How the Evidence of Today supports the Wisdom of Yesterday: Why Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) Works

How the Evidence of Today supports the Wisdom of Yesterday: Why Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) Works.

by Larissa Dann. April, 2015

More and more parents are educating themselves on the best way to bring up their children. We search the Internet, we read books, and we attend parenting classes.  We all want to do the best by our children, to raise children that are loved and loving, confident, compassionate, considerate, and with a good sense of self-worth.  In this quest for information, many parents look for evidence of effectiveness.

My experience, over 20 years of parenting using P.E.T. skills (and as a parent educator), is that the principles of Parent Effectiveness Training work. The longevity of Dr Gordon’s book and course, and its continued uptake by parents around the world, attribute to the positive outcomes of P.E.T. on family relationships.

The question I sought to answer in this article was: Why?

What is it about the P.E.T. skills that lead to favourable life results for children and parents?  The P.E.T. course has been taught since 1962. How does current evidence support P.E.T. in terms of good parenting practice?  There is a now a plethora of research that unpacks various traits and conditions necessary for good outcomes for our children.  How does P.E.T. fit into this evidence landscape?

Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.):

Brief History

The parenting course, Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.), was initially devised and run by Dr Thomas Gordon in 1962.  His course was widely regarded as the first-ever course to teach parents skills to enhance their parenting experience.  Dr Gordon’s program teaches respectful communication skills to improve the relationship between parent and child.  P.E.T. is taught worldwide (36 countries), with the book translated into approximately 20 languages.  An award-winning study[i] by Dr Christine Wood (2003) examined the effectiveness of P.E.T., providing evidence of the improvement in parenting skills after parents have attended a P.E.T. class.

 

Differences in approaches to parenting

Basically, there are two approaches to parenting (Kohn, 2005; Porter, 2008).  Perhaps the best known is the ‘behavioural’ model, where parents rely on rewards and punishment to obtain compliance from their children.  The alternative approach, known as a relationship, or humanist, approach, does not use reward or punishment, but instead depends on the relationship to develop an inner discipline. Parent Effectiveness Training takes a relationship-based approach to parenting.

Table 1 summarises some of the differences between the two approaches.

Table 1: Differences Between Parenting Approaches

 

Differences between approaches:

P.E.T.                                                                       Behavioural * Child and parent centred                                      * Parent centred * Communication skills                                            * Behavioural management skills * Emphasis on listening to; understanding child   * Emphasis on getting child to conform

* Unconditional                                                        * Conditional (to be earned) * Enhances relationship over life                            * Targets behaviour in present time * General population                                               * Initially developed for clinical intervention * Suitable for all ages – babes to adults                 * To age 12, then often different approach for

teenagers                                           * Does not use reward and punishment                * Relies on reward and punishment * Parent as a partner, or guide                               * Parent in ‘supportive control’ * Solve problems within the relationship               * Aim for compliance from child –  win/lose

– win/win or no-lose                                                            * Mutual respect                                                       * Conditional respect – when child ‘deserves’ it * Parents are people – can’t be consistent                        * Parents must be consistent * Looks behind the behaviour to the need                       * Reacts to the behaviour rather than the need

* Does things ‘with’ children                                  * Does things ‘to’ children * Democratic                                                             * Autocratic Differences in outcomes between models: P.E.T                                                                          Behavioural * Emotional intelligence skills taught                      * Emotional intelligence not addressed

(child and parent) * Resilience enhanced                                              * Resilience skills not addressed

*Internal, intrinsic motivation and ethical              * External behavioural motivation

moral development * Child acts out of consideration for others          * Child acts out of consideration for self – “how

will I be punished or rewarded for my

behaviour?” * Life long relationship developed                        * Relationship improved, but not life long

* Skills transferable across all relationships:        * Skills specific for one age group; only for parents

partner, school friends, work relationships etc
An article by Linda Adams is a useful resource in terms of comparing parenting programs.

 

How P.E.T. Skills and Principles Achieve Evidence-based Outcomes

This paper describes a selection of evidence-based attributes that lead to good life outcomes. These include: attachment (including attunement, reflective parental functioning and mentalizing); resilience; self-regulation and self-discipline; strong relationship with parents or carers; attribution of intent; and dealing with, or preventing, trauma.

Please follow this link to read the full article on how P.E.T. helps parents and carers attain these qualities – for both their children, and themselves.

 

[i] Wood, C, 2003. Helping Families Cope. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Family Matters, 65, 28-33.