How many times have....

.....I posted referrences to Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness
Training, a totally NON-punative parenting methology?

http://www.gordontraining.com/familyresearch.html

[[[ Just a few of the studies. Note that CP is NOT replaced with other
punishment methods where better results are obtained. ]]]

" ... Robert Cedar of Boston University later reviewed 26 of the best
designed research studies of P.E.T., using the "meta-analytic
technique" of integrating the statistical findings from all the
studies.

His findings:

1. The overall positive effect of P.E.T. was significantly greater
than the effect of alternative treatments,
2. The greatest measurable effect was on parent attitudes,
3. The effect of P.E.T. on parent behavior was significantly greater
than the effect of alternative groups,
4. P.E.T.'s effect on children was greatest for the category of
self-esteem,
5. Parents did learn the P.E.T. concepts,
6. P.E.T. parents improved their attitudes, showed greater
understanding of children, increased their democratic ideals, showed
increased positive regard, empathy, congruence, and respect for their
children,
7. P.E.T. children rated their parents as more accepting of their
children,
8. The positive effects of P.E.T. last longer than the eight weeks
training. In fact, they lasted as long as a 26-week follow-up,
9. P.E.T.'s positive effect on children increased over time,
10. The magnitude of the positive effects of P.E.T. was greatest in
those studies that had superior research methodology.


We have found a large number of studies that confirm the positive
effects of the principles and skills we teach in P.E.T. Even though the
studies did not evaluate directly the impact of our P.E.T. course, they
did deal with parenting styles, punishment, confrontation, open
communication, parent-child cooperation, and conflict resolution.

Other Relevant Research
The following research findings were quoted from either the Handbook of
Child Psychology, 4th edition, P. Mussen, Ed., Wiley & Sons, 1983 or
the Review of Child Development Research, F. Horowitz, Ed., University
of Chicago Press, 1975.



Baldwin, A., Kalhoun, J., & Breese, F. Patterns of Parent Behavior.
Psychological Monographs, 1945, 58(3).

The most surprising finding from this study had to do with changes in
the IQs of the children. Over the years, the IQs of the children with
autocratic parents decreased slightly, while those of permissive
parents remained almost the same. However, the IQs of the children of
the democratic parents increased significantly over the years. The mean
increase was over eight IQ points. The investigators concluded, "It
would appear that the democratic environment is the most conducive to
mental development." The democratic parents surrounded their children
with an atmosphere of freedom, emotional rapport, and intellectual
stimulation. The children in those families also were given higher
ratings by their teachers in originality, playfulness, patience,
curiosity, and fancifulness. They held more leadership positions in
school and scored higher in emotional adjustment and maturity. In the
words of the researchers:

"By the time the child from the democratic home has become of school
age, his social development has progressed markedly; he is popular and
a leader; he is friendly and good natured; he seems emotionally secure,
serene, unexcitable; he has had close attachments to his parents and is
able to adjust to his teachers."

Children of autocratic parents were low in social interaction with
peers and tended to be dominated by their peers during the interactions
that did occur. These children also tended to be obedient, and neither
quarrelsome nor resistive. They seemed to lack spontaneity, affection,
curiosity, and originality.

When parents avoid making themselves the source of authority, but
instead draw their children's attention to the realistic constraints
imposed on their behavior by the natural environment, we may assume
that they are training their children to make internal rather than
external attributions. The Baldwin group also found that this pattern
of parenting was associated with children's being spontaneous,
exploratory, and creative.



Baumrind, D. Child Care Practices Anteceding Three Patterns of
Preschool Behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88.

Children who rated high in self-control and self-discipline were found
to have parents who refrained from punitive punishment, using instead a
reasoning approachóthat is, messages that told the children the
negative effects of their behavior on others, as with the P.E.T.
I-Messages.



Baumrind, D. Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Developmental
Psychology Monograph, 1971, 4(1, pt. 2).

A pattern of family functioning in which children are required to be
responsive to parental demands, and parents accept a reciprocal
responsibility to be as responsive as possible to their children's
reasonable demands and points of view, has been labeled "authoritative"
by Baumrind. P.E.T. uses this term and also the label "reciprocal." In
Baumrind's samples, children of authoritative parents have proved to be
more competent than the children of either authoritarian or permissive
parents. At preschool age, daughters of authoritative parents were as
socially responsible as other girls, and more independent. Sons were as
independent as other boys, and more socially responsible. It is
misleading to use the term "authoritative," because many people have
interpreted this as using authority (power).



Baumrind, D., & Black, A. Socialization Practices Associated with
Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and Girls. Child
Development, 1967, 38, 291-327.

In an early study with a relatively small sample, it was found that a
group of children were unhappy and socially withdrawn in nursery school
tended to have parents who fit the authoritarian pattern.

Baumrind found that nursery-school children who were rated high on
self-control had parents who made extensive use of reasoning in a
generally nurturing and non-punitive atmosphere, rewarded
self-controlling behavior, and firmly enforced rules. This pattern
includes the cognitive structuring feature of love-oriented discipline
but does not necessarily include use of the effective relationship to
make the child feel badly. There is also considerable evidence that one
form of deviation, antisocial aggression, is associated with
power-assertive parental discipline, low warmth, and low use of
cognitive structuring.



Bearlson, D., & Cassel, T. Cognitive Decentration and Social Codes:
Communication Effectiveness in Young Children from Differing Family
Contexts. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 29-36.

Bearlson and Cassel carried out a study that is relevant to the
development of moral judgment, though not directly focused on it. They
investigated children's ability to take the perspective of another
person in a communication game, and related this ability to aspects of
child rearing. The mothers were interviewed and asked how they would
react to several common disciplinary situations. Their answers were
scored according to whether they were person-oriented or
position-oriented. Person-oriented appeals included regulatory
statements that drew attention to the feelings, thought, needs or
intentions of the mother, the child or a third person who may be
affected by the child's action. Position-oriented appeals referred to
rules or statuses (e.g., "8:30 is your bedtime," "All children have to
go to school"). Children whose mothers were more given to the use of
person-oriented arguments, rather than position-oriented ones, were
more successful in taking the perspective of another person in a game
that required them to do so. Insofar as perspective-taking is
instrumental in the development of moral judgment--and Kohlberg, Selman
and others have argued that it is--then person-oriented reasoning by
parents should foster this development.

At least, repeated parental stress on "the consequences (especially
consequences for others) of children's actions" seems to move them
toward more mature levels of thought when they are asked to consider
moral issues. This also confirms our three-part I-Messages.



Carlsmith, J., Lepper, M., & Landauer, T. Children's Obedience to Adult
Requests: Interactive Affects of Anxiety Arousal and Apparent
Punitiveness of Adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1974, 30, 822-828.

Parents find that they can obtain immediate compliance by raising their
voices and issuing orders rather than requests. However, in so doing
they may be reducing their children's readiness to be cooperative on
subsequent occasions. Thus if they have used power-assertive methods,
they must resort to them more and more frequently as time goes on.
Ultimately power-assertive methods may lose their capacity to exact
even immediate compliance unless pressures are escalated to very
fear-producing levels indeed. The possibility of benign cycles quite
clearly also exists. If parents succeed in obtaining compliance with
inductive methods and cooperation-based appeals (partly by timing their
requests to coincide with moments when they have the child's attention
and have induced a positive mood), then the chances for obtaining
willing compliance on subsequent occasions should be improve ... "

All very interesting. I am tucking this into my mental folder :-) Thanks for sharing!

beccafromlalaland wrote:
All very interesting. I am tucking this into my mental folder :-)

Yes, and much of this kind of thing has been posted here before. Since
you now have this "tucked" away you'll easily spot the lies coming from
the nuisance gallery.

Thanks for sharing!

Happy to. I would and have with opponents in the past, but they keep
lying and saying I or others haven't.

In fact, if you want a riotous laugh, search on either myself, or Doan
and the words "Embry Study" for a dance like you won't believe.

--
beccafromlalaland

Best, Kane