Helping Parents Deal with Children's Acute Disciplinary Problems without Escalation - Research Proposal Example

Helping Parents Deal with Childrens Acute Disciplinary Problems without Escalation: The Principle of Nonviolent Resistance Haim Omer, Ph. D Family Process 40:53-66 (2001). Helping Parents Deal with Childrens Acute Disciplinary Problems without Escalation: The Principle of Nonviolent Resistance Introduction The study of Haim Omer entitled “Helping Parents Deal with Childrens Acute Disciplinary Problems without Escalation: The Principle of Nonviolent Resistance” published in Family Process, Vol. 40 in 2001 presented and discussed an alternative method in helping parents deal with their children having some acute disciplinary problems. The author referred to this technique as “non-violent” resistance and is patterned on the principles of Gandhi, as the author mentioned it openly in the paper. The approach was aimed to demonstrate that non-violent resistance is a good technique to counter both of the two common types of problem escalations between the parents and the children having behavior problems namely. These two kinds of escalation are (a) complementary escalation, in which parental giving-in leads to a progressive increase in the childs demands, and (b) reciprocal escalation, in which hostility begets hostility. Omer (2001) practically based his non-violent resistance technique on several propositions. First he said that the “greater the dominance orientation of the participants in a conflict, the greater the risk of escalation.” This refers to the state wherein a party seems to show his dominant status over the other. Domination encourages resistance and therefore provides a chance for a conflict to escalate. Secondly he stated that “the greater the psycho physiological arousal of the parties, the higher the risk of escalation.” It simply means that when both parents and the misbehaving child are in the heightened state such as anger, stress, anxiety, and other pressures the chance for the conflict to grow is higher. Thirdly he stated, that “parental exhorting, entreating, and apologizing, increase the risk of complementary escalation [while] parental arguing, threatening, blaming, and screaming, increase the risk of reciprocal escalation.” This point is just an elaboration of the two escalation modes the study was aimed to resolve. The fourth proposition states that “constant hostile interchanges tend to narrow the parent-child interaction to conflictual issues and conflictual patterns; this, in turn, reduces the options of conflict avoidance or of successful conflict resolution.” This statement is self explanatory. Meanwhile the last proposition speaks of reconciliation measures as an aid to overcome the narrowing-down of relationship and increases the potential of conflict-resolution. Research Method and Findings To prove this non-violent resistance approach, which Omer considered as an “attitude,” a technique referred to as “sit-in” was employed. In the sit it process, the parents, single parent or both, come into the child’s room and sit on a chair, preferably those that blocks the door and prevents the child from escaping. In a cool manner without any show of dominance, or any form of threatening, exhorting, blaming, preaching, or any other show of provocation the parent can say some works like, "We cannot accept that you do so and so. We will sit here and wait for any idea you may have on how this behavior can be avoided." If the process would yield a proposal, the parents consider them without any promises and other forms of consolation and treat the proposal seriously. If there would never be any resolution, the parents go out after about a specified length of time, and then repeat the process until some resolutions are reached. The techniques presented a lot of different variations such as use of note after a non successful attempt, the use of a third party as mediator, and others. The suggested commonality is based on the principle of “strike the iron when it is cold,” which allows the sit in to take place after some cooling period after the misbehavior. This method is totally which based on propositions one and two which limits the party’s psychological arousal and the chance for confrontation. Another unique thing of the technique is a reconciliation approach after a successful or non successful sit-in which is aimed to strengthen relationship. The idea of reconciliation however is apart from the principles of non violent resistance but an added unique idea to Omer’s approach of escalation prevention. The study used a hundred families with children having acute disciplinary problems as subjects. The methods employed include direct interview and parental counseling and implementation of the proposed actions based on the principles and techniques under study. Out of the hundred families mentioned only 40 subjects were reported to have been advised to use the technique and out of which 32 implemented the recommended sit-in procedures. Two of these cases have parents stopped the technique after realizing there was no impact in the process. While of the remaining, 50% reported that the misbehaviors stopped and for the other half parents reported improvements. Personal arguments and observations Studies have shown that non violent resistance is a good approach to prevent conflicts and its escalations. Its application has been proven and popularized mostly in social systems and in dealing with political problems (Awad, 1984). It was the system employed by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King (Conflict Research Consortium, 1998). His application of the principles in psychology cases in dealing with patients having misbehaviors especially children is an ingenious approach. The results mentioned in the paper provided some success stories which convinced him the approach is useful and effective. It even gained popularity among clinical psychologist in later times and applied in other researches to treat violent and self-Destructive children (Jones & Metz, 2005). The approach therefore has become so widely used and further explored by psychologist and scholars for further study on applicability. There are however several minor issues concerning the original document that would provide some bias on its finding whether the result could be primarily attributed to the concept or the technique such as sit in or it could be due to some other factors. These questions revolve around the subjects, the technique, and the evaluation procedures. In the case of the families identified, the studies did not make any classification as to the severity of the cases. The resolution results could have provided a better picture if the cases had been classified as to severity, whether mild, average, or severe cases the gender, age, and other major physiological and social factors. Through the process of categorization, we could infer whether the approach can be applied only to mild and average cases, or it can also be applied to severe misbehavior problems; whether it is more effective for male, female or both, and such other grouping. In general however, the result illustrated the fact that the approach was effective in about 50% of the cases, setting aside other details. The sit-in technique mentioned is the approach being studied. The applicability of the technique differs widely between different players as far as psychological conditions of the parents involved. The counseling could have some effect in minimizing the bias as to the effect of the variability caused by implementation techniques, but a lot of other environmental factors such as the house, the room, the atmosphere may affect the affectivity. Studies have shown that socio-cultural and socio-psychological factors affect in the conditions of misbehaviors and the help-seeking process (Mechanic, 1975). The report of Omer did not clearly identify the conditions of the different subjects based on these parameters. It is therefore hard to identify if some factors within the environment have caused the resolution more than the technique employed. Nevertheless, since the treatment could not be employed in controlled conditions, the report could have emphasized the conditions of the sit-in and compare those that yielded better result with those that failed and those that only showed signs of improvements. As far as the result assessment is concerned the bias lies on how the author classified success and how resolution is qualified. There are no definite definitions given as far as improvement of the patients is concerned. When do you consider a sit-in case to be successful, caused improvement, or failed? In the sample case presented, the sit-in did not actually bring the desired result, the misbehavior just stopped after sometime. This could have been due to other factors not directly related to the sit it. The study focused so much on issues relating to the result of the sit-in and the “non-violent” approach to controlling the misbehavior when it was actually geared towards control of conflict escalation. In the overall context, the result actually yielded about 80% prevention of escalation. Emphasis must have been given on data whether an increase conflict has occurred after the sit-0in process. No mention however on such event in the study results. Conclusion Ultimately the study showed that the “non-violent approach is effective in preventing conflict escalation. It pioneered the implementation of the idea of conflict resolutions in the clinical psychology arena and made a remarkable contribution to the field. Although there are minor questions in the report it also paved a way to a new idea of further study with consideration on those controlled condition. Further study in the applicability of the non-violent attitude and sit-in technique could be conducted by comparing its effects across different age brackets, sex, severity of misbehaviors, and study its effectiveness under different socio-cultural and socio-psychological factors. References Awad, M. E. (1984). Non-Violent Resistance: A Strategy for the Occupied Territories. Journal of Palestine Studies, 13: 4 (Summer, 1984), pp 22-36   Conflict Research Consortium.(1998). Non-Violent Struggle. International Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict University of Colorado, USA. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/nonviolc.htm Jones, P and Metz, P. (2005). Non-violent Resistance: A New Approach to Violent and Self-Destructive Children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 44(8):833-834, Mechanic, D. (1975). Sociocultural and Socio-Psychological Factors Affecting Personal Responses to Psychological Disorder. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 16:4(Dec., 1975)393-404 Omer, H. (2001). Helping Parents Deal with Childrens Acute Disciplinary Problems without Escalation: The Principle of Nonviolent Resistance. Family Process 40:53-66 (2001). Read More