual’s condition.

 

At no time in the history of man has a totally punishment free parenting system been part of any ongoing society. 

Further, there never has been a functional punishment free parenting model for any of these parenting systems to point to, and build upon.

 

Another problem with the advocates of these parenting systems arguing for punishment free parenting is that it has prompted many mental health professionals to buy into this concept and propose parenting packages and procedures that are incorrect.

 For example, Hart (1999) states, My belief, however is that there are almost always better alternatives to spanking and other punitive forms of discipline, Hart then lists the following five things as alternatives:

1.  Give your child choices.

2.  Distract your child.

3.  Let your children know what the rules are in advance.

4.  Reason, reason, reason with your child.

5.  Catch your child being good and give specific praise.