5 pages

A Critique of Assertive Discipline—a “Reward-and-Punish” Parenting Approach

In teaching or parenting, have we been successful if we get children to behave well—even to behave well consistently? I suggest that the answer is an emphatic “no.” I explore this issue by examining a well-known text describing a popular parenting approach.

The Assertive Discipline program, developed by Lee and Marlene Canter (e.g., Canter and Canter, 1985), has been used with parents and teachers alike. The Canters suggest that parents use their program when their normal approaches to parenting are not working (although many people use this as their main approach). The approach has several components: the parent should be the boss, should communicate assertively, should back up their words with actions (rewards and punishments), and should lay down the law with children.

The approach has a few good points, suggesting that parents communicate clear expectations, follow through on what they say, and do not do anything to harm children physically or psychologically. However, some aspects of the program bear closer examination. I list below the interventions the Canters suggest in specific situations, and critique their suggested solutions.

Problem Behavior Motivator for (Improved) Behavior

Besides sounding a bit too much like the way they train animals at Sea

Your nine year-old He is allowed to choose World, these suggestions are the problematic in several ways. First, why is

disrupts and argues dessert if he behaves. all this arguing going on, and why not have parents face up to resolving the dinner table. the underlying problem here, instead of sweeping it under the rug with a

food bribe? Second, why aren’t the parents teaching the children the right reasons to behave in these situations? Third, why are the parents teaching

Your four year old She is given a jelly bean their children that the reason to behave is to get goodies for yourself?

makes a mess with her every time she cleans up. Fourth, why add extra candy and desserts to children’s diets?!

toys, does not clean up.

With a nationwide obesity epidemic, is it responsible parenting to promote poorer eating habits?

Note: Four of the eight “motivators” on page 115 of the Canter book, where these examples were found, were food rewards. Children should eat when hungry, and should not have food, especially candy or extra desserts, pressed upon them at other times, nor made into a prize to strive for. Here the parents are gradually promoting an unhealthy relationship to food, and are relying on this to motivate their children.

Problem Behavior Motivator for

(Improved) Behavior

Your 12-year-old Every time he cooperates, Once again, the parents are not teaching the right reasons for behaving, but

does not listen to he earns a point. When are teaching the wrong motives for behaving. That is, you should listen to

you. he earns 100 points, he people if they pay you for doing so!? If the child doesn’t listen, the

gets a bonus on his relationship or the parent’s communication skills may need attention.

allowance. Here the parents are promoting greed by making a big deal of monetary rewards, and are relying on that greed to motivate their children.

* Next we look at the Canters’ suggestion for consequences and punishments:

Problem Behavior Disciplinary

Consequence

Again, parent is not teaching the child why the behavior is a problem for the

Your four-year old The child is made parent. This could simply escalate into a power struggle (child won’t do it)

continually interrupts to stand in the corner which is better to avoid. Is the parent’s relationship with the child so poor

you when you are on away from you until that she won’t she go along with this simple request? If so, the relationship the phone. you are off the phone or communication skills of the parent may need attention. Or, why else is the

child interrupting—hungry, bored, scared, sick, lonely, other? Each of these possibilities suggests a different solution. Maybe the child just needs a hug or needs to sit on the parent’s lap for a minute, and then would be fine. Is there nothing fun/challenging to play with? Here minor fear is used to motivate child to behave—fear of having to stand in the corner. Adult power and fear are used a lot in this approach—fear of grounding, etc.

Isn’t it remarkable is that greed, gluttony (i.e., overeating/lust for food), and fear are relied on as central motives in this supposedly “conservative” approach to parenting? It is intriguing that parenting approaches such as this are so common, for example, among conservative Christians, who may recognize greed and gluttony as two of the “seven deadly sins.” Those who are atheists, agnostics, or of other faiths probably also agree that American children don’t need any more greed/materialism, gluttony, or fear.

Aristotle wrote ”Evil men obey from fear, good men obey from love.” Over 2000 years later, it is still true that there is more than one way to raise children who behave well—but what the Canters and others like them have done is to put self-centered motives rather than moral motives at the heart of their parenting approach. We see the centrality of self-centered motives also in their approach to managing multiple children who are misbehaving, in a strategy called “Marble Mania.” Simply put, each of the children can earn marbles for good behaviors or ceasing bad behaviors. Then, the marbles are put into a common jar, and when children earn a certain number of marbles (e.g., 100), they get a reward that they all value (e.g., they get to go see a new movie). The Canters suggest that children will then put positive peer pressure on each other to behave:

“Look, quit messing up! We can get ten extra marbles if we both go for the entire day

without getting into trouble. So, please listen to Mom and the sitter.”

Thus, the “hidden curriculum” of this approach is to get kids to think in a selfish way—to think “What’s in it for me? How can I get the rewards and avoid the punishments?” Greed is a central motive. The kids aren’t discussing how their actions affect others, or other reasons for the mother’s and sitter’s expectations. Moreover, the children sound focused on “not messing up” rather than “How can we get along,” etc.?” A motivational style focused on avoiding errors or other negative outcomes is called an “avoidance orientation” in the motivation literature, and as you may have guessed, this orientation is often less helpful than focusing on trying to do it right (an “approach” orientation).

Furthermore, the “reward-and-punishment” perspective is one of the less mature levels of moral development in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. However, adults using this model are reinforcing precisely this immature perspective on morality (even with teenagers), rather than engaging children in thinking about morality in more mature ways.

I am convinced that the Canters haven’t thought this through, and aren’t aware of this problem. This oversight is possible since their approach focuses on controlling only the external behaviors of children, and they virtually never explore how parenting approaches affect children’s thinking, beliefs, skills, motives … or even values. This is why examining the “hidden curriculum” in any parenting or educational program is so critical—unbeknownst to the adults, their parenting or teaching methods may often undermine some of the very goals they value so much. Unfortunately, focusing only on behaviors, and not addressing (or perhaps even being knowledgeable about) the mental lives of children can lead to suggestions that are profoundly developmentally inappropriate. Two examples if inappropriate suggestions appear on the next page:

Problem Behavior Motivator for And what if he’s crying because he’s scared of the sitter, the sitter is mean,

(Improved) Behavior and he’s scared stiff about you leaving? What if he’s scared because he was taught at preschool (and by you too) to never talk to strangers—and what’s a new sitter but a stranger? So the kid is thinking (in a three-year-

Your three year old He gets a treat from the old way), I’m not supposed to talk to strangers, maybe strangers are scary,

becomes hysterical sitter if he does not cry. but my parents are leaving me alone with one, and disappearing to return

whenever you leave. who knows when?!!! If the kid is thinking anything like this, hysteria and screaming are the healthy, normal response to the situation. More mildly, maybe the child only feels safe with the parents: again, some hysteria is understandable. But here, the Canters suggest that legitimate, age-appropriate fears be pacified with promises of junk food, not dealt with.

This is very inappropriate.

Your four-year old She earns special time Bad advice. Why is she crying and screaming? OK, perhaps she has

goes to bed every with you in the morning learned that this is a good way to get attention from you, but why does this

night crying and if she goes to bed quietly. response appear just at bedtime? Is she really scared—of the dark, of

screaming. monsters, of nightmares? The promise of something nice in the morning is a meaningless abstraction if you believe you will be eaten by monsters during the night! Parenting or teaching strategies that are insensitive to children’s feelings and view of reality raise questions about how well the authors understand children.

In summary, the Assertive Discipline approach aims to change children’s behavior through promising rewards for either performing specific behaviors or ceasing undesirable behaviors, and through threatening punishment for undesirable behaviors or for failing to perform desirable behaviors. Because the approach makes no attempt to understand difficult situations from the child’s perspective, adults using the approach become poor models of empathy and perspective-taking, and children may rightly feel “They just don’t understand me.” This outcome undermines the adult-child relationship/attachment, which decreases the adult’s influence with the child. Having reduced influence, the adult resorts to the use of power to solve the conflicts, again making the adult a poor role model of the use of empathy, reasoning and problem-solving to resolve conflicts.

Also, while reward and punishment approaches like assertive discipline gives children practice with obedience/self-control, but fails to develop children’s empathy, perspective-taking, moral reasoning, and conflict resolution skills. Furthermore, the use of power interferes with children’s complete internalization of moral values, while reinforcing low-level moral reasoning and selfish motives.

- Karl F. Wheatley, Ph.D. 11/03/04

In contrast, imagine a parenting approach based in love, understanding, and empathy for others, as well as self-sacrifice, and caring. Imagine what children might be like such an approach might be like …

1. Unconditional love and acceptance for the child

2. Goals for parenting that are effective in the long run

3. Understand child development

4. Parent(s)/adult(s) are positive models for child

5) Effective communication

201