On a number of recent occasions, I’ve come up against statements and ideas ascribed to Alice Miller, the late Swiss psychoanalyst. As Neil Samuels noted in a comment on one of my posts about physical punishment, Miller attributed war and other distressing actions and propensities of adults to their childhood experiences of punishment. I haven’t read all of Miller’s work, most of which is popularized and non-empirical in nature, but my impression from what I have read is that she argues strongly against all forms of physical punishment and categorizes together everything from a smack with the open hand onward, considering all of these behaviors to be deleterious. (If I’m wrong about this, no doubt I will receive speedy correction.)
I think there are many reasons to keep physical punishment to a minimum. An obvious one is that an incensed parent with an angry child may lose control and do physical harm. A less obvious one is that physical punishment may simply escalate everyone’s anger and make it more difficult to get the situation under control. Physical punishment may also substitute ineffectively for explanations and advice about how to behave. (There are a dozen more good reasons, but that’s not my topic just now.)
My concern in this post is to focus on the outcomes for parent and child of choosing one or another among the range of disciplinary methods, including both rewards and punishments of various kinds. (Negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment and does not lend itself well to use in everyday situations.) I think it is possible to consider what methods work best in specific circumstances and to use a reasoned approach to choice.
Miller, on the other hand, is primarily an ideologue. Her claims are based on a belief system that lacks empirical support, as are the claims of her companion-in-ideology, Lloyd DeMause, one of the founders of the “psychohistory” school that claims profound, although undemonstrated, effects of prenatal events. DeMause, Miller, and others have concluded that cause-and-effect relationships are plausible, not in the light of empirical work about families, but on the basis of statements by people like Frank Lake and Stanislav Grof, whose understanding of early development is founded on experiences with LSD. (These people were also strong though perhaps indirect influences on Nancy Verrier.)
I argue that an empirical, pragmatic approach is a more desirable way to think how people should act toward children, than an ideological one is. My reasoning is that there are multiple factors that help determine the outcome of any adult actions toward children, so it is unlikely that we can name a single factor and a single mechanism that have the same outcome for all children in all circumstances. An ideological approach argues that the truth is the same for all.
Here are some factors that seem to make a difference to children’s reactions to physical punishment:
1. Cultural differences: A smack on the bottom has a different meaning and therefore effect on children who have often seen other children get smacked than it does for those who have never seen such a thing and/or have heard it mentioned in discreet, horrified tones. There are great differences between cultural groups in the use of and attitudes toward physical punishment. Some groups would never dream of striking a child or using any other physical approach. Others, like many African-Americans, believe it is the obligation of parents, grandparents, and close family friends to employ physical punishment regularly. When a social group approves of the use of physical punishment, the children of that group do not respond as negatively to their experiences of mild punishment as do children whose group strongly disapproves.
2. Age: As a general rule, Europeans and North Americans believe that physical punishment is inappropriate for infants under a year of age and for older children and adolescents, but that well-thought-out physical punishments may be effective and suitable for many children from about age 2 to age 5. The reasoning about infants is that these children are too young to understand rules or to be expected to control their own behavior much, and that punishment may teach them to avoid adults at a time in development when their socialization depends on a lot of contact. The thinking about older children and adolescents is that physical punishment offers them challenges to physical fighting such that the child may win, or the combat become so serious that someone is hurt or the child runs away from home; in addition, many laws about child abuse would classify physical punishment of adolescents as abusive in itself.
Preschoolers, on the other hand, are capable of learning rules and regulating their behavior within reason, but are impulsive, over-confident, and able to hurt themselves and others unless carefully trained. Careful supervision and cue-ing of behavior can do a great deal, but many preschoolers show undesirable behaviors (like running into the street, or hitting each other, pets, baby brothers or sisters, or their parents) that are quite difficult to correct without the use of physical punishment. Balancing the possible consequences of those present behaviors against the long-term effect of punishment suggests that for everyone’s health and safety, brief, mild physical punishment may be an excellent choice. Many parents today attempt to use “time-out” methods but are unable to keep the child in the “time-out” chair or room; physical punishment as a back-up on a few occasions is likely to make it possible to transition to “time-out” alone.
3. Temperament: Children’s constitutionally-determined personalities may have strong influences on their responses to physical punishment. Some children have relatively little response to pain or other strong stimuli, and in my opinion should NOT be physically punished because of the temptation the adult may feel to escalate the punishment until the child seems to notice it. Others are extremely sensitive, and in fact are so overwhelmed by almost any kind of punishment that they forget what they are being punished for. However, some are attentive to physical sensations, but at the same time can notice and understand the adult’s admonitions and learn effectively what to do or not to do.
I believe these differences in children’ s responses to physical punishment, when coupled with the complete lack of anything but proof by assertion that physical punishment experiences are responsible for war and other social evils, lead us to only one sensible conclusion. That conclusion is that no single rule about punishment of children is applicable across the board. Parents need to consider carefully the characteristics of a child, the family’s social group and attitudes, and the goals they are trying to achieve through punishment or any other action. (This consideration, of course, has to happen during a calm time, not as the child pulls away from the parent and heads into traffic again.) The sense of righteousness one receives from ideology is much stronger than a reasoned approach can give, but I would suggest that a pragmatic, reasoned parenting mode is far more likely to produce happy children, families, and societies.
Showing posts with label temperament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label temperament. Show all posts
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Comparing Families: "Between" and "Within"
A person commenting on this blog recently complained about the suggestion she felt I’d made, that adoptive and non-adoptive families are “just alike”. Of course they aren’t because no two groups of families are just alike. There are large differences between families, just as there are large differences between individuals.
But here’s the tricky part: the differences between families are actually smaller than the differences WITHIN families! Figuring out all the differences between groups and individuals shows that the average difference between two children in a family is bigger than the average difference between children of two different families. (Please note that I’m talking about the average difference; choose your families or your children, and of course you can find families that are very different, and brothers and sisters who are very similar.)
How can this be? Don’t we blame-- or credit-- families for making people who they are? How can one family make children who are very different, but different families not have such a big impact?
The answer is that it’s a mistake to assume that family experiences in and of themselves are the sole, or even the primary, shapers of human personality. This is the case even when the family experience includes a factor we think of as unusual and powerful, such as separation from the birth parents. Michael Rutter, a leading researcher whose group has investigated the development of children adopted to England from the appalling Romanian orphanages, wrote in 2002 that “it is clear that parental loss or separation carries quite mild developmental risks unless the loss leads to impaired parenting or other forms of family maladaptation”. Although severe neglect or abuse in families can influence children’s development, the many “good enough” (though different) ways to care for young human beings do not seem to have specifically different outcomes.
One reason that family experiences alone seem to have fewer predictable effects than you would expect is that children bring something to the table too. Individual differences between children mean different ways of responding to the same experiences. For example, firm discipline may work very well with most children, but may be so overwhelming to the unusually sensitive child that he or she learns nothing but to be frightened. Children within a given family may respond quite differently to the parents’ preferred approach; they can be different to begin with, and their different responses (although to the same treatment) can make them even more different than they were .
Children’s individual differences include differences in temperament, a term that describes personality characteristics that have biological causes. For example, children who have perfectly normal activity levels may still be quite different from each other, with some much higher and others much lower in their preferred amounts of activity. Depending on the family and its circumstances, either a high or a low activity level can make for either a good or a poor developmental outcome. One important factor is what is called “goodness of fit” between the child’s temperament and those of the parents. Active, sports-oriented parents may be very pleased with a lively child, but it’s possible that quiet, scholarly parents will find it easier to get along with a less active son or daughter, and would find themselves scolding and disapproving of a more active child, even against their own intentions.
The temperaments and past experiences of child and of parent can make a major difference to their understanding of each other’s communications. For instance, in the American Psychologist for February-March 2011, an issue focused on infant mental health, Ed Tronick and Marjorie Beeghly show a series of photographs of an interaction between a mother and baby. Mother bends down to tickle the baby with her hair, and the baby grabs the hair and won’t let go. Mother raises her head with a brief, unintentional expression of anger and pain, and baby flings its hands across its face in a gesture as if to ward off attack. In a few seconds, they are both smiling and returning to normal. But what if the baby’s temperament was such that it took more than a few seconds to recover from the “threat”? Mother might become discouraged about playing, and be less likely to start a play sequence. What if mother’s temperament made it easy for her to interpret the baby’s “attack” as intentional, so she continued to look angry for several seconds? Baby might become wary of interactions that led to scary situations. In both cases, a member of the pair might misinterpret the other’s communication, and their attitudes toward each other would change. Such very brief interchanges can establish better or worse ways of thinking about each other and getting along.
Psychological and behavioral differences can create different experiences for both children and parents. But it’s important to remember that while people live in families, families live in houses or apartments, that are in neighborhoods, in countries, and in economic circumstances. Just as the quieter parents may scold the lively child, so may parents living in an upstairs apartment scold the child who disturbs the neighbors, and the father who works the night shift may have a different attitude toward rough and tumble play than the one who can count on sleeping at night. Active parents with a big house in a mild climate, and plenty of time and money for sports, have different attitudes toward their active children than quiet parents living in a crowded apartment with crotchety relatives, especially if the neighborhood is not safe for playing outside. Poverty brings down punishment on the heads of children who are careless about possessions, while affluent parents may not find it worthwhile to fuss.
No, adoptive and birth families are not just alike, but neither are two random birth families or two adoptive families. They can’t be just alike, because the initial differences between parents and babies are woven into greater and greater individuality within the families. A long list of factors helps to determine how babies and parents develop their relationships. As is so often said in infant mental health circles, it’s not rocket science-- it’s a lot more complicated than that.
But here’s the tricky part: the differences between families are actually smaller than the differences WITHIN families! Figuring out all the differences between groups and individuals shows that the average difference between two children in a family is bigger than the average difference between children of two different families. (Please note that I’m talking about the average difference; choose your families or your children, and of course you can find families that are very different, and brothers and sisters who are very similar.)
How can this be? Don’t we blame-- or credit-- families for making people who they are? How can one family make children who are very different, but different families not have such a big impact?
The answer is that it’s a mistake to assume that family experiences in and of themselves are the sole, or even the primary, shapers of human personality. This is the case even when the family experience includes a factor we think of as unusual and powerful, such as separation from the birth parents. Michael Rutter, a leading researcher whose group has investigated the development of children adopted to England from the appalling Romanian orphanages, wrote in 2002 that “it is clear that parental loss or separation carries quite mild developmental risks unless the loss leads to impaired parenting or other forms of family maladaptation”. Although severe neglect or abuse in families can influence children’s development, the many “good enough” (though different) ways to care for young human beings do not seem to have specifically different outcomes.
One reason that family experiences alone seem to have fewer predictable effects than you would expect is that children bring something to the table too. Individual differences between children mean different ways of responding to the same experiences. For example, firm discipline may work very well with most children, but may be so overwhelming to the unusually sensitive child that he or she learns nothing but to be frightened. Children within a given family may respond quite differently to the parents’ preferred approach; they can be different to begin with, and their different responses (although to the same treatment) can make them even more different than they were .
Children’s individual differences include differences in temperament, a term that describes personality characteristics that have biological causes. For example, children who have perfectly normal activity levels may still be quite different from each other, with some much higher and others much lower in their preferred amounts of activity. Depending on the family and its circumstances, either a high or a low activity level can make for either a good or a poor developmental outcome. One important factor is what is called “goodness of fit” between the child’s temperament and those of the parents. Active, sports-oriented parents may be very pleased with a lively child, but it’s possible that quiet, scholarly parents will find it easier to get along with a less active son or daughter, and would find themselves scolding and disapproving of a more active child, even against their own intentions.
The temperaments and past experiences of child and of parent can make a major difference to their understanding of each other’s communications. For instance, in the American Psychologist for February-March 2011, an issue focused on infant mental health, Ed Tronick and Marjorie Beeghly show a series of photographs of an interaction between a mother and baby. Mother bends down to tickle the baby with her hair, and the baby grabs the hair and won’t let go. Mother raises her head with a brief, unintentional expression of anger and pain, and baby flings its hands across its face in a gesture as if to ward off attack. In a few seconds, they are both smiling and returning to normal. But what if the baby’s temperament was such that it took more than a few seconds to recover from the “threat”? Mother might become discouraged about playing, and be less likely to start a play sequence. What if mother’s temperament made it easy for her to interpret the baby’s “attack” as intentional, so she continued to look angry for several seconds? Baby might become wary of interactions that led to scary situations. In both cases, a member of the pair might misinterpret the other’s communication, and their attitudes toward each other would change. Such very brief interchanges can establish better or worse ways of thinking about each other and getting along.
Psychological and behavioral differences can create different experiences for both children and parents. But it’s important to remember that while people live in families, families live in houses or apartments, that are in neighborhoods, in countries, and in economic circumstances. Just as the quieter parents may scold the lively child, so may parents living in an upstairs apartment scold the child who disturbs the neighbors, and the father who works the night shift may have a different attitude toward rough and tumble play than the one who can count on sleeping at night. Active parents with a big house in a mild climate, and plenty of time and money for sports, have different attitudes toward their active children than quiet parents living in a crowded apartment with crotchety relatives, especially if the neighborhood is not safe for playing outside. Poverty brings down punishment on the heads of children who are careless about possessions, while affluent parents may not find it worthwhile to fuss.
No, adoptive and birth families are not just alike, but neither are two random birth families or two adoptive families. They can’t be just alike, because the initial differences between parents and babies are woven into greater and greater individuality within the families. A long list of factors helps to determine how babies and parents develop their relationships. As is so often said in infant mental health circles, it’s not rocket science-- it’s a lot more complicated than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
