Paper presented at the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences National Convention. February 11-13, 2002, Las Vegas, NV

In response to Biglan’s (1998) plea for more empirical evaluation of sounds good parenting models, the authors empirically reviewed Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP). It was found that Dinkmeyer and McKay’s STEP parenting system is founded on many scientifically unsupported ideas of Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs. It was also found that the authors of STEP make the following claims that lack empirically based scientific evidence: 1) there is a large body of research on STEP’s effectiveness, 2) the use of logical consequences is an effective behavior change procedure, 3) there is a distinction between discipline and punishment, and (4) reinforcement and punishment are detrimental to children and should not be used as a behavior change procedure.

A second parenting system which Biglan identified as lacking scientific support is Systematic Training for Effective Parenting, also know as STEP. In reviewing this parenting system, we will cover three main objectives: 1) historically review the people and procedures used to create the psychological ideas behind STEP, 2) review the basic principles of STEP, and 3) present an empirical evaluation of STEP.

I. Historical Review of STEP & Creators

The main contributors to Systematic Training for Effective Parenting are:

1) Alfred Adler

2) Rudolf Dreikurs

3) Dinkmeyer and McKay

While Dinkmeyer and McKay officially created and named Systematic Training for Effective Parenting, STEP is based largely on the psychological ideas of Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs. Adler was born in Vienna and raised in a nonreligious, politically active Democratic-Socialist family. He worked with Sigmund Freud from 1902 to 1911. Adler=s views about society, psychology, and life were based on the views of Karl Marx, someone Adler greatly admired. In fact, the basic assumptions of Adlerian Psychology were based on statements from Marx’s early writings.

Adler advocated the idea that families, presided over by parents, resulted in children with poor psychosocial development. Adler demonstrates this view in the following statement:

Education in the home (what the child learns in the home) therefore commits the gravest of psychological errors in inoculating children with the false ideas that they must be superior to everyone else and consider themselves better than all other human beings. Any organization of the family, which is based upon the idea of leadership of the father, cannot be separated from this thought (Adler, 1927, p. 280).

Adler felt children were simply miniature adults and families should be a form of socialistic democracy where the rights of children should be equal to those of parents. He felt that the important relationship for a child was between the child and the state (government) rather than between the child and his parents. Just seven years before he died Adler said:

The hope of parenting the children of tomorrow rests primarily on converting the schools and teachers although the cooperation of parents is, of course, never rejected. While the teacher should welcome and stimulate the cooperation of the parents, she does not have to depend on it (Adler, 1930, p. vii).

As a humanist, Adler believed true principles were identified more from a subjective, intuitive, and evaluative process within an individual than from empirically based types of scientific investigations involving control groups and inferential statistics. Adler did not use nomothetic scientific methods to validate his psychological theory. In fact, he started the Journal of Individual Psychology and would not allow scientific research based on control groups and inferential statistics to be published in that journal.

Another contributor to Systematic Training for Effective Parenting was Rudolf Dreikurs. Dreikurs worked with Adler from 1931 to 1933 and was very much impressed with Adler’s’ theories. After Adler’s death, Dreikurs published a number of parenting books based on Adler’s’ ideas. Dreikurs pushed Adler’s’ idea that parents should substantially limit their role in correcting children. He backed up the idea initially proposed by Herbert Spencer (1890) that parents should not reward and punish children, but let children learn by experiencing the natural consequences of their actions.

Throughout his parenting books, Dreikurs characterizes parental punishment as useless, absurd, and downright harmful (1948). He also pushed the idea that there is a distinction between discipline and punishment (1972) to the extent that child advocate groups had a number of distinctions between punishment and discipline included in the 1979 Interdisciplinary Glossary of Child Abuse and Neglect published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Some of these distinctions include:

1) Punishment denies a child can change.

2) The purpose of punishment is to inflict pain, often in an attempt to vent frustration or anger.

3) Punishment usually causes deterioration of relationships and is usually a dehumanizing experience.

4) Punishment demeans and dehumanizes a child while discipline strengthens a child=s feelings of self-worth.

It is important to note Dreikurs’ distinction between discipline and punishment was his personal opinion, and not based on any empirically based research findings. In fact, Dreikurs never published any research to validate any of his or Adlers parenting ideas.

II. STEP’s Basic Principles and Claims

In 1976, Dinkmeyer and McKay introduced Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) as a more modern and scientifically based version of the parenting approach that Adler and Dreikurs had advocated. Some of the basic principles that Dinkmeyer and McKay laid out include:

! Avoid the use of Rewards and Punishments

! Rely on Natural and Logical Consequences

! Distinguish between Discipline and Punishment

! Children=s Choice (lax) Parenting

! Birth Order

! Encouragement (Kids misbehave because they are discouraged)

! Reflective listening

Dinkmeyer and McKay adopted all seven of these parenting principles from Adler and Dreikurs without scientifically validating them. Time does not allow us to address all seven, so we will empirically evaluate the first three or four.

III. Review of Empirically Based Research Concerning STEP

Our empirical evaluation of STEP focused on three dimensions:

1. The empirical research looking at the effectiveness of STEP as a complete parenting system.

2. The empirical research looking at specific behavior change procedures and principles in STEP.

3. The empirical research looking at the role and value of punishment.

1. Research on STEP as a Complete Parenting System

In 1990, Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKay responded to an article written by Ratzlaff, Friesen, Neufeld, and Paddock reported in the Canadian Journal of Counseling the previous year, which declared the following:

A number of other researchers have evaluated the effectiveness of STEP, an Adlerian based skill-training program. Findings from studies by Steed (1971), Berrett (1975), Kierans (1976) and Nordal (1976) reported no evidence of significant change in parental attitudes concerning the parent-child relationship using the STEP program.

Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKay (1990) took issue with Ratzlaff, Friesen, Neufeld, and Paddocks 1989 references stating that STEP parenting programs produce no significant changes in parental attitudes about parenting. Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKay (1990) state, we wish to state the record concerning STEP research accurately. They point out the parenting manual identified as STEP was published in 1976 after the time Steed (1971) and Berrett’s (1975) findings were published, so the results reported in those articles do not refer to STEP. They note Kierans (1976) and Nordal (1976) were published the same year as STEP so in essence; all four articles have nothing to do with STEP.

Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKay (1990) state, There is a large body of research on the effectiveness of STEP on various dimensions. They then cited seven research investigations, three dissertations, three journal articles, and one state health publication as demonstrating STEP parenting training programs change parental attitudes.

There appear to be a few problems with Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKays statement that they wish to present an accurate record of STEP. In the first place, they claim the research findings of Steed (1971), Berrett (1975), Kierans (1976), and Nordal (1976) have nothing to do with STEP because STEP did not come into being until 1976. For one thing, Steed, Berrett, Kierans, and Nordal were evaluating Adler and Dreikurs-based parenting systems, which is what STEP, is. To say those research evaluations have nothing to do with STEP would not be accurate. Second, to say STEP did not come about until 1976 is also not quite accurate because Dinkmeyer and McKay authored Raising a Responsible Child in 1973, which included basically the same parenting principles (those of Adler and Dreikurs) as are in STEP.

Also, Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKay’s (1990) claim of accurately describing the research record of STEP is also incorrect. They failed to include other relevant research information about STEP, such as Dembo, Sweitzer, and Lauritzen’s (1985) review of ten studies evaluating Adlerian parenting approaches which included STEP. Dinkmeyer and McKay (1997) tell their readers that STEP is effective in correcting children’s’ misbehavior, yet Dembo, Sweitzer, and Lauritzen’s (1985) review of the studies indicate the Adlerian approaches they reviewed (including STEP) showed no significant change occurring in children’s’ behavior.

In Dinkmeyer, Dinkmeyer, and McKay’s (1990) self-described effort to accurately present the research on STEP, they failed to include STEP studies which report no behavior changes with STEP (e.g. Jackson, 1982; Jackson & Brown, 1986; de Sherbinin, 1981), no significant parental attitude changes (e.g. Jackson, 1982; Jackson & Brown, 1986; de Sherbinin, 1981), and no changes in self-esteem (e.g. Jackson, 1982; Jackson & Brown, 1986; de Sherbinin, 1981).

2. Research on Specific Behavior Change Procedures Advocated by STEP

Dinkmeyer and McKay emphasize natural and logical consequences as being effective behavior change procedures while condemning the parental use of reinforcement and punishment. In Weber, Crawford, and Robinson’s (1983) review of empirical support for individual behavior change procedures, they rate reinforcement and punishment in their highest category of empirically supported behavior change procedures. On the other hand, they do not rate natural and logical consequences as an effective behavior change procedure. In regard to logical consequences, Weber, Crawford, and Robinson report:

The major advantage usually cited is that logical consequences are far less likely to endanger relationships than harsher forms of punishment. Unfortunately, even though the logic of this argument seems sound, it appears that no empirical evidence supports such contentions.

Dinkmeyer and McKay (1997) report STEP’s distinction between discipline and punishment is a very important part of STEP’s effectiveness. Dinkmeyer and McKay (1976) included in their initial description of STEP a distinction between discipline and punishment that was created by Rudolph Dreikurs in 1972. In a book entitled Discipline Without Tears, Dreikurs and Cassel (1972) make a distinction between discipline and punishment where punishment is defined as being employed when one is angry and interested in retaliation, belittling or demeaning children, giving the child no choice, and implying the child has no value. In contrast, Dreikurs claims discipline is based on respect for the child, gives child choices, is firm but fair, and expresses acceptance for the child.

Dreikurs’ definition of punishment was based on his personal opinion, not empirical scientific evidence. Dreikurs distorted the definition of punishment as society typically uses the term. Our society allows speeders to be punished by a policeman giving tickets, which require fines to be paid. Society does not expect those punishment fines to be given out because policeman are angry and want to demean drivers. Society would close prisons if the government defined prisons to be used by angry government workers to demean public citizens. Speeding tickets and prison terms are intended for the purpose of correcting people’s illegal behaviors.

Our society is substantially driven by Christian ethic, which is largely defined by the Bible. The Bible describes punishment as a means to correct (e.g. Hosea 4:9), not as a means for venting anger or demeaning people. Dreikurs’ definition of punishment distorts its meaning as outlined in the Bible. It is important to remember the definition and description of punishment outlined in STEP goes against society’s common use of the term and denigrates its role and value in Christian religion.

3. Research Review of the Role and Value of Punishment

With STEP arguing so strongly against punishment, it is important to look at the experimental research specifically on punishment. Azrin and Holz (1966) mention there was at the time a growing climate against the use of punishment in society and their review of punishment research was aimed at taking a neutral, scientific look at the use and value of punishment. They compare punishment to the four most researched alternatives for reducing and/or eliminating behaviors and conclude, indeed, punishment appears to be potentially more effective than other procedures for weakening a response (p.427). This conclusion contradicts STEP claims of punishment being ineffective.

Axelrod and Apsche (1983) point out many unsupported claims have been made about punishment causing juvenile delinquency, hyperactivity, anti-social aggression, vandalism, minimal brain damage and homicide.

In the 1970's, PET and STEP were coming on the scene making strong claims condemning punishment as an ineffective behavior change procedure. In 1975, Hulse, Deese, and Egeth authored a best-selling college textbook on the Psychology of Learning and made the following statement in response to literature condemning punishment: From this literature, one can gain the strong impression that punishment is a maladaptive, ineffective, and wasteful technique to use in the establishment and guidance of behavior. Such is patently not the case... The Psychology of Learning textbooks at the present time continue to support that statement.

Hulse, Deese, and Egeth (1975) college textbook on learning did not support STEP claims (1) that natural and logical consequences were more effective than rewards and punishments or (2) that there was a distinction between discipline and punishment. Psychology of Learning textbooks since that time have also not supported those claims of STEP.

Conclusions

The conclusions we have drawn from our review of STEP and its creators include the following:

1. Adler, Dreikurs, and Dinkmeyer and McKay never carried out nor identified any substantive body of empirical scientific evidence to support their punishment/reinforcement-free parenting approach.

2. Dinkmeyer and McKay’s claims of the STEP parenting system being effective in changing children’s behavior and self-esteem are not scientifically supported. Research findings are mixed as to whether the STEP parenting system increases parent’s positive attitudes about parenting.

3. Dinkmeyer and McKay’s claim that logical consequences are more effective than rewards and punishments as a behavior change technique are not supported by scientific evidence.

4. Dinkmeyer and McKay’s claims of parental punishment and reinforcement being detrimental behavior change procedures are scientifically unsupported.

5. Dinkmeyer and McKay’s distinction between punishment and discipline is based on Dreikurs’ personal opinion and is not scientifically supported, nor is it supported by societal definitions and practice.

References

Adler, A. (1927). Understanding Human Nature. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Adler, A. (1930). The Education of Children. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

Axelrod, S., & Apsche, J. (1983). The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Hong=s (Ed.) Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Dembo, M. H., Sweitzer, M., & Lauritzen, P. (1985). An evaluation of group parent education: Behavioral, PET, and Adlerian programs. Review of Educational Research, 55, 155-200.

Dinkmeyer, D., & McKay, G. D. (1983). The Parent=s Guide. STEP/Teen Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D., & Dinkmeyer, D., Jr. (1990). Inaccuracy in STEP research reporting. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 24, 103-105.

Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D., & Dinkmeyer, D., Jr. (1997). The Parent=s Handbook. Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Dreikurs, R. (1948). The Challenge of Parenthood. New York: Hawthorne Books Inc.

Dreikurs, R., & Cassel, P. (1972). Discipline Without Tears: What to Do With Children Who Misbehave. New York: Hawthorne Books Inc.

Hulse, S. H., Deese, J., & Egeth, H. (1975). The Psychology of Learning (4^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Co.

Jackson, M. D. (1982). Effects of STEP parent education program on parent and child attitudes and child self concept and school behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Jackson, M. D., & Brown, D. (1986). Use of Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) with elementary school parents. The School Counselor, 100-105.

de Sherbinin, P. R. (1981). Psychological study of the impact of Systematic Training for Effective Parenting groups upon children=s behavior, achievement and self-ratings at home and at school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts.

Spencer, H. (1890). Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Weber, W. A., Crawford, J., Roff, L. A., & Robinson, C. (1983). Classroom Management: Reviews of the Teacher Education and Research Literature. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.