My Response to John Rosemond

W. Joseph Wyatt

Mr. Rosemond and I also agree that in recent years there has been an unsettling tendency among professionals to misuse the diagnostic process. Many disorders are over-diagnosed. Chief among them is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Many children are taken to mental health professionals who diagnose a “disorder” that wrongly places the problem within the child when the problem is nothing more than ineffective parenting.

Apart from our agreements, Rosemond and I remain far apart in numerous ways. On re-reading my critique of Rosemond, and his response, I remain convinced that the concerns I raised are valid. Rosemond has turned a deaf ear to my feedback. He is sticking to his guns, even though they are loaded with blanks. Here are nine examples taken from his response to me.

In his columns and his books, as well as in his response to my review, Rosemond consistently misrepresents the “post-modern” psychological child-parenting field as monolithic. Upon reading Rosemond one gets the impression that the client-centered, permissive approach he criticizes is representative of the entire field. In fact, studies by a number of researchers who actually troubled themselves to survey large numbers of therapists show that only a fraction (fewer than 10%) consider themselves of that ilk. (See Prochaska & Norcross, 1994, for example.) Rosemond casts himself as attempting to tame a lion which, on closer inspection, turns out to be a house cat.
In my critique I pointed out Rosemond’s tendency to romanticize the parenting strategies of the past. Thoughtful readers will agree that he does that. He addresses that tangentially, but ineffectively. Then he shifts the topic to an attack on positive reinforcement, stating flatly that, “… there is no good evidence that (reward-based) strategies work with underachievers or children with behavior problems.” Rosemond could not be more wrong. Consider the following studies, done from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, that plainly show the power of positive reinforcement:
     a. Ten students, ages 6 to 10, most of whom were culturally deprived, in five classes engaged in various kinds of disruptive behavior 63% of the time during baseline observation. Teachers were instructed to praise non-disruptive behavior. Disruptive behavior dropped to 29% of the time. (Becker, Madsen, Arnold & Thomas, 1967).
     b. Crying by a pair of 4-yr-old boys, both of above average intelligence, was essentially eliminated when teachers were instructed to deliver verbal approval contingent on more appropriate responses to mildly distressing situations, and to ignore cries, unless the boys were hurt. (Hart, Allen, Buell, Harris, & Wolf, 1964).
     c. In a study of 12 seventh grade students with severe behavior problems, attention to good behavior, combined with ignoring of bad behavior, reduced the boys’ off-task behavior by an average of 35%. Further reduction resulted when the attention techniques were combined with token reinforcement for good behavior. (Marlow, Madsen, Bowen, Reardon & Logue, 1978).
     d. Twenty-three reading-deficient elementary students received both tutoring by their peers and points for improved reading performance. Their parents exchanged the points for rewards such as favorite activities, foods and small items. After only 15 weeks the students’ average oral reading gain was 1.27 years! A similar group that received peer tutoring without the rewards at home improved about half as much (Trovato & Bucher, 1980).
     These studies are representative of dozens more. No bad side-effects of positive reinforcement occurred. Weighed in the balance, this large body of research reveals that Rosemond’s all-out attack on the use of positive reinforcement is in error.
     And the research continues to the present, a cascade of evidence confirming the usefulness of positive reinforcement. For example, a recent monograph from the Justice Department cites the positive reinforcement-based Strengthening Families Program (SFP) as outstanding. And the clients involved were substance abusers and their children—an “acid test” of any child rearing approach. Three years of follow-up data showed that through ninth grade there were significantly fewer problems with substance abuse among youth who participated in the program than among non-participants. (“Behavioral Parent Training,” 2000).
To bolster his punishment-oriented advice Rosemond claimed that Berkeley researcher Diana Baumrind’s studies demonstrate, “…the efficacy of spanking.” But that is a misrepresentation by Rosemond. At the recent meeting of the American Psychological Association Baumrind reported on her long-term study of more than 100 families. “I am not an advocate of spanking,” Baumrind said (McBroom, 2001). She went on to explain that her studies showed that occasional mild spanking does not damage a child’s social or emotional development. The absence of damage is not evidence that punishment is “efficacious.”
I pointed out that Rosemond routinely cites testimonials from satisified parents as evidence that his advice works. But testimonials are weak evidence. He does this so often that I am reminded of Johnny Carson’s “Carnac, the Magnificant” skit in which Carson, as Carnac, divined the answers to questions, before the questions had been asked. In this case the answers are, “The psychic hotline, astrologer Jean Dixon, and John Rosemond.” And the question is, “Name three advice givers whose evidence is limited to testimonials.” In an evidently unguarded moment Rosemond seemed to agree. In one recent column he wrote, “…personal testimonies neither validate nor invalidate…they are personal.” Yet running throughout his columns, and his reply to me, he presents testimonials as if they are hard evidence.
Rosemond fell into a pattern of responding to my critique by erroneously writing that I had misrepresented him in various ways. For example, I had written that Rosemond blames the flicker of the TV screen for ADHD. He felt that was a misrepresentation. But here is what Rosemond wrote about ADHD in one of his columns: “Since 1978 I’ve been saying that television is a primary culprit. The constant ‘flicker’ of television compromises the brain’s ability to properly develop the structures necessary to a long attention span.” The reader can decide whether I have taken Rosemond out of context, as Rosemond claimed I had done.
Similarly Mr. Rosemond felt that I had taken his words out of context when I wrote that some of his advice seems impractical, such as his advice to parents of a toddler who frequently shook the dining room chairs. I felt that his suggestion to remove the chairs was impractical. He replied that he had made that suggestion and then quickly dismissed it. Thus, from his point of view, I had misrepresented his advice. But his original paragraph read as follows. “Be as consistent as possible and be patient. If your daughter is slowly tearing the dining room chairs apart, it’s probably advisable that you put them out of reach, but if the only problems are the racket and the chance she’ll pull one over on herself again, I’d leave them where they are.” Rosemond offered two options. He had “dismissed” neither.
Rosemond mistakenly claimed that I misrepresented him in another way when I wrote that he disavows the usefulness of positive reinforcement. Yet in one of his recent columns Rosemond wrote to a parent, “…the idea that good behavior deserves reward has been a flop. Indeed, as your husband discovered, rewards often ‘solve’ immediate problems. In the long run, however, they contribute to even more disobedience, more problems with motivation, more tantrums, etc.” Thus, it is clear that I have not misrepresented his hostile view toward positive reinforcement. Moreover, Rosemond is wrong to allege negative side-effects of reward. For example, a recent exhaustive review looked at 145 research studies that attempted to determine whether rewards for good performance tend to undermine children’s inner motivation. The authors found, “…no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures of intrinsic motivation…” (Cameron, Blanko & Pierce, 2001).
Rosemond seems to assume that I am opposed to punishment per se. He’s wrong again. Rather, I am opposed to Rosemond’s use of punishment as the primary means of delivering consequences. To follow Rosemond’s approach one would always punish the bad, seldom or never reward the good. Such a plan would leave parents without one of the most important parenting strategies— reinforcement of good behavior.
I raised a legitimate issue that Rosemond evidently never considered. It was this. Could his punishment-heavy advice be taken as validation by a child abuser, or by a borderline child abuser? In his reply Rosemond wrote that he has heard no confessions of that, among the testimonials he has received. But does Rosemond think that most child abusers admit to their abuse? And among the few who do admit it, does he think they would come to him and point out that they were only following his advice when things got out of hand?
I feel it is time that Rosemond end his attempts to constantly cast himself as the outsider, as the heretic who makes the rest of us shudder. That isn’t happening. For Rosemond it may be good for business, but it’s a tactic that is beginning to play like a one-note symphony. And it causes Rosemond to sink to name-calling. In his reply he termed me “highbrow” and “semi-hysterical.” I don’t think either of those accurately describes me. Rather, these are Rosemond’s verbal devices designed to make him seem “down-to-earth” and “in control” by contrast. Mr. Rosemond, we would respect you more if you would give that tactic a rest.
Rosemond continues to offer no understandable rationale for why he opposes paying children for doing a few chores, a practice that is good preparation for adulthood. It teaches children that good work leads to rewards. But in an episode of confused thinking, Rosemond claimed that to pay a child for doing chores would teach the child that it could get something for nothing. He attempted to support that perspective in his reply to me when he wrote, “Expecting them to do chores for no compensation turns welfare into workfare, which is proven to have a positive impact on responsibility.” Come again? Citing workfare, in which people are paid for their work, as a reason not to pay children small sums for doing chores, is oxymoronic. But I am not surprised that Rosemond has painted himself into a corner. He started at his end point (that paying for chores is bad) and attempted to work backward from there to prove it. Citing workfare as an example made no sense.

In summary, John Rosemond’s response to my review tends to confirm my original set of criticisms, and undoes none of them. He is hardly the heretic that he claims to be. The parenting field is hardly the monolithic concensus he claims it to be. He mistakes testimonials for hard evidence. He defends his ideas with erroneous claims that he has been taken out of context or otherwise has been misrepresented. He cavalierly dismisses my concern that child abusers may feel validated by his punishment-heavy advice. He offers oxymoronic justifications. He ignores, or is unaware of, or misinterprets much parenting research regarding the efficacy of both positive reinforcement and punishment. I continue to advise parents that they stop listening to his advice.

References

Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R. & Thomas, D. R. (1967). The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reducing classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special Education, 1, 287-307.

Behavioral parent training is “…a powerful and comprehensive program for family change…” according to justice department. (2000, fall). Behavior Analysis Digest, 12, 11.

Cameron, J., Blanko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 1-44.

Hart, B. M., Allen, K. E., Buell, J. S., Harris, F. R., & Wolf, M. M. (1964). Effects of social reinforcement on operant crying. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1, 145-153.

Marlow, R. H., Madsen, C. H. Jr., Bowen, C. E., Reardon, R. C., & Logue, P. E. (1978). Severe classroom behavior problems: teachers or counselors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 53-66.

McBroom, P. (2001, August 29). Moderate spanking leaves no lasting mark, study says. Berkeleyan, p. 1.

Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (1994). Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Basic Books.

Trovata, J., & Bucher, B. (1980). Peer tutoring with or without home-based reinforcement, for reading remediation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 129-141.

Return Home