Teaching children to care rather than kill

Horton-Parker, Radha J

It's a typical April morning, and school has begun like always at Columbine High School. With thoughts of graduation, summer vacation, and the vast tomorrow that seems to stretch out endlessly before them, students laugh and converse as the day proceeds. But soon carefree laughter is transformed into terror and tears as two students, armed with guns and grenades, enter the school and begin the massacre that will end the tomorrows of 15 individuals.

The recent tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, which brought immediate reactions of shock and disbelief, has begun to awaken us from the complacency that predominates in our culture. Although violence prevails in movies and video games, popular music is replete with hate-filled lyrics, guns are readily available, and bomb-making recipes abound on the Internet, we never expect our children to commit murder. Yet, when two teenagers from affluent homes with apparently caring parents went on a killing spree in a nice, suburban high school, few of us were spared the realization that major changes are needed in our society.

Although controversy abounds about what should be done, nearly everyone agrees that we must do something. Legislation regarding gun control, censorship in the media, greater control of the Internet, fining parents for children's misdeeds, and increased security in the schools-all have been proposed as possible solutions. On a more therapeutic note, mental health professionals have advocated diagnostic procedures to identify students who may be at risk of violent behavior, as well as counseling interventions to help alienated students fit in better with their peers.

Even though these ideas have merit, a more efficacious strategy might be to engage in primary prevention in early childhood rather than remediation in adolescence. One untapped resource is the potential of humanistic parenting to engender prosocial behavior in children. Prosocial behavior, defined as action intended to benefit others without the expectation of an external reward (Eisenberg, 1988), contrasts with aggression, defined as "behavior aimed at harming another person" (Perry, Perry, & Boldizar, 1990, p. 135). Dave Sanders, the teacher and coach who lost his life while protecting his students during the Columbine massacre, is perhaps the ultimate exemplar of prosocial behavior. In contrast, the student assassins represent extreme cases of aggression.

The key to understanding why some individuals selflessly help their fellow humans while others murder them might be found in early childhood. Much evidence suggests that parents-who serve as children's first models-can be instrumental in assisting children to develop the ability to act thoughtfully and kindly toward others (Eisenberg, 1992). Parental influence is so powerful that one longitudinal study found that 36% of the variance in adult levels of empathy could be explained by the child-rearing practices that the participants had experienced in early childhood (Koestner, Franz, & Weinberger, 1990). This is especially significant in that a meta-analysis of the research revealed that empathy and sympathy were correlated positively with prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987).

Thus, a firm foundation of prosocial behavior, established when children are young, could be essential to curbing violence in the adolescent years. Perhaps, if parents acquire basic skills in humanistic parenting, today's affectionate toddlers with teddy bears will be deterred from becoming tomorrow's maleficent teens with grenades. The purpose of this article is to provide information that counselors can use to assist parents in developing practices that will lead to prosocial outcomes in young children that will last throughout their lives.

OUR CULTURE OF VIOLENCE

Striking insights into the psychology of extreme interpersonal violence have emerged with the advent of a new field of study: "killology." The foremost authority in this field is Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (1996), a former professor of psychology at West Point and author of the best-selling book, On Killing. Grossman maintains that just as AIDS breaks down the body's immune system and leaves it vulnerable to disease, so constant exposure to rampant violence in the media and video games breaks down children's natural aversion to killing, effectively "taking off the safety catch" that keeps fatal aggression psychologically in check.

To support his theories, Grossman recounts the history of the development of techniques by military psychologists to increase the kill rate of soldiers. Definitive evidence collected after the end of World War II showed that only 15% to 20% of combat infantry were willing to fire their weapons. Appalled by these findings, military psychologists began seeking and implementing new training strategies to engender a greater willingness to kill in soldiers. The needed strategies were discovered and successfully applied. The fire rate of infantry in Korea rose to 50%, and to more than 90% in Vietnam.

Military trainers accomplished their magic by using three tools: operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and social learning, focusing on the imitation of role models. Soldiers are classically conditioned by being made to view films depicting people being injured or killed in increasingly violent ways. As a result, they become able to disassociate themselves emotionally from the fear or revulsion that arises in empathy for another person being hurt or abused. Operant strategies include the use of human-shaped pop-up targets on firing ranges and other life-like simulated situations. Soldiers trained in this way learn to target and shoot reflexively, bypassing any potential rational inhibitions, as they are reinforced by seeing their bullets make their marks.

Finally, we can credit the well known stereotype of the drill sergeant as a heroic, ultra-capable, invincible role model for the social learning component of the initiatives we are discussing. Boot camp was redesigned to be an ever more efficient initiatory rite of passage through which the neophyte soldier's previous value system is stripped away and replaced with a new ethos in which devastating physical aggression and unconditional obedience become the new foundations of self-worth. These qualities are incarnate in the drill sergeant, who becomes a role model and a surrogate father, brother, and even mother to the troops.

Grossman argues convincingly that the same conditioning techniques used successfully by the military to train soldiers to kill are present in the films, music, television programs, and video games that children regularly watch. Hyper-violent films provide an example of classical conditioning at work. The films themselves vie with each other to portray mutilation and murder in ever more graphic detail. Repeated exposure to incrementally more gruesome imagery inevitably desensitizes children and weakens their natural aversion to seeing others harmed. In a kind of Clockwork Orange reverse scenario, the enjoyment that derives from sitting in the comfort of a movie theater munching popcorn and enjoying the company of friends becomes paired with the aggression they are witnessing so that observing violence actually comes to evoke a pleasurable state by association.

Similarly, the principles of operant conditioning are powerfully active in children who immerse themselves in the world of violent video games. As children learn to fire weapons reflexively at pop-up villains, they receive instant reinforcement from seeing characters' heads blown off-or worse. As with films, violent video games tend to incorporate increasingly realistic weapons, wounds, and associated trauma. In some cases, the targets are not bug-eyed monsters but, instead, normal human beings, and the child plays the role of an assassin or a monster.

Through this sort of visual programming, children not only develop "automaticity" and learn to see the world through a gunsight, but they also can actually sharpen their shooting skills. Police officers and FBI agents both utilize the same training procedures to develop combat readiness. So effective is this training that "shoot/no shoot" programming was introduced to constrain collateral violence created by officers who receive such training. Of course, video games enjoin no such restraints.

Finally, as children watch powerful action heros successfully defeat their foes, they learn that violence is a rewarding and effective way of problem-solving. Because media characters often are shown killing others for minor slights, youth learn that murder is an acceptable response to injustice, imagined or perceived.

Grossman (1996) also offers readers a thoughtful reappraisal of the actual extent of youth violence occurring in our society. Between 1985 and 1991, the homicide rates for males 15 to 19 years of age increased 154%, with homicide the second leading cause of death for all males in this age group and the first leading cause of death in Black males. As shocking as these statistics are, things actually are significantly worse than they appear. Grossman points out that advanced medical capabilities, such as resuscitation technology, save the lives of many persons who certainly would have died in the past. Grossman cites UCLA professor James Q. Wilson's estimate that if trauma care were the same now as in 1957, the homicide rate would be close to three times what statistics reflect now.

Even though the youth violence rate is higher in the United States than in any other industrialized nation, most industrialized nations having a similar level of media violence have witnessed parallel increases in teen violent activity. The one significant exception to this rapid rise in youth aggression is Japan. Although Japanese children partake of the same violent media influences as other youth, a protective "bubble" immunizes them from acting out the aggression they observe. The key to this phenomenon is theorized to be the incredibly strong sense of interdependence between the individual and the family and social structure that is intrinsic to Japanese culture. Japanese children are taught to engage in prosocial behavior from an early age, and that lesson is reinforced at every stage of life. Perhaps by strengthening our families and helping parents learn to influence their children positively, we, too, may turn the tide of violence in our society.

PARENTING STYLES

Because fads in parenting come and go, parents and counselors often are left wondering what methods actually lead to the most desirable outcomes in children. The answers may lie in Diana Baumrind's ground-breaking research showing that parenting styles significantly impact children's behavior in ways that may be permanent.

In her landmark study, Baumrind (1967) observed children in a nursery school for 14 weeks. Based on their differing patterns of behavior, she categorized the youngsters into three groups: energetic-friendly children, conflicted-- irritable children, and impulsive-aggressive children. Baumrind then interviewed the children's parents and observed them interacting with their children in home and laboratory settings.

On the basis of these observations, Baumrind identified three styles of parenting that appeared to be associated with the differing behavioral patterns in children. She labeled these three parenting styles as authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. In a longitudinal study of the children from early childhood through adolescence, Baumrind (1991) found that these three parenting styles were associated with specific outcomes, which will be described in the following section.

Using Baumrind's typology of authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting styles as a basis, Maccoby and Martin (1983) added a fourth category-indifferent parenting-and proposed that the four parenting styles could be distinguished by the relative balance of control/ demandingness and warmth/responsiveness present in each.

1. Control/demandingness refers to the extent to which parents set high standards and exert firm control to ensure that their children exhibit mature behavior. This continuum represents the extent to which parents insist that their children perform developmentally appropriate tasks that require increasing social and cognitive competence.

2. Warmth/responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents convey affection and acceptance in their communication and are responsive to their children's feelings and needs. This continuum relates to the parental warmth and responsiveness so critical to forming attachment bonds in infancy and in maintaining loving, trusting relationships with children as they mature.

The following description of the four parenting styles is based on the models of Baumrind (1967) and of Maccoby and Martin (1983). Figure I depicts these styles.

Authoritarian Parents

In the Sutter home, the parents like to think that they "run a tight ship. " Frank and Miriam Sutter are strict disciplinarians and do not allow any divergence from the expected norms of behavior When faced with any resistance from their children, the Sutters quickly exert pressure to produce the desired result. "Do it now or else" is often stated in their home, and the children intimately know that the "else " means either a spanking or a sojourn in their rooms for an extended time. When the children occasionally ask their parents why they have to do something, the inevitable reply is "because we said so, " and the children then are told to "just stop complaining and do what we say. "

Authoritarian parents are high in control/demandingness, but low in the humanistic qualities of warmth/responsiveness. These parents set rigid standards, demand unquestioning compliance, and allow no opportunities for their children to articulate any concerns they have about their parents' expectations. The parents show little warmth or respect in interactions with their children, and parental authority is absolute. Punishment follows quickly when their children disobey orders, and even though the children might have legitimate needs that are not being met, divergent views are not allowed expression.

Baumrind (1967) found the authoritarian parenting style to be correlated with the child behavioral pattern identified as conflicted-irritable. In nursery school, the children of authoritarian parents appeared unhappy, withdrawn, mistrustful, and socially anxious. When frustrated with their playmates, these preschoolers often responded with hostility. The negative impact of authoritarian parenting did not end when the last days of childhood had passed, but instead extended into adolescence. The effects were more pronounced for boys than girls. The adolescent sons of authoritarian parents were socially incompetent, unfriendly, and lacking in initiative and self-confidence (Baumrind, 1991).

Other studies also suggested that authoritarian parenting produced children with low self-esteem who lacked self-- confidence and spontaneity (Coopersmith, 1967; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Lempers, Clark-- Lempers, & Simons, 1989). Adolescents from authoritarian homes were obedient but lacking in competence (Steinberg, 1990). When corporal punishment was employed as a central component of authoritarian parenting, the results were especially detrimental. Children developed aggressive behaviors themselves when they were exposed to spanking and other harsh disciplinary practices (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992).

Permissive Parents

The Jenkins family is at the end of the continuum opposite from the Sutters. Fran and Jake Jenkins allow their children total freedom and shower them with compliments and praise. These parents rarely discipline or set limits for their children and, instead, encourage them to do whatever they wish. The children face no real consequences for failing to fulfill parental requests and often are unaware that their parents have any expectations for them other than to be themselves.

In situations in which one of the Jenkins children is asked to help with a household task, the child typically objects ("I can't. I'm busy playing this video game, and I can't stop. ") When the child resists, the parents usually just do the chore themselves so their child can continue to play. Sometimes they even say, "Don't worry about it, honey. You're busy, so we'll take care of it. Go ahead and finish your game. "

As this illustration shows, permissive parenting contrasts starkly with authoritarian parenting in that it is low in control/demandingness but high in warmth/responsiveness. Permissive parents offer unconditional love and acceptance but fail to provide adequate guidelines for mature, responsible behavior. Instead, they allow children to have greater freedom than is appropriate for their developmental levels and permit them to make choices that require more maturity than they possess.

Although permissive parents often believe that they are nurturing their children's growth, they could be unintentionally cultivating their children's self-indulgence and fostering a lack of social concern. By showering youngsters with unlimited material possessions and expecting nothing in return, some permissive parents think they are teaching their children to be correspondingly generous and loving. In reality, they likely are teaching their children to think only of themselves. Because this approach affords so little structure or consistency, prosocial behavior in children is not a likely outcome of permissive parenting.

Baumrind (1967) noted that the preschoolers of permissive parents exhibited the behavioral pattern categorized as impulsive-aggressive. These children not only had difficulty controlling their impulses but also exhibited highly immature behavior. Lacking confidence in themselves, they were extremely demanding and dependent on adults (Baumrind, 1971). Although some of the children were creative and friendly, others were socially inept. They frequently gave up when they encountered any frustration in their nursery school tasks and became aggressive when other children's needs conflicted with their own. Later research showed that adolescents from permissive homes were likely to be self-- confident but to have higher levels of substance abuse and more problems in school (Steinberg, 1990).

Authoritative Parents

Ike and Samantha Freeman clearly state what they want their children to do and how they expect them to behave. The children know that disobedience will have consequences directly related to their misbehavior. Sometimes, however the children have valid reasons for being excused from doing expected tasks or for asking for special considerations. In these cases, the children voice their concerns, and their parents listen respectfully.

Recently one of the Freeman children asked to be allowed to stay up an hour and a half later than her customary bedtime on a school night to watch a television show about a topic she had studied in her science class, Although Ike and Samantha recognized their daughter's interest as being legitimate, they let her know that they thought it was important for her to get adequate rest. After discussing the issue, the Freemans agreed that everyone's needs would be met if the parents were to tape the show and let the daughter watch it immediately after school the next day. Although this solution meant that Ike had to make an unplanned trip to the store to purchase a blank videotape, everyone was satisfied with the outcome.

Unlike the former two parenting styles, authoritative parenting is high in both control/demandingness and warmth/ responsiveness. The Freemans could have flatly denied their daughter's request and said, "You know the rules-go to bed," as the Sutters would have. Or the Freemans could have given in to whatever their daughter wished to do and said, "Sure, sweetie-we wouldn't want you to miss your show," as the Jenkinses would have. The Freemans, however, chose the authoritative approach of maintaining their parental authority while also ensuring that their daughter felt respected and that her concerns were adequately addressed. Authoritative parents set firm limits for children's behavior and also exhibit warmth and flexibility in responding to their children's needs while encouraging them to be involved in problem solving.

The children of authoritative parents exhibited the behavioral pattern that Baumrind (1967) labeled as energetic-- friendly. Of all the children in the nursery school, this type was found to be the most well adjusted. These preschoolers showed friendliness, confidence, self-control, and high achievement. In addition, they appeared to be happy and were less likely than their peers to engage in disruptive and defiant behaviors. For these reasons, the authoritative approach is associated with the best outcomes for children. As adolescents, the children of authoritative parents continued to exhibit these positive qualities (Baumrind, 1991). Other studies have yielded similar findings, showing that children experience the most positive outcomes when parents practice child-centered patterns of discipline accompanied by clearly communicated demands, careful monitoring, and an atmosphere of acceptance (Maccoby, 1984; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Indifferent Parents

The Schmidts pay little attention to their children. Struggling to survive on their meager incomes, they worry more about having enough money to pay for groceries and rent than about what their children are doing. George and Bertha each work two part-time jobs with schedules that change from week to week, so their children often are left at home alone. Sometimes a teenage girl from the neighborhood watches the children, but when she is not available, the Schmidts have their own 10-year-old son attend to his four siblings.

Because their jobs are so demanding and frequently require them to work late-night shifts, George and Bertha are easily irritated when their children attempt to get their attention. The parents often respond angrily if their children make requests, as happened recently when the 5-year-old asked her mother to help her remove a splinter from her finger. Trying to get a few hours rest before going to her second job, Bertha looked at her daughter and said, "Go away. Can't you see I'm trying to sleep?" No one else was around at the time, so the daughter did go away,-and began walking to her grandmother's house, 3 miles away. Concerned neighbors saw the little girl walking alone on the road and called Child Protective Services.

Indifferent parenting lies at the opposite end of the continuum from the authoritative style because it is low in both control/demandingness and warmth/responsiveness. Although Baumrind did not study this group, Maccoby and Martin (1983) described indifferent parents as being both lax in discipline and lacking in warmth. These parents show little concern for their children's welfare, are disengaged from parenting, and do not monitor their children's behavior. As a result of this parental neglect, children fail to form attachment bonds and suffer from social incompetence and low self-esteem. Indifferent parental behavior has been linked to children's noncompliance, aggression, delinquency, truancy, precocious sexuality, and alcohol problems in adolescence and adulthood (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Patterson, 1982; Pulkkinen, 1982). We therefore could describe the child behavior pattern resulting from indifferent parenting as alienated/irresponsible. The children of indifferent parents generally have the worst outcomes of all.

THE NEED FOR HUMANISTIC PARENTING

Because authoritative parenting has been associated with the best and most prosocial outcomes in children, counselors might help to prevent violence indirectly in the teen years by teaching parents how to interact skillfully with their children authoritatively in early childhood. Learning humanistic, authoritative parenting techniques will enable parents to respond to their children's needs respectfully while setting high behavioral standards and maintaining firm control. This balance of control and respect should provide a firm foundation for fostering positive outcomes in children and for building trusting parent-child relationships that will endure throughout the turbulence of adolescence.

Skillful parenting is not guaranteed by virtue of being able to successfully procreate. Although most parents probably have good intentions toward their children, people tend to adopt a child-rearing style similar to that of their own parents-which may or may not be conducive to helping children learn to care about others as well as themselves. More than in the past, effective parenting is critically needed.

In the remainder of this article, I will attempt to address the parenting-skills deficit so prevalent in our society today by presenting ideas that counselors can share with parents to promote prosocial behavior in children. The approach, which I call humanistic parenting, consists of strategies drawn from behavioral research and popular parent-training programs that adopt an authoritative child-- rearing style (Horton-Parker, 1998). These humanistic parenting techniques, which can be imparted to parents via workshops, counseling sessions, and newsletters, should provide a solid basis for prosocial behavior as children mature. Because I believe that workshops can be especially beneficial for parent training, I also will include some ideas for activities that counselors can use with parents in a large-group setting.

Before introducing the techniques of humanistic parenting, I would like to point out several points. First, although I use the term "parent" throughout this article, it is meant to refer to any adult serving in a parental or caregiving role to a child. Because families come in many forms today, "parents" refers to any individuals serving in a parental capacity, regardless of whether they are biologically or legally related to the children they are rearing.

A second note concerns the exclusive emphasis I have placed on parenting in early childhood. Although all of the techniques contained in this article can be adapted with older children, my focus is on parenting the very young. Because early childhood is critical to future development, I believe that counselors can have the most impact by helping parents become more effective during children's formative years. Finding that prevention is preferable to remediation, I encourage counselors to work with the parents of preschoolers to help them develop trusting, loving parent-child relationships and exert consistent, firm control while their children are still highly receptive.

TEACHING CHILDREN TO CARE: HUMANISTIC PARENTING

Components of humanistic parenting include respectful communication, passive listening, using I-messages, setting limits, giving choices, catching children being good, confronting misbehavior, applying logical consequences, using time-out, conducting family meetings, and conveying love.

Respectful Communication

Mental health professionals sometimes suggest that parents speak to their children as though they were their best friends. Conversely, it is interesting to consider how it might be if we spoke to our best friends as though they were our children. The following dialogue is an imaginary conversation with a couple, Mike and Judy, who have come for dinner:

So you finally arrived! Do you have any idea what time it is? We had about given up on you two. Mike, don't you ever wear your watch? Maybe you think you can just show up any time you please. Well, think again! Now go wash your hands and we'll be ready to eat. Judy, don't drip water on the floor like you did last time. We're tired of cleaning up your mess. Mike. remember to put the toilet seat down after you use it. This isn't a bus station..

Okay, dinner is served! Come to the table and have a seat. Oh, Judy, don't sit there. You and Mike can't sit next to each other tonight because you might get into another fight. We're sitting between you two so you'll stay out of trouble. You know you can't make it through a whole meat without ruining it for everyone with your bickering. Judy, wipe that nasty look off your face and do what you're told. We don't want any complaints about the seating arrangement.

We're so glad you could come, since we haven't seen you for a while. Mike, how do you like your new job? Make sure that you don't oversleep too often and lose this one like you did the last one. It's about time for you to grow up and be responsible! Judy, you had said you were going on a diet. How's that going? You know, you could actually be quite pretty if you weren't so overweight!

Mike, please pass the gravy. Oh, no! You spilled it again. You're such a klutz! Why do you always have to be so clumsy? Judy, what's your problem? Stop glaring at us and try to be pleasant for once in your life.

Who's ready for dessert? None for you, Mike, until you finish the rest of your spinach. Judy, you may have a small piece of pie, but go easy on the ice cream, or you'll never stop looking like a big, fat pig!

Well, you two certainly haven't had much to say this evening. You'd better just go home and go to bed. Come back when you can behave more like ladies and gentlemen!

This humorous example illustrates the less than respectful manner in which parents communicate with their children. While not intending to hurt their children, many parents issue directives in ways that sometimes are demeaning or insensitive to children's feelings. Disrespectful communication does not convey the warmth and responsiveness that are essential ingredients of humanistic parenting

In contrast, when parents listen empathically and communicate respectfully, children not only feel loved and valued but also have the opportunity to observe empathy in action as their parents demonstrate. Because children imitate much of what they witness in their parents, they likely will acquire the ability to respond empathically and respectfully themselves simply by emulating that behavior. On the other hand, parental responses such as threatening, commanding, lecturing, and name-calling create roadblocks to communication and produce defensiveness in children by conveying a lack of acceptance. The following scenario exemplifies the differences in parental responding to children's expressed feelings:

When Christy Sutter came crying to her mother because her baby brother had bitten her again, Mrs. Sutter responded, "Don't be such a baby yourself. He doesn't know any better so just ignore him and stop whining. "

When a similar situation occurred in the Freeman home, however it met with a very different response. Mrs. Freeman stopped what she was doing to listen to her daughter and replied, "That must have really hurt when he bit you, and I can tell you're frustrated because this isn't the first time he's done it. Can you tell me more about what happened?"

Passive Listening

To avoid creating roadblocks to communication, Gordon (1970) recommends that parents use passive listening (silence), verbal and nonverbal acknowledgment responses (nodding, "uh-huh"), door openers ("Could you tell me more?" "How do you feel about that?"), and active listening, which demonstrates accurate empathy by reflecting both the content and the affect of the child's message (e.g., "You're disappointed that we can't afford to buy you that game.") Empathic listening validates children's feelings and enables them to assume responsibility for their own emotions.

I-Messages

Learning to use I-messages rather than you-messages is beneficial in communicating with children. Gordon (1970) offers a simple formula for constructing effective I-messages: "When you _____, I feel _____ because _____" The first blank is to be filled in with the child's behavior, the second with the emotion the parent experiences in conjunction with the given behavior, and the third with the reason the parent feels that way. For example, a parent might say, "When you interrupt me while I'm talking, I feel frustrated because I don't get to finish what I'm saying." This message is likely to be far more productive than other remarks that could be said to the child, such as "Shut up when I'm talking," or "Be quiet, blabbermouth!"

Setting Limits

In addition to responding to children warmly and respectfully, authoritative parenting involves setting clear behavioral limits that provide structure and consistency. Parents should be kind and firm in their interactions with children while clearly communicating behavioral expectations (Nelson, Lott, & Glenn, 1993). Behavioral expectations should be appropriate to children's developmental stages, and it is normal for children to test the limits as they strive for increased autonomy (Brazelton, 1992).

For example, although a 6-year-old would be expected to know that hitting another child is wrong, a 2-year-old might hit playmates as a way of getting their attention or as a means of social interaction. Although limits should be set with both children, parental reaction to the 2-year-old should take into account that the child's behavior might have been exploratory rather than hostile in nature.

When setting limits, parents should state clearly what constitutes unacceptable behavior, as well as what substitute behavior will be accepted (Ginott, 1971). For example, telling the 6-year-old, "Other children are not for hitting, but you may hit this pillow if you are angry" provides clear guidelines for what will and will not be accepted. Similarly, the 2-year-old might be instructed, "Playmates are not for hitting, but you can touch them gently like a butterfly if you want to say hi or get them to look at you."

Giving Choices

To honor and nurture children's growing sense of autonomy, parents should allow children to choose between at least two acceptable alternatives whenever possible (Ginott, 1971; Nelson et al., 1993). With very young children, the choices have to be limited-for example, "You may come and eat dinner when you are called, or you may wait until breakfast tomorrow to eat." Giving children choices enables them to assume responsibility and to learn that choices have consequences.

Catching Them Being Good

Rather than waiting for children to misbehave and reprimanding them, noticing children's appropriate behavior and praising them is more effective. When children receive positive reinforcement, such as parental approval, for appropriate behavior, they are more likely to increase the behavior and to develop high self-esteem. Parents can easily show approval for their children's behavior through words, such as "Good job!" and gestures, such as a gentle touch, loving hug, approving smile, or friendly wink.

If the given behavior is prosocial in nature, parents might articulate to the child why his or her actions were desirable. For example, a father might say to his son, "I really liked the way you just helped your little sister pick up her toys, because that let her know that you care about her."

Confronting Misbehavior

A common mistake that parents make is talking too much and taking too many opportunities to remind their children about what they are expected to do. As many mothers have painfully discovered, children quickly learn to ignore nagging parents as though they were noisy gnats. For this reason, it is more effective for parents to follow through on enforcing rules by taking kind, firm action than by engaging in incessant nagging or punishing (Nelson et al., 1993).

For example, if a young child refuses to stop playing outside and come inside when called, the parent could simply state, "Time to come in," and take the child by the hand into the house. If the child resists, the parent could provide a limited choice, such as, "We need to get ready to go to your grandmother's house, so would you rather get dressed first or pack your toys?"

As mentioned previously, I-messages are also helpful for parents to let children know how their behavior is affecting others (Gordon, 1970; Popkin, 1993). For example, a parent might say, "When you don't come when I call you, I feel annoyed because I have to stop what I'm doing to go and get you."

Using Logical Consequences

When children misbehave discipline is required, and parents must decide what to do. Although punishment sometimes brings an end to a given undesirable behavior, it often is accompanied by unwanted side effects. For example, when his mother yells at him for spitting on his older sibling who has called him a nasty name, a little boy might stop ejecting saliva on his big sister but might smash her porcelain horse instead. Corporal punishment, such as spanking, can be detrimental because children could learn to imitate the aggression they have experienced as they interact with others. Even subtle forms of punishment, such as ridicule and humiliation, can damage the parent/child relationship and destroy trust.

A viable method of discipline that avoids the negative effects of punishment is logical consequences. Logical consequences are actions that logically follow from the child's behavior but that are not arbitrarily punitive (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1973; Popkin, 1993; Nelson, 1987; Nelson et al., 1993).

To be effective, logical consequences must be composed of the "three R's": They must be directly related to the child's behavior, respectful of the child, and reasonable to both child and parent (Nelson et al., 1993).

For example, if a child draws a picture on the wall with a crayon after being told that paper is for drawing, a logical consequence would be for the child to help scrub the markings off the wall. This logical consequence is related directly to the child's misbehavior and is respectful and reasonable. On the other hand, sentencing the child to a week without television for this transgression would not be related to the offense, to call the child "a moron who thinks he's Picasso" would not be respectful, and to expect the child to wash all the walls in the entire house would not be reasonable.

Logical consequences can be especially effective if parents enlist children's help in planning them before misbehavior occurs. When children are involved directly in discussing what the consequences should be for not doing what is expected, they will be much less likely to feel that they are being punished unfairly when consequences are applied. For example, a parent might ask a child, "What should be a logical consequence for splashing water on the floor as you play with your toys in the bathtub?"

Using Time-Out

When children are actively engaging in misbehavior, time-out is another disciplinary strategy that parents can employ. Time-out typically consists of removing the child from the situation in which the problematic behavior is occurring, for a short time appropriate to the child's developmental level. The child could be placed in a separate room or simply asked to sit in a chair in the same room in a designated spot away from where he or she was misbehaving.

Time-out also may consist of the parent withdrawing his or her attention from the child for a specific period. Four minutes was found to be an effective length of time for 4-- to 6-year-olds, and a longer duration of up to 30 minutes could be used with older children (Howard, 1996; Roberts & Powers, 1990). Parents should explain that the purpose of time-out is to give children a chance to calm down, and that they can return when they have worked through some of their feelings and are more in control of their behavior (Nelson et al., 1993). Time-outs must be brief, and expressions of affection are important when children return. A hug and a caring message will let children know that they are loved but that they must develop the ability to behave appropriately. For example, parents might say, "I love you, but I can't let you do this. Someday you'll learn to stop yourself, and then I won't need to stop you" (Brazelton, 1992, p. 253).

Conducting Family Meetings

Weekly family meetings provide an invaluable means of addressing issues and allowing family members to brainstorm solutions to family problems. Because these meetings should be democratic in nature, leadership rotates from week to week, and all family members are allowed to raise issues. Solutions are reached by consensus rather than by majority vote, and each person in the group is allowed to give input and play an essential role in the decision-making process (Nelson, 1987; Nelson et al., 1993).

Family meetings also can be used to discuss the tasks that have to be accomplished during the week and to delegate responsibilities for attending to household chores (Eyre & Eyre, 1994). The main purpose of family meetings, however, should be to address issues that arise in the family and to resolve conflicts between family members rather than simply assigning chores (Dreikurs, 1968). For example, a family meeting might focus on a younger child's resentment that an older sibling is allowed more freedom or an older child's frustration with a younger sibling always demanding to tag along.

Conveying Love

Finally, parents must let children know that they are deeply loved and valued so they will develop high self-esteem (Brazelton, 1992). Each child should receive some special time alone with each parent every week (Nelson et al., 1993). The quality of the time spent together is more important than its quantity.

Family rituals provide an excellent means for busy parents to maximize limited time with their children and to achieve high-quality interactions with them (Parker, 1999; Parker & Horton, 1996). The rituals may be simple or elaborate, and may be short and occur daily or longer and reserved for special occasions or unique needs. Reading a bedtime story, giving a goodbye kiss, and saying "Good morning-I love you!" are all simple rituals that parents can perform daily to strengthen their bonds with their children. Other rituals, such as attending religious services or having Sunday dinner together, can be conducted at certain times during the week; and seasonal rituals, such as going trick-ortreating or exploding fireworks, might happen just once a year.

In addition to developing rituals to celebrate special events, such as birthdays and holidays, parents can create rituals to address family issues, such as dealing with grief, facing transitions, and healing from emotional wounds. For example, planting a tree to celebrate the birthday of a recently deceased loved one can help to alleviate some of the pain the family is experiencing and allow family members to express their feelings and support one another. Although family rituals might seem insignificant at the time, they often comprise some of our most lasting and important childhood memories and can be a powerful means of conveying love.

TEACHING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

In addition to adopting a humanistic parenting style, parents can employ specific strategies to promote prosocial behavior in children. The development of prosocial behavior can be cultivated through a variety of methods, such as modeling, induction, didactic instruction, and assigning responsibility for tasks.

Modeling

One of the best ways by which parents can help children learn to treat others with care and respect is to demonstrate these behaviors themselves. Research has shown that children exposed to models that demonstrated altruistic behavior were more likely to exhibit similar behaviors themselves, especially if the children were given an explanation for why the behavior was performed and that the act was done to help another person in distress (Yarrow, Scott, & Waxler, 1973). For example, the caregiver could say to the child, "He's upset because he spilled his drink and doesn't have any more, so I'm going to help him feel better by giving him some of mine."

In addition to observing models who demonstrate altruistic behaviors and giving a verbal rationale for doing them, children need to be allowed to practice these behaviors themselves. One study showed that 12-month-old infants were more likely to share things with their mothers if they had been exposed previously to models who both shared objects with them and asked them to share in return (Hay & Murray, 1982). By asking children to share back with them, parents also teach children about the reciprocal nature of relationships.

When considering the effects of modeling on children's development, another issue that must be addressed is the influence of the media. Some television shows with altruistic models, such as Mr. Rogers, have been found to increase prosocial behavior in children (Huston et al., 1992). Unfortunately, however, children have many more opportunities to observe aggression than altruism in the media, and the influence of viewing violence begins early. Research shows that children as young as 15 months of age copy the aggressive acts of television characters (Centerwall, 1992). Young children are especially vulnerable to the effects of viewing violence because of their limited conceptual understanding of what actually is happening and the consequences of the action. For example, aggressive characters might appear to be attractive and powerful to young children who do not recognize the antisocial ramifications of their behavior. Similarly, the true impact of action figures killing others might have little meaning for preschoolers who do not understand either the finality of death or the fictional nature of the characters.

For these reasons, parents have to carefully monitor the shows children watch and the video games they play. All shows and games that consist primarily of gratuitous violence should be avoided, as they have the potential to teach children to behave aggressively and callously toward others. Even shows that are mostly acceptable sometimes contain momentary displays of aggression. Parents can counteract some of the negative influence of such media violence by watching the shows with their children and discussing with them the impact of the characters' actions on others and their own feelings.

Induction

Just as parents need to provide a verbal explanation while modeling altruistic behaviors, giving a verbal rationale is also helpful as they apply discipline for their children's anti-- social actions. Induction refers to the the act of explaining the consequences of actions and suggesting solutions to interpersonal dilemmas. This promotes the development of children's inductive reasoning and expands their capacity to understand how their behavior impacts others and to empathize. For example, a mother might say to her young child, "When you hit me, it hurts and I don't like being with you when you hurt me. I'm going away from you until you can stop hitting me." The mother's explanation allows the child to understand that hitting causes pain to another person, and thus to develop empathy.

Because the ability to empathize with others is a prerequisite to altruism, induction provides a foundation for prosocial behavior. Many studies have confirmed the positive relationship between parental inductions and prosocial behavior in children (Brody & Schaffer, 1982; Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Karylowski, 1982; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Moore & Eisenberg, 1984; Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983).

Didactic Instruction

Although lecturing children does not often bring the desired results, parents may find that providing them with moral instruction does foster prosocial behavior. One study showed that children as young as 15 to 20 months of age were more likely to show sympathy toward or attempt to help another child in distress when their mothers frequently explained to them how their behaviors affect other children (Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979). Several other studies suggest that moral instruction such as, "You ought to make a get-well card to help your aunt feel better because she's very sick," can be as effective as modeling in eliciting prosocial behavior in children (Grusec, Saas-Korsaak, & Simutis, 1978; Rice & Grusec, 1975).

Didactic instruction is most effective when parents verbalize reasons for acting altruistically that evoke empathy or sympathy in children, and least effective when parents use coercive overtones or threats to pressure children. In the above example, pointing out the aunt's sickness is likely to evoke the child's sympathy and lead to prosocial behavior. In contrast, telling the child, "You'd better make a get-well card for your aunt or no television tonight," is likely to lead to resistance and to elicit little regard for the aunt's welfare.

Assigning Responsibility for Tasks

Another strategy that parents can use to nurture prosocial behavior is to make their children responsible for household tasks at a young age. Cross-cultural research in India, Kenya, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines indicates that children from societies that make youth responsible for major domestic tasks, such as caring for younger siblings, develop more prosocial behaviors than their peers in cultures that do not promote such active involvement (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). By assisting others, children learn to think of themselves as helpful people and to develop increased prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., 1987).

In the process of carrying out family tasks, children discover how others feet, experience reinforcement such as parental approval, develop a sense of personal competence, and acquire a repertoire of prosocial skills they can use in the future (Eisenberg & Murphy, 1995). On the other hand, children who are given few responsibilities are more likely to have an underdeveloped ability to be helpful and to recognize the needs and rights of others.

Parents can foster children's aptitude for altruism and concern for others by establishing routines in which all family members participate in doing chores. Routines can be planned in the weekly family meeting, and visual aids, such as a pictorial chart on the refrigerator, can be used to remind each person of his or her tasks (Nelson, Lott, & Glenn, 1993). For example, the family can set up a house-cleaning routine in which each person is in charge of specific tasks, such as vacuuming, dusting, washing windows, and mopping floors.

Routines can be especially beneficial for children if the whole family performs the tasks together at a designated time during the week. Working together with parents and siblings not only helps to ensure that the tasks are accomplished but also promotes a sense of family unity and esprit de corps. Through this group effort, children can learn the tremendous value of assisting others to achieve the common good.

A common question that parents have concerns the types of tasks young children can be assigned. Children's chores must be age-appropriate, but even preschoolers can participate in family routines and be responsible for a variety of tasks (Nelson et al., 1993). For example:

* 2- to 3-year-olds can do simple chores such as putting away their toys, sweeping the floor, folding socks, putting magazines in a rack, helping put groceries on lower shelves, unloading utensils from the dishwasher, clearing their own place at the table, and dressing themselves

* 4-year-olds can put groceries away, dust furniture, feed pets, bring in the mail, prepare cold cereal, and help with tasks such as vacuuming, making the beds, filling the dishwasher, and yardwork

* 5-year-olds can accomplish more advanced tasks, such as cleaning their rooms, scrubbing sinks and toilets, cleaning mirrors and windows, taking out garbage, making their own sandwiches, folding clean clothes and putting them away, and helping with meal planning and grocery shopping.

As children grow and mature, the variety of tasks they can be assigned expands, and they can be expected to assume more responsibility in performing family routines.

A WORKSHOP FOR PARENTS

Although many avenues can be pursued in providing information to parents-such as written materials, family counseling sessions, and consultation-I particularly like working with parents using a workshop format. The educational nature of workshops reduces much of the stigma associated with asking for help and also provides a means for parents to see that others have similar concerns. Parenting sometimes is a lonely proposition, and parents can easily inflict guilt on themselves by assuming that everyone else knows how to do it right while they continue to struggle.

The length and format of parenting workshops should be determined by the needs of the participants, but conducting more than one session may be desirable. After attending a parenting workshop, parents car benefit from participating in support groups to reinforce each other as they practice the skills they have acquired.

In beginning the parenting workshop, I like to mention that it seems somewhat ironic that we must pass both written and performance tests to drive a car, yet no prerequisites or requirements prepare us for functioning in perhaps the most important and difficult role there is-being a parent. I emphasize that none of us are born knowing how to be perfect parents and that most of us probably are prepared inadequately for the challenges that seem to arise constantly. I then commend them for seeking help and for wanting to become better at what they do.

To introduce the topic of parenting styles, I ask parents to think about their own parents' child-rearing practices. Questions to be considered might include:

Finally, I like to ask, "How much similarity is there between how you were raised and the way that you are trying to parent your children?"

By considering questions like the above, parents begin to gain insight into the impact of parenting practices on children from a personal perspective. Sharing these perceptions with others in small groups provides a valuable means of gaining first-hand information about varying child-rearing styles and to discover that others have had quite different experiences. For partners to realize that some of their difficulties in disciplining their children stem from their own experiences in their families-of-origin can be illuminating.

In processing the information derived from this exercise, I point out that although certain forms of harsh discipline can control misbehavior effectively, these can have lasting adverse emotional consequences for children. Similarly, lack of parental control might seem desirable as a child but could have a less than positive impact on a child's overall development. Some adults who were reared by strict parents veer toward extreme permissiveness with their own children, which results in a lack of balance not unlike that of their parents.

After presenting a description of the parenting approaches and asking parents to consider which style their family-of-- origin resembles and which is most like their own, I begin to explore the issue of discipline. Parents are asked to volunteer examples of misbehavior that they have found to be challenging to change in their children. In discussing these problem behaviors, I like to have them give a brief description of a specific incident in which the misbehavior occurred, what the parent did to change the behavior, and how the child responded to the disciplinary action. The behavior, the disciplinary action, and the child's response can be listed on a flipchart. After parents have volunteered a number of examples, they can be asked, "How satisfied were you with the outcome of your disciplinary action?" I then tell parents that we will return to these examples later.

As I present the techniques of humanistic parenting, I give parents opportunities to practice skills such as empathic listening, using I-messages, and giving choices in dyads or small groups. Handouts with scenarios can be provided, and the attendees can be asked to practice responding using the skills they have just learned. Brainstorming logical consequences for various problem behaviors is another excellent exercise that the workshop participants can practice with others in a small group. Their responses have to be processed so that the logical consequences adhere to the 3 Rs and are not punitive in nature.

To introduce the strategies for developing prosocial behavior, I first ask parents how they were taught to consider the needs of others and to act kindly toward them. I then ask them to volunteer any examples of altruistic behavior they have observed in their children. I also inquire if they have any ideas regarding what prompted each instance of altruism and, if so, how the parent responded. At this point, I reemphasize the importance of catching children being good and reinforcing desirable behavior, especially if it is prosocial in nature.

After concluding the discussion regarding engendering prosocial behavior, I return to the examples of misbehavior on the flipchart. Parents can be asked to use the skills they have practiced and the information they have received to brainstorm alternative ideas for dealing with each incident listed on the chart. The possible solutions and their probability for success can be processed with the whole group and fine-tuned to achieve the best possible outcome. Finally, parents can be asked to use what they have learned in the workshop to develop and commit to a simple plan to address at least one parenting issue they have encountered with their children.

CONCLUSION

Parents-who are children's first models-are key to instilling altruistic attitudes and prosocial behaviors in the generation of tomorrow. When parents provide a nurturing environment that abounds with both limits and love, children not only learn the art of relationship but also have opportunities to accept responsibility for their own behaviors and to develop high self-esteem.

The respectful and caring interactions that parents have with their children offer a blueprint for these youngsters to use as they develop their own modes of relating to others. By helping children understand the impact of their actions on others and develop empathy for others' distress, parents can help to prevent their children from committing travesties such as the one that occurred at Columbine High School. The isolation and alienation that fuel such desperate acts of interpersonal destruction can be displaced by the altruism and self-respect that enable us all to live up to our highest potential.

REFERENCES

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1-103.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Bombeck, E. (1974). Etiquette lesson. The Reader's Digest.

Brazelton, T.B. (1992). Touchpoints: Your child's emotional and behavioral development New York: Addison-Wesley.

Brody, G. H., & Schaffer, D. R. (1982). Contributions of parents and peers to children's moral socialization. Developmental Review, 2, 31-75.

Centerwall, B. S. (1992). Children, television, and violence. In Schwartz, D. F. (Ed.), Children and violence (Report of the 23rd Ross Roundtable on Critical Approaches to Common Pediatrics Problems. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.

Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M@ A. M. (1992). Parents' child-rearing style and child's sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28, 925-932.

Dinkmeyer, D., & McKay, G. (1973). Raising a responsible child: Practical steps to successful family relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. D. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683.

Dreikurs, R. (1968). The new approach to discipline. New York: Dutton.

Eisenberg, N. (1988). The development of prosocial and aggressive behavior. In M. E. Lamb & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 461-495). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eisenberg, N. (1992). The caring child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universitv Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91-119.

Eisenberg, N., & Murphy, B. (1995). Parenting and children's moral development. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 227-257). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., Pasternack, J., Lennon, R., Belber, R., & Mathy, R. M. (1987). Prosocial development in middle childhood: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 23, 712-718.

Eyre, L., & Eyre, R. (1994). Teaching your children responsibility. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ginott, H. G. (1971). Between parent and child: New solutions to old problems. New York: Macmillan.

Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training. New Y,)rk: Wyden.

Grossman, D. G. (1996). On killing. Boston: Back Bay Books.

Grusec, J. E., Saas-Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978). The role of example and moral exhortation in the training of altruism. Child Development, 49, 920-923.

Hay, D. R & Murray, P. (1982). Giving and requesting: Social facilitation of infants' offers to adults. Infant Behavior and Development, 5, 310-310.

Horton-Parker, R. (1998). Teaching children to care: Engendering prosocial behavior through humanistic parenting. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 37, 66-77.

Howard, B. (1996). The short- and long-term consequences of corporal punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 809-817.

Huston, A. C.. Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N. D., Katz, P. A., Murray, J. P., Rubenstein, E. A., Wilcox, B. L., & Zuckerman, D. (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Karylowski, J. (1982). Doing good to feel good versus doing good to make others feel good: Some child-rearing antecedents. School Psychology International, 3, 149-156.

Koestner, R., Franz, C., & Weinberger, J. (1990). The family origins of empathic concern: A 26-year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 709-717.

Krevans, J. & Gibbs, I C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263-3277.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Lempers, J. D., Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development, 60, 25-39.

Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Socialization and developmental change. Child Development, 55, 317-328.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.

Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Moore, B., & Eisenberg, N. (1984). The development of altruism. In G. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals in Child Development (Vol. 1, pp. 107-174). New York: JSI Press.

Nelson, J. (1987). Positive discipline. New York: Ballantine Books.

Nelson, J., Lott, L., & Glenn, H. S. (1993). Positive discipline A 4 Z.- 1001 solutions to everyday parenting problems. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing.

Parker, R. (1999). The art of blessing: Teaching parents to construct rituals. Professional School Counseling, 2, 218-225.

Parker, R., & Horton, H. S. (1996). A typology of ritual: Paradigms for healing and empowerment. Counseling & Values, 40, 82-97.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Corrective family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Boldizar, J. P. (1990). Learning of aggression. In M. Lewis & S. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology. New York: Plenum.

Popkin, M. (1993). Active parenting today. Marietta, GA: Active Parenting Publishers.

Pulkkinen. L. (1982). Self-control and continuity in childhood delayed adolescence. In P. Bates & 0. Brim (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 64-107). New York: Academic Press.

Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Prosocial dispositions and behavior. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 469-545). New York: Wiley.

Rice, M. E. & Grusec, J. E. (1975). Saying and doing: Effects on observer performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 584-593.

Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1990). Adjusting chair timeout enforcement procedures for oppositional children. Behavior Therapy, 21, 257-271.

Steinberg, L. D. (1990). Interdependence in the family: Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the parent-adolescent relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold.- The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A.. Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321-1335.

Whiting, B. B., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yarrow, M. R., Scott, P. M., & Waxler, C. Z. (1973). Learning concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 8, 240-260.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow. M., & King, R. (1979). Child rearing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319-330.

PERMISSIONS AND COPYRIGHT

All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, faxed, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Back issues are available for sale. Reproduction requires permission and payment of fees. It is illegal and a violation of federal copyright law to reproduce this publication without permission. Direct all inquiries to the permissions editor.

Radha Horton-Parker is is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Special thanks is extended to Skip Horton-Parker for his research assistance with this article.

Copyright Love Publishing Company Oct 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved