The three dimensions of effective parenting

Since Symonds groundbreaking presentation of The Psychology of Parent-Child Relationships in 1939, constructs have been developed assisting the understanding of family dynamics and for intervening therapeutically to help them.Despite the many structural differences involved, these have all been designed with the clinician in mind. Their unquestioned usefulness has been in helping the counselor to understand the family and to assist it in the process of regaining normalcy, its equilibrium. The one-, two-, and three-dimensional constructs presented in this article, however, are meant primarily for use by the parents and family members themselves. The visual constructs herein are meant to help parents visually reflect on their relationships with their children, not only in family counseling, but especially in an educational setting. The interactive nature of the construct is more in line with parenting literature that focuses on parent-counselor collaboration – whether in therapy or parent training.

The models listed in Table 1 hint at the variety of approaches clinicians can take in understanding parenting dynamics.

The Parents Prism relies on social dimensions for understanding fundamental family functioning. The focus is on demonstrating the usefulness of conceiving parent responsibility as an undertaking with three-dimensions. It is constructed within the course of reading – much like the Parents’ Prism would within a parent education session.

Using the vertical axis of authority, the parent can conceive a range of behaviors

extending from “permissive” as a low, to “demanding” as a high. The horizontal axis of nurture suggests a range of behaviors extending from “indifferent” as a low, to “indulgent” as a high.

Visually, this schema has the immediate advantage of demonstrating the appropriateness of both authority and nurture in parenting. After an interactive discussion of what nurture and authority entail, the discussion of the quadrants becomes somewhat self-explanatory and easily lends itself to discussion about where on the quadrant parents categorize themselves. They can also locate their own parents and the manner in which they were parented.

The Parents’ Matrix identifies the parenting styles addressed within Dreikurs’s continuum, but it can also account for a neglectful style and a controlling, indulgent style. The indulgent style is still not addressed widely in the literature.

Each quadrant could conceivably illustrate numerous parenting concerns. Those concerns frequently raised in the course of parent education are addressed in depth: the child’s perspective of the parents; parents’ perspective of the child; and the self-presentation of the parents in class. Starting from the lower-right quadrant, and proceeding clock-wise, each quadrant or parenting style will be described.

Laissez-Faire. This parenting style is characterized by low authority (permissiveness) and high nurturance (indulgence).

In this family, the child frequently shows little respect for the parent since the child knows the parent will disregard disruptive behavior and likely give the child whatever is demanded. Children don’t particularly appreciate the parent’s nurturing because it seemingly has no limit and can be tapped at will. The child often uses temper tantrums to control the parent whenever the parent’s actions frustrate or challenge the child’s desires.

The parent avoids the child’s temper tantrums at all costs and avoiding fights becomes a

guiding principle of interaction with the child. It is as though the parents need the approval of their children or seek to avoid their disapproval. Laissez-faire parents see limit setting and application of consequences as cruel and unusual punishment even in its most logical or natural forms.

Laissez-faire parents readily attend parenting classes, exasperated and at the same time fearful of their children. They present as baffled and outraged, like victims of a consumer fraud. They feel their unintentional trade-off, of more nurturing for less authority, ought to have earned them more respect and better behavior from the child. Exploration of discipline techniques often reveals an emphasis on incentives and rewards, bribes in fact, before the children have done what they are expected to.

The parents’ initial wish is for the counselor to help their child be nicer and not to be mad at the parent any more. These parents often ask what they have done wrong, imagining the counselor will supply them with ways to reward the child that will work, i.e., get the child to behave by doing what the parent wants. Frequently they would like to learn to have more control over their child without incurring the child’s disapproval.

Neglectful. This parenting style is characterized by low authority (permissiveness) and low nurturance (indifference).

The child often experiences the parent’s lack of authority as a lack of concern. Since there are virtually no boundaries to be broken, there is little point in behaving well and little love to be gained. The child raised with this parenting style tends to grow up very quickly, persistently denying dependency needs and having to get basic needs met by his or her own means. Since nothing matters much to the child, the conclusion is frequently drawn along an either/or continuum: nothing seems worth striving towards, or it’s all there for the taking. Such children have a hard time imagining their future or having any hopes for it improving.

The neglectful parent usually assumes no responsibility for the way the child behaves. This inability to see a relationship between cause (parental action) and effect (child’s behavior) results in neglectful parents having little faith that they could make a difference in the child’s life. Thus, any suggestion to provide more nurture or proper authority makes little sense to this parent.

Neglectful parents seldom seek help with their children voluntarily. More often they are compulsorily referred to parenting classes. Under these circumstances, initial hostility to the counselor masks strong feelings of helplessness. Less frequently, it gives way to a self-presentation of bewilderment about how they and their children ended up as they did.

Autocratic. This parenting style is characterized by high authority (demanding) and low nurturance (indifference).

To the child, the parent appears rigid and demanding. In turn, the child acts toward the parent from a position of fear and ultimately of revenge rather than respect. Children in this family frequently learn a utilitarian approach to behavior whereby they are outwardly compliant but inwardly rebellious. They therefore learn that the appearance of compliance is more important than compliance itself. Thus, internal controls are poorly developed and getting away with things becomes the typical mode of behavior. Adult rules and regulations outside of the family are viewed as a challenge, something to get around rather than as a reference point and guideline for behavior.

To the degree that autocratic parents are concerned with the concept, they tend to conceive nurturance either as the opposite of authority and therefore as indulgence (as if it gives permission to the child to disobey) or they identify authority with nurture. Their parenting style reflects the parents’ persistent fear of the child getting out of control. The worldview of the autocratic parent does not allow for the idea of nurture and authority as coexisting harmoniously. When confronted with a child who continually disobeys, the autocratic parent’s solution is to control more rather than to question the efficacy of the approach.

The autocratic parent sees in the parent educator a potential ally in methods of control. This can take different forms: the educator is to get the child back in line on behalf of the parent, or the educator is expected to assist the parent by expanding the parent’s repertoire of control maneuvers. In the latter case, the parent frames the problem and simply requests techniques from the counselor; finding the right method to regain control of the child is of paramount importance to this parent.

Benevolent Dictator. This parenting style is characterized by high authority (demanding) and high nurturance (indulgence).

Children frequently experience these parents as sporting an iron fist in a velvet glove. Thus, the parents might also be described as humanistic autocrats because their insistence on having things done their way is at odds with the children’s seemingly choosing this way. The parents wish to appear fair and egalitarian — especially to other parents — and as having the child’s best interest at heart. The child feels as if it would be an unforgivable offense to go against the wishes of such a kind person as the parent. Should the child forget this, the parent is quick to remind.

Children of a benevolent dictator are not well equipped for independent adult life. Their capacity for autonomous thought and decision-making is limited by their parent’s need for them to agree and conform. The children can appear assertive and to have good coping skills until they encounter a strange or novel situation. Since new circumstances have not been encountered without the interceding benevolence of the parent the situations appear baffling to the child. They have learned only specific examples of coping rather than ways of formulating the principles with which to face new situations in general. Thus, ill-equipped for adult life, the children of benevolent dictators become angry when they realize they have been taught compliance under the guise of responsibility.

To the benevolent dictator children are a precious commodity: something to be cherished and protected; something that will bear a big return in trade for the effort expended by the parent. These parents feel as though they are doing the child a favor in every interaction — either as sacrifice or as bestowing privilege. They do not attribute to the child the dignity that accrues simply from being a human being.

The price demanded of the child is agreement and conformity, even though the parent seemingly tolerates disagreement. This tolerance can even be a point of pride for the parent as long as the child’s public disagreement eventually comes around to private acquiescence. Should the child take a truly independent stand the benevolent dictator feels hurt and betrayed and may resort to using guilt to get the child back in line.

The benevolent dictator presents at parenting classes as an ally of the educator, sure that the counselor shares the same “correct” approach to child rearing. To the parents there appears to be little connection between their parenting style and the child’s misbehavior. Hence the parents’ self-presentation is bewilderment. Most of their energy goes into defending, and even boasting about their parenting style rather than into understanding the difficulty in front of them.

The child may appear as being unpopular with his or her peers, or having been victimized by them. The presenting problem of the child is often a deeply disguised, two-fold protest: against the parent’s refusal to acknowledge the child’s capacity for independence; and at the parents’ love with strings attached. It is as if the child is saying, “See what has become of me by meeting your expectations.”

Critique. An obvious benefit of the Parents’ Matrix is that parents can self-assess their parenting style by looking at the various descriptors within the quadrants. Once their own parenting style is determined, the parents and the educator can problem-solve to find solutions because the antidote to each dysfunctional aspect of the parenting style is self-evident: because each axis of the matrix polarizes the range of authority and the range of nurture, the antidote will involve building or decreasing the amount of authority or nurture — as Dreikurs’s continuum indicated. The theoretical antidote can therefore lead to solutions that arise from the parent’s own family circumstances and particular learning style and the parent educator’s knowledge and professional skills.

The principal limitation of the matrix is that it presents four ineffective parenting styles. And while it suggests solutions to the problems arising from them, it doesn’t suggest a positive model of effective parenting that may be striven towards as a goal. It is necessary to identify and correct ineffective parenting practices as well as to present a more constructive model.

Three-dimensions: Parents’ Prism

Along with the vertical axis of authority (the dimension of height) and the horizontal axis of nurture (the dimension of width), a third axis can be juxtaposed for providing depth to the schema (see illustration #3).

—————————————————————-

NOTE: Kendall/Hunt – insert ILLUSTRATION #3 ABOUT HERE from diskette

—————————————————————-

This axis would represent a third dimension that could be considered the encouragement factor. Encouragement is not a continuum with extremes on either end, but a single factor that affects the other two at any point of their intersection. The third dimension is one of belief in the child; a belief in the ability to benefit and mature from the authority and nurture provided by the parent. This dimension conveys the heart of democratic parenting: optimism rather than pessimism about the child. The visual representation of a prism emphasizes the new perspective placed on the essentials of parenting. When the democratic parenting style is schematized in a 3-D model it emerges with much more richness than if seen solely as the midpoint of a continuum of extremes.

Dreikurs, according to Bullard, suggested three “efficient methods” which “lead to a lifestyle dominated by social interest”. [17] Influenced by his lead, Dinkmeyer and McKay suggests that a sense of equality and mutual respect are the “key to effective parenting.” [18] Popkin describes it in terms of courage, responsibility, and cooperation — those qualities “important for surviving and thriving in a democratic society.” [19] 

Current empirical research is very supportive of the constructs of Adler and Dreikurs. Studies in the area of effective parenting, (notably that of Baumrind [20] ) have proven especially helpful. What she identifies as “authoritative” parenting, can also be characterized by “the constellation of warmth, psychological autonomy and demandingness.” [21] 

Warmth and demandingness would be understood in the current context as nurture and authority. Warmth corresponds to affective responsiveness such as being loving, supportive and committed. [22] Maccoby and Martin [23] associated this parenting aspect with adolescent development of social skills and self-concept.

Demandingness of parents, according to Steinberg indicates they “expect mature behavior from their adolescent, set and consistently enforce reasonable rules and standards for behavior, and when necessary discipline their youngster firmly yet fairly.” [24] Again, Maccoby and Martin [25] equated this aspect of parenting with fostering impulse control and social responsibility in adolescents.

Psychological autonomy, as described by Steinberg, has strong parallels with what Adlerians consider the encouragement process, including the ability of children to “express their opinions and assert their individuality.” [26] Maccoby and Martin [27] associate this aspect of parenting involves self-reliance and competence.

What follows is a consideration of the democratic parenting style in line with the concerns discussed within the two-dimensional matrix. This style of parenting is not presented as an insurance policy against parent-child conflict, as if such parents would never seek outside help; so, the presentation of the democratic parent at parenting classes is also included.

Democratic. This parenting style is characterized by flexible control and nurture and strong trust in the child’s ability to accomplish the tasks which life presents.

The child’s behavior toward the parent is motivated by love and respect. Fathers engaged in such a style are seen as sensitive to the views and needs of others and accepting of different viewpoints. Mothers are aware of clear boundaries between them and their children. This gives the child the freedom to get on with the job of being a child. Their emotions and behavior are not preoccupied with boundaries and boundary-crossing so they are more capable of having fun, exploring, and discovering. [28] 

Adolescents raised within this parenting style tend to be those who flourish by examining their differences, within a context of connectedness. Such parents are clear about boundaries and the consequences but rarely have to use them. Such clarity means paradoxically that the parent does not have to be constantly aware of and worried about the child’s behavior. [29] When conflict does occur, it is in the context of support. There is trust that children will stay roughly within the boundaries that have been negotiated. [30] 

While not necessarily eager to attend parenting classes, the democratic parent does not see it as a source of shame or embarrassment, nor as an opportunity to justify his or her style. The problems they bring tend to represent an imbalance between authority and nurture rather than an absence or polarity of one or the other. Democratic parents can usually form a good initial alliance with the parent eduator and can be clear about whether they need simply a sounding-board or advice.

Critique. Operationalizing the third dimension into standard language helps make this concept easier to grasp. Perhaps listing strategies for implementing the encouragement process could do this.

While it does lend itself to visual clarity and to breaking out of preconceived patterns, the third dimension must not be misunderstood as the final word in the discussion. The parent education movement is best served if this discussion contributes to an understanding of child rearing as a multi-dimensional endeavor. Democratic parenting is not the only way to raise a child successfully, according to Ansbacher. “Even the authoritarian approach can be all right if combined with enough encouragement (optimism) … and the democratic style may fail if combined with dire pessimism” (personal correspondence, 1993).

The primary benefit of the concept of a three dimensional parenting schema is that it graphically illustrates the benefits and limits of the authority and nurture aspects of parenting. While guidance and connection are primarily (or at least initially) functions of the parent, they must be directed by an orientation of trust in the child’s ability both to benefit from interaction with the parent and, in return, to contribute to the family’s healthy functioning.

Summary

Among the benefits of the one-dimensional continuum is it’s demonstration of alternatives to parents in rearing their children. Dreikurs’s contribution to this aspect includes a balance point or broad middle area in which democratic techniques are introduced. The democratic middle is at least a combination of freedom and order.

These, then, were understood to be features of parenting respectively abstracted as nurture and authority, and presented in a two dimensional matrix which more clearly illustrated various results of interactions between the features. Consistent with Adlerian theory, authority can be conceived as the parenting for that providing direction or guidance for the child. Along with establishing order, authority involves such aspects as control, influence, and legal jurisdiction as well. This is what is referred to as an authoritative style. [31] Nurture can be conceived as the facet for providing love and connection with the world. Along with valuing freedom, nurture involves aspects of support, tolerance, appreciation and caring.

Authority as a construct may correspond to the child’s developing level of activity. And nurture may correspond to the child’s developing level of social interest.

The democratic parenting style, however, is not just a balance between authority and nurture. It adds still another dimension: encouragement of the child. This includes belief in the child for the child’s sake, not for what the child represents for the parent.

This important and effective parenting style can be more effectively represented in a graphical three-dimensional fashion. The visual concept of the Parents’ Prism illustrates the importance of encouragement as the differentiating factor in effective parenting.

Experiential Application

Self-assessment

After viewing The Effective Parent Prism (TEPP), give your own self-assessment of your predominate characteristic parenting style on the three dimensions.

Dimension One: ——

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Dimension Two: ——

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Dimension Three: —–

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

Your Assessment of your co-parent (If applicable)

Dimension One: ——

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Dimension Two: —–

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Dimension Three: —–

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

If possible, have a child (or your children) and/or your partner give his or her opinion of your more characteristic parenting style

Dimension One: ——

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Dimension Two: —–

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Dimension Three: —–

Behavior examples of how I actually do this as a parent.

________________________________________________

New compare your own ratings with those of your co-parent and/or of your child(children).

What are the areas of agreement?

What are the ratings in which there was a disagreement?

Discuss #1 and #2 above as much as possible using actual behavioral descriptions/examples.

Next Steps

List below what you would like (if anything) to do the changes and the corresponding “action steps” that you feel are appropriate in refining/improving your parenting effectiveness. Desired change.

1._______________________________________________

2._______________________________________________

3._______________________________________________

4._______________________________________________

5._______________________________________________

Authors Biographies –

Erik Mansager, Ph.D., is the residential director of Casa de los Niños, the nation’s first crisis shelter for infants. He was former director of psychological Services at St. John’s Seminary College in the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and clinical supervisor of the U.S. Army’s Adolescent Substance Abuse Counseling Services in Frankfurt, Germany. He and his wife were foster parents and residential house-parents for over five years. Erik is a clinical mental health counselor who has spent 20 years working with families who are facing severe challenges. He has worked in the areas of child physical and sexual abuse, divorce mediation, and substance abuse. On the brighter side, he is married and the father of two teens who are busily exploring their contributions to life.

Erik is a Diplomate in Adlerian Psychology and an international presenter on theory and techniques of Adler’s Individual Psychology. He is also the author of several training manuals and monographs as well as numerous articles on the critical collaboration between Adlerian psychology and spirituality. He did his undergraduate studies at St. Thomas Seminary College in Denver, his graduate studies in marriage and family counseling at the University of Arizona and his doctoral studies in psychology at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

Roger Volk, Ph.D., is the Operations Manager for the Adolescent Substance Abuse Counseling Service (ASACS), based in Heidelberg, Germany. ASACS is a contracted service to the U.S. Army and provides counseling and prevention services to dependents of the U.S. military stationed in Germany, Italy, Holland, and Belgium.

Dr. Volk grew up and educated in Australia. After living and working in the United Kingdom for eight years he moved to the United States in 1980 where he completed a Masters in Social Work and later a Ph.D. at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is licensed in Virginia as a clinical social worker.