Basic HTML Version
famil y part1c1pation and openness.
Once the boundaries fo r behavior
were esta blished, there was a bsolute
freedom fo r indiv idual personalities
to grow and devel op. Success in Iife
followed much more regul arly than
it did in homes where discipline was
carri ed out in a haphazard o r non–
existen! manner.
The End Product
Different persona lities require
different a pproaches and different
degrees of contro l. Extremely sensi–
ti ve children may need spanking
only rarely - a harsh look is o ften
sufficient punishment.
And converse ly. some childrcn
never seem to get th e point. But
when children do turn out beau–
tifully, it is no t a n accident. lt is
beca u. e those children were Iucky
en ough to have pa rents who rea lly
loved them - pa rents who und er–
s tood a nd adminis tered pro per,
imm edi a te a nd consist en! dis–
cipline.
o
MOTIVATING YOUR CHILD
HERE'S
AN EXPERIMENT
WITH
POSITIVE RESULTS
A
EXPERIMENT
carried OUt
by psychologists seve ra l
yea rs ago was re–
cenlly repo rted in
Raising Children
in a Dijficult Time.
by Dr. Benj amín
A.
Spock, no ted American ped iatri–
cian.
The experiment was des igned to
compare the e ffects of d iscipline in
three di fferen t control groups:
{1 )
absolute authoritarian
(tha t is. ex–
terna! o r arbitra ry) discipline; (2)
laissezfaire
(little o r no discipline) ;
a nd (3) democra tic (meaning inter–
na !. o r responsibl e) discipline.
Acti vity clubs were set up for sev–
era! groups o f boys of the middl e
childhood ycars. The boys were to
wo rk a t hobbi es a fter school under
the Ieadership of the psycho logists.
PLAIN TRUTH December 1974
In the
authoritarian
group, th e
leader took complete charge from
thc beginning. He announced that
this was
t~
be a carpentry club, a nd
they were goi ng to build birdhouses.
He to ld them where to ge t the nec–
essary materials and what the de–
sign was to be. as welJ as how to use
thc tools. He was agreeable enough
in manner. but left no initia tive to
the boys. He ma inta ined absolute
o rder and effi ciency.
1
n the
/aissezfaire
group. the
leader was p resent with the boys, he
a nswered questions, he gave indi–
vidual help. but o ffer ed no rea l
leadershi p.
The procedures in the
democratic
group were radica lly different. l t
was to be the boys' club. a nd they
could choose the activity. Typica lly.
all types of proj ects were suggested ,
some quite impractica l. But the
leader didn' t squelch anyone o r try
to
impose his own ideas. He did
keep the discussions orderly a nd re–
minded tbe group if they forgot
their ma nners.
When the gro up fin a lly did defi–
nite ly decide on a project, the leader
shi fted conversa ti on toward q ues–
ti ons o f design. how to ga ther ma te–
ri a ls, borro w t ool s . etc. Wh e n
building time nea red. there had to
be discussions of me thods a nd div i–
sion o f labor.
The results were predicta bl e. In
terms of efficiency - number of
hours and days necessary to build a
certa in number o f birdhouses - th e
aU!horitarian
control group was fa r
ahead. And to an outsider. the pro–
ceedings seemed be tter organized .
But problems a rose when the
leader left the room. The bo ldest in
the group began horsing a round
first , then the less courageous ones.
until fina lly only a couple ofworried
little boys were still ha lf-heart edly
sticking to bus iness.
The children under very tight dis–
cipline had no o utlct for their spon–
taneous ideas or indi vidual wishes.
Resentment built up under the sur–
face a nd broke out when the leader
le ft the boys by themsel ves.
T he
laissezjaire
g roup me t with
disastrous results: Little or no thing
was accomplished . Once in a whil e
th e boys wo ul d tire of ho rsi ng
a round a nd a ttemp t to accomp lish
something. but none o f them was
strong enough to lead . The rowd ier
boys a lways disrupted any progress.
Surprisingly. this g roup did better
when the adult left the room.
tt
was as
though the boys were embarrassed
whe n a n adult who did not know how
to act like one was present.
The story was q uite different in
the
democratic
cont rol group. The
boys took pride in tbe fac t th a t the
projec t was their very own - not
some thing forced on them. They
had the freedom to be creati ve and
to share ideas. They we re in teres ted
a nd busy. T here was no evidence of
hostility. Wo rk went on a lmos t as
we ll wh e n th e Ieader le ft t h e
room.
O
11