CHAPTER 2

PERMISSIVE PARENTING: ENHANCING IMPULSIVENESS, MINIMIZING CONSCIENCE

In study after study the child-rearing factors associated with aggression and delinquency are described in similar language. Several well-known studies have presented a picture from which two basic dimensions of parenting styles emerge: warm vs. cold and permissive vs. restrictive.

WARM PARENTAL STYLE: A warm parent is approving and supportive of the child, frequently employs praise as a reinforcement for good behavior and explains the reasons for rules.

COLD PARENTAL STYLE: A cold parent acts in the opposite manner, frequently displaying irritability, passiveness or indifference, and relying more on negative than on positive reinforcements.

RESTRICTIVE PARENTAL STYLE: The mother or father states clear rules, monitors behavior to insure that it conforms to those rules and reinforces compliance by the consistent and contingent use of reinforcement.

PERMISSIVE PARENTAL STYLE: Permissive parents fail to do these things though they imagine they do them because they are always yelling at the child, but inconsistent and ineffectual nattering is not a form of control that alters behavior in accordance with parental intentions.

In New Directions For Child Development (A Socioanalytic Theory of Moral Development), authors Hogan, Johnson and Elmer projected the general outcome of four parenting style combinations: warm-restrictive, warm-permissive, cold-restrictive, and cold-permissive.

WARM-RESTRICTlVE: These parents are highly supportive, loving, and often praise their children, but they are consistent about monitoring behavior and compliance with rules. They set and maintain clear, fair, and consistent boundaries. "Their children will value adult approval, readily internalize rules and be rule abiding."

WARM-PERMISSlVE: These parents are approving, loving and supportive, but inconsistent about monitoring behavior and compliance to rules. They often nag at or verbally reprimand the child, but seldom back up their words with consistent action. It is not uncommon for parents of this style to let the "little stuff' slide, and oftentimes they permit behaviors to continue which need correcting. "Their children will be self-confident and socially outgoing, but will frequently ignore or bend the rules; in everyday language they will be affable, but spoiled."

COLD-RESTRICTIVE: These parents display irritability and are often harsh to the child. They are insistent on the rules and sometimes inflict harsh punishment. This style is not uncommon in alcoholic or drug-abusing parents. "Their children will be anxious and sullen, but compliant: their anger may be turned inward on themselves."

COLD-PERMISSIVE: These parents are irritable, very often indifferent and inconsistent disciplinarians. They will sometimes react harshly over small infractions, while at other times they will pay little attention to the child or show little genuine concern. This style is also not uncommon in alcoholic or drug-abusing parents. Children from cold-permissive families are very much on their own in the world. These children "will be hostile and rule-defying, with a high probability of delinquency."

Recall what was said earlier regarding the shift in parenting advice, namely, that over the last several decades parents were advised to raise more self-expressive children. The advice shifted toward the style described above as warm-permissive. There is evidence that permissive parenting both enhances impulsiveness and minimizes the function of the conscience.

During the same period of time in which warm-permissive parenting was popularized, beginning with the late 1950s, there emerged also an expanding drug culture, a generation, many who are parents today. A significant number of these parents have retained their alcohol and drug habits. While the psychological "experts" called for warm-permissive parenting, the reality of the drug culture created a permissive style that was cold in nature. The former gave us children who are socially outgoing but who frequently ignore or bend the rules, while the latter produced children who tend to be sullen, hostile, or rule defying.

A famous study by D. J. West and D. P. Farrington published in 1973 entitled "Who Becomes Delinquent?" followed the careers of 411 boys chosen at random from a working class section of London. The study followed the boys from age eight to age seventeen. Although there were some questionable assumptions brought forth by the study, what many felt was indisputable in the London study was the impact of adverse child rearing practices.

" A particularly noticeable characteristic of the parents of many of the delinquents in the study was carelessness or laxness in matters of supervision. They were less concerned than other parents to watch over or to know about their children's doings, whereabouts and companions, and they failed to enforce or to formulate fixed rules about such things as punctuality, manners, bedtime, television viewing or tidying Up."

Although the constitutional make-up of children differs regarding their tendency and willingness to internalize rules and regulations, parental supervision and consistent monitoring of a child's behavior does affect, to some degree, whether or not and to what extent that child develops his own inner controls, or what is called an "operational conscience."

Since inner controls are absorbed by the child from the outer controls applied by a child's parents and by other authority figures, a child whose parents fail to set clear, fair, and consistent boundaries will show marked weakness in monitoring his own behavior. He is likely, not only to be more impulsive, but also to have less "bite of conscience" for his inappropriate actions.

It is innate for a child to believe that if the parent does not disapprove of certain behavior then that form of behavior is acceptable. Like the parents in the London study, permissive parents will probably provide less direct supervision and will either fail to formulate fixed rules or tend to overlook non-compliance to such things as manners, punctuality, bedtime, picking up after oneself, tone of voice, accountability for school performance, etc. They may yell at or nag the child and thus think they are good disciplinarians, but they seldom enforce compliance in a consistent manner. Since there is no actual consequence involved with repeated verbal reprimands, a child soon learns that his parent's scoldings mean very little, carry little weight and seldom, if ever, are followed by an actual consequence. He quickly learns to ignore them.

It works the same way in a classroom. Warm-restrictive teachers will encourage students through a genuine caring manner, but they will consistently monitor compliance regarding proper conduct. Warm-permissive teachers, on the other hand, will use repeated verbal warnings or reprimands and seldom take action until having overstepped their level of tolerance. Often permissive teachers yell at or nag students, thinking they are good disciplinarians, but just as in the home, inconsistent, ineffectual nattering in the classroom is not a form of control that alters behavior in a positive way.

Travis Hirschi, known best for his "social control theory," has concluded that parents can affect the behavior of their offspring in two ways: first, by instilling a desire for their approval, and second, by making that approval contingent on proper behavior. "Some parents, however much they want their children to value their approval, lack the inclination or the ability to make their rewards contingent on the child's displaying the behavior necessary to win that approval."

In a roundabout way, parents and teachers have been led to believe that it is wrong to inspire children to behave or perform in certain ways to win their approval. They have been told over and over that their love for a child should be "unconditional." Both humanistic psychology and "new age" thinking emphasize the importance of "unconditional love," but separating the person from his behavior is not easily accomplished. In everyday practice, the theory of "unconditional love" has often resulted in unconditional approval of behavior. Led by humanist psychologists, parents have come to believe that permissive parenting is loving parenting. They are afraid of damaging a child's self-esteem and equally fearful of hampering his natural self-expression. It has even been subtly suggested by mental health professionals that parents and teachers who strive to uphold standards for behavior have an unconscious, ulterior need for power and control.

While it is true that in an emotionally healthy family a child will not have to "win" the love of his parents, it does not necessarily mean he may not have to gain their approval by adhering to appropriate standards for behavior. As Dr. Samenow has stated:

"Being firm does not call for being any less loving, and it certainly does not call for harshness or abuse. Parents who equate leniency with love often have unceasing difficulty controlling their children. Life holds consequences for irresponsible and destructive behavior. What could be more loving than to help a child learn this early, when penalties for misbehavior are far less severe than they will be later in life."

It might be helpful for parents to remember that "moral choices are determined by moral conscience, which is shaped early in life and most profoundly by the family." That children should be free spirits is a mistaken idea. That imposing standards, obligations, or requirements deprives a child of his childhood is an idea that undermines the very fiber of a child's character. Of course we remember the horror stories of the past when children, robbed of their childhood, were forced into long hours of hard labor, but that is no longer the case. Today's children have been robbed of appropriate responsibility, their need for limits and boundaries denied them by permissive parents. "Failure to set limits may have disastrous results. These parents do not realize that a boy or a girl who receives little discipline may find it difficult to become self-disciplined."

Public classrooms are filled with unruly, undisciplined children. If, as a caring parent, you want your child to get the best education possible, you must send him to school prepared to learn, prepared to listen, to concentrate, and to behave appropriately. Teachers have to spend too much of their instructional time just trying to control student behavior. The energy it takes is tremendous, and the energy and time wasted because of misbehaving students is taking its toll on the effectiveness of education.

Today, parents tend to blame teachers when their children do not do well in school. This is, again, a result of the permissive parenting trend in which parents and authority figures look at forces outside the child as the cause for failure, rather than hold the child, himself, accountable for his poor performance. Teachers, while absorbing the blame, know how hard they work to educate children and how increasingly difficult that becomes as the students become increasingly unruly and undisciplined.

Parents must teach children to monitor their behavior, and they must not fail to hold their children accountable for misbehavior. Making excuses for a child teaches him to make excuses for himself. Placing blame on outside forces inhibits the development of an operational conscience. A child who does not develop an operational conscience when he is young will be better equipped to ignore the voice of conscience when it is convenient for him to do so later.

IN SUMMARY

While there are no guaranteed formulas for child rearing, and while each child comes into the world with his own unique set of qualities and his own disposition, certain parental factors do appear to hinder healthy morality while others enhance it. Parents and teachers alike can benefit by developing an overall style of discipline that is warm-restrictive in nature.

HELPFUL TIPS

I. Develop a warm-restrictive parenting/discipline style.

2. Remember that adult supervision and consistent monitoring of a child's behavior (different from nagging) are necessary factors in helping a child develop his own inner controls.

3. Keep in mind that repeated verbal reprimands and continual nagging do little to change behavior. Rather than utilizing repeated verbal warnings and threats, state expectations clearly, give one warning stating what the consequence will be if compliance does not follow, then calmly follow through with the consequence. Consistency of this caliber is amazingly effective, and it does not take many instances of this type of discipline to let a child know you mean what you say. (This works in the classroom, too.)

4. Consequences can be simple. They need not be harsh or abusive. It is the consistency in following through that carries the real clout.

5. "Being firm does not call for being any less loving and it certainly does not call for harshness or abuse."

6. Parents can affect the behavior of their children by instilling a desire for their approval and by making that approval contingent on proper behavior.

7. Parents and teachers should not mistake unconditional love for unconditional approval of behavior, nor must they be daunted by those who suggest that setting and upholding standards for behavior is the manifestation of some unhealthy, unconscious need for control and power.

8. Provide appropriate opportunities for a child to have some on-going responsibility.

9. Parents: Do not blame teachers when your child does not do well in school. If teachers were the problem, then all students would be doing poorly. That is certainly not the case. Teachers: Help parents to understand the importance of holding the child responsible for his poor performance.

10. Remember that making excuses for a child teachs him to conveniently excuse himself.

11. Do not inhibit the development of an operational conscience by placing blame on outside forces. Help your child to focus on himself and to make adjustments in his own behavior and attitude. Thinking that other people are the source of one's problems is a major characteristic of the antisocial person.

12. Above all, remember that a child who does not develop an operational conscience when he is young will find it easier to turn off the voice of conscience later .

13. Special Note: Parents and teachers of learning disabled students have an additional, and often, difficult task. They must find and maintain that acute balance between making allowances for a child's legitimate disability and reinforcing a child's sense of personal responsibility for his behavior and performance. As is the case with all children, learning disabled students must develop an operational conscience, and, like all children, when excuses are conveniently offered for them by others, they learn to conveniently excuse themselves.