|
By Christopher A. Thurber, Ph.D.
Big Questions
Perhaps no question weighs more heavily on the minds of parents, teachers,
and camp staff than "Will this child do what I ask?" Sadly, there
is no magic formula for obedience. So, this question is perennial; its answer
elusive. Sure, we try to manage children's behavior. A keyword search for
books on parenting yields 23,096 titles. There is no shortage of advice.
But as any parent will tell you, there is a chasm between child behavior
theory and practice. As Bill Cosby said, "Parenting can be learned
only by people who have no children."
The three studies reviewed in this article revolutionized our understanding
of how parenting and socialization influence children's behavior. Previous
articles in this series have highlighted children's own influence on their
caregivers and the reciprocal interactions that promote healthy development.
Now we shift our focus to how caregivers shape children's development through
their own example and through the environments they select for children.
Coastal Perspectives
During the 1950s and 1960s, parenting research was dominated by the behaviorist
concept that rewards and punishments shape behavior. Harvard University
psychologistB. F. Skinner championed the notion that the proper contingencies
could teach a normally developing human to do almost anything, from gymnastics
to brain surgery.
On the other side of the country, Stanford University psychologist Albert
Bandura made a keen observation — unless a particular behavior happens,
it cannot be shaped by rewards and punishments. In other words, you cannot
reward or punish a behavior that a child has not yet performed. So, how
can you teach a new child new tricks? Bandura's answer to the limitations
of behavioral learning theory was "social learning theory." Children
learn by imitating others.
Sock Him in the Nose
In his brilliant 1961 study, Bandura and his colleagues exposed seventy-two
boys and girls aged three to five to three situations. In the first, each
child sat in a playroom with an adult who either played peacefully in the
corner or who aggressively beat a five-foot inflatable clown doll named
Bobo. In the aggressive condition, the adult model who beat Bobo struck
him with a mallet, sat on him and punched him, and yelled things like, "Sock
him in the nose!" Next, each child followed the experimenter to a second
playroom where he or she was intentionally frustrated. The child was allowed
to play with some attractive toys for two minutes, and then was told, "These
are my very best toys. I don't let just anyone play with them. I'm saving
them for the other children. However, you can play with any of the toys
I have in the next room." The child was then escorted to a third room
and left to play alone for twenty minutes. Each child's behavior was carefully
recorded in five-second intervals. Among the toys in this experimental room
was a three-foot inflatable Bobo doll.
Children who had been exposed to the nonaggressive situation generally
played peacefully. They were rarely aggressive toward Bobo. However, those
who had witnessed aggression often imitated that aggression. Like the adult
models, boys and girls in the aggressive condition beat and yelled at Bobo.
Compared to the children in the nonaggressive condition, these children
also spent 50 percent less time sitting and playing quietly.
Covert Operations and Sex Differences
Bandura's conclusion was that learning had occurred covertly. No particular
behavior had been reinforced or punished. However, after some delay, children
imitated the behavior they had witnessed. Because all the children had been
frustrated, Bandura also concluded that most children in the nonaggressive
condition had been able to inhibit aggressive urges and play peacefully.
Thus, both aggressive and nonaggressive adult models had influenced children's
behavior.
Bandura and his colleagues also noted some interesting sex differences.
Whereas boys in the aggressive condition imitated more physical aggression
than girls, boys and girls in this group did not differ in the amount of
verbal aggression they directed at Bobo. There was also some evidence that
the gender of the adult model made a difference. The most physically aggressive
boys were those who had observed an aggressive male role model; the most
verbally aggressive girls were those who had observed a female role model.
Overall, both boys and girls imitated more of the aggressive male's behavior
than the aggressive female's behavior.
All in the Family
Ten years after Bandura's study was published, University of California
psychologist Diana Baumrind published the results of her extensive field
research. Unlike Bandura's experimental setting, Baumrind sought answers
to questions about how adults influence children's behavior in natural settings,
such as schools and homes. Over a period of several months, Baumrind and
her team studied 150 mostly white, middle-class families with five-year-olds
who attended Berkeley-area preschools.
Baumrind's goal was to categorize parenting styles, categorize children's
behavior, and then see which style of parenting was associated with which
behaviors. Her team studied children's behavior at school and at home, and
measured parenting style with self-report questionnaires and home observations
from dinner time until after each child's bed time. Mealtime and bedtime
were judged to be good opportunities to observe parenting style.
Control and Warmth
Baumrind's analysis of parents' behavior suggested that 75 percent fit
one of three patterns. She dubbed these parenting patterns authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive.
These styles vary in amounts of control and warmth.
Authoritarian
Authoritarian parents try to shape and evaluate the behavior and attitudes
of their children according to an absolute standard. They stress the importance
of obedience to authority and favor punitive measures to bring about their
children's compliance. They tend not to consider their child's point of
view. (Control is high; warmth is low.)
Authoritative
Authoritative parents understand that they have more skill, control, and
physical power than their children. They try to control them by explaining
rules or decisions and by reasoning with them. They consider their child's
point of view and set high standards for their children's behavior. (Control
is high; warmth is high.)
Permissive
Permissive parents exercise little control over their children's behavior
and make relatively few demands on them. They give their children a lot
of leeway to determine their own schedules and activities and often consult
with them about family problems. They do not demand the same levels of achievement
and mature behavior that other parents do. (Control is low; warmth is high.)
Neglecting
Other researchers have since found evidence of a fourth style — neglecting
— where control and warmth levels are both low. Such parents ignore
their children, are indifferent to achievement and behavior, and are uninvolved.
(Given that Baumrind's sample included intact, middle-class families, she
was unlikely to find this neglecting style in her initial research.)
Reap What You Sow
Baumrind found that, on average, each of the three parenting styles she
studied was associated with a certain pattern of children's behavior in
school.
Children of authoritarian parents lacked social skills with their peers.
This was especially true for boys. They often withdrew from playful interactions
and rarely initiated contact with other children. In situations of moral
conflict, such as telling the truth, they tended to look to teachers and
other outside authorities to decide what was right. These children seemed
to lack spontaneity and intellectual curiosity.
Children of authoritative parents could do more for themselves, were more
self-controlled, more willing to explore, and more content, compared to
children of authoritarian or permissive parents. Girls in this group were
especially independent. Boys in this group were especially socially responsible.
Probably as a result of having parents who explain things like rewards and
punishments, children in this group understood and accepted social rules.
Children of permissive parents tended to be relatively immature. They had
difficulty controlling their impulses, accepting responsibility for social
actions, and acting independently.
What's Not There
Subsequent research with adolescents has generally confirmed Baumrind's
findings. For example, Sanford Dornbusch and his colleagues found that authoritative
parenting is associated with better school performance and better social
adjustment than authoritarian parenting among high school students.
One of the most interesting results of Baumrind's research is that 25 percent
of the parents she studied did not fit one of her three style categories.
Their parenting was a blend of different styles, and the resulting child
behaviors were mixed. Moreover, most of the parents who did not fit one
of her categories were African-American, which begs the question "How
does parenting style vary from one ethnic group to another?"
Research conducted since Baumrind's revolutionary studies has found that
parenting styles and children's behavior do vary a great deal from one culture
to another. For example, anthropologists Beatrice and John Whiting found
that children in the Gusii tribe in Nyansongo, Kenya, exhibited more authoritarian
and aggressive behavior than did children in a small New England town. The
Whitings guessed this was partly because older Gusii children were left
at home to serve as substitute parents to the Gusii toddlers, while the
mothers and fathers tended the fields. Perhaps Gusii children's cultural
role as surrogate parents engendered more bossy behavior. On the other hand,
Gusii children also tended to be more nurturing and responsible than their
U.S. peers.
Clearly, children's behavior is influenced not only by their parents, but
also by their culture. How are these myriad influences best understood?
Living in Circles
In the lead article for the July 1977 issue of American Psychologist, Russian-born
Cornell University professor Urie Bronfenbrenner wrote, ". . . it can
be said that much of contemporary developmental psychology is the science
of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults
for the briefest possible periods of time."
Bronfenbrenner had two objections: (1) In an effort to construct scientifically
rigorous studies, psychologists were fabricating artificial, experimental
environments. Hence, the validity of their conclusions about child development
was questionable. (2) Psychologists were looking at specific behaviors in
isolation, without regard to the cultural context. Hence, it was hard to
generalize results to other, different groups of children.
Bronfenbrenner's revolutionary idea was to conceptualize human development
as a nested series of influential factors. A diagram of his theory —
called the ecology of human development — looks like an archery target.
In the center are what Bronfenbrenner calls microsystems. Microsystems are
relations between the person and the environment in the immediate setting,
such as home, school, or workplace.
The next ring out from the bull's-eye is called the mesosystem. Mesosystems
are relations among the major settings in which a person spends time, such
as interactions between the family and the school or the church and the
camp.
The next circle of influence on the developing person is the exosystem.
These are not direct influences on the person, but on the settings in which
the person exists. Exosystems like the neighborhood, the mass media, and
government agencies influence mesosystems like a family or a school which
in turn influence children directly.
Finally, there are macrosystems, which are the overarching, influential
institutional patterns of the culture. Ideologies, such as democracy, or
religions, such as Christianity or Judaism, are examples of macrosystems.
Thinking Inside the Box . . . er, Target
Let's take an everyday behavior and try to understand it the way Bronfenbrenner
suggested. Let's say that Jack comes home from school and punches Jill in
the nose. On a microsystem level, this is simply an aggressive behavior.
We could stop there — as some researchers might — but we wouldn't
understand how this behavior developed or how best to intervene.
On a mesosystem level, perhaps Jack's parents had been talking with his
teachers and agreed that he needed to be working harder in math. Perhaps
Jack's teacher gave him extra math homework that day, but he really wanted
to play baseball, so he came home frustrated. This gives us more insight
into his aggressive behavior. But there's even more to learn.
On an exosystem level, perhaps federal budget cuts had reduced state funding
for public school special education. Had there been enough money at Jack's
school, he would have received remedial math help. But, Jack's teacher has
thirty-five other pupils and no help, so her solution was to give Jack more
math homework and ask his parents to help. Now we're beginning to put Jack's
behavior in context, but there are even broader circles of influence.
On a macrosystem level, perhaps the federal budget cuts were influenced
by a prevailing ideology that less government is better. Perhaps lawmakers
voted in favor of budget cuts in order to increase the autonomy of local
school systems.
So, Jack punched his sister because of a Republican majority in the Senate?
Yes and no. According to Bronfenbrenner, we cannot fully understand Jack's
aggression without examining the layers of context and culture — but
the relation between those layers and what happens in the microsystem is,
as you can see, indirect. Such is the ecology of human development.
Bronfenbrenner also pointed out that researchers spend a lot of time looking
at two-person interactions, but lots of interesting behavior happens in
webs of three or more people. For example, if I rewind the imaginary video
tape I have of Jack punching Jill, I notice that just before he did that,
Jill's friend Mary stuck her tongue out at Jack and sang, "Ja-ckie's
a re-tard! He got extra math work!" Now we understand even more about
Jack's behavior.
What to Pack for Camp
The studies discussed in this article have revolutionized child psychology
by suggesting the following:
- Although behavior can be shaped by rewards and punishments, children
also learn through imitation of adult role models;
- When parents combine control and warmth, children are more independent,
responsible, and content than when either control or warmth is present
alone, or absent altogether; and
- Understanding human behavior requires studying layers of context and
culture.
How can you use these findings at camp?
- Recognize that a leader's most powerful tool is his or her example.
Leadership-by-example — or LBE — is elegant, persuasive, profound,
and long-lasting. Compared to LBE, techniques such as yelling, punishing,
lecturing, and making lists of rules are blunt instruments in your leadership
toolbox. Behave as you would have others behave.
- Give yourself and your staff room to make mistakes and permission to
own those mistakes. Reinforce the practice of apologizing for and improving
any behavior that set a poor example. There is no statute of limitations
on apologies.
- See your camp in an "ecological" framework. Each interaction
between a camper and a staff member or between you and a parent or between
two staff members happens in a layered context. There are many spheres
of influence, like the layers of an onion.
- To adequately understand a single behavior, one must consider all the
people involved, the groups of which they are part, the institutions that
shape those groups, the cultural setting, and the prevailing attitudes
and sustaining beliefs that impinge upon that setting.
- Once staff understand camp in an ecological framework, give them practice
responding thoughtfully to camper behavior. One temptation we all have
when we see something amiss at camp is to react impulsively, perhaps with
a reprimand. When we consider the ecology of the misbehavior, our solutions
are more creative and effective.
- Educate your staff about the relation between their style and their
campers' behavior. Only the exceptional camp experience could undo years
of bad parenting. No matter what style of parenting campers are used to,
all staff should strive to expose their campers to unconditional kindness
(warmth) within appropriate limits (control).
- Prepare your staff to show campers kindness and to set fair and consistent
limits. The happiest, most socially skilled, most independent children
are those whose caregivers uphold high standards, explain consequences
for misbehavior, invite children to problem-solve with them, and never
withhold love.
- Understand that permissive leadership — where campers are allowed
to do almost whatever they want—is driven by fear. Leaders fear
that setting strict limits will either cause rebellious behavior or make
them unpopular. Research demonstrates that both fears are unfounded.
- Create a camp culture where kindness is not a commodity to be earned,
but a foundation for healthy relationships that every single camper is
given unconditionally. No misbehavior can be effectively redirected or
unlearned without kindness.
I sometimes hear staff complain about their campers' misbehavior. "I
can't punish my campers," they say. "First of all, they came here
to have fun. Second, I'm not their parents, so I have no authority. Third,
we aren't allowed to discipline them. There's nothing I can do. These kids
are driving me crazy."
In response to this helpless lament, I remind staff of three things: First,
disciplining their campers begins with kindness. As long as they stay angry
with their campers, little will change. Second, all behavior contains a
message. Until they hear that message and empathize with their campers,
little will change. And third, the word discipline (which comes from the
Latin disciplina) means teaching and learning. In that sense, disciplining
their campers is exactly what they were hired to do.
References
Bandura, A., Ross, D, & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression
through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
63, 575-582.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monographs, 4 (1, part 2).
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., &
Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. *
Cole, M. & Cole, S. R. (1996). The development of children. New York:
W. H. Freeman & Co.*
Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of six cultures:
A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. *
*Not part of the list "The 20 Most Revolutionary Studies in Child Development"
Originally published in the 2003 September/October
issue of Camping Magazine.
|
