Does science support Humanistic or Christian parenting: An empirical evaluation of PET, STEP, and Christian parenting techniques.
Paul W. Robinson and Todd W. Dunn
Melissa Chlarson and Stephanie Wood
Brigham Young University
Abstract
Theological beliefs of psychological theorists have played an unpublicized, but substantial role in the psychological focus of the mental health profession concerning family issues pertaining to child development. Historically, psychological theorists (e.g., Dreikurs, 1948; Adler, 1930) have cautiously treated Christian family systems as mediocre while representing sophisticated humanistic parenting systems as scientifically established. Present day mental health researchers (e.g., Capps, 1992; Bartkowski, 1995) often describe humanistic based anti-punishment approaches as mainstream parenting systems in contrast to Christian based reinforcement-punishment oriented parenting system. This paper presents a theological-scientific interactive analysis of the growing number of journal articles, which superficially compare humanistic and Christian based parenting systems in search for their scientific base and validity for their fundamental principles. .
Christopher Ellison (1996) compared Christian parenting to Humanistic parenting in the Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, and
touted Humanistic parenting as being supported by mainstream social science analysts and academic specialist (Gershoff, Miller, & Holden 1999; Bartkowski, 1995)
. Neither Ellison, nor other studies that reported similar conclusions, associated Christian parenting with this caliber of support. Two years later, in the Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Taylor and Biglan (1998) presented the claim that a Behavioral parenting approach, one that utilized punishment and rewards, was “current best practice” (p. 49) and backed by a wealth of empirical evidence.
In their study, they stated "parenting books and parenting programs have become a multimillion dollar business and most books and programs are sold without careful evaluation of their effectiveness" (p. 52).
As a conclusion, Taylor and Biglan (1998) pointed out the fact that scientifically unsupported parenting approaches were being adopted over those that were scientifically based.
Because a Christian parenting approach was behavioral in nature, through its use of punishment and reinforcement, these studies presented what appeared to be a contradiction. Was Ellison’s (1996) claim correct in reporting that scientists and academic specialists support Humanistic parenting over Christian parenting? Or, were Taylor and Biglan (1998) correct in referring to Behavioral, or Christian, parenting as current best practice? Which study, and which parenting approach was really current best practice according to science?
This study sought to respond to this question in three ways by: (1): determining which parenting approach is supported by empirical evidence; (2) scientifically evaluating the main Humanistic and Christian parenting techniques; and (3) determining the empirical value
of these two parenting approaches. The evaluation of Humanistic parenting was based on an in-depth analysis of two popular humanistic parenting guides, Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) and Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP). The evaluation of Christian parenting was provided by an analysis of the documented parenting practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
This specific Christian sect was decided upon for basically four reasons: (1) it was decided to review one Christian sect rather than create a straw man average of Christian beliefs, (2) this Christian sect was considered a mainstream religion by researchers (Ellison, and Sherkat, 1993;Grasmick, Morgan, and Kennedy, 1992), (3) this religion provided ample documentation for their family oriented beliefs, and (4) the researchers were most familiar with this religion and hesitant to misrepresent the beliefs of another faith.
The study proceeded as follows: (1) the theoretical foundations and current parenting techniques of PET and STEP were critically analyzed, (2) the Christian doctrinal position on parenting was reviewed, (3) the empirical findings were presented, and (4) implementations of the study were discussed together while offering a conclusion.
Critical analysis of PET and STEP
A study of PET revealed theoretical ties to Carl Rogers who was born at the turn of the century in 1902 in the mid-western United States. In college, Rogers wavered between the ideas of becoming a farmer or a preacher until he traveled to China for a period of six months and encountered what some describe as an “eye opening experience” (Kirschenbaum, 1979). As discovered in journal accounts and theoretical work, his trip to China changed him deeply, and from then on, Rogers began to establish his psychological theory based on client-centered therapy (Kirschenbaum, 1979). Five basic tenets of him and his theory were: (1) he did not believe in God (Kirschenbaum, 1979), (2) he is considered by most as a founder of contemporary Humanism, (3) his theory of client-centered therapy is mostly supported by subjective rather than scientific research (Bergin, & Strupp, 1972; Rogers, 1954), (4) he preferred children's choice parenting, and (4) he was against the use of punishments and consequence in parenting (Kirschenbaum, 1979).
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, a student under Carl Rogers, named Thomas Gordon, created a parenting manual entitled Parent Effectiveness Training. Gordon’s (1970) parenting approach was heavily founded in Roger’s theory of client-centered therapy. Among other key principles, these were the most relevant for this study: (1) PET was based on the use of communicated acceptance (e.g. unconditional love), I-messages, and active listening, (2) PET advocated children’s choice parenting, and (3) PET was against the use of punishment, rewards, and biblical parenting. To elaborate on children's choice parenting, PET taught parents to let children make their own decisions about getting into trouble at school, choosing bad association, drinking, and participating in drugs (Gordon, 1970, p. 282). Parents were told that they have no power to prevent such behavior and were instead taught to act as models of what their children should do (Gordon, 1970, p. 279). The stance of the PET parenting system against biblical parenting was seen on page four of the PET manual where the authors expressed their feelings of discouragement over the fact that parents almost universally cling to a parenting approach that was 2000 years old (Gordon, 1970). Here, they referred to the Bible and parent’s unwillingness to replace biblical teachings on parenting with PET.
The theoretical foundation of STEP was traced back to Alfred Adler, a prominent psychologist born in Vienna in 1870. He worked along with Sigmund Freud from 1902 until 1911 and later left to establish his own psychological group. Adler thought that scientific proof was just a drop of water in the broad stream of personality and therefore looked for simple explanations to support his theory instead of empirical ones (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1979). He was opposed to the use of empirical research in psychology and in 1935, established a journal, currently entitled The Journal of Individual Psychology, which excluded all articles possessing nomothetic research. Relevant tenets of Adler and his theory were: (1) he was a democratic socialist and an atheist, (2) he supported governmental supervision of families and viewed the government as mother (Furtmuller, 1979), (3) his theory focused on the social individual, (4) it was against the use of punishment, and (5) it was supported by subjective rather than scientific research.
Adler believed that by the age of five our personalities where set and that children were as miniature adults (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1979). He claimed parents could best help their children by seeing them as adults and allowing them freedom to make their own decisions.
Rudolf Dreikurs, Adler’s colleague from 1931 until 1933, made what was perhaps the most important point in Adler's developmental theory when he outlined 15 ways in which discipline differed from punishment (Dreikurs, Cassel, & Kehoe, 1974). He, along with Cassel and Kehoe, subjectively argued that discipline allowed children to change and gave them encouragement, while punishment barred change and demeaned children. The scientific distinction between discipline and punishment was the personal opinion of Dreikurs that became part of the 1976 Interdisciplinary Glossary on Child Abuse and Neglect published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. A couple of these distinctions were: (1) discipline is based on respect for a child and his capabilities; punishment denies a child can change, and (2) the purpose of discipline is to educate children in new ways of behaving; the purpose of punishment is to inflict pain, often in an attempt to vent frustration or anger. College textbooks, from the 1960's up to the present, that are based on learning have made no such distinctions between punishment and discipline.
In the early 1970’s, Don Dinkmeyer and Gary McKay (1976) built on Adler’s and Dreikur’s theory to establish the parenting manual entitled Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. Some basic principles of STEP were the use of: (1) natural/logical consequences, (2) children’s choice parenting, (3) reflective listening, and (4) the discipline-punishment distinction (Dinkmeyer, & McKay, 1976). Natural and logical consequences, first conceptualized by Herbert Spencer in 1860, were meant to replace punishment and rewards in STEP. Dinkmeyer and Mckay (1983) claimed that "rewards and punishment are leftovers from our autocratic past-and unappetizing ones at that" (p. 122).
Review of Christian Doctrine
Christian Parenting
This part of the paper discussed Christian religions and their stance toward parenting, in particular the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This information was presented in a scientific rather than a proselyting viewpoint.
Christians considered the Bible as the written record, which formed the foundation for their beliefs. These writings described man's earthly existence as being created by a loving and compassionate higher intelligence for the purpose of providing each human being with free agency and earthly learning experiences. The Bible took place within the context of obeying laws, experiencing consequences (including rewards and punishments), and believing in the principle that the eternal progression of man is based on emulating Christ's living example and teachings which emphasize finding joy in serving others and in putting other individuals' needs above one's own.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like other Christian sects, firmly believed in the Bible and taught its members that the statements in the Bible represent the word and teachings of God. Along with the Bible, this Christian sect promotes a second book called the Book of Mormon as a companion book to the Bible which was in the form of chapter and verse like the Bible. The Bible included the doctrine of God intermixed with a historical accounting of the people and area around Israel before, during and after Christ's sojourn on earth. The Book of Mormon included additional doctrinal statements of God along with an historical account of the people in the Americas from 600 BC to a short time after Jesus Christ lived on the earth. The doctrine in the Book of Mormon was compatible with doctrinal statements in the Bible but frequently added additional information about teachings such as rewards, punishments, and family responsibilities.
The position of the LDS church on gaining knowledge and the importance of daily actions was compatible with the principles of science. The Mormon belief that science and religion should be compatible was supported by the following comments from Brigham Young, the second president of the LDS church (from 1844-1877):
"Our religion will not clash or contradict the facts of science in any particular "(Widstoe 1971, p.258-9).
"It (the gospel) comprehends all true science known by man, angels, and the gods. There is one true system and science of life; all else tends to death " (Widstoe 1971, p. 2).
Brigham Young's statement "with God... there is no difference in spiritual and temporal labors – all are one" (Widstoe 1971, p.8) exemplified the importance of everyday activities and experiences in Mormon life as do the following statements by Brigham Young:
"We take all the laws, rules, ordinances and regulations contained in the scriptures and practice them as far as possible, and then keep learning and improving until we can live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Widstoe 1972, p.3).
"The religion of Jesus Christ is a matter-of-fact religion, and taketh hold of every day duties and realities of life" (Widstoe 1971, p.12).
There are dozens of references in the Bible that referred to the use of rewards and punishments (e.g. Hosea 4:9; Ruth 2:12; Malachi 3: 8-10; Leviticus 26:18; Jeremiah 44:29; Proverbs 23:13; Proverbs 22:15; Jeremiah 11:22; Revelations 3:19; Hebrews 12:5-8).
These few verses pointed out several important ideas about punishment. According to these scriptures: (1) punishment was obviously an unpleasant experience that we should not despise, (2) God used punishment on "all" those he loved (it is not something to be used to demean people), (3) all fathers were to punish at times (it does not suggest using a great deal of punishment), (4) punishment was a means to correct people from misbehaving.
If a person was interested in looking up empirical research findings to question the effectiveness of reinforcement and punishment or consequences as changing behavior techniques, quantifiable research could be found as far back as 1898 when Thorndike presented evidence indicating reinforcement (then called satisfiers) and punishment (then called annoyers) could be used effectively to influence behavior. Psychological research dealing with reinforcement and punishment became a major part of the learning sub field in psychology through the work of several researchers. In their research-based classic learning text entitled Conditioning and Learning Hilgard and Marquis (1940) included 973 references, 85% of which were data based journal articles. Citing an average of three research articles per page over 340 pages of text, Hilgard and Marquis presented substantial empirical research findings leaving little, if any, doubt as consequence being effective in changing the behavior of humans and animals.
In 1975 the top selling college learning text authored by Hulse, Deese and Egeth included references to 700 journal research articles published since 1940 and said about reinforcement "... we are quite well equipped in particular to make important and useful comments about the application of the principles of reinforcement to any circumscribed features of behavior, both basic and applied" (p.105). At this time there had been some literature, incorrectly reporting negative comments about punishment. After reporting research evidence from hundreds of articles demonstrating the effectiveness of reinforcement and punishment in their textbook, Hulse, Deese and Egeth (1975) concluded "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 ..." (p.201).
While Hilgard and Marquis (1940) did have some research evidence in the applied area of psychology to report, it was during the 1960s when applied research studying the effects of reinforcement and punishment really began taking off. Schwitzgebel and Kolb (1964) successfully employed reinforcement and punishment procedures to induce behavior changes among adolescent delinquents. A three-year follow up of their subjects showed a significant reduction in frequency and severity of crime compared to a matched-pair control group. Baer (1962) employed reinforcement and punishment teaching to eliminate thumb sucking in young children. Williams (1959) employed reinforcement removal procedures to eliminate tantrum behavior. Madsen, Becker, and Thomas (1968) compared the effectiveness of explaining rules, using praise, and ignoring in controlling classroom misbehavior and demonstrated verbal reinforcement was much more effective than just talking things out in five different elementary school classrooms.
With PET and STEP proclaiming so strongly against punishment, it was important to look at the experimental research specifically on punishment. Around the time Azrin and Holz (1966) conducted their review on the effects of punishment, a growing climate against the use of punishment in society existed. Their review of punishment research was therefore aimed at taking a neutral, scientific look at the use and values of punishments. They compared punishment to the four most researched alternatives for reducing and/or eliminating behaviors and concluded "indeed, punishment appears to be potentially more effective than other procedures for weakening a response" (p.427). Azrin and Holz's review of the experimental research on punishment: (1) strongly contradicted PET and STEP unsupported claims that punishment was ineffective, (2) included no reference to a substantial body of scientific research showing punishment to be ineffective as PET and STEP claim, and (3) presented no scientific evidence to support PET and STEP's claim that their techniques for controlling behavior (e.g., unconditional love, active listening, logical consequences) were more effective than reinforcement and punishment.
In 1977, Walters and Grusec historically reviewed all the human and animal experimental research on the possible main effects and side effects of punishment. The research findings reported in their review strongly supported the idea that punishment was effective and contradicted PET and STEP's claims of punishment being ineffective. They ended their review with the following statement "... a good case can be made that punishment is a more effective technique for behavior change than is reinforcement. And this leads to an inescapable conclusion: Punishment will always be a necessary tool for behavior change."
Axelrod and Apsche (1983) reviewed punishment research on humans in their book entitled The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. They presented data from hundreds of experimental research studies showing alternative types of punishment (e.g., time out, overcorrection, verbal reprimands, physically painful punishments) could be very effective when used correctly. They reviewed the research on the potential side effects of punishments. Their research review supported the overall conclusions noted by Azrin and Holz (1960) and Walters and Grusec (1977) that punishment was a very effective behavior change technique. Additionally, Axelrod and Apsche stated "The relationship between the child and adult who administers punishment does not deteriorate but in fact improves, as long as the adult is the source of positive experiences as well as punishment." Neither Walters and Grusec (1977) nor Axelrod and Apsche (1983) reported any published experimental research showing PET and STEP's techniques of unconditional love, active listening, or logical consequences as being more effective than punishment in controlling the misbehavior of children. Neither of those books, nor any college textbook on the psychology of learning, presented any research evidence supporting STEP's conclusion that there was a distinction between discipline and punishment in controlling misbehaving children with discipline being effective in contrast to punishment being detrimental.
In 1983, a task force of psychologists (Weber, Crawford, Roff, & Robinson, 1983) was commissioned by Educational Testing Service to review the research evidence supporting the effectiveness of both positive and negative reinforcement. The task force also reported substantial research evidence supporting punishment, including time out, privilege removal, over correction, response cost, satiation, and extinction. However, the task force reported the corrective techniques of active listening, unconditional love (communicating acceptance), and logical consequence, which PET and STEP claimed had been scientifically proven to be more effective than reinforcement and punishment, actually had no body of scientific evidence indicating they were effective. They concluded by stating "Although acceptance is a widely advocated strategy, an examination of the literature yields little empirical support for its desirability or effectiveness" (p. 37). No updated review of the research has been published since to contradict those findings.
Another interesting study to note was done by Glueck and Glueck (1950). In their study they looked at the parenting patterns of people whose children were juvenile delinquents. They found that delinquent boys were 13 times (57% to 4.4%) more likely to come from homes with permissive mothers than punitive overly strict mothers, and 93% of the delinquent boys came from families where the mothers did not keep a close watch on their sons and let their sons make their own choices. 1959, McCord & McCord re-evaluated an 18-year project involving 650 boys. They hypothesized that a “talking-it-out” counseling approach, which is a Humanistic parenting approach, would reduce aggression and juvenile delinquency. The approach was found to be ineffective in reducing juvenile delinquency, and it was actually found that twice as many delinquents came from lax and permissive homes.
Eleven years later, Sears (1961) reported that after retesting the now 12-year-old boys evaluated in his 1957 study with Maccoby and Levin, it was found that parental permissiveness was still significantly correlated with increased aggression in boys and that the parental use of physical punishment was not significantly related to aggression in the boys.
Yarrow et al. in 1968 replicated Sears et al.’s 1957 study and found no significant relationship between physical punishment and child aggression. In 1974, Shuck reanalyzed both Yarrow et al. and Sears et al.’s data with path analysis and concluded that the data from both studies showed no significant relationship between physical punishment and child aggression and that it did, however, show a significant relationship between aggression and parental permissiveness.
Implications and Conclusions
Obvious implications of this study are: (1) when recommending parenting systems to clients, scientists should have a knowledge of their empirical value, (2) the science of man does not always equal true science, (3) after almost thirty years of existence, the creators and advocates of PET and STEP have yet to provide a substantial amount of empirical support showing positive outcome in children. PET and STEP are intended to replace, not coexist with, Christian parenting. On page 3 of the PET manual, it stated “punishment can be discarded forever in disciplining children-and I mean all kinds of punishment” (Gordon, 1970). According to Gordon (1970),
a coexistence with any parenting technique that involves punishment in not acceptable. Neither PET nor STEP have yet to prove if such a complete replacement of parenting approaches is possible, and perhaps more importantly, practical.
With the substantial scientific research reviewed in this report, there is little doubt that the claims made by the humanistic parenting systems of PET and STEP that: (1) reinforcement and punishment are outdated and scientifically unsupported techniques for changing behavior, (2) the techniques of unconditional love, active listening, and logical consequences are more effective behavior change techniques than reinforcement and punishment, and (3) there is a scientific distinction between discipline and punishment are scientifically unsupported claims.
Christian parenting methods have the scientific and empirical support needed to substantiate its effectiveness as a parenting technique. The empirical review of research conducted in this study shows that Humanistic parenting methods such as PET and STEP lack a significant amount of scientific validation. It is important to examine carefully the mentioned evidence that Christian Parenting is a more scientifically substantiated approach to child rearing.
Adler, A. (1930). The Education of Children. Chicago: Gateway.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1979). Superiority and Social
Interest: A Collection of Later Writings/Alfred Adler, With a Biographical Essay by Carl
Furtmuller (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.
Axelrod, Saul and Apsche, Jack. (1983). Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Azrin, N.H., and Holz, W.C. (1966). Punishment. In W.K. Hong's (ed.) Operant
Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bartkowski. (1995). Spare the rod or spoil the child? Divergent perspective
on Conservative Protestant child discipline. Review of Religious Research, 37(2).
Bergin, A., & Strupp, M. (1972). Changing Frontiers in the Science of Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine.
Capps, D. (1992). Religion and child abuse: Perfect together. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(1), 1-14.
Dembo, Sweitzer, & Lauritzen. (1985). An evaluation of group parent education:
Behavioral, PET, and Alderian programs. Review of Educational Research Summer, 55(2), 155-200.
Dinkmeyer, D., and Mckay, G. (1976). The Parents Handbook: STEP. Circle Pines, Minn: American Guidance Service.
Dinkmeyer, D., & McKay G. (1983). The parent's
guide: STEP/Teen, systematic training for effective parenting of teens.
Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance
Service.
Dreikurs, Rudolph (1972). The
Challenge of Child Training: A Parents' Guide. New York: Hawthorn
Books.
Ellison. (1996). Conservative Protestantism and the corporal punishment of children: Clarifying the issues. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(1), 1-16.
Ellison, & Sherkat. (1993a). Conservative Protestantism and support for corporal
punishment. American Sociological Review, 58, 131-144.
Furtmuller, C. (1979). Superiority and Social Interest: A Collection of Later
Writings/Alfred Adler, With a Biographical Essay by Carl Furtmuller (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.
Gershoff, Miller, & Holden. (1999). Parenting influences from the pulpit: Religious affiliation as a determinant of parental corporal punishment. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 307-320.
Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York:
Commonwealth Fund.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: Peter H. Wyden.
Grasmick, Morgan, & Kennedy. (1992). Support for corporal punishment in the schools: A comparison of the effects of socioeconomic status and religion. Social Science Quarterly, 73(1), 177-187.
Hulse, S. H., Egeth, H., and Deese J. (1980). The Psychology of Learning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., Thomas, D. R. (1969). Rules, praise, and ignoring:
Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1(2), 139-150.
McCord W., and McCord J. (1972). Origins of Crime. New Jersey: Patterson Smith.
Mooney. (1995). Parent training: A review of Adlerian, parent effectiveness training, and behavioral research. Family Journal-Counseling & Therapy for Couples & Families, 3(3), 218-230.
Rinn, & Markle. (1977). Parent Effectiveness Training: A review. Psychological Reports, 41, 95-109.
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Schwitzgebel, R., and Kolb, D. A. (1964). Inducing behavior change in adolescent delinquents. Behavior Research Therapy, 1, 297-304.
Taylor, & Biglan. (1998). Behavioral family interventions for improving child-rearing: A review of the literature for clinicians and policy makers. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review. 2(3), 169-182.
Torrey, F.E. (1992). Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud's Theory on American Thought and Culture, New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Walters, G. C., and Grusec, J. E. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco: Freeman.
Weber, W.A., Roff, L. A., Crawford, J., Robinson, C. (1983). Classroom Management: Reviews of the Teacher Education and Research Literature. Princeton. Educational Testing Service.
Widstoe, John A. (1971). Discourses of Brigham Young. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.
Williams, C. D. (1959). The elimination of tantrum behavior by extinction procedures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 269.