Brighton and Hove Psychotherapy

Online Therapy
01273 921 355

by Leave a Comment

Why behavioural approaches do not work for all children

One of the most frequently asked questions put to me in clinic, is why some children do not respond to traditional reward/punishment based behavioural strategies. The answer is simple – because, contrary to popular opinion, these strategies do not work for all children in all situations.

This is because the ability to make a mental link between a behaviour and a punishment, and to then be to be subsequently less motivated to use that behaviour again, actually involves quite sophisticated cognitive processes. It also requires specific parts of the brain to be functioning well. Difficulties with this may apply to children with learning disabilities or neurological conditions. It may also apply to children who are anxious, fearful or traumatised. This is because anxious or fearful children are often operating from a very primitive part of their brain that physically impedes their ability to access more developed parts of their brains. This in turn makes it harder for them to make cause and effect links, to generalise, to suppress their impulses, to make rational decisions, to maintain empathy for others and, in some cases, even to trust in the motivations of others. Punishing these children without supporting them to understand what is happening for them, therefore, is actually more likely to increase their fearful behaviours and further undermine their trust in those around them. For some children, it can also exacerbate feelings of shame.

A second concern with an overly heavy reliance on behaviourist principles when applied to children, is the theoretical and research origins upon which these principles are based. Behaviourism was largely developed in the 1950s and 1960s in laboratories with small mammals such as dogs, cats and rats – animals with significantly less developed brains than our own. Whilst these experiments can teach us a lot about how to shape behaviour in its purist sense therefore (i.e. classical and operant conditioning), they offer nothing in terms of how we build children’s self-esteem, build their intrinsic motivation, or even how to protect their attachment relationships. For instance, classically conditioning young babies to sleep by ignoring their attachment-seeking behaviours, can have detrimental effects on a child’s subsequent relational security and internal regulation skills. Similarly, a heavy reliance on operantly conditioning ‘good behaviour’ in young children with external motivators (e.g. star charts) has been shown to undermine a child’s natural desire to problem solve, be creative and to keep building on their successes when these external motivators are later removed.

Whilst some behavioural principles within a parenting repertoire can undoubtedly be helpful, therefore, when used to excess, and particularly when used in the absence of a broader context of sensitive, loving and developmentally appropriate care, they can quickly become damaging. This is because human children have brains that require so much more from the parent-carer relationship than simple behavioural conditioning.

Part of my role as a Clinical Psychologist, therefore, is to help parents, carers and professionals, to find new and more effective ways of supporting children to reach their full potential.

 

Dr Laura Tinkl is a Senior Chartered Clinical Psychologist, professionally accredited by both the Health and Social Care Professions Council (HCPC) and The British Psychological Society (BPS). Appointments can be made in the Lewes Practice.

 

Blogs by Dr Laura Tinkl

Tips for talking to young children about their behaviour

Parenting Styles

‘Ghosts in the Nursery’ – The Power of Family Scripts

When praise becomes harmful to children

The role of ‘attunement’ in relationships with babies and young children

Facebooktwitter

by Leave a Comment

Tips for talking to young children about their behaviour

When talking to young children, most people know that ‘open’ as opposed to ‘closed’ questions are helpful. That is, questions that cannot easily be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” answer and invite the child to give more information. These questions typically start with “who..?”, “where…?”, “what…?” and “how…?”. What many people don’t realise, however, is that the most frequently used open-question starter – “why…?”, can be hugely counterproductive to conversations with young children.

This is because young children can easily experience the word “why” as threatening. A “why” question implies that the child should have (and the adult expects them to have) a level of insight about their behaviour that they genuinely might not have at this stage. For some children it can cause them to close down by becoming silent or simply saying “I don’t know”, which can feel infuriating to parents. Other children may feel the pressure to just give an answer – any answer – which might not even make sense (e.g. “I did it because my tummy was hurting”). This is because they just feel the pressure to say SOMETHING, which can also feel upsetting to parents. (Incidentally, when a child says that their tummy is hurting, that actually can be a sign of anxiety).

Much better, is to side-step the “why” question altogether with young children (e.g. “what made you do that?” or “when you did that, what did you think might happen?”) These kinds of questions keep the dialogue flowing and importantly, help the child to start to understand for themselves what their thoughts, feelings and motivations were when they used a particular behaviour.

This is an important foundation step towards impulse control and emotional regulation.

 

Dr Laura Tinkl is a Senior Chartered Clinical Psychologist, professionally accredited by both the Health and Social Care Professions Council (HCPC) and The British Psychological Society (BPS). Appointments can be made in the Lewes Practice.

 

Blogs by Dr Laura Tinkl

Parenting Styles

‘Ghosts in the Nursery’ – The Power of Family Scripts

When praise becomes harmful to children

The role of ‘attunement’ in relationships with babies and young children

Facebooktwitter

by Leave a Comment

Parenting Styles

Since the early 1960s, psychologists have been interested in the relationship between parenting and the emotional, social and behavioural development of children. 

Of particular significance to this field of study, is the early work of psychologist Diana Baumrind and colleagues, who conducted the first longitudinal study of more than 100 preschoolers through to their adolescence, specifically examining the impact of their parents approaches towards them on their subsequent development (Baumrind & Black, 1967). This study, which used a combination of naturalist observations and parental interviews, identified four ‘dimensions’ of parenting – (a) disciplinary strategies, (b) warmth and nurturance, (c) communication and (d) expectations of maturity and control. More than this, however, this influential study identified three ‘parenting styles’ which have since stood up to considerable empirical scrutiny. 

The first of the parenting styles identified by Baumrind is now more commonly referred to ‘authoritarian parenting’. This an approach to parenting which is generically low in warmth but high in control. Parents who fall into this category, typically hold very high expectations for their children’s behaviour and develop strict, non-negotiable rules for which they must live by. They are described as “obedience and status-orientated and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation” (Baumrind, 1991). Failure to abide by their rules, or to meet their behavioral expectations, is typically met with punishment rather than with empathy or understanding. This type of parenting is often seen in adults who they themselves were raised by parents with a similar style of parenting [see my earlier blog on ‘family scripts’] and who therefore hold an authoritarian working model or ‘blueprint’ of what it is to be a parent. This style can also sometimes be seen in anxious parents, who respond to a fear of losing control of their children by exerting total control. The implications for their children, however, is that they are often left feeling angry, confused or upset internally, but have no capacity to process or make sense of these emotional experiences as they develop. Their children are also often limited in their opportunities for free play and exploration of the world, which is equally important for healthy emotional and social development. 

The second parenting style identified by Baumrind is that of ‘permissive parenting’. This style can be broken down into two further parenting styles – ‘permissive-indulgent’ and ‘permissive-indifferent’. A ‘permissive-indulgent’ parent is broadly defined as a parent who is very high in warmth, but very low in control. In direct contrast to their authoritarian counterparts therefore, permissive-indulgent parents make very few demands on their children, rarely discipline them and typically seek to avoid confrontation. They are described as “generally nurturing and often take on the status of a friend more than that of a parent” (Baumrind, 1991). The implications for their children, however, is that whilst their internal worlds are largely attended to (although negative emotions can still be feared), they lack the developmentally appropriate structure, boundaries and expectations that they need in order to develop into healthy, socially-adept adults. ‘Permissive-indifferent’ parents on the other hand, present as very low in control AND in warmth. These parents offer neither structure and boundaries nor warmth and affection for their children. They are what we typically consider to be emotionally neglectful parents, who in extreme cases, may actively reject their children, leading to inevitable attachment difficulties as their child develops.  

The third parenting style initially identified by Baumrind’s study is known as an ‘authoritative’ parenting style. This style bridges the gap between authoritarian and permissive parenting styles and is known in research circles as the ‘gold standard’ for child development. This is because parents who are able to approach caring for their children with this style of parenting are able to establish developmentally appropriate rules and boundaries, but can at the same time, remain responsive to and curious about their children’s internal worlds. This means that they can be open to trying to understand a child’s internal world (e.g. their thoughts, feelings, motivations, perceptions, beliefs, etc.) even if they do not accept their behaviour. Indeed, when their children fail to meet their expectations, an authoritative parent is more likely to respond with forgiveness, nurture and find structured opportunities for new learning, rather than with punishment. Similarly, they can remain democratically open to questions and challenges from their children about their rules. They are defined as being able to “monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative” (Baumrind, 1991). The benefits for children raised with this type of parenting style is clearly evidenced in their later performance on a broad range of emotional, social and behavioural indices. These include social responsibility, the ability to cooperate with peers and adults, independence, assertiveness, problem solving and high self-esteem. Support for this ‘middle ground’ approach to parenting is also offered by recent research which has identified that children with a history of severe developmental trauma and attachment disruption, respond most effectively to an ‘authoritative ++’ approach to nurture whilst in care – a specific type of parenting approach which is very high in both control AND warmth and nurture – also known as the ‘two handed’ approach to parenting (Hughes, Golding & Hudson, 2019). 

As alluded to earlier, the type of parent we become will be influenced in part by our own experiences of being parented. Whilst we can adapt this to a degree, however, when we are under stress, it is likely that we will move closer towards our ‘blueprint’ of what a parent is. For this reason, it is extremely important that as parents, we take the time to notice for ourselves when we are starting to a more extreme type of parenting style (authoritarian or permissive) as an indicator or ‘red flag’ that we need to take some time out to recharge in order to be the parents that we want to be, and which our children need us to be. If you are co-parenting, it can also be helpful to think about where you and your partner each naturally fall on the continuum between high warmth and high control as parents, and to spend some time thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of these respective similarities or differences in your parenting styles, as well as the impact that the combination of your parenting styles has on your child. When challenges or parenting styles feel unhelpful or entrenched, however, it can be worth seeking professional help. 

References – 

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56­95. 

Baumrind, D., & Black, A.E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38, 291­327.

Hughes, D., Golding, K. & Hudson, J. (2019). Healing Relational Trauma with Attachment-Focused Interventions: Dyadic developmental psychotherapy with children and families. Norton

 

Dr Laura Tinkl is a Senior Chartered Clinical Psychologist, professionally accredited by both the Health and Social Care Professions Council (HCPC) and The British Psychological Society (BPS). Appointments can be made in the Lewes Practice.

 

Further reading by Dr Laura Tinkl –

‘Ghosts in the Nursery’ – The Power of Family Scripts

When praise becomes harmful to children

The role of ‘attunement’ in relationships with babies and young children

What is ‘Blocked Care’ as it applies to parenting?

Facebooktwitter

by Leave a Comment

“Ghosts in the Nursery” – The Power of Family Scripts

 

 

As much as we might fight it, our own experiences of being parented, create within us blueprints or ‘internal working models’ of what it is to be a parent. These models only become fully activated when we become parents ourselves, and often take us by surprise. For instance, we may find ourselves ‘turning into’ our parents in ways we hadn’t intended. Similarly, memories from our past can be unexpectedly invoked in us when our own children reach the same age. 

Selma Fraiberg (1987) emotively referred to this phenomenon as “ghosts in the nursery” – the idea that without conscious effort to alter entrenched family patterns, family life can essentially become a ‘rehearsal’ for the next generation. More commonly, we refer to this phenomenon as the enactment of ‘family scripts’. John Byng-Hall (1985) proposed three ways in which these family scripts may manifest – 

  1. REPLICATIVE SCRIPTS: 

These scripts are a direct replication of the parenting that we received ourselves. They can include replication of positive scripts (e.g. family rituals, ways of nurturing children, ways of enforcing boundaries, certain sayings, etc.). They can also include replicating negative (unresolved) scripts, which may be consciously replicated (e.g. “smacking never did me any harm”) or unconsciously replicated (e.g. needing to hide one’s sad or angry feelings from a parent can make it harder for these children to later recognise or respond to these feelings in their own children).

  1. CORRECTIVE SCRIPTS:

These family scripts are a conscious decision to offer our children a different experience of being parented to what we received ourselves. The danger for this type of script, however, is that because they are driven from an emotional response to our past, there is a risk that we will go too far the other way (e.g. feeling hard done by as an older child, so favouring our own eldest child).

  1. IMPROVISED SCRIPTS: 

These family scripts relate to the ability to flexibly and creatively amalgamate what we most value from our own experiences of being parented, with what we now value and learn from new relationships, education, culture, etc. We generally consider that the most resilient and healthy families adopt this form of script. 

Difficulties can arise when damaging or unhealthy replicative family scripts cannot be consciously thought about by parents. In extreme cases, these can negatively impact upon a parent’s relationship with their child and therefore, their child’s subsequent emotional well-being. For the most part, however, activation of family scripts is normal, inevitable, and actually helps children to become embedded within the familial and social context to which they belong. Indeed, almost all the parents that I meet in my work (myself included), offer a fascinating mix of all three of the above scripts to their children.

References:

Byng-Hall, J. (1985). The family script: A useful bridge between theory and practice. Journal of Family Therapy, 7, 301-305

Fraiberg, S., Adelson, E. & Shapiro, V. (1980). Ghosts in the nursery: A psychoanalytic approach to the problem of impaired infant-mother relationships. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 3.

 

Dr Laura Tinkl is a Senior Chartered Clinical Psychologist, professionally accredited by both the Health and Social Care Professions Council (HCPC) and The British Psychological Society (BPS). Appointments can be made in the Lewes Practice.

 

Further reading by Dr Laura Tinkl –

When praise becomes harmful to children

The role of ‘attunement’ in relationships with babies and young children

What is ‘Blocked Care’ as it applies to parenting?

 

Facebooktwitter

by Leave a Comment

When praise becomes harmful to children

Contrary to its intention, praise does not always make a child feel good.

Whilst we might typically think of praise as a gift, it is technically an evaluative judgement on the other person (e.g. “you’re a good girl” or “you’re a brilliant artist”), which for some children can be experienced as threatening or even dysregulating (Stephen Porges Polyvagal Theory).

This risk is particularly pronounced in children whose earliest relationships have not enabled them to trust in the safety of relationships and/or have caused them to develop negative core beliefs about themselves as inherently bad or unlovable. For these children, being told that they are “good” or “fantastic” at something, is so far removed from their own sense of themselves that they cannot make use of it. More likely, they will be put on high alert for when the other person will no longer see them as “good” and will see their true self. It also creates inevitable comparison – and therefore, competition, with other children. For very traumatised children, therefore, ‘global praise’ (or generalised, non-specific praise), can actually act to undermine their trust in the safety of their relationship with the person giving it to them (Hughes, Golding & Hudson, 2019).

Whilst not all children have experienced developmental trauma, however, it is still true that global praise is not helpful to children. This is because it contains too little information about what the giver is enjoying about the child, or what they are doing well, for them to make use of it. Indeed, a natural tendency (for any of us!) when offered global praise, is to immediately deny it (e.g. “I don’t always have gorgeous hair! You didn’t see me yesterday!”), to assume that the giver is lying or does not know what they are talking about (“As if I always sound intelligent!”), to focus on our weaknesses (e.g. “Clever! You should see me doing my times tables!”), to make us anxious (e.g. “I’ll never be able to hit the ball again now you’ve said I’m a good shot!”) or to assume that we are being manipulated (e.g. “What’s she after?”; Faber & Mazlish, 2001).

A healthier alternative to global praise is ‘descriptive praise’. That is, the act of actively looking for specific things that you appreciate, value or enjoy about your child (e.g. “You two have just sat there colouring for 20 minutes with no squabbling”, or “You picked up all your toys, thank you!”) In offering descriptive praise, parents and professionals should attend as much, if not more so, to the effort that a child is making as their achievements (e.g. “I can see you are putting so much hard work into revising your spellings”). They should also ‘own’ their opinions (e.g. “I really like what you’ve drawn there. I like the stripes on your zebra. I think that’s a great drawing!” rather than “you’re a brilliant artist!”).

Unlike global praise, descriptive praise helps to build children’s self-esteem. This is because it supports children to start to recognise the positives in themselves. This happens because having someone else point out specific things that they like or value about them, in a way that they actually can hear and accept it, enables children to give themselves the praise they deserve (e.g. “Yeah, I did draw that chimney well”). Descriptive praise can also be a wonderful way of building enjoyment, joy, trust and security in attachment relationships, for instance, building in a period of descriptive praise for the child before they go to sleep each night. Further, descriptive praise can help to build a child’s resilience, as parents can support their child to start to recognise all their strengths in the face of adversity (e.g. “I know you’re sad that you didn’t make the football team, but I was so impressed with how you went and congratulated the other players. I thought that was really kind”).

For descriptive praise to be effective, however, it should always be within the context of GENUINE heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for the child or their behaviour, as our non-verbal communication is always stronger than our verbal.

References:

Faber, A. & Mazlish, E. (2001). How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk. Piccadilly Press

Hughes, D., Golding, K. & Hudson, J. (2019). Healing Relational Trauma with Attachment-Focused Interventions: Dyadic developmental psychotherapy with children and families. W. W. Norton & Company.

Porges, S. (2019). Home of Dr. Stephen Porges. www.stephenporges.com; Accessed: 2019.06.07

 

Dr Laura Tinkl is a Senior Chartered Clinical Psychologist, professionally accredited by both the Health and Social Care Professions Council (HCPC) and The British Psychological Society (BPS). Appointments can be made in the Lewes practice.

 

Further reading by Dr Laura Tinkl –

The role of ‘attunement’ in relationships with babies and young children

What is ‘Blocked Care’ as it applies to parenting?

Facebooktwitter

Copyright © 2020 – Brighton And Hove Psychotherapy – Privacy Policy
6 The Drive, Hove , East Sussex, BN3 3JA.