Love and Logic Curriculum Research:
EFFECTS OF THE BECOMING A LOVE AND LOGIC® PARENT TRAINING PROGRAM
ON PARENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR
AND THEIR OWN PARENTAL COMPETENCE: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
by Charles Fay, Ph.D.
Over the past thirty years, severe disruptive behavior among American youth has evolved from a relatively minor concern, shared by only a few educators and parents, to a major day-to-day crisis experienced by many. Veteran teachers continually report that the students entering their classrooms today are vastly more challenging than the ones they taught as recently as a decade ago. Clearly, both educators and the general public view child discipline as one of the most challenging and important issues facing today’s schools (American Educator, 1995-96; Elan, Rose & Gallup, 1996; Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998). Mirroring these concerns has been research documenting significant increases in the frequency of behaviors ranging from minor disruptions (Walker, Colvin & Ramsey, 1995) to fatal violence (Koop & Lundberg, 1992; Rutherford & Nelson, 1995).
There is no doubt that educators and parents are experiencing ever-increasing needs for practical ways of preventing discipline problems, teaching pro-social behavior, and promoting responsibility. Research has shown that punishment-based approaches actually increase disruptive behaviors (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998; Mayer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1991). Further, approaches that fail to provide clear behavioral limits and consequences have also yielded less poor results (Mayer, 1995). Out of dissatisfaction with many traditional approaches, concerns over the increasing numbers of at-risk students, and requests from parents and educators throughout the United States, the Love and Logic theory and set of discipline techniques was developed (see Cline & Fay, 1990; Cline & Fay, 1992; Fay & Funk, 1995; Fay & Cline, 1997). At the theoretical core of this approach is the idea that success for children of all ages rests on a balance of unconditional compassion, firm behavioral limits, and logical consequences.The primary goal of the Love and Logic program is to give parents, educators, and others working with children practical strategies for reducing behavior problems, increasing motivation, and building assets which contribute to life-long responsibility and resiliency. Benson, Galbraith and Espeland (1995) in their study of 270,000 students grades six through twelve, observed a number of resiliency factors, or “developmental assets” which help children avoid academic failure, emotional problems, criminal behavior, substance abuse, and other negative outcomes. Similar findings have been obtained by others studying the phenomenon of resilience in children (see Garmezy, 1985; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Werner & Smith, 1992). The Love and Logic theory and set of techniques give specific and practical tools for building the following assets:
Developmental Assets Addressed by the Love and Logic Program:
1. Highly supportive and loving families and schools.
2. Parents who establish open communication with their children.
3. Positive parent-teacher relationships and parent involvement.
4. Positive school climate.
5. Appropriate standards for behavior at home and school (i.e., limits).
6. Positive school and parental discipline.
7. Positive relationships between children and adults other than parents.
8. High achievement motivation and aspirations.
9. Learning to use empathy with others.
10. Decision-making skills.
11. Self-esteem.
12. Hope, or a positive view, of the world and the future.
Theoretical and Empirical Roots of the Love and Logic Program
The theoretical and empirical roots of Love and Logic stem from two areas: (1) studies examining basic principles of learning and conditioning, including cognitive or social learning theories (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Pavlov, 1927; Rescorla, 1988; Thorndike, 1905; Skinner, 1953; Watson & Reyner, 1920) and (2) research examining human emotional needs and their relationship to motivation (e.g., Glasser, 1969; Maslow, 1954; Ng, 1980; and Rogers, 1961)
Supporting Theory and Research
The Becoming a Love & Logic Parent program is guided by five basic principles, each firmly grounded in research:
1. Preserve and enhance the child’s self-concept.
2. Teach children how to own and solve the problems they create.
3. Share the control and decision-making.
4. Combine consequences with high levels of empathy and warmth.
5. Build the adult-child relationship.
A key component of the program involves giving parents and educators a firm rationale for each of the above principles, as well as practical tools for following them.
I. Preserve and enhance the child’s self-concept.
The Love and Logic program teaches that each and every intervention or technique must be designed in a way to preserve or enhance the child’s self-concept. Research has clearly shown that one’s view of self has significant motivational influences on behavior and cognition (Harter, 1986). Further, Bandura (1977) proposed that self-efficacy beliefs stem directly from one’s cognitive appraisal of task difficulty, one’s abilities, and whether effort or struggle will yield success. The Love and Logic program focuses heavily on engineering situations that encourage children to struggle with solvable problems, receive guidance from adults, achieve success, and attribute their success to effort. Weiner (1979) observed that these types of internal attributions to effort or struggle are key to developing high levels of achievement motivation.
II. Teach children how to own and solve the problems they create.
A key concept guiding the Love and Logic program is the idea that children develop problem-solving skills only when two conditions exist: (1) they are required by the adults around them to think about and solve the problems they create; and (2) these adults teach problem-solving skills through modeling and instruction. Regarding this first condition, Kerr and Bowen (1988) argued that one of the most important tasks for individuals and systems is to develop clear boundaries regarding problem-ownership. When parents or educators own problems that should be solved by children, and when children take on adult problems, the health of the family or school system suffers. Everyone is involved in everybody else’s problems, and nobody has the energy to deal with their own. In contrast, when adults solve their own problems, and guide children to do the same, the system functions smoother (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Foster, Prinz & O’Leary, 1983) and those within it have more opportunities to develop self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
Regarding the second condition above, when parents and educators model solving their own problems, and guide children to do the same, children begin to learn these crucial skills. Spivak and Sure (1974) in their pioneering research on social problem-solving, have noted that modeling and direct instruction are key strategies for teaching problem- solving skills. Similar propositions have been made by Bandura, 1976; Bandura & Jeffery, 1973; Cormier & Cormier (1991). The Love and Logic program gives parents and teachers specific guidelines for using modeling, direct instruction and feedback to teach the following problem-solving process:
1. Identify and define the problem.
2. Brainstorm solutions.
3. Evaluate each solution.
4. Implement the solution chosen.
For research supporting this problem-solving model, see D’Zurilla (1986), as well as Cormier & Cormier (1991).
III. Share the control and decision-making.
The Love and Logic program emphasizes healthy control as a basic human emotional need, and it provides specific parent and educator strategies for enhancing children’s perceptions of control. Supporting this approach is research showing that shared control enhances general levels of cooperation (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Glasser, 1969), people’s ability to cope with stressful situations (Glass, McKnight, & Valdinardo, 1993; Glass, Singer, Leonard, Krantz, Cohen, & Cummings, 1973; Rodin, 1976), academic motivation (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Sapona, Bauer, & Philips, 1989; Slavin, 1985) and physical health (Langer & Rodin, 1976; Schulz, 1976).
IV. Combine consequences with high levels of empathy and warmth.
The Love and Logic program is based on a unique combination of research conducted by behavioral psychologists, as well as studies examining the essential components of helping relationships. From the early work of Thorndike (1905) and Skinner (1953), educators posited a very simple relationship between behavior and its consequences. Behaviors yielding positive consequences tend to increase in frequency, whereas those producing negative consequences tend to diminish. From this basic “Law of Effect,” a variety of programs applying behavioral principles to school discipline were developed. Anecdotal feedback from educators across the country, as well as outcome research, has shown that a focus on behavioral principles and consequences alone has the following limitations:
1. Fails to prevent behavior problems.
2. Fails to teach appropriate replacement behaviors.
3. Contributes to student withdrawal, avoidance, or retaliatory aggression.
Researchers examining the behavior change process have repeatedly observed that the rigid application of behavioral principles to human relationships is insufficient for long- term positive change. In contrast, when such principles are combined with high levels of trust, empathy, and warmth, students are more likely to be cooperative and to copy pro- social behavior modeled by adults (Egan, 1990; French & Raven, 1959; Ng, 1980; Rogers, 1958; Strong, 1968). The Love and Logic program places strong emphasis on teaching parents, educators, and other adults how to model healthy behavior, provide logical consequences, and do both in a very warm, empathic way.
V. Build the adult-child relationship.
Pivotal components of the 9 Essential Skills for the Love and Logic Classroom teacher training program are strategies designed to enhance teacher-student relationships and create a positive school climate for all students. Research has clearly demonstrated that at-risk students who lack positive relationships with their teachers and other adults at school display more disruptive behavior, are more likely to disengage from academic activities and are likely to drop-out before they graduate (Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan, & Mac Iver, 1993; Finn, 1989). Other research has shown significant improvements in behavior, academic achievement, and on-time attendance when students experience caring relationships with their teachers and when the overall school climate feels supportive (Baker, Terry, Bridger, & Winsor, 1997; Finn, 1989; Kramer-Schlosser, 1992; Swartz, Merten, & Bursik, 1987).
Although limited empirical research has been conducted on the Love and Logic parent and educator training programs, the limited data available at this time appear promising. One study, conducted at the Livingston Family Center in Michigan, examined the effects of The Becoming a Love and Logic Parent program with parents going through divorce court, as well as parents with children involved in the Juvenile Justice system (Hayek, 2000). Results revealed significant reductions in the use of illegal substances, in parent- child conflict, and general negative child behavior. Similar results were obtained by La Rosa et al. (2001).
Applying Love and Logic in an elementary school, Weir (1997) observed high levels of teacher “buy-in” and use of the program in this school. After implementing this program: (a) 87% of teachers reported having more effective tools for managing student behavior; (b) 84% reported improved relationships with their students; (c) 68% reported decreased time spent managing behavior disruptions; (d) 71% reported increased time spent teaching curriculum; and (e) 82% reported having more control over discipline. Weir also observed a 48% decrease in the number of main office referrals for discipline during the first year this school applied the Love and Logic program.
Using single-subject methodology, Mckenna (1997) examined the effects of one Love and Logic technique on a nine-year-old female student’s academic motivation, personal hygiene, classroom behavior, general demeanor, and self-concept. Outcome measures included teacher ratings, teacher anecdotal observations, and student’s performance on the Pierrs-Harris Self-Concept Scale. For a period of nine weeks, two teachers applied the “One-Sentence Intervention,” an approach to enhancing student-teacher relationships by systematically noticing and encouraging unique student strengths and interests. Teacher ratings and anecdotal observations revealed: (a) improved personal hygiene; (b) an elevated frequency of positive peer and adult interactions; and (c) increased rates of homework completion. Pre and post test scores on the Pierrs-Harris Self-Concept scale revealed a statistically significant 16-point improvement over the course of intervention.
The current investigation was undertaken to gather pre and post test data from a significantly larger sample of parents than studied in these earlier evaluations.
Method
Subjects were from nine hundred, sixty-three (963) to one thousand, nineteen (1,019) parents in several states, representing a wide range of socio-economic and ethnic groups.
Each subject participated in the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent course. Each course was presented over a seven week period, with one session conducted per week. Each session lasted approximately two hours (See appendix A for a session by session overview of the program).
Before the first session, each participant completed the “Before Program” questionnaire (See appendix B). This questionnaire was designed to assess pretest perceptions of their parenting competence, parenting stress, and their child’s behavior. If participants had more than one child, they were instructed to complete this questionnaire considering the one child they were most concerned about.
After the final course session, participants complete the “After Program” questionnaire, to assess any posttest changes in perceived parenting competence, stress, and their child’s behavior. This questionnaire was identical to the “Before Program” measure.
Based on nearly two decades of positive anecdotes from parents participating in this program, it was hypothesized that statistically significant improvements would be observed on each of the scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s behavior, as well as their own parental competence.
Discussion Perceptions of parental competence
As hypothesized, analyses revealed statistically significant improvement on all scales assessing participant perceptions of their own parenting competence. The largest improvement was observed on the scale worded, “With my child (children) I find myself staying calm when I have to discipline.” Large improvements were also observed on the scale worded, “With my child (children) I find myself feeling really stressed out.” These findings suggest that participation in this program may serve as a helpful intervention for the prevention of child maltreatment.
Perceptions of their children’s behavior
Again, a priori hypotheses were supported by statistically significant improvement on all scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s behavior. The most profound improvement was observed in the area of parent-child arguments. Patterson (1976) observed that children with parents who frequently become embroiled in parent-child arguments suffer a significantly greater risk of developing severe behavior disorders than children with parents who don’t. According to his research, Patterson hypothesized that parents who lack the skills to avoid such “negative-coercive” interaction patterns become victims of negative reinforcement or avoidance conditioning. To avoid verbal battles with their children, they begin to avoid setting and enforcing essential behavioral limits. Given this prior research and theory, the current results appear particularly important.
Parents were also asked to include their personal comments pertaining to the most important thing they learned from the class. These anecdotes supported the statistical results, indicating significantly more favorable perceptions of their children’s behavior, as well as their competence as parents. Select comments to “Identify the most valuable thing you learned in this class” are included below:
• Remembering to whisper when I feel like yelling.
• After applying Love and Logic more, my kids are much happier (and me too!) and seem to feel release in the encouraged thinking and responsibility.
• Parenting is fun...not simply something to be endured. • It’ s so much easier to not get into power struggles and arguments now
that I know the way to do it. I feel a lot more calm about discipline.
• This class has helped me calm down and not get so frustrated!
• How to control myself not my child. I react differently now and so does he. More positive interaction over conflict.
• Child learns best from consequences and empathy rather than lectures and anger.
• Empathy, empathy, empathy! Because anger is my old pattern and because empathy helps me calmly think about appropriate actions/consequences.
• I loved it. I plan to bring my mother to a session. Methodological shortcomings and directions for future research
The results of this preliminary investigation suggest that the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent program is a highly promising program for assisting parents in the development of attitudes and skills for improving the quality of their lives with their children, preventing child maltreatment, and developing competencies within youth that contribute to pro- social, responsible behavior.
While the current results appear promising, the preliminary nature of this investigation requires that they be interpreted with caution. Future studies are needed to address methodological shortcomings and to expand our understanding of specific situational, child, and demographic variables contributing to the effectiveness of this program.
While sessions were implemented by independent facilitators, design planning and data analysis were conducted by the program developer. Future studies should be conducted entirely by an independent investigator.
Future studies must also gather more specific and comprehensive demographic data in order to evaluate how well the participant sample represents the general population. These data would also prove most valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of this program for varying socioeconomic and ethnic groups, as well as parents with children of varying ages.
To control threats to internal validity (e.g., testing, history, maturation, etc.), random assignment of subjects to a “waiting list” control group, or to a comparison group receiving a different parenting program, should be strongly considered.
Follow-up data are needed to determine whether positive gains are maintained over months and years.
Finally, additional research examining the effectiveness of Love and Logic for teachers and schools is needed.
In summary, preliminary results suggest that the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent program possess promise as an effective approach to giving parents the attitudes and skills they need to raise responsible kids in today’s very challenging societal climate. One participant summarized his thoughts as follows:
I realized that my parenting style was being a “Drill Sergeant.” Not fun for myself or the kids.
The skills I learned in this class taught me that I have more power in situations than I previously thought
and can approach all situations with calming empathy, compassion, and the skills I need to make parenting fun.
References
American Educator. (1995-96). Elements of an effective discipline strategy. American Educator, 19, 24-27
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jig-saw classroom.. London: Sage
Baker, J., Terry, T., Bridger, R., & Winsor, A. (1997). Schools as caring communities: A relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review, 26, 586 – 602.
Bandura, A. (1976). Effecting change through participant modeling principles. In J.D. Krumboltz & C.E. Thorensen (Eds.), Self-control: Power to the person (pp. 86 – 110). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A & Jeffery, R. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 122- 130.
Benson, P., Galbraith, J. & Espeland, P. (1995) What kids need to succeed: Proven, practical ways to raise good kids. Minneapolis, MN.: Free Spirit Publishing.
Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. (1981). Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Cline, F. & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting with love and logic. Colorado Springs, CO: Pinon Press.
Cline, F. & Fay, J. (1993). Parenting teens with love and logic. ColoradoSprings, CO: Pinon Press.
Cormier, W. & Cormier, S. (1991). Interviewing skills for helpers: Fundamental skills and cognitive behavioral interventions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
D’Zurilla, T. (1986). Problem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention. New York: Springer.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A, Miller-Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., &
14
Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage- environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90 – 101.
Egan, G. (1990). The skilled helper: Model, skills, and methods for effective helping. (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Elam, S., Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (1996). Twenty-eighth annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 41- 59.
Fay, J. & Cline, F. (1997). Discipline with love and logic teacher training course. Golden, CO: The Love and Logic Press.
Fay, J. & Funk, D. (1995). Teaching with love and logic. Golden, CO: The Love and Logic Press.
Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117 – 142.
Foster, S., Prinz, R., & O’Leary, K. (1983). Impact of problem-solving communication training and generalization procedures on family conflict. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5, 1 – 23.
French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J.E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry book (Suppl. 4, pp. 213-233). Oxford: Pergamon
Glass, D., McKnight, J., & Valdinardo, H. (1993). Depression, burnout, and perceptions of control in hospital nurses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 147 – 155.
Glass, D., Singer, H., Leonard, D., Krantz, S., Cohen, S., & Cummings, H. (1973). Perceived control of aversive stimulation and the reduction of stress responses. Journal of Personality, 41, 577 – 595.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row.
Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self. (vol. 3, 137 – 181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hayek, M. (2001). Effects of Parent Training With Love and Logic at Navigator School. Unpublished research conducted in collaboration between Wayne State University and the Navigator School.
Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family Evaluation: An approach based on Bowen Theory New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Koop, C. & Lundberg, G. (1992). Violence in America: A public health emergency: Time to bite the bullet back. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3075 – 3076.
Kramer-Schlosser, L. (1992). Teacher distance and student disengagement: School lives on the margin. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 128 – 140.
Langer, E. & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191 – 198.
La Rosa, S., Kiernan, J., Shaw-Reeves, R., Baker, R., Wolf-Branigan, M. & Hayek, M. (2001). Collaborative action research using Discipline With Love and Logic. Unpublished research conducted in collaboration between Wayne State University and the Navigator School.
Lewis, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school- wise system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Luthar, S. & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Masten, A., & Coatsworth, J. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist , 53, 205-220.
Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.
Mayer, G. & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1991). Interventions for vandalism. In G. Stoner, M. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 559-580). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists
McKenna, J. (1997) Effects of Systematic Noticing on a Withdrawn Student’ s Self- Concept. Unpublished masters degree thesis.
Ng, S. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.
Patterson, G. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. Mash, L. Hamerlynck, & L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior Modification and Families (pp. 267 - 316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Pavlov, I. (1927), Conditioned Reflexes. New York: Oxford University Press. Rescorla, R. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151-160. Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality
change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95 – 103.
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rodin, J. (1976). Crowding, perceived choice, and response to controllable and uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 564 – 578.
Rutherford, R. & Nelson, C. (1995). Management of aggressive and violent behavior in the schools. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1 – 15.
Sapona, R., Bauer, A. & Philips, L. (1989). Facilitative stance: Responsive teaching of students with special needs. Academic Therapy, 25, 245-252.
Schulz, R. (1976). The effects of control and predictability on the psychological and physical well-being of the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 55 – 76.
Skinner, B. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan Slavin, R. (1985). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in desegregated schools. Journal of Social Issues, 16, 169 – 180.
Spivak, G., Sure, M. (1974). The problem-solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strong, S. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 215 – 224.
Swartz, G., Merten, D., & Bursik, R. (1987). Teaching styles and performance values in junior high school: The impersonal, nonpersonal, and personal. American Journal of Education, 346 – 371.
Throndike, E. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York: Seiler.
Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in schools: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Watson, J. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1 – 14.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3 – 25.
Weir, B. (1997) An evaluation of the effects of Love and Logic at McCullough Elementary School. Unpublished outcome study.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
ON PARENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR
AND THEIR OWN PARENTAL COMPETENCE: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
by Charles Fay, Ph.D.
Over the past thirty years, severe disruptive behavior among American youth has evolved from a relatively minor concern, shared by only a few educators and parents, to a major day-to-day crisis experienced by many. Veteran teachers continually report that the students entering their classrooms today are vastly more challenging than the ones they taught as recently as a decade ago. Clearly, both educators and the general public view child discipline as one of the most challenging and important issues facing today’s schools (American Educator, 1995-96; Elan, Rose & Gallup, 1996; Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998). Mirroring these concerns has been research documenting significant increases in the frequency of behaviors ranging from minor disruptions (Walker, Colvin & Ramsey, 1995) to fatal violence (Koop & Lundberg, 1992; Rutherford & Nelson, 1995).
There is no doubt that educators and parents are experiencing ever-increasing needs for practical ways of preventing discipline problems, teaching pro-social behavior, and promoting responsibility. Research has shown that punishment-based approaches actually increase disruptive behaviors (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998; Mayer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1991). Further, approaches that fail to provide clear behavioral limits and consequences have also yielded less poor results (Mayer, 1995). Out of dissatisfaction with many traditional approaches, concerns over the increasing numbers of at-risk students, and requests from parents and educators throughout the United States, the Love and Logic theory and set of discipline techniques was developed (see Cline & Fay, 1990; Cline & Fay, 1992; Fay & Funk, 1995; Fay & Cline, 1997). At the theoretical core of this approach is the idea that success for children of all ages rests on a balance of unconditional compassion, firm behavioral limits, and logical consequences.The primary goal of the Love and Logic program is to give parents, educators, and others working with children practical strategies for reducing behavior problems, increasing motivation, and building assets which contribute to life-long responsibility and resiliency. Benson, Galbraith and Espeland (1995) in their study of 270,000 students grades six through twelve, observed a number of resiliency factors, or “developmental assets” which help children avoid academic failure, emotional problems, criminal behavior, substance abuse, and other negative outcomes. Similar findings have been obtained by others studying the phenomenon of resilience in children (see Garmezy, 1985; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Werner & Smith, 1992). The Love and Logic theory and set of techniques give specific and practical tools for building the following assets:
Developmental Assets Addressed by the Love and Logic Program:
1. Highly supportive and loving families and schools.
2. Parents who establish open communication with their children.
3. Positive parent-teacher relationships and parent involvement.
4. Positive school climate.
5. Appropriate standards for behavior at home and school (i.e., limits).
6. Positive school and parental discipline.
7. Positive relationships between children and adults other than parents.
8. High achievement motivation and aspirations.
9. Learning to use empathy with others.
10. Decision-making skills.
11. Self-esteem.
12. Hope, or a positive view, of the world and the future.
Theoretical and Empirical Roots of the Love and Logic Program
The theoretical and empirical roots of Love and Logic stem from two areas: (1) studies examining basic principles of learning and conditioning, including cognitive or social learning theories (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Pavlov, 1927; Rescorla, 1988; Thorndike, 1905; Skinner, 1953; Watson & Reyner, 1920) and (2) research examining human emotional needs and their relationship to motivation (e.g., Glasser, 1969; Maslow, 1954; Ng, 1980; and Rogers, 1961)
Supporting Theory and Research
The Becoming a Love & Logic Parent program is guided by five basic principles, each firmly grounded in research:
1. Preserve and enhance the child’s self-concept.
2. Teach children how to own and solve the problems they create.
3. Share the control and decision-making.
4. Combine consequences with high levels of empathy and warmth.
5. Build the adult-child relationship.
A key component of the program involves giving parents and educators a firm rationale for each of the above principles, as well as practical tools for following them.
I. Preserve and enhance the child’s self-concept.
The Love and Logic program teaches that each and every intervention or technique must be designed in a way to preserve or enhance the child’s self-concept. Research has clearly shown that one’s view of self has significant motivational influences on behavior and cognition (Harter, 1986). Further, Bandura (1977) proposed that self-efficacy beliefs stem directly from one’s cognitive appraisal of task difficulty, one’s abilities, and whether effort or struggle will yield success. The Love and Logic program focuses heavily on engineering situations that encourage children to struggle with solvable problems, receive guidance from adults, achieve success, and attribute their success to effort. Weiner (1979) observed that these types of internal attributions to effort or struggle are key to developing high levels of achievement motivation.
II. Teach children how to own and solve the problems they create.
A key concept guiding the Love and Logic program is the idea that children develop problem-solving skills only when two conditions exist: (1) they are required by the adults around them to think about and solve the problems they create; and (2) these adults teach problem-solving skills through modeling and instruction. Regarding this first condition, Kerr and Bowen (1988) argued that one of the most important tasks for individuals and systems is to develop clear boundaries regarding problem-ownership. When parents or educators own problems that should be solved by children, and when children take on adult problems, the health of the family or school system suffers. Everyone is involved in everybody else’s problems, and nobody has the energy to deal with their own. In contrast, when adults solve their own problems, and guide children to do the same, the system functions smoother (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Foster, Prinz & O’Leary, 1983) and those within it have more opportunities to develop self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
Regarding the second condition above, when parents and educators model solving their own problems, and guide children to do the same, children begin to learn these crucial skills. Spivak and Sure (1974) in their pioneering research on social problem-solving, have noted that modeling and direct instruction are key strategies for teaching problem- solving skills. Similar propositions have been made by Bandura, 1976; Bandura & Jeffery, 1973; Cormier & Cormier (1991). The Love and Logic program gives parents and teachers specific guidelines for using modeling, direct instruction and feedback to teach the following problem-solving process:
1. Identify and define the problem.
2. Brainstorm solutions.
3. Evaluate each solution.
4. Implement the solution chosen.
For research supporting this problem-solving model, see D’Zurilla (1986), as well as Cormier & Cormier (1991).
III. Share the control and decision-making.
The Love and Logic program emphasizes healthy control as a basic human emotional need, and it provides specific parent and educator strategies for enhancing children’s perceptions of control. Supporting this approach is research showing that shared control enhances general levels of cooperation (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Glasser, 1969), people’s ability to cope with stressful situations (Glass, McKnight, & Valdinardo, 1993; Glass, Singer, Leonard, Krantz, Cohen, & Cummings, 1973; Rodin, 1976), academic motivation (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Sapona, Bauer, & Philips, 1989; Slavin, 1985) and physical health (Langer & Rodin, 1976; Schulz, 1976).
IV. Combine consequences with high levels of empathy and warmth.
The Love and Logic program is based on a unique combination of research conducted by behavioral psychologists, as well as studies examining the essential components of helping relationships. From the early work of Thorndike (1905) and Skinner (1953), educators posited a very simple relationship between behavior and its consequences. Behaviors yielding positive consequences tend to increase in frequency, whereas those producing negative consequences tend to diminish. From this basic “Law of Effect,” a variety of programs applying behavioral principles to school discipline were developed. Anecdotal feedback from educators across the country, as well as outcome research, has shown that a focus on behavioral principles and consequences alone has the following limitations:
1. Fails to prevent behavior problems.
2. Fails to teach appropriate replacement behaviors.
3. Contributes to student withdrawal, avoidance, or retaliatory aggression.
Researchers examining the behavior change process have repeatedly observed that the rigid application of behavioral principles to human relationships is insufficient for long- term positive change. In contrast, when such principles are combined with high levels of trust, empathy, and warmth, students are more likely to be cooperative and to copy pro- social behavior modeled by adults (Egan, 1990; French & Raven, 1959; Ng, 1980; Rogers, 1958; Strong, 1968). The Love and Logic program places strong emphasis on teaching parents, educators, and other adults how to model healthy behavior, provide logical consequences, and do both in a very warm, empathic way.
V. Build the adult-child relationship.
Pivotal components of the 9 Essential Skills for the Love and Logic Classroom teacher training program are strategies designed to enhance teacher-student relationships and create a positive school climate for all students. Research has clearly demonstrated that at-risk students who lack positive relationships with their teachers and other adults at school display more disruptive behavior, are more likely to disengage from academic activities and are likely to drop-out before they graduate (Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan, & Mac Iver, 1993; Finn, 1989). Other research has shown significant improvements in behavior, academic achievement, and on-time attendance when students experience caring relationships with their teachers and when the overall school climate feels supportive (Baker, Terry, Bridger, & Winsor, 1997; Finn, 1989; Kramer-Schlosser, 1992; Swartz, Merten, & Bursik, 1987).
Although limited empirical research has been conducted on the Love and Logic parent and educator training programs, the limited data available at this time appear promising. One study, conducted at the Livingston Family Center in Michigan, examined the effects of The Becoming a Love and Logic Parent program with parents going through divorce court, as well as parents with children involved in the Juvenile Justice system (Hayek, 2000). Results revealed significant reductions in the use of illegal substances, in parent- child conflict, and general negative child behavior. Similar results were obtained by La Rosa et al. (2001).
Applying Love and Logic in an elementary school, Weir (1997) observed high levels of teacher “buy-in” and use of the program in this school. After implementing this program: (a) 87% of teachers reported having more effective tools for managing student behavior; (b) 84% reported improved relationships with their students; (c) 68% reported decreased time spent managing behavior disruptions; (d) 71% reported increased time spent teaching curriculum; and (e) 82% reported having more control over discipline. Weir also observed a 48% decrease in the number of main office referrals for discipline during the first year this school applied the Love and Logic program.
Using single-subject methodology, Mckenna (1997) examined the effects of one Love and Logic technique on a nine-year-old female student’s academic motivation, personal hygiene, classroom behavior, general demeanor, and self-concept. Outcome measures included teacher ratings, teacher anecdotal observations, and student’s performance on the Pierrs-Harris Self-Concept Scale. For a period of nine weeks, two teachers applied the “One-Sentence Intervention,” an approach to enhancing student-teacher relationships by systematically noticing and encouraging unique student strengths and interests. Teacher ratings and anecdotal observations revealed: (a) improved personal hygiene; (b) an elevated frequency of positive peer and adult interactions; and (c) increased rates of homework completion. Pre and post test scores on the Pierrs-Harris Self-Concept scale revealed a statistically significant 16-point improvement over the course of intervention.
The current investigation was undertaken to gather pre and post test data from a significantly larger sample of parents than studied in these earlier evaluations.
Method
Subjects were from nine hundred, sixty-three (963) to one thousand, nineteen (1,019) parents in several states, representing a wide range of socio-economic and ethnic groups.
Each subject participated in the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent course. Each course was presented over a seven week period, with one session conducted per week. Each session lasted approximately two hours (See appendix A for a session by session overview of the program).
Before the first session, each participant completed the “Before Program” questionnaire (See appendix B). This questionnaire was designed to assess pretest perceptions of their parenting competence, parenting stress, and their child’s behavior. If participants had more than one child, they were instructed to complete this questionnaire considering the one child they were most concerned about.
After the final course session, participants complete the “After Program” questionnaire, to assess any posttest changes in perceived parenting competence, stress, and their child’s behavior. This questionnaire was identical to the “Before Program” measure.
Based on nearly two decades of positive anecdotes from parents participating in this program, it was hypothesized that statistically significant improvements would be observed on each of the scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s behavior, as well as their own parental competence.
Discussion Perceptions of parental competence
As hypothesized, analyses revealed statistically significant improvement on all scales assessing participant perceptions of their own parenting competence. The largest improvement was observed on the scale worded, “With my child (children) I find myself staying calm when I have to discipline.” Large improvements were also observed on the scale worded, “With my child (children) I find myself feeling really stressed out.” These findings suggest that participation in this program may serve as a helpful intervention for the prevention of child maltreatment.
Perceptions of their children’s behavior
Again, a priori hypotheses were supported by statistically significant improvement on all scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s behavior. The most profound improvement was observed in the area of parent-child arguments. Patterson (1976) observed that children with parents who frequently become embroiled in parent-child arguments suffer a significantly greater risk of developing severe behavior disorders than children with parents who don’t. According to his research, Patterson hypothesized that parents who lack the skills to avoid such “negative-coercive” interaction patterns become victims of negative reinforcement or avoidance conditioning. To avoid verbal battles with their children, they begin to avoid setting and enforcing essential behavioral limits. Given this prior research and theory, the current results appear particularly important.
Parents were also asked to include their personal comments pertaining to the most important thing they learned from the class. These anecdotes supported the statistical results, indicating significantly more favorable perceptions of their children’s behavior, as well as their competence as parents. Select comments to “Identify the most valuable thing you learned in this class” are included below:
• Remembering to whisper when I feel like yelling.
• After applying Love and Logic more, my kids are much happier (and me too!) and seem to feel release in the encouraged thinking and responsibility.
• Parenting is fun...not simply something to be endured. • It’ s so much easier to not get into power struggles and arguments now
that I know the way to do it. I feel a lot more calm about discipline.
• This class has helped me calm down and not get so frustrated!
• How to control myself not my child. I react differently now and so does he. More positive interaction over conflict.
• Child learns best from consequences and empathy rather than lectures and anger.
• Empathy, empathy, empathy! Because anger is my old pattern and because empathy helps me calmly think about appropriate actions/consequences.
• I loved it. I plan to bring my mother to a session. Methodological shortcomings and directions for future research
The results of this preliminary investigation suggest that the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent program is a highly promising program for assisting parents in the development of attitudes and skills for improving the quality of their lives with their children, preventing child maltreatment, and developing competencies within youth that contribute to pro- social, responsible behavior.
While the current results appear promising, the preliminary nature of this investigation requires that they be interpreted with caution. Future studies are needed to address methodological shortcomings and to expand our understanding of specific situational, child, and demographic variables contributing to the effectiveness of this program.
While sessions were implemented by independent facilitators, design planning and data analysis were conducted by the program developer. Future studies should be conducted entirely by an independent investigator.
Future studies must also gather more specific and comprehensive demographic data in order to evaluate how well the participant sample represents the general population. These data would also prove most valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of this program for varying socioeconomic and ethnic groups, as well as parents with children of varying ages.
To control threats to internal validity (e.g., testing, history, maturation, etc.), random assignment of subjects to a “waiting list” control group, or to a comparison group receiving a different parenting program, should be strongly considered.
Follow-up data are needed to determine whether positive gains are maintained over months and years.
Finally, additional research examining the effectiveness of Love and Logic for teachers and schools is needed.
In summary, preliminary results suggest that the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent program possess promise as an effective approach to giving parents the attitudes and skills they need to raise responsible kids in today’s very challenging societal climate. One participant summarized his thoughts as follows:
I realized that my parenting style was being a “Drill Sergeant.” Not fun for myself or the kids.
The skills I learned in this class taught me that I have more power in situations than I previously thought
and can approach all situations with calming empathy, compassion, and the skills I need to make parenting fun.
References
American Educator. (1995-96). Elements of an effective discipline strategy. American Educator, 19, 24-27
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jig-saw classroom.. London: Sage
Baker, J., Terry, T., Bridger, R., & Winsor, A. (1997). Schools as caring communities: A relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review, 26, 586 – 602.
Bandura, A. (1976). Effecting change through participant modeling principles. In J.D. Krumboltz & C.E. Thorensen (Eds.), Self-control: Power to the person (pp. 86 – 110). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A & Jeffery, R. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 122- 130.
Benson, P., Galbraith, J. & Espeland, P. (1995) What kids need to succeed: Proven, practical ways to raise good kids. Minneapolis, MN.: Free Spirit Publishing.
Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. (1981). Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Cline, F. & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting with love and logic. Colorado Springs, CO: Pinon Press.
Cline, F. & Fay, J. (1993). Parenting teens with love and logic. ColoradoSprings, CO: Pinon Press.
Cormier, W. & Cormier, S. (1991). Interviewing skills for helpers: Fundamental skills and cognitive behavioral interventions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
D’Zurilla, T. (1986). Problem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention. New York: Springer.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A, Miller-Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., &
14
Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage- environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90 – 101.
Egan, G. (1990). The skilled helper: Model, skills, and methods for effective helping. (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Elam, S., Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (1996). Twenty-eighth annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 41- 59.
Fay, J. & Cline, F. (1997). Discipline with love and logic teacher training course. Golden, CO: The Love and Logic Press.
Fay, J. & Funk, D. (1995). Teaching with love and logic. Golden, CO: The Love and Logic Press.
Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117 – 142.
Foster, S., Prinz, R., & O’Leary, K. (1983). Impact of problem-solving communication training and generalization procedures on family conflict. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5, 1 – 23.
French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J.E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry book (Suppl. 4, pp. 213-233). Oxford: Pergamon
Glass, D., McKnight, J., & Valdinardo, H. (1993). Depression, burnout, and perceptions of control in hospital nurses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 147 – 155.
Glass, D., Singer, H., Leonard, D., Krantz, S., Cohen, S., & Cummings, H. (1973). Perceived control of aversive stimulation and the reduction of stress responses. Journal of Personality, 41, 577 – 595.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row.
Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self. (vol. 3, 137 – 181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hayek, M. (2001). Effects of Parent Training With Love and Logic at Navigator School. Unpublished research conducted in collaboration between Wayne State University and the Navigator School.
Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family Evaluation: An approach based on Bowen Theory New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Koop, C. & Lundberg, G. (1992). Violence in America: A public health emergency: Time to bite the bullet back. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3075 – 3076.
Kramer-Schlosser, L. (1992). Teacher distance and student disengagement: School lives on the margin. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 128 – 140.
Langer, E. & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191 – 198.
La Rosa, S., Kiernan, J., Shaw-Reeves, R., Baker, R., Wolf-Branigan, M. & Hayek, M. (2001). Collaborative action research using Discipline With Love and Logic. Unpublished research conducted in collaboration between Wayne State University and the Navigator School.
Lewis, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school- wise system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Luthar, S. & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Masten, A., & Coatsworth, J. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist , 53, 205-220.
Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.
Mayer, G. & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1991). Interventions for vandalism. In G. Stoner, M. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 559-580). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists
McKenna, J. (1997) Effects of Systematic Noticing on a Withdrawn Student’ s Self- Concept. Unpublished masters degree thesis.
Ng, S. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.
Patterson, G. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. Mash, L. Hamerlynck, & L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior Modification and Families (pp. 267 - 316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Pavlov, I. (1927), Conditioned Reflexes. New York: Oxford University Press. Rescorla, R. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151-160. Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality
change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95 – 103.
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rodin, J. (1976). Crowding, perceived choice, and response to controllable and uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 564 – 578.
Rutherford, R. & Nelson, C. (1995). Management of aggressive and violent behavior in the schools. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1 – 15.
Sapona, R., Bauer, A. & Philips, L. (1989). Facilitative stance: Responsive teaching of students with special needs. Academic Therapy, 25, 245-252.
Schulz, R. (1976). The effects of control and predictability on the psychological and physical well-being of the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 55 – 76.
Skinner, B. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan Slavin, R. (1985). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in desegregated schools. Journal of Social Issues, 16, 169 – 180.
Spivak, G., Sure, M. (1974). The problem-solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strong, S. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 215 – 224.
Swartz, G., Merten, D., & Bursik, R. (1987). Teaching styles and performance values in junior high school: The impersonal, nonpersonal, and personal. American Journal of Education, 346 – 371.
Throndike, E. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York: Seiler.
Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in schools: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Watson, J. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1 – 14.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3 – 25.
Weir, B. (1997) An evaluation of the effects of Love and Logic at McCullough Elementary School. Unpublished outcome study.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.