An absurdly relevant article from maverick educator Alfie Kohn in the NY Times entitled “When A Parent’s Love Comes With Conditions”. It turns out that the Grace in Practice/Beyond Deserving description of reality stands up under the microscope. Once again, motivation itself proves to be both the most telling aspect of a relationship, but also the most impervious to coercion. The opposite of parental disapproval, it turns out, is not parental approval/affirmation – it involves doing away with the reward-punishment scale entirely. To paraphrase Gerhard Forde, the thirst for glory is not satisfied, it is extinguished. A truism that, needless to say, will sound incredibly conditional to the parents who read them (i.e. what happens if I fail to love my children this well?!). But to the children in the audience, well, that’s another story. It’s THE story, in fact, at least if all this talk of a heavenly Father has any, um, merit:
In 2004, two Israeli researchers, Avi Assor and Guy Roth, joined Edward L. Deci, a leading American expert on the psychology of motivation, in asking more than 100 college students whether the love they had received from their parents had seemed to depend on whether they had succeeded in school, practiced hard for sports, been considerate toward others or suppressed emotions like anger and fear.
It turned out that children who received conditional approval were indeed somewhat more likely to act as the parent wanted. But compliance came at a steep price. First, these children tended to resent and dislike their parents. Second, they were apt to say that the way they acted was often due more to a “strong internal pressure” than to “a real sense of choice.” Moreover, their happiness after succeeding at something was usually short-lived, and they often felt guilty or ashamed.
In a companion study, Dr. Assor and his colleagues interviewed mothers of grown children. With this generation, too, conditional parenting proved damaging. Those mothers who, as children, sensed that they were loved only when they lived up to their parents’ expectations now felt less worthy as adults. Yet despite the negative effects, these mothers were more likely to use conditional affection with their own children.
What these and other studies tell us, if we’re able to hear the news, is that praising children for doing something right isn’t a meaningful alternative to pulling back or punishing when they do something wrong. Both are examples of conditional parenting, and both are counterproductive.
The data suggest that love withdrawal isn’t particularly effective at getting compliance, much less at promoting moral development. Even if we did succeed in making children obey us, though — say, by using positive reinforcement — is obedience worth the possible long-term psychological harm? Should parental love be used as a tool for controlling children?
Deeper issues also underlie a different sort of criticism. Albert Bandura, the father of the branch of psychology known as social learning theory, declared that unconditional love “would make children directionless and quite unlovable” — an assertion entirely unsupported by empirical studies.
In practice, according to an impressive collection of data by Dr. Deci and others, unconditional acceptance by parents as well as teachers should be accompanied by “autonomy support”: explaining reasons for requests, maximizing opportunities for the child to participate in making decisions, being encouraging without manipulating, and actively imagining how things look from the child’s point of view.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGawOk107eU&w=600]
COMMENTS
15 responses to “I Love You If…: Motivation, Obedience and Conditional Parenting”
Leave a Reply
Great article, DZ.
The insights at the end of article seem terrifically close to the Love and Logic based parenting (which I highly recommend).
Favorite Love and Logic line…"I'll love you no matter how many years it takes you to get thru the 9th grade!"
Love the article – love the love I get to shower on my kids – no matter what they do! Sometimes, I just prefer to not be around their ugly behaviour. Sigh.
(!!!)
Dana Henry
I love it when you post stuff about parenting. Great piece!
i sent this to john, bonnie, and simeon yesterday, but didn't have your e-mail dave. amazing article!
interesting article. I wonder though, does punishing a child in order to show them that wrongdoing (aka sin) has real life consequences on this side of heaven equate to withholding love from that child? I'm not sure that I would agree.
Consequently, should ALL parental punishment be withheld and left up to teachers, principals, police officers, judges etc?
It seems as if that could leave the door open for some disastrous consequences, no?
Thank you for posting this finding, O Mockingbird.
Unconditional love is written into the nature of things, or better, into the nature of what human beings need very urgently; yet we are constantly oscillating back to its opposite for some conceptual belief that the whole force of love without judgment will result in antinomianism. Whence this fear?
I experience it as an impermeable fear and have never been able to quiet it within the context of regular preaching and teaching.
It is as if this possibility, of unconditional love, touches an anxiety of controllessness and chaos that is embedded deeply.
We may never "win this one", but the result will continue to be resentful children and bewildered parents, unto the 'third and fourth generations'.
BrenSorem:
Thanks so much for those thoughtful questions. I think the main point of the article was to provide love at all turns (maybe I read this into the article).
However, let me address your questions directly: 1. In the love and logic parenting discipline that I and many of my friends follow and which is very close to the conclusions the article made, beleives in "consequences" for choices (i.e. actions) the child makes (yes, this may be semantics, consequences v. punishment, but it works for me). So, my 2.5 year old hits my 1 year old; in a loving and empathetic voice "Uh oh…so sad [because it is], little boys who hit their little brothers have to play somewhere else" and then, "I love you." There's no indication that my son is bad nor did I say directly that his action was bad (which can also cause a child to feel like they are bad); rather, the child did something and a consequence occurred. Usually, after a period of time, my son get's called back to play with us again. There's no lecture, not rehashing what happened. I just go get him, pick him up and hug him and say, again, "I love you."
The goal is twofold: 1. make the child aware that there are always consequences (favorable and unfavorable) for actions (not hitting means my son gets to play with his little brother). hopefully, this happens enough that the child will consider their actions by thinking about the consequences ("i really want to hit Jack; but the last time I did that I had to play by myself"). And 2. Mommy and daddy love me unconditionally.
To address your other question about if discipline/consequences should be left up to professionals outside of the home, i think, personally, NO WAY! I'm the primary authority in my child's life. All other authority will be compared to me. If I exhibit control or unfettered-ness about my child's misdeeds (unconditional love), and provide healthy boundaries for them to work in (i.e. consequences to actions), then I offer them a healthy way to view other authority. Whether I like it or not, We(my husband and I, actually) are the standard of what authority is. If my child feels that we are not in control, he'll feel helpless because if mommy and daddy can't do it then no one will. So, love and logic provides safe guard against too much leniency (no boundaries make children feel unloved and unsafe) and too much law ("I love you no matter what").
Does that make sense? I don't think the article is arguing against discipline/consequences, but how those are mete out.
"Love covers a multitude of sins." This applies, thank the Lord, not only to children, but to bad parenting as well.
Michael: YES AND AMEN!
Quick thought:
The Bible talks about the people of Israel being under the Law as Tutor until they reached adulthood. (galatians 3).
Therefore, I think that little children should be showered with Love and also be placed under a reward/punishment system for doing very dangerous, destructive and harmful things (like running in the road, hurting other children, being overly selfish and belligerent etc..)
But when the child begins to reach an age where they become self-aware and understand feelings of guilt, shame, trying to fit in with peers, earning respect, etc..etc…, this is when the parents must shift into full Grace mode. You must still protect the child against being killed or severely hurt, (like don't do drugs or else, or don't get in the car with drunk people, or don't disappear for 3 days), but other than those major things, the child must be told over and over and over again, and shown in action, "My attention, love, concern, happiness and joy toward you is in no way affected by your grades, your mess ups, your messy room, your stupid decisions or anything else. As a matter of fact, I rejoice that you are having the opportunity to learn first hand how much you need the Work of the Lord Jesus Christ"
I am not a parent yet, so that's my little disclaimer on this comment. I am however the son of parents, and one of the things that sticks out in my mind looking back on my life is not so much that my parents loved me unconditionally. They did not. But, they tried their absolute very best, which all loving parents do for their kids. They never wanted to put pressure on me in anyway, but they really had no choice in the matter.
I knew my dad wanted me to play basketball even though he knew I loved soccer. That pressure made me play for a few years until I had a mini-breakdown over it. He couldn't help it. It made him so proud that I played the sport that he had played. He wasn't the only part of the equation either. I knew he loved me regardless, but I still wanted to please him so badly, so I walked right into it. Talk about the bondage of the will in action!
That's just one not-so-serious example. That's all to say that, the most important thing to me and what I hope to give to my future kids is the ability to admit when I do screw up as a parent and ask for forgiveness. Sure, it removed them from the thrones of Superman and Superwoman in my mind, but it also made me realize that they were human and needed grace as much as I did. It is a very humbling and vulnerable thing, but it makes a world of difference in relationships. Now looking back on it, it affirms the fact that Love I really need, that my future children (God-willing) will really need, and that we all really need is the only actual unconditional Love that has ever existed.
Whether I like it or not, I am going to give my kids baggage, things I never want to put on them. That's what all families do no matter how great they are. The good news of Christianity is that we have forgiveness for all of our screw-ups and best intentions gone awry, and we can offer that to each other. ANyway, that's what I hoping and praying for;)
By the way, it's so great to see all of these comments, and some from new folks! Welcome Dana! And great to see you on here Andrea:)
Last Night, there was a whole ABC news show dedicated to this topic. It was absolutely fascinating and the real life Media was one of the test subjects. It was amazing to watch punishment breed more rebellion, while affirmation and forgivness birth truly deilightful kids.
Whenever I post something like this (or give someone a copy of Judgment and Love or The Useful Sinner), I'm always fascinated by how different people read the same thing so differently, some as Law, others as Gospel, pretty much depending on the perspective you identify with – here those of parent or child: prescription for how one ought to parent absolutely vs description of what children (us) need and have ultimately received from God (and sometimes in muted degrees from our own parents).
Neither interpretation is wrong, of course, but it's fascinating to observe.
Another point about this whole idea, and one that is integral to love and logic, is the idea that consequences should be as direct and logical as possible. Consequences should be NATURAL rather than contrived. For example, if a child scribbles with markers on the wall, his "punishment" should not be sitting in time out, it should be the natural consequence – cleaning the wall. Now, there are times when natural consequences are impossible (the child cannot fix what they have done or don't have the skills to fix what they have broken) but it is important for consequences to be explained so that children do understand that sin does have earthly consequences that are real and direct. When punishments stop being connected to actions that is when children feel like they are being manipulated or unloved. As a teacher, I try to do that also, though it can be tough. If a student swears, what is the "natural consequence"? Generally though I think the idea is great.
This line was beautiful: “…the thirst for glory is not satisfied, it is extinguished.”
In the argument over semantics one that comes up often is the discipline vs reward scenario. Discipuli-disciple in Latin is in the word discipline. How did Christ teach his own disciples? Would you agree it was not rewards and punishments but stories, questions, modeling and using kind, firm and loving communication? Using the street scenario as an example, punishing a child for running into the street-depending on the method used to stop them-may not actually teach the child the consequences of what could happen when he runs into the street. If you run after your child crazily to stop them or swat them afterwards-they may not go into the street but it might be just because they don’t want you running after them or the swat-not grasping the understanding about the immensity of the consequence of the incoming car should it hit something.
On the other side of behaviorism–teaching a child ie/ to help someone up when he knocks them down doesn’t actually teach kindness although the act is kind.
Punishing usually involves some sort of shaming. Also many parents enter into power struggles which creates a winner & loser. Involving your child in the critical thinking process allows them to learn, apply and cooperate in the process vs. them learning to manipulate their behavior to be accepted.
In teaching with grace conversations slow down, communication becomes more intentional and uses more vocabulary to describe emotions and facts. The use of questions becomes a valuable way to engage your children which promotes community, authenticity, unconditional love , critical thinking and cooperation.
Lastly a lot of the teaching doesn’t happen in the heat of the moment. Neither you or your children are very receptive at that time. Through Christ we are already justified & complete. If we believed that and shared that with our children more then how would that free them and us in our own actions and justification of our actions? That’s why I loved that initial line that I copied from the article.
There is nothing you or I could do to make Christ love us any more or any less. The same goes with our kids in grace. Blessings to all along the journey!