Parenting a Defiant Child

A Sanity-Saving Guide to Finally Stopping the Bad Behavior

Authors: Philip S. Hall, Ph.D. , Nancy D. Hall, Ed.D.
Pub Date: 2007
Your Price: $24.95
ISBN: 0814474683
Format: Hardcover

• Overview
• Sample Chapter
• Table of Contents
• Request an Evaluation Copy, INSTRUCTOR ONLY!

Chapter 7

Rules and Tools

Households need rules. But the rules must make sense. History has repeatedly shown that people do not comply with rules that don’t make sense to them. The Prohibition Act of 1920 was a case in point. Since most U.S. citizens felt they had a right to drink alcoholic beverages, the consumption of alcohol did not decrease after the passage of the Act; it increased.⁵² Children respond similarly. They balk at rules that don’t make sense. When developing rules for children, parents must resist the temptation to make an exhaustively long list. The expectation that more rules leads to better control is illusionary. Instead of resulting in better control, a long list of rules blurs the distinction between what would be nice and what is essential. And even worse, you end up exhausting yourself with meaningless battles.

Essential rules keep the household safe and functioning. That takes only three rules:

* People in the household do not physically hurt or threaten to hurt anyone, including themselves.

* People in the household cannot break or threaten to destroy anyone’s property, including stealing or taking things.

* No one can do things that deprive other people of their basic right to enjoy their home.

The first two rules make sense to children. Mere toddlers instinctively understand that they should not hurt people. By the time they are preschoolers, children realize that they should not take or break other people’s things. The third rule is more difficult for children to understand. It amounts to this: When people live together in a home, there is a basic quality of life that each family member can expect. For example, a family member has the right to expect a decent night’s sleep. A 5-year-old cannot wander around the house at two in the morning, forcing Mom to get up and supervise him. Family members have a right to expect that they can enjoy a meal without someone having a temper tantrum at the table and, in the process, flipping over the mashed potatoes. No one should be startled out of their sleep at three in the morning by a 12-year-old playing loud music. While all of the basic rights that family members can expect are too many to list, they fit into phrase that is used to describe gray situations: It might be hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.

However, these three little rules come with one big caveat. The rules apply to everyone in the family. Jillian cannot hit Mom, and Mom cannot hit Jillian.

In addition to having rules that make sense, there must be a compelling reason to follow them. In other words, when someone does not follow a rule, something must happen. But what?


In Search of the Right Consequence

Punishment

When children do not follow a rule, the first thought that comes to mind is that they should be punished. In its behaviorist context, punishment means that the parent should do something to the child that decreases the likelihood that the child will break the rule again.⁵³ But to you and me, punishment has a straightforward meaning. Punishment means doing something to the child so that he regrets—really regrets—what he did, and he will not do that bad thing again for fear of being punished.

When we think of punishment, spanking immediately comes to mind. Indeed, spanking is such a common method of disciplining children that there is an adage promoting its use: Spare the rod and spoil the child. Many people, including a few behavioral experts,⁵⁴ believe in spanking.

Overcorrection is another form of punishment.⁵⁵ Overcorrection means that when a child does something wrong, the child is punished by having to do the correct action over and over, again and again. The intent of Overcorrection is not to teach the child a new skill. Rather, the intent is to sufficiently humiliate the child so that she never does it again. For example, a teacher catches a student running down the stairs at school, and the student is made to walk up and down the stairs twenty-five times.

There is also Response Cost.⁵⁶ In order to use Response Cost, there has to be an incentive in place prior to the child’s violating the rule. For example, at the beginning of the week the teacher announces that students who earn 20 points can watch a video on Friday afternoon. One point is awarded for every homework assignment turned in on time, but two points are taken away for any homework assignment that is not turned in on time. Response Cost is a reward system with a barb. The barb is that when the child fails to do the desired behavior, tokens are taken away. Taking away tokens is what makes Response Cost a punishment. It hurts to lose tokens, and it usually makes defiant children angry—very angry.

Time Out is a commonly used and widely recommended method of punishing children.⁵⁷ When using Time Out, the parents make the child go someplace, usually a chair facing the corner, and stay there for a period of time and until certain conditions are met. The guideline is that the child sits in the Time Out chair one minute for every year of age.⁵⁸ So a 6-year-old child would sit in the Time Out chair for six minutes, while a 10-year-old chair would sit in the Time Out chair for ten minutes. Furthermore, the noncompliant child stays in the chair for that predetermined amount of time and until she is ready to comply with her parent’s directive.

The Case for Punishment.  Punishment is often an effective way to immediately get a behavior to terminate. Furthermore, as long as the punisher is present (meaning, in this case, the parent) the child is not likely to engage in that bad behavior. Punishment is particularly good as a knee-jerk response to an unpredicted and unexpected bad behavior. For example, a toddler is reaching out toward a hot stove burner, and his mother quickly gives him a swat on the behind and says, “No!” The child immediately pulls his hand back and goes crying out of the kitchen. At least he did not burn his hand.

The Case Against Punishment.  There are many reasons why parents should not punish children. For starters, punishing a child teaches her what she shouldn’t do, but it does absolutely nothing to teach the child the right thing to do. Punishment would be okay if the main job of parenting were to control children’s behavior until they reach the age of 18 and are ready, so to speak, to leave the house. But parenting is not about stopping children from doing bad things. Parenting is about teaching children how to have a rewarding productive life. That is one big task, and punishment does not do anything to help parents accomplish that task.

The main case against using punishment is that punishing defiant children often makes them more aggressive. Furthermore, in order to punish children, parents have to be a big mean enforcer. Consider the harshest form of punishment—spanking. Not many defiant children willingly submit to be spanked; in fact, they often do everything they can to resist being spanked, often hitting, kicking, and biting. When the child resists spanking, it becomes a parent–child fight—one that the parent, even with superior strength and size, might not win.

Consider Overcorrection. A child was supposed to do homework for thirty minutes, but he didn’t. So the parent said, “Since you did not do any homework for the entire thirty minutes, you will do it for an hour and a half. Hearing this, the defiant child goes up to his room and hides under his bed. What is the parent going to do? In order to enforce Overcorrection, the parent has to reach under the bed, grab the child by the leg and pull him kicking and screaming our from under the bed. That is only the start of it. The parent then has to get the child to his study area and physically force him to stay there for ninety minutes.

Response Cost suffers the same problem. How willingly does a defiant child surrender tokens that it took him two days to earn? Response Cost has an additional shortcoming. Let’s say that the parents use Response Cost to get Cassie to pick up her bedroom every evening. Accordingly, they give Cassie a token every evening that she picks up her room, but they take away two tokens if Cassie does not pick up her room. If Cassie has seven tokens by Sunday afternoon, she can go to the Sunday afternoon movie. Excited by the anticipated reward, Cassie finds a friend who will go with her to the movie. Thus motivated, Cassie picks up her room for three consecutive evenings. But Wednesday, she does not. So her parents take away two tokens. Cassie instantly realizes that she will not be able to go to the Sunday movie with her friend, and she is furious. What are the chances that Cassie will pick up her room for the rest of the week?

Time Out is intended to be a mild punishment, and it is if the child willingly goes to Time Out. However, many defiant children do not go willingly to Time Out. What is a parent to do then? Again, Time Out will only be effective if the parent is the ultimate enforcer. So the parent grabs the child and tries to pull him to the Time Out chair. The child fights back, hitting and kicking. Frustrated and angry, many parents then spank the child. But their mild spanks don’t get the child to go to Time Out. So the parent spanks the child hard—really hard. Suddenly, Time Out, which was intended to be a very mild punishment, is verging on physical abuse.

The final problem with using punishment to control a child’s bad behavior is that in order to get any form of punishment to work, parents almost always end up violating the very rule they set out to enforce; namely, people in this house do not physically hurt anyone. When the parents’ use of punishment violates this rule, children quickly learn the lesson that was just taught: Big people can use aggression against little people.


A Brief History of Punishment

Using punishment to control behavior has a long history. In the era known as the Enlightenment (1600–1700), people who would now be diagnosed with schizophrenia were thought to be possessed by the devil.⁵⁹ They were severely and horribly punished in the belief that the punishment would literally drive the devil out of them. Vestiges of that mentality still survive when we teasingly say to an impish, full of vinegar child, “You are full of the devil today.”

Punishing people with other handicapping conditions in an attempt to control their behavior did not go out with the dark ages. Only four decades ago, punishment was commonly used in attempts to change the behavior of people with mental retardation, particularly those individuals unfortunate enough to be placed in state-run institutions.⁶⁰ However, beginning in the late 1960s, punishment was less and less used to control the behavior of people with mental retardation. Today, behavior programming designed to punish people with mental handicaps is the unacceptable exception. As a result, people who were once tethered by straps to granite pillars in the day rooms of mental institutions now live happily in their own supervised apartments and make money working in what are called work enclaves or supported employment.

Next in line for punishment were persons with autism. Only a few decades ago, the most widely advocated treatment for persons with autism was to punish them for their autistic-like behaviors. Fortunately, many therapists are now realizing that people with autism do not decrease their autistic-like behaviors when punished. Instead, children with autism learn best and behave better when provided unique specific structure that enables them to organize and make sense of their world.⁶¹

Children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder are among the last remaining behaviorally challenged people for whom punishment is deemed good therapeutic treatment. To be candid, it is tempting to punish defiant children. They spit in your face, they tip over desks, they curse you, and they adamantly, obstinately, and defiantly refuse to comply with even the most basic reasonable directives. It just feels good to punish them. After all, there are times when we all feel that a particular defiant child really has it coming!

However, I refuse. I refuse to punish defiant children because history says that it is not the right approach. Punishment was not the answer for people with schizophrenia. Punishment was not the answer for helping people with mental retardation, and punishment was not the right approach for helping children with autism. Why would punishment be the answer for children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder? But the reasons that I refuse to punish defiant children are more personal. I refuse to punish children when I think of how one defiant child, Mike, responded when he was punished.

It is both my conviction and my experience that there is a desire to be good within each and every oppositional defiant child. But if the caregiver punishes the child and uses other coercive measures to get the defiant child to comply with directives and requests, no one, possibly not even the child, ever sees this deep-seated desire to be good. This desire to be good only awakens within a defiant child when he or she feels emotionally and physically safe in the caregiver’s presence, and when he or she feels that despite all of the problems he or she has caused, you continue to value, to believe in, and to want to help him or her.


Logical Consequences

Parents are reluctant to give up punishment as a tool for controlling their child’s behavior because they believe that no punishment means no discipline. It doesn’t. You can stop punishing your child because there is a far better way to enforce the three cardinal rules, a way that results in:

* Better discipline.

* A strengthened parent–child bond.

* An empowered, more capable child.

This better way is based on the principle of logical consequences.

The principle of logical consequences says that when a child does something that could hurt people, could damage property, or threatens to disrupt the household, the child loses a privilege(s).⁶² But children don’t lose a privilege as a punishment. Rather, children lose privileges to the extent necessary to prevent them from hurting people, from breaking things, or from denying other people the right to enjoy their home. It often happens that the child feels badly about losing the privilege. For example, an 8-year-old boy has a friend over to play. After fifteen minutes, they start to fight. The most obvious logical consequence is that the friend needs to go home. Of course, the boy feels bad. That is unfortunate, but the friend was not taken home in an effort to make the child feel bad; the friend was sent home so that no one got hurt. If the child protests the logical consequence, it would perfectly okay (in fact, it would be outstanding) to say, “The issue here is that no one gets hurt. Can you think of another solution that absolutely guarantees that there will be no fighting? If you can, that is what we will do.”

As previously mentioned, children inherently understand they cannot hurt people, break things, or damage property. With a little bit of explanation, they can understand that it is not permissible to deny other people their right to enjoy their home. So even defiant children typically accept and understand when a parent removes a privilege in order to maintain these things.

The difference between a logical consequence and punishment is subtle and hard to discern. An example will make the distinction clearer. It’s lunchtime at the Woodrow Wilson Elementary School. Mr. Burke, the fourth-grade teacher, told his students to line up at the door. As the students stood at the door and waited for Mr. Burke’s signal to exit the classroom, one of the students became impatient. Breaking out of line, Paul slipped out the door. Once in the hall, Paul did not want Mr. Burke to see him, so he ran down the hall. As he sped pass the classroom doors, Paul impulsively rapped on each one.

When Mr. Burke caught up with Paul in the lunchroom, Mr. Burke could have said, “Paul, since you ran down the hall, you will not have recess for the rest of the week!”

Going out for recess is a privilege, but withholding recess from Paul because he ran down the hall would not have been a logical consequence. Withholding recess would have been punishment. It would be punishment because it would have been imposed in order to make Paul feel so bad that he would never again run down the hall. Staying in from recess is not a logical consequence in this situation because losing that privilege does nothing to protect a kindergarten student from being run over the next time Paul runs down the hall, and it does not to prevent Paul from disrupting every classroom he runs by on his mad dash to lunch.

Instead of punishing Paul, Mr. Burke gave him a logical consequence. “Paul,” Mr. Burke said, “I see that it is hard for you to walk down the hall to lunch. So tomorrow, you will need to remain in your desk while the others line up for lunch (losing a privilege). As soon as they are gone, you can walk with me to the lunchroom” (thus protecting students’ safety and their right to learn without being disturbed).


Helping Children Understand Why

Imposing a logical consequence creates an opportunity for you to teach your child important social skills and understandings. In other words, the child can benefit from his mistake. To explain how this happens, again consider the example of Paul running down the hall. When Paul and his teacher met on Friday, Mr. Burke asked, “Paul, why do think the school has a rule against running in the hall?” Mr. Burke was sure of two things: (1) Paul had never thought about it, and (2) he could figure it out.

“They don’t want anyone to get hurt? Like what if a little kindergarten student stepped out of a door while I was running by? Why, I’d run right over him. And running makes a lot of noise when others kids are studying.”

“That’s exactly right, Paul! That is why the school has a rule against running in the hall. You have a good head on your shoulders. I knew you could figure it out.”

Clearly, Mr. Burke is a skilled teacher who knows how to expertly guide an errant child’s social development. The key to facilitating your child’s special development is to not tell the child why his or her actions were unacceptable. Ask. In order to do that, two things are required.

1. Your child must see you as being there to help and support, as opposed to punishing.

2. When your child views you in that role, you simply ask, just as Mr. Burke did, “Why do you think. . . ?”


Helping Children Develop “Can Do” Plans

By using logical consequences, you are in a position to teach your child the skills she needs in order to regain a temporarily lost privilege. Returning to the example, Mr. Burke helped Paul develop a “can do” plan. He said, “Paul, I know it is difficult for you to walk in the hall. So for the next couple of days, I want you to think about what you can do in order to walk. If you come up with any ideas, I will have some time Friday to listen to them. If it’s a good idea and we think it might work, you can then rejoin the class when they walk to lunch. Would you like to do that?”

“Sure,” Paul replied, pleased to learn that he could regain the privilege of walking with the rest of the class.

When they met Friday, Mr. Burke said, “So tell me, Paul, what ideas have you come up with so that you can remember to walk in the hall?”

“I won’t run any more, I promise,” Paul replied in all sincerity. He meant every word of his vow not to run in the hall again. However, Paul’s vow was a stop plan. Stop plans don’t work.⁶³ Stop plans don’t work because children seldom set out to intentionally do bad things. Rather, when impulsive children are confronted by a compelling array of events and situations, bad things just seem to happen.

In Paul’s case, he did not run down the hall because he wanted to maliciously put other children’s safety at risk, nor did he derive satisfaction out of disrupting other students. Paul probably ran down the hall because he was hungry. He likely ran down the hall because he had been sitting quietly at his desk for an hour, which was about as long as he could stand it. He possibly ran down the hall because he looked out the classroom door and saw that the other fourth-grade class was already headed for the lunchroom. All of these things impinged on him at once, and their combined force was just too compelling. So Paul impulsively stepped out the door. Once out the classroom door, Paul knew he had done the wrong thing. But it was too late. So he ran down the hall, hoping that he could make it to the lunchroom without Mr. Burke noticing that he was missing.

Like Paul, most defiant children have no insight into why they do unacceptable things. And having no insight into why they did something, they have no ability to identify the conditions that prompt that behavior. Since the child cannot recognize the conditions that set off the behavior, the conditions control defiant children.

The solution is to help the defiant child recognize the conditions that, if unchecked, compel him or her to impulsively do stupid things. Mr. Burke gave Paul this needed help.

“Paul,” Mr. Burke asked, “who is the one boy in the class who is certain to never run down the hall?

“Oh, that’s easy. It would be Neil. He’s too fat to run.”

“Yes, Neil is not one to move very fast. And how do you get along with Neil?”

“Fine.”

“So if you picked one student to always stand behind while you are standing in line for lunch, would it be Neil?”

“Ya. I like him.”

“I notice that when you stand in the lunch line, your hands are busy touching things and your arms are always in motion. It seems to me that it is your busy arms that get your legs going, and once those legs get going, you forget to walk. So I was wondering what you could do to keep your arms still?”

“I can’t think of anything,” Paul replied, looking genuinely puzzled.

“Stand right in front of me.” Paul did so. “Now look at your pants. What part of your pants are your hands next to?

“My pockets?”

“Yes! Your hands are right next to your pockets. Put your hands in your pockets.” Paul did this. “Now swing your arms.”

“I can’t.” Paul replied.

“Does that give you an idea?”

“You mean maybe I could put my hands in my pockets?” Paul asked.

“Would putting your hands in your pockets keep your arms from swinging?” Mr. Burke asked.

“Ya!” Paul replied, seemingly surprised at the potential of this simple idea.

“Good. Now I think you have a plan. Let’s review it. When it is lunch time, who are you going line up behind?”

“Neil.”

“And you are going to always stay behind him, right?”

“Right!” Paul replied, smiling at the idea that this plan was coming together.

“And where are you going to put your hands?”

“In my pockets.”

“Do you think we should try that plan?

“Ya.”

“Okay, we will. I want you to write out those three things that you will do to help you walk to lunch instead of run. When you have written out those three things you will do, show me. We will both sign it. As soon as we sign it, we will try it. We could start this noon if we are ready.”

Imposing a logical consequence created an opportunity for Mr. Burke to help Paul gain insight as to why running down the hall was not acceptable. The logical consequence also allowed Mr. Burke to help Paul develop a “can do” plan for creating the new conditions that would anchor him in the lunch line and counter the conditions that compelled Paul to run in the hall. A logical consequence had one additional benefit, and that benefit was huge. In helping Paul develop a “can do” plan so that he could regain the privilege of walking with his classmates, Mr. Burke had numerous opportunities to affirm Paul, thereby strengthening his relationship with Paul.


Finding a Good Logical Consequence

Sometimes it is difficult to pick the right logical consequence. Some guidelines will help:

* A logical consequence is the loss of a privilege, it is not a pound of flesh.

* When the logical consequence is imposed, the resultant loss of privileges protects people, property, and basic rights.

* The loss of the privilege is restored when the caregiver helps the child develop a “can do” plan.

One of the parents in our parent-training groups used these three guidelines to develop a good logical consequence to deal with her daughter’s life-threatening behavior. The problem was that the 5-year-old daughter slipped out of the house when Mom was not looking. It happened like this: Sarah was finished with half-day kindergarten at noon. When she came home, she ate lunch and then played for about an hour while her mother, Melinda, did office work from her computer. At this time, Sarah was expected to play in the house. But sometimes Sarah didn’t play in the house. Every now and then, Sarah slipped out the door and wandered down the street, going toward whatever caught her attention. One day Melinda suddenly noticed that the house was quiet, too quiet. Then she called for her daughter, but Sarah did not answer. She was gone. Frantic, Sandy went looking for her daughter. When Mom found her, Sarah was at the end of the block, teasing a big dog tethered to a chain.

Clearly, wandering out of the house put Sarah in danger. A logical consequence was needed. Sarah needed to lose a privilege so that she could not continue wandering out of the house and putting her life in danger. Melinda decided that a good logical consequence would be to take away Sarah’s privilege of wearing shoes in the house. So when Sarah got home from kindergarten each day, Mom put Sarah’s shoes on the top shelf in the bedroom closet. It worked. Without shoes, Sarah no longer wandered out of the house.

Restitution is also a logical consequence. If you break it, you pay for it, at least the child pays for the broken or damaged item within his or her age-appropriate ability to do so. For example, the child lashes out, knocking dad’s glasses off and breaking a lens. The child needs to at least partially compensate for the expense of getting a new lens. If the child does not have any money, she probably needs to do an extra household chore for a period of time.


Other Examples

Initially, it is difficult to find a consequence for a behavior that is not a punishment but is a good logical consequence. Some examples will help:

A logical consequence has another huge advantage over punishment. The advantage is that you and your child can work together to find a way that the privilege possibly can be restored, usually by increasing the structure or teaching the child new skills.

Helping your child regain the privilege accomplishes three things. First, it gives your child the incentive needed to learn new skills, often furthering the child’s social maturity. Second, as the child participates in the “think session” to regain the privilege, you are presented with numerous opportunities to praise and value your child. Third, helping the child regain the privilege allows you to strengthen that critical parent-child bond.


Conclusion

Parents must set limits for children and expect compliance. If the child does not adhere to any one of those limits, there absolutely has to be a consequence. The typical and easiest consequence is to punish the child, and punish him or her so severely he or she will never do it again. However, parenting is not about controlling cildren. Parenting is about teaching children the skills they need in many areas, including behavior. So it is time to move beyond punishment. By using logical consequences, parents can both consequent unacceptable behaviors and simultaneously teach the child how to behave appropriately.

Applications

1. What behaviors does your child frequently display that you consider unacceptable, and when you observe those behaviors being displayed, how to do you typically respond?

2. From the above list, identify those behaviors that could hurt someone, could damage property, or impose on people’s basic rights. _______________  _______________  _______________

3. The behaviors listed above need a Logical Consequence. What would be a good Logical Consequence for those actions?

4. Set aside a time to have a discussion with your child regarding any behaviors listed under item 3. By asking questions, try to get the child to understand why those behaviors are not allowable. Then explain the logical consequence (loss of privilege) that will happen if those behaviors are observed.

5. If your child is frequently displaying behaviors that could hurt someone or could damage property, the child presumably has a skill deficit or lacks an important understanding or value. Consider how you are going to help the child acquire the missing skill or gain necessary understanding/values. Please understand that such learning may take time. It might be several months before the child has acquired the necessary skill or obtained the level of understanding necessary to exercise that privilege. Since this is an extensive and time-consuming task, select the child’s most disturbing behavior, and start there.

Behavior	Learning Activity
____________________	_____________________________
____________________	_____________________________
____________________	_____________________________

© 2007 Philip S. Hall and Nancy D. Hall.
All rights reserved.
Published by AMACOM Books
http://www.amacombooks.org
A Division of the American Management Association
1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
To order call: 800-250-5308
Email: pubs_cust_serv@amanet.org

Search the full text of this book