Journal of Systemic Therapies, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2013, pp. 79–93
TRAINING IN NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE FOR PARENTS OF VIOLENT CHILDREN: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FATHERS AND MOTHERS IFAT LAVI-LEVAVI Tel Aviv University IRIS SHACHAR Bar Ilan University HAIM OMER Tel Aviv University
Parents of violent children, who underwent training in nonviolent resistance (NVR), were compared with a wait-list control. Each parent reported on him/ herself as well as on the other parent. Although both parents reported significant improvements in measures of parental helplessness, only fathers reported significant improvements on three scales measuring parent-child escalation processes, namely, power-struggles, parental submission, and negative feelings. Mothers were found to suffer more than fathers from escalating conflicts with the child both at the beginning and the end of treatment. Although fathers reported that escalation of both parents with the child lessened with treatment, mothers witnessed no significant improvements. Results were interpreted as showing that the special plight of mothers poses a still unmet challenge to NVR and probably to other modalities of parent training.
Parental training in nonviolent resistance (NVR) was devised to help parents to cope with children with violence, self-risk activity, truancy, and other acute disciplinary problems (Omer, 2001, 2004). Originally, NVR was developed as a socio-political strategy for resisting violence and oppression nonviolently (Sharp, 1973). The attempt to adapt NVR to the family context was based on the observation that parents often oscillate between helplessness and aggressiveness (Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989). The proponents of the NVR treatment program for parents hypothesized that it would help them to effectively resist the child’s violent and self-destructive behaviors in a nonviolent and non-escalating way. Address correspondence to Ifat Lavi-Levavi, Feinberg Child Study Center, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, 14 Kaplan St., Petach Tikva, 49202 Israel. E-mail:
[email protected]
79
G4272-text.indd 79
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
80
Lavi-Levavi et al.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF NVR The goal of NVR is to help parents who felt previously helpless and were caught up in escalation with their child to reclaim their parenting by learning to effectively resist the child’s aggressive and self-destructive acts without lashing back or giving in. Although the treatment is conducted with the parents, the basic philosophy focuses on both the parents and the child. It is hypothesized that NVR helps the parents to build a secure and stable relational frame, which allows them to fulfill an anchoring function for the child (Omer, Steinmetz, Carthy, & Schlippe, 2013). By learning to control themselves and resist the child’s aggressive and self-destructive behaviors tenaciously but without escalating, parents become able to safeguard and stabilize the child against the pull of his/her dangerous impulses. The same three elements fundamental to the sociopolitical doctrine of NVR are applied to parental training, as follows: (a) presence, or direct personal engagement, interpreted as, “We are your parents and will remain your parents. You cannot fire us, divorce us, or discard us”; (b) self-control (rather than control over the child), or remaining nonviolent, interpreted as, “We cannot control you [the child], but we can control ourselves. We will do our duty and will not be drawn by provocations”; and (c) support, interpreted as, instead of “You will do what I say,” parents learn to speak and act in the first person plural, as representatives of a wider network of responsible adults. In this process, they adopt an attitude of transparency that is a strong antidote to the coercive and arbitrary atmosphere that prevails under conditions of secrecy. The specific techniques are closely modeled on the strategies and tactics developed by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Omer, 2004). The idea that parental authority should be built on a decided and non-escalating presence allows NVR to attend to the parent-child bond and to issues of discipline and safety at the same time. Various approaches have given attention to both the relational and the discipline (limit-setting) aspects of parenting. However, these two aspects are usually viewed as representing different aspects or even different phases of the treatment, typically, a “relational phase” (in which the parents are trained in furthering positive contact with the child) and a “reinforcement phase” (in which the parents react to the child’s positive or negative behaviors). The basic attitude in NVR is quite different: in building up their presence, selfcontrol, and support network, the parents further a stable relational frame and resist negative behaviors in the very same acts. Parental closeness and parental strength evolve together. Escalation Processes The central question for NVR is: How can parents become more present and effective without being drawn into escalation? The model of escalation at the heart of our approach (Omer, 2004) is a synthesis of Patterson’s coercion theory (Patterson,
G4272-text.indd 80
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Training for Parents of Violent Children
81
Dishion, & Bank, 1984) and Bateson’s view on complementary and reciprocal escalation (Bateson, 1972). To promote parental presence without being drawn into escalation, NVR techniques combine Patterson’s coercion theory (Patterson, Dishion, & Bank, 1984) with Bateson’s view on complementary and reciprocal escalation (Bateson, 1972). Specifically, the program for parents was designed to counter three factors leading to escalation: parental submission, power struggles, and negative feelings. Parental Submission. When parents react submissively to a child with acute behavior problems, they relinquish their own demands and sacrifice their values and interests. However, instead of alleviating the problem, this exacerbates it: the child raises his/her demands, backing them by even harsher behaviors. Bateson (1972) termed this process “complementary escalation.” It is a self-perpetuating cycle, as the child’s progressive demands incite parental anger, which further increases the child’s hostility, and the parents, frightened by these changes in themselves or the child, revert to a submissive stance (Bugental et al., 1989). NVR offers a way out by helping the parents to resist without retaliation and, thereby, to systematically cultivate presence and self-control (Omer, 2004). Power Struggles. Dominance orientation, or the tendency to view relationships in terms of “Who’s the boss?”, characterizes parents as well as children who feel compelled to wage power struggles (Bugental, Lyon, Krantz, & Cortez, 1997). The interaction is viewed as a zero-sum game in which both sides live in fear of being dominated, which drives them to recoup any losses by a show of force. NVR teaches parents that instead of basing their authority on control of the child, they must strengthen themselves by self-control. Parents learn to tell themselves, “I don’t have to win, but only to persist,” and to tell the child, “I cannot control you, but I can resist your violence.” Negative Feelings. In the process of escalation, hostile emotions become prominent and positive ones recede or vanish. This pattern has been shown to be a strong predictor of divorce and of violent marital conflicts (Gottman & Levenson, 1998). The parents of aggressive children get caught in a spiral of anger and resentment that badly curtails their and their child’s ability to experience positive feelings. Proponents of NVR in the sociopolitical arena do not settle for the absence of violence alone. They demand that acts of resistance be accompanied by respect for the opposing camp, on the assumption that this will strengthen any weak or dormant positive voices it may contain. This argument is particularly cogent in the family context. Positive feelings are presumed to exist between parent and child, but they are suppressed by the cycle of escalating aggression. They can be brought to the fore and reinforced by parental acts of respect and reconciliation (that do not involve surrender), thereby widening the emotional base of the parent-child relationship.
G4272-text.indd 81
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
82
Lavi-Levavi et al.
Efficacy of NVR Training Two controlled studies have shown that NVR is effective in reducing parental helplessness and improving symptoms of violence in children (Weinblatt & Omer, 2008; Ollefs, Schlippe, Omer, & Kriz, 2009). It was also beneficial in helping parents of violent and exploitative young adults to stop the violence and reduce age-inappropriate services, thereby raising their children’s functioning level (Lebowitz, Dolberger, Nortov, & Omer, 2012). Others found that a one-session parental training program to increase parental presence and reduce escalation successfully lessened aggressive teen driving (Shimshoni, 2013) and reduced teen computer abuse (Gerah, 2012). Aims of the Study The present study is the first to systematically investigate the effectiveness of NVR training by focusing on the processes of escalation between parents and child. It is also the first to base the results on the report of each parent concerning his/her own behavior and the behavior of the other parent. It may be considered a pilot study because in addition to a previously validated measure of parental helplessness (Cohen-Yeshurun, 2001; Ein-Dar, 2001), we used a novel escalation questionnaire developed specifically for this study. We sought to determine if the benefits of the program reported in earlier studies (Lebowitz et al., 2012; Ollefs et al., 2009; Weinblatt & Omer, 2008) are paralleled by a decrease in the pattern of escalation; if the changes dovetail with earlier findings (Patterson, 1980) that mothers are more involved than fathers in escalating conflicts with the child; and if NVR can improve the situation of the whole family, including the mother’s special plight. We hypothesized that, before treatment, mothers would report more escalation than fathers; NVR training would alleviate parental helplessness and decrease escalation for both parents; and these changes would be reflected in the parental reports of their own and their partner’s behavior. METHOD Participants The study was conducted in the Parent Counseling Unit of Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, a major tertiary pediatric hospital. Participants included the parents of 46 children (age less than 18 years) with acute behavioral problems, such as verbal and physical violence, vandalism, lying, truancy, substance abuse, and theft. All parents voluntarily sought counseling from the unit. Most of the children did not receive a formal diagnosis; however, combining the data for those who did receive a diagnosis with the parental reports on those who did not suggested that the great majority fulfilled the criteria for conduct or oppositionaldefiant disorder. None of the children had been prescribed psychiatric drugs (with
G4272-text.indd 82
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Training for Parents of Violent Children
83
the exclusion of medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), and none had psychotic symptoms. Families in which the parents were in midst of a divorce were excluded, as were families in which the parents were taking part in an alternative intervention program. In three families, the father did not participate. The hospital’s ethics committee authorized the study’s intervention protocol and accompanying questionnaires. Enrollment and Group Assignment Participants were recruited by a research representative who described the aims and procedure of the study and obtained written informed consent, as required by the ethics committee of Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel. After enrollment, families were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group; a block randomization design was used to balance the groups by age and gender. Parents in the treatment group started the program immediately after the intake session, and parents in the control group were placed on a waiting list and offered treatment after six weeks (average duration of the treatment program). Treatment Schedule The intake session was conducted with the head psychologist of the Parent Counseling Unit. Each family was assigned a psychologist (M.A.) trained in NVR. Sessions were conducted once weekly with the parents only for four to ten weeks. Each lasted about 50 minutes. Parents were also assigned a volunteer undergraduate psychology student specially trained and supervised to provide telephone support according to the principles of NVR. Two conversations with the supporter were scheduled each week for the duration of treatment. Intervention Techniques Although there is no rigorous session-by-session protocol for NVR training, several core techniques were used in nearly every case. Anti-escalation Training. Parents are trained to delay their reactions to the child’s outbursts or provocations (“Hit the iron when it’s cold”), use non-domineering messages and reactions, persevere in their demands without asking for immediate compliance, and recognize and neutralize characteristic escalating patterns. Announcement. Parents announce their decision to resist the child’s violent and self-destructive behaviors. A declaration is delivered in writing and read aloud by the parents to endow it with a quasi-ritualistic impact. In accordance with the treatment’s emphasis on parental self-control rather than control over the child, the announcement is framed in the first person plural (“We will resist . . .”, “We
G4272-text.indd 83
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
84
Lavi-Levavi et al.
will no longer accept . . .”) and not in the second person singular (“You will no longer . . .”, “You will have to . . .”). The declaration also stipulates that the parents will no longer keep the problem secret, but will get help from supporters. Sit-in. When a child performs a behavior that the parents declared they will no longer accept, they enter the child’s room, sit down, and explain the situation. They remain there, in silence, and wait (up to one hour) for the child to offer a solution. As soon as he/she does, the sit-in is terminated. The sit-in serves as a manifestation of parental presence and resistance that does not depend on the child’s compliance for success and that can be performed without an escalation in the negative cycle of violence and aggression. Support Network. Engaging others (friends and family) in the resistance is an integral part of NVR training. A support group puts an end to the secrecy in which violence is often perpetuated. Besides declaring their opposition to all forms of violence, members of the group offer the child help in finding acceptable solutions. Building a support network is a challenging therapeutic task. To help the parents, the therapist provides them with a letter for potential supporters, deals constructively with the parents’ objections, holds a joint meeting with the parents and their supporters, and updates the supporters (via the parents) on the child’s behavior and the treatment’s development. Documentation. The child’s aggressive, violent, and other unacceptable acts are documented by the parents. The records are shown to the child and distributed to the supporters. Some of the supporters then contact the child, inform him/her that they know what happened, and offer help. Telephone Round. In the event that the child disappears or violates a curfew, the parents call a previously prepared list of his/her friends, acquaintances, and relevant contacts and leave messages for the child. The parents are trained to avoid escalating the problem when the (angry) child returns home. Positive Gestures. The program encourages parents to systematically engage in positive gestures towards the child (pleasurable joint activities, special treats, and agreeable messages). The gestures are not rewards and should not be carried out in response to a specific behavior. Rather, they are acts of caring that show the parents’ love independently of their ongoing resistance to the child’s violence and aggressiveness. Thus, a mother who, for example, offers her son cake she prepared especially for him, responds to a possible angry rejection (“I don’t need your cake!”) by saying: “I baked it because I love you, though I can’t force you to eat it.” This reaction strengthens the mother, unlinking the value of her offer from the child’s reaction. A detailed presentation of these interventions together with illustrative case examples can be found in the work of Omer (2004).
G4272-text.indd 84
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Training for Parents of Violent Children
85
Study Instruments To evaluate the effect of the intervention, parents completed a demographic questionnaire, The Parental Helplessness Questionnaire, and an Escalation Questionnaire before and immediately after the intervention. The last two instruments were completed twice by each parent, once with reference to him/herself and once with reference to the other parent. The control group completed the same questionnaires at intake and after the waiting period. Findings were compared between fathers and mothers and over time, and between intervention participants and the wait-list control group. To investigate the persistence of the changes, the intervention group filled out the battery a third time, six weeks after completion of the program. Demographic Ruestionnaire. Details were collected on parental age and education, family status, and child’s age and sex. Parental Helplessness Questionnaire. The 18-item Parental Helplessness Questionnaire (Cohen-Yeshurun, 2001; Ein-Dar, 1999) was designed to evaluate the degree to which parents feel helpless in terms of their child’s behavior as well as their own (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). Escalation Questionnaire. The Escalation Questionnaire was developed especially for this study in accordance with the escalation model of Omer (2004). A pool of 7-point Likert items describing escalating interactions was created. Three psychologists well-versed in the model divided the items into three scales: parental submission, power struggles, and negative feelings. Only items on which all the psychologists completely agreed were included. Thereafter, 60 parents were asked to complete the questionnaire, and the items that contributed to each scale’s internal consistency were maintained. They were then rephrased to refer to both the parent and the spouse (e.g., “I often surrender because I am afraid of my child’s reactions”; “My husband often surrenders because he is afraid of our child’s reactions”). The final instrument consisted of 17 items. Six concerned power struggles (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75; example: “I want to show my child that I am the boss”), five concerned negative feelings (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82; example: “I feel angry with my child”), and six concerned parental submission (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86; example: “I let my child do things I don’t want him to do, in order to buy quiet”). RESULTS Twenty-six families were included in the intervention group and 20 in the control group. One family from each group dropped out of the study during the treatment/ waiting period.
G4272-text.indd 85
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
86
Lavi-Levavi et al.
Demographic Data Mean age of the children was 12.16 (SD 2.70); 35% were male. The socio demographic characteristics of the study and control groups are summarized in Table 1. There were no significant differences in any of the parameters between the groups. Escalation and Helplessness at Intake The responses to the self-report questionnaires on parental helplessness and escalation are shown in Table 2. Before the intervention, both fathers and mothers perceived the mother as experiencing higher levels of helplessness and as subject to more negative feelings and power struggles in the parent-child relationship. There were no significant differences between fathers and mothers on the parental submission subscale. These results did not differ by group. Intervention Outcome Differences in outcome were examined using three-way ANOVA with repeated measures, with time (before/after treatment), group (intervention/control) and parent reported on (by spouse; father/mother) as the independent variables. Escalation measures and parental helplessness were the dependent variables. Each variable was analyzed four times (two reporting parents × two parents reported on). Parental Helplessness. Fathers and mothers reported similar changes in helplessness, with a significant effect of time and a significant interaction between time and group (intervention/control). The other two-way interactions and the three-way interaction were not significant for either parent. Both fathers and mothers in the intervention group reported a significant decrease in parental TABLE 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Families Who Participated in the Study
Experimental (N = 26)
Control (N = 20)
M SD M SD T Age Mother 43.75 6.47 43.95 6.58 –.10 Father 45.80 6.00 45.38 6.04 .22 Child 12.53 2.88 11.67 2.42 1.07 N % N % χ2 Married Yes 24 92.3 16 80 3.68 No 2 7.7 4 20 Child’s Girl 7 26.93 4 20 .29 Gender Boy 19 73.07 16 80
G4272-text.indd 86
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Training for Parents of Violent Children
87
TABLE 2. Escalation Levels and Parental Helplessness on Time 1
Reported on: Mom Dad
M SD M SD F η2 Measure Reporter Parental submission Mother 2.92 1.52 2.80 1.44 .16 .00 Father 2.74 1.65 2.53 1.28 .72 .017 Power struggles Mother 3.85 .67 3.60 1.11 3.44a .073 Father 3.53 1.18 3.22 1.22 3.87a .084 Negative emotions Mother 3.07 1.06 2.55 .94 8.98* .170 Father 2.72 .94 2.35 1.06 5.14* .109 Parental helplessness Mother 3.63 .91 3.20 .966 8.25* .175 Father 3.33 1.18 2.99 1.11 10.19** .195 **P < 0.01. *P < 0.05. aP = 0.056, 0.07.
helplessness, both regarding themselves and the other parent, relative to the control group. Power Struggles. The self-reports showed a significant effect of time on power struggles for both parents, with a significant interaction between time and group for fathers. There were significant two-way interactions for the mothers. None of the three-way interactions were significant for either parent. Fathers (but not mothers) in the treatment group reported a significant decrease in child-parent power struggles in the father-child as well as in the mother-child relationship relative to the control group. Negative Feelings. The self-reports showed a significant effect of time on negative feelings for both mothers and fathers, with a significant interaction between time and group for fathers only. There were significant two-way interactions for the mothers. None of the three-way interactions were significant for either parent. Fathers (but not mothers) in the treatment group reported a significant decrease in negative feelings in the father-child as well as in the mother-child relationship relative to the control group. Parental Submission. The self-reports showed a significant effect of time on parental submission for both mothers and fathers, with a significant interaction between time and group for fathers. There were significant two-way interactions for the mothers. None of the three-way interactions was significant for either parent. Fathers (but not mothers) in the treatment group reported a significant decrease in submission for both parents relative to the control group. See Table 3 for a summary of treatment outcome on escalation levels and parental helplessness.
G4272-text.indd 87
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
G4272-text.indd 88
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Control F
η2
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Before After Before After
Treatment
Group × Time
M SD M SD
Before After F
Time η2
Measure Reporter Reported on: Parental Mother Mom 3.56 .84 2.48 1.0 3.61 1.1 3.56 1.1 12. .278 3.58 .93 2.85 1.18 15.27 .316 helplessness 5 4 4 72 Dad 3.21 1.0 2.23 .90 3.03 1.0 2.98 .98 ** 3.15 .99 2.49 .98 1 0 Father Mom 3.34 1.3 2.49 1.0 3.41 1.0 3.27 1.0 5.7 .132 3.37 1.23 2.82 1.11 9.78* .205 5 7 7 4 7* * Dad 2.98 1.2 2.35 1.0 2.92 1.0 2.87 .92 2.95 1.12 2.57 1.01 1 2 3 Parental Mother Mom 3.09 1.4 1.64 1.5 2.75 1.6 2.18 1.6 2.6 .061 2.94 1.54 1.86 1.56 18.88 .315 submissiveness 6 2 7 1 4 ** Dad 2.66 1.4 1.71 1.2 3.08 1.4 2.67 1.6 0 6 7 3 Father Mom 2.84 1.5 1.95 1.3 2.80 1.7 2.75 1.6 5.9 .135 2.83 1.63 2.29 1.50 10.29 .213 5 3 8 4 3* ** Dad 2.51 1.2 1.57 1.2 2.67 1.2 2.48 1.6 * 2.58 1.23 1.96 1.45 6 2 3 0
TABLE 3. Treatment Outcome on Escalation Levels and Parental Helplessness
G4272-text.indd 89
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
*P < 0.05. **P < 0.01.
Power Mother Mom 3.87 .73 3.15 .96 3.90 .58 3.56 .98 1.1 .028 3.88 .67 3.23 .96 22.32 .353 struggles 6 ** Dad 3.66 1.0 3.15 1.0 3.56 1.3 3.33 1.3 3.62 1.12 3.23 1.17 1 1 0 8 Father Mom 3.51 1.3 2.93 1.2 3.55 1.1 3.61 .93 8.6 .186 3.54 1.20 3.22 1.14 3.98 .095 0 1 1 8* * Dad 3.35 1.2 2.85 1.2 3.09 1.2 3.25 1.0 * 3.23 1.27 3.02 1.26 8 3 8 5 Negative Mother Mom 2.89 .95 2.23 1.3 3.33 1.2 2.95 1.4 3.1 .072 3.07 1.09 2.53 1.40 11.4 .219 emotions 3 4 2 7 9** Dad 2.67 1.0 2.09 1.0 2.31 .82 2.52 .96 2.18 .96 5 5 Father Mom 2.53 .90 2.07 1.1 2.87 1.0 3.04 1.1 6.0 .138 2.67 .96 2.48 1.23 2.36 .059 1 5 9 9* Dad 2.40 1.2 1.93 1.1 2.37 .82 2.41 .91 2.38 1.05 2.14 1.04 1 0
90
Lavi-Levavi et al.
Follow-Up To evaluate the long-term effect of the intervention, we collected the questionnaire responses of the intervention group at six weeks after completion of the intervention. One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences among the three time points (beginning of treatment, end of treatment, follow up). No significant differences were found in values of escalation or parental helplessness between the end of treatment and follow-up.
DISCUSSION The present analysis of a novel NVR program for parents of violent children showed that before onset of treatment, fathers and mothers agreed that the mothers’ state in terms of helplessness and escalation was worse than the fathers’. On completion of the program, both parents reported a significant decrease in parental helplessness relative to the control group, both regarding themselves and the other parent. However, only the fathers reported significant improvement in escalation variables (power struggles, negative feelings, and parental submission). Fathers and mothers continued to agree that the mothers’ state on all measures was worse than the fathers’. These findings suggest that NVR helps fathers more than mothers. NVR and Escalation NVR is probably the only strategy for families with violent children that focuses on preventing escalation processes. The underlying assumption is that parental submission and power struggles are mutually enhancing, and they feed on and are fed by negative feelings. The resulting “escalation triangle” lies at the heart of the coercive processes that undermine parent-child relations (Patterson et al., 1984). The present study shows that targeting these variables in NVR treatment yields different results in fathers and mothers. Both parents reported a decrease in helplessness, which we view as an individual element of “parenting depression.” However, only fathers reported a consistent decrease in escalation. Mothers not only failed to perceive significant improvements in their own escalation patterns, they also did not perceive them in the relationship of the father and child. The Father’s Position According to the self-reports of both parents, fathers are less helpless than mothers and are less subject to problems of escalation. It is possible, however, that these findings do not reflect a better kind of involvement, but simply less involvement. Being more distant, the fathers less often get into situations in which they experience
G4272-text.indd 90
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Training for Parents of Violent Children
91
helplessness or escalation. Indeed, prior to treatment, many of the fathers felt the family arena was a hostile place in which increased involvement meant increased friction. In some families, the father was called in only to punish the child when things got out of hand. The NVR treatment encouraged the fathers to exert greater presence, participate in resistance against the child’s aggressive behaviors, and increase the part they play in their child’s life. It is possible that the change they underwent created a halo effect, such that they felt the mothers, too, were being helped. The mothers, however, disagreed. The Mother’s Plight More than 30 years have elapsed since the publication of Patterson’s series of studies (Patterson, 1980) showing that mothers bear far greater responsibility for the children and are far more subject to criticism and hostility than fathers. Their work was fittingly named “Mothers: the unacknowledged victims.” Our findings suggest that this situation has not improved with time. For all variables, the pretreatment state of the mothers in our study was significantly worse than that of the fathers. This was true according to both the mothers’ reports and the fathers’ reports (about the mothers). The results of a parallel study that included the children (Lavi-Levavi, 2010) showed that they, too, saw the mother as more helpless, more submissive, more involved in power struggles, and more immersed in mutual bad feelings. Our hopes that NVR might save mothers from this plight were only partially fulfilled. After treatment, the mothers and fathers both reported that the mothers were less helpless, but only the fathers saw an improvement in the mothers’ power struggles, negative feelings, and submission. Apparently, the mothers were still so conflicted that, if there was any improvement, they were unable to see it. This is a central characteristic of the escalation trap: the more we are caught up in it, the less are we able to perceive positive elements in the interaction. It might be argued that these findings are at least partly attributable to the cultural characteristics of the study subjects, all of whom were Israeli. However, previous studies on NVR have shown that Israeli samples have similar problems and react comparably to German ones (Ollefs et al., 2009), and an ongoing study of NVR with foster parents in Belgium reported that the parents considered the training acceptable and highly relevant. Furthermore, numerous therapists and institutes in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and the UK have adopted NVR. We have worked closely with our European colleagues, and the picture that emerged in this study seems to reflect that of mothers and fathers in Europe, both native Europeans and immigrants. Thus, we assume the present findings and those of Patterson (1980) are probably valid in a variety of cultural settings, and that mothers from many cultural groups bear most of the burden of child-rearing. As the escalation questionnaire was specifically developed for the present study, its interpretation warrants care. Nevertheless, given that the differences between fathers and mothers noted here are similar to those reported by other investigators in
G4272-text.indd 91
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
92
Lavi-Levavi et al.
related studies, we believe we have tapped several real family interactions. Further studies are needed to validate this tool.
CONCLUSION The present study shows that NVR training successfully reduces the helplessness of mothers and fathers coping with a violent child. In addition, fathers report an improvement in all three elements of escalation (submissiveness, power struggles, and negative feelings) in themselves and their partners, whereas mothers do not. The plight of mothers of violent children continues to pose a major challenge. We are investigating several potential directions for further studies, such as finding ways to systematically increase the positive involvement of the father in the life of the family, while taking the mother’s difficulties into consideration; to increase support for the mother among relatives and friends; and to focus specifically on the treatment dialogue to better the mother’s situation. We are also seeking ways to allow the mother more breathing space, help her to disengage from abrasive conflicts, acknowledge her contribution and sacrifice, and provide her with vantage points that may help her recognize and enhance small improvements. Hopefully, these measures will enable women to evolve from unacknowledged victims to pillars of the family.
References Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Bugental, D. B., Blue, J. B., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over care-giving outcomes: Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532–539. Bugental, D. B., Lyon, J. E., Krantz, J., & Cortez, V. (1997). Who’s the boss? Accessibility of dominance ideation among individuals with low perceptions of interpersonal power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1297–1309. Cohen-Yeshurun, C. (2001). The relationship between parental helplessness, parental selfefficacy and parental authority styles. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew). Ein-Dar, N. (1999). The relationship between parental helplessness and sibling violence. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew). Gerah, Y. (2012). Computer abuse. A short-term parental intervention. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew). Gottman, M. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? Family Process, 38, 143–158. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00143.x. Lavi-Levavi, I. (2010). Improvement in systemic intra- familial variables by “Non- Violent Resistance” treatment for parents of children and adolescents with behavioral problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
G4272-text.indd 92
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Training for Parents of Violent Children
93
Lebowitz, E., Dolberger, D., Nortov, E., & Omer, H. (2012). Parent training in nonviolent resistance for adult entitled dependence. Family Process, 51, 90–106. Ollefs, B., Schlippe, A.von., Omer, H., & Kriz, J. (2009). Jugendliche mit externalem Problemverhalten: Effekte von Elterncoaching [Youngsters with externalizing behavior problems: Effects of parent training]. Familiendynamik, 34, 256–265. Omer, H. (2001). Helping parents deal with children’s acute disciplinary problems without escalation: The principle of nonviolent resistance. Family Process, 40, 53–66. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2001.4010100053.x Omer, H. (2004). Nonviolent resistance: A new approach to violent and self-destructive children (S. London-Sapir & H. Omer, Trans). New York: Cambridge University Press. Omer, H., Steinmetz, S. G., Carthy, T., & Schlippe, A. von. (2013). The anchoring function: Parental authority and the parent-child bond. Family Process, 52, 193–206. doi:10.1111/famp.12019 Patterson, G. R. (1980). Mothers: The unacknowledged victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 45(5), 1–64. Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253–267. Sharp, G. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action. Boston, MA: Extending Horizons. Shimshoni, Y. (2013). Effectiveness of a one-session training program combined with IVDR technology in the prevention of aggressive driving by teens. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew). Weinblatt, U., & Omer, H. (2008). Nonviolent resistance: A treatment for parents of children with acute behavior problems. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 34, 75-92. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00054.x
G4272-text.indd 93
1/7/2014 1:53:36 PM
Copyright of Journal of Systemic Therapies is the property of Guilford Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
